LoveNotHate wrote:
Many of my ideas get dismissed as nonsense, and it is frustrating, so what is the point.
-My topic on math anti-realism, dismissed as nonsense by some.
-My research about Prometheus (pre-determined evolution based on 'seeding'), dismissed as nonsense by many, and called many insults.
-My discourse on QM at the macro level (despite citing Scientific America & Yale physics professor Shankar's class on youtube), dismissed as nonsense by some.
-My topic on whether divergence exists in reality, no one took much interest also wrongly moved to 'math' when it is a philosophical question
-My topic on 'Multiple hand Single Event Blackjack', dismissed as nonsense by some Only one person, after much math explanation recognized the difference between calculating a weighted expectancy (blackjack probability over the long run) and a non-weighted expectancy (blackjack probability per a single event).
-My discourse on the Teleological argument 'Fine Tuning" *sigh* I cite right from the wikipedia page, and I was told I was 'quoting out of context' and "intellectual dishonest".
I have philosophical math topics I would like to explore, like
-whether philosophically gambling should be legal or not (given that at best a 43% chance to win at blackjack, and 49% on craps pass line)
-the randomness of pseudo random number generators
Part of it is my fault though cause perhaps I don't explain my ideas well enough. However, what is the point? See the pattern ?
Those of us who have discussed these topics with so most certainly see a pattern, you for some reason do not. I see you still have not responded to my question regarding your clear and obvious quoting of me completely out of context. The trouble is you do take things way out of context which makes having a reasoned debate with you impossible, you will quote something or someone as if they support your ideas when in fact the opposite is true. It is not that you do not bring interesting subjects to the table, for example thanks to you I have been delving into the debate surrounding the objectivity vs subjectivity of maths, even though I would like to discuss this, I wont bother because I cannot trust your use of sources to be an honest characterisation of their actual view.
_________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance anyday"
Douglas Adams
"Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand" Karl Marx