Nope, that applies to any user.
I upped the ante and posted a credible link of a physics professor explaining why MWI is preferred by Occam's razor since you either did not understand or did not accept my explanations. It was basically just an academic echoing my explanation (although better phrased than mine). This isn't a controversial view, I don't know why you have a problem with it.
You rudely dismissed it, and continued to argue your point without responding in turn with something to back it up.
A back and forth of traded assertions with escalating insults isn't productive. Something has to break, and that thing in this case is referring to an outside source to support my claims. You need to do the same with yours.
I will await your either apologizing and conceding the point, OR posting a link. Your escalating assertions and insults do not fulfill your duty to back up your claims on this one.
No, you didn't, because you do not understand MWI or CI. Post a link of a credentialed physicist saying the same thing, then we can carry on.mkm wrote: ↑Mon May 21, 2018 4:36 amI provided evidence why this claim:with which you agreed on several occasions, does not hold.And let’s be clear: MWI is a simpler theory than (say) the Copenhagen interpretation (CI). For you can start with three postulates, and add a fourth about wave-function collapse, and you get CI. Or you can start with just three, and say nothing of wave-function collapse, and you get MWI.
No it isn't. You're just begging the question and completely misunderstanding the point, repeating your assertion in other words. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.
Post a link to a professor or working physicist saying that, then we'll discuss it.
You're welcome to start a thread talking about T_0, T_1 and T_2 without mentioning quantum mechanics or referring to these posts. That would be a new conversation.
You're welcome to start a thread to talk about functions if you want without talking about QM or referring to this conversation. Again, that would be a new conversation.
That's your prerogative, but you've overtly violated the rules of discourse here by not backing up your claims when I DID back up mine.
You need to start posting links to help resolve the time wasting stalemate of endless assertions and insults, or otherwise drop the conversation.
This forum has rules about backing up your claims. If I had not posted a link you would have been welcome to carry on with assertions. I upped the ante, and you're expected to do the same. The rule is in place to prevent endless time wasting exchanges like this was turning into. The person who substantiates his or her claims with outside sources must have the last word if the other is unable or unwilling to do so.
Sorry, but I don't think anybody else will have great difficulty in understanding that.
It's a reasonable rule, and you stand in violation of it.
I didn't ask for a convention on banning you, because I know we all want different perspectives on the forum and you're obviously an intelligent contributor. If you want to take your toys and go home in a fit because you don't like this rule, that's your choice.
I hope you stay, but I'm not going to make a rule exception just for you.
You're making a fool of yourself right now by complaining about this very reasonable rule and pretending like this is some kind of exploitation of moderator power, when the obvious rule violation was entirely on your head.
All you have to do is back up your claims in kind with a link to something at least as credible as what I posted.
You're not banned, and you could still apologize and just find a link to something credible to substantiate what you're saying about QM. Or as I said, you can start a new thread and not mention QM if you want to talk about your argument in the abstract with respect to T_0,T_1,T_2 (although I doubt anybody will be interested in discussing it).
You sound very salty. You broke the rules, and now you're complaining about the rules and accusing me of abusing moderator powers, etc.
I don't want to waste my time on an endless volley of assertions, and nobody should be expected to.
You aren't banned, and you're welcome to apologize for breaking the rules, back up, and follow the rules this time.
Or you can post your arguments in a new thread in the abstract (T_0,T_1,T_2, or anything you want about functions) without talking about QM or referring to this thread.
I do, which is why the rules here are very minimal. Somehow you have still found a way to break them and waste others' time.
I'm removing your repeated assertions, because this conversation is over and the person who posts with evidence gets the last word here. Anybody who wants to read the same argument again in other words can scroll up and see your previous posts, none of which are being removed.