Post #104 — reply 2 of 2
I am familiar with the difficulty in understanding novel concepts that utilize new terminology and new meanings to common words. I had hoped that there would be at least one person on this forum that would respond with an "Eureka, I got it!”
You have Detales, etc.
As for expecting approval, the best I can say is keep your day job and your friends. A good way to keep both is to never share metaphysical concepts. I’ve been promoting my “brilliant metaphysical schemes” to wives, friends, co-workers, offspring, and the neighborhood garbage man for a half-century and have yet to receive anything except disagreement. Buying any of them lunch or a new house doesn’t help.
I’ve spent many years and pretty much killed my life trying to develop ideas and find a way to express them. Making up ideas and offering a hand-waving expression is easy. That’s the first step. Millions of cranks and crackpots do that. Getting the kinks out of good ideas and throwing out bad ones when someone makes it clear how bad they are is the next step. Then you have to find a way to express your ideas so that people will understand them. This is extremely difficult.
I’ve given you more support in these aspects of your project in a few months than I’ve received in 50 years for mine. But you’re not listening, not moving, and not answering questions.
So get used to rejection. Stop whining. Cultivate guys like Detales.
Since I can’t seem to get you past square one, that hope is dimming. I don’t quite get your insistence on a mathematical treatment of my thesis, especially since I don’t recall running into many equations when I critiqued your rather novel concepts that applies new terminology and new meanings to common words.
You have some valid and perhaps not-so-valid points.
I’ve been conscientious on my site about restricting commonly used words to their common meanings, despite my ignorance of Greek and Latin which would facilitate the development of original words. I have used “miracle” in a far more restrictive sense than it is normally used, but still within the sense of the word. (Most writers adopting common language to their own ends broaden or distort the original meaning. I only restrict it to the narrowest possible sense of the original meaning.) Moreover, my use of “miracle” in that restrictive sense is marked by capitalization or an adjective.
I have supplied a new word to stand for my redefinition of soul. That seems legitimate. It is a simple word, and clearly defined.
I’m not insisting upon a mathematical treatment of your concepts. Any treatment which leads me to an unambiguous understanding of your ideas will suffice.
Although page 5 of my website is riddled with equations, you observe correctly that I have yet to use mathematical forms to express my ideas. It has not seemed necessary or appropriate to do so. You’ve apparently understood my concepts well enough to disagree with them, as expressed.
In unpublished material I’ll use these ideas to solve some interesting physics problems, and this will probably require math beyond my level of proficiency. I’ll hire a mathematician.
My complaint is that I simply have been unable to understand your ideas as expressed. When I ask questions, you ignore them or put them off. That gets frustrating.
In the course of reviewing my site you pointed out a number of minor glitches, plus one really egregious error. You were absolutely right. I’ve since corrected the glitches and the horrid error, and I thank you for the clarity of mind and clear logic which helped me out.
But when I complain about your describing s-points in terms of length, then later on in terms of time, and then mucking around with the Planck constant and speed of light to make your ideas work, and finally, instead of explaining anything, you tell me not worry overmuch, I find myself inclined to say what a publishing house editor wisely told me 40-some years ago. “Your book is not quite ready for publication.”
As best I could summarize my understanding, you and I have taken different paths to a a shared goal. You, and other religious or mystical philosophers want to reconcile science and religion by smearing scientific jargon onto mystical concepts and adding more mystical jargon. This has been done. Gary Zukav, etc. I want to reconcile science and religion by discarding every mystical concept shared by each. Not been done.
From what you’ve written thus far, it appears that you are in the rough draft stage of theory development and not yet ready to do the serious grunt work necessary to put it all together. Whether or not you will do that is up to you and depends upon your personal goals.
So far,you and I are but two of countless people who’ve taken a stab at putting God and science on the same page. This is an unrewarding job, I promise. So far, you and I are sharing the crackpot stage, meaning that outside a few followers in your case and none whatsoever in mine, no one would give a quarter for a signed copy of our pamphlets.
I really appreciate your assistance, and regret that we cannot find a common ground that would allow me to return your generous favor. Nonetheless, I wish you the very best on your own quest for understanding.
Finally, it is obvious that you are proposing a digitized universe, and in that respect I believe that you are on a relevant track. I have long believed in the value of digitization and my own universe concepts will use the same words, but applied to a different parameter set.
My very best regards,
