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.
Like I said, I can't test non-linear time. Period. There is no experiment I can run to prove that it exists in a way we can utilize. It's a thought experiment, nothing more.
It works on faith. That's it. If you believe in it, you either have faith in the theory that we can exist in non-linear time, or you have faith that Q knew what he was talking about when he talked about it.
I have faith in neither of those things, because I don't operate on faith, I operate on falsifiability.
I can't stop you from believing that Q can operate with godlike powers, nor do I have any interest in doing so. But I can't really have a conversation about Q under the assumption that he exists outside of testable hypotheses. It just leads to circular, faith-based conversations, which is just a religious debate in disguise, and I'm not interested in that.
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.
Like I said, I can't test non-linear time. Period. There is no experiment I can run to prove that it exists in a way we can utilize. It's a thought experiment, nothing more.
It works on faith. That's it. If you believe in it, you either have faith in the theory that we can exist in non-linear time, or you have faith that Q knew what he was talking about when he talked about it.
I have faith in neither of those things, because I don't operate on faith, I operate on falsifiability.
I can't stop you from believing that Q can operate with godlike powers, nor do I have any interest in doing so. But I can't really have a conversation about Q under the assumption that he exists outside of testable hypotheses. It just leads to circular, faith-based conversations, which is just a religious debate in disguise, and I'm not interested in that.