I can't ignore linear time. That takes a falsifiable argument and makes it nonfalsifiable. It takes a testable theory and makes it one I can only accept on faith.
If Q predicts that something is going to happen, then he can either be right, or wrong.
If a Q prediction can happen today, or tomorrow, or next month's anniversary, or next year's anniversary, or at the three year delta, or if instead his prediction is supposed to come true by turning his post number into a date, or if it correlates with a delta from Trump's twitter that mentions another date, or if it mentions a color which when translated into a date becomes a new possible delta...
That's not falsifiable. That's not testable. Those aren't coincidences. That's just you deciding that Q can't fail, and rather, he's using "non-linear time" to make predictions. That's faith.
Faith is fine. But we can't debate faith, we can't analyze faith, we can't scientifically falsify faith.
That's not true whatsoever. I think in linear time because we live in a three-dimensional world, and mathematical chaos theory offers two different paradoxical conclusions: that we are subject to the whims of the direction and momentum of every particle in the universe at any given moment in a mathematically-predictable way, and that we have absolutely no way to predict any of it using real-world methodologies.
Time doesn't get to be whatever you want it to be in order for your theory to make sense. It just looks like cognitive dissonance. When a delta passes uneventfully, you refuse to accept that Q's prediction might have been wrong, and instead find it easier to believe in an entity that can exist in "non-linear time."
I can't work with non-falsifiable entities. I don't debate religion, and a Q that can exist the way you would need him to is borderline godlike.
"Ah, so I see that me programming YOU to think THAT has been successful."
Look, science and logic is about being able to consistently and accurately predict the future.
Ballistic physics means that when I throw a football, I can consistently and accurately predict where it's going to go based on its mass, acceleration forward, and the consistent pull of gravity.
Chemistry allows me to predict consistently and accurately what happens when I combine Element A with Molecule B. Every time.
Psychology allows me to predict consistently and accurately how a person will react when classically conditioned to a particular stimulus.
And so on and so forth.
I have not been able to make any consistent, accurate predictions using Q. And using deltas seems to be a way to infinitely increase the number of "tests" you can run without ever admitting that the success condition was not met.
That's not media programming. That's understanding the purpose of logic and science. If I can't predict the future with Q under scientific, falsifiable conditions, then I have no motivation to start assigning Q godlike powers to avoid fail conditions.
I can't ignore linear time. That takes a falsifiable argument and makes it nonfalsifiable. It takes a testable theory and makes it one I can only accept on faith.
If Q predicts that something is going to happen, then he can either be right, or wrong.
If a Q prediction can happen today, or tomorrow, or next month's anniversary, or next year's anniversary, or at the three year delta, or if instead his prediction is supposed to come true by turning his post number into a date, or if it correlates with a delta from Trump's twitter that mentions another date, or if it mentions a color which when translated into a date becomes a new possible delta...
That's not falsifiable. That's not testable. Those aren't coincidences. That's just you deciding that Q can't fail, and rather, he's using "non-linear time" to make predictions. That's faith.
Faith is fine. But we can't debate faith, we can't analyze faith, we can't scientifically falsify faith.
That's not true whatsoever. I think in linear time because we live in a three-dimensional world, and mathematical chaos theory offers two different paradoxical conclusions: that we are subject to the whims of the direction and momentum of every particle in the universe at any given moment in a mathematically-predictable way, and that we have absolutely no way to predict any of it using real-world methodologies.
Time doesn't get to be whatever you want it to be in order for your theory to make sense. It just looks like cognitive dissonance. When a delta passes uneventfully, you refuse to accept that Q's prediction might have been wrong, and instead find it easier to believe in an entity that can exist in "non-linear time."
I can't work with non-falsifiable entities. I don't debate religion, and a Q that can exist the way you would need him to is borderline godlike.
This is turning into a scene from Rick and Morty.
"I programmed you to think like that."
"I programmed YOU to think like that."
"Only because I programmed you to think that."
"Ah, so I see that me programming YOU to think THAT has been successful."
Look, science and logic is about being able to consistently and accurately predict the future.
Ballistic physics means that when I throw a football, I can consistently and accurately predict where it's going to go based on its mass, acceleration forward, and the consistent pull of gravity.
Chemistry allows me to predict consistently and accurately what happens when I combine Element A with Molecule B. Every time.
Psychology allows me to predict consistently and accurately how a person will react when classically conditioned to a particular stimulus.
And so on and so forth.
I have not been able to make any consistent, accurate predictions using Q. And using deltas seems to be a way to infinitely increase the number of "tests" you can run without ever admitting that the success condition was not met.
That's not media programming. That's understanding the purpose of logic and science. If I can't predict the future with Q under scientific, falsifiable conditions, then I have no motivation to start assigning Q godlike powers to avoid fail conditions.