Bluesrunthegame, I did make a concession about the car being blue but you'll notice hopefully that I said that this would be when I'm in normal mode as it were, not in TOE mode. This is the difference, I lead a normal life so I can't talk in threes all the time. I made this video for NightFox to try to explain.
I think this movie reveals the fundamental flaw in pro theory when you made the concession that the car "is obviously blue". Pro theory may be a theory of everything but it has no use in the real world in which the asnwers are as obviously singular as the blue car.
I've explained the concession now I'll explain the seemingly flawed nature of Pro TOE. I never claimed to be fair that Pro theory would have any real or practical value in the so called 'real world.' Honestly, I've never said this that I can remember. I've never said Pro theory will make you win the lottery or whatever, only that Pro theory is a TOE (plus opposites, neutral...). My whole interest is my theory of everything, not practical real world stuff. This is pure theory, pure 'what if.'
And it's not a fundamental flaw in my theory to say that in real life the car is blue, in fact it has nothing to do with my theory at all. When I made this concession I clearly stated that this is what I'm like when I'm in the pub or on the street or whatever. What I meant was that when I'm in normal life, i.e. not in Pro theory (silly paradox etc) mode you see me saying three things but for example if you ask me what colour my Ford Mondeo is I'll say 'it's green' because it is.
If on the other hand you were to ask 'what does Pro theory say about your Ford Mondeo?' I'd say 'Pro theory states that it is green, not green, plus neutral.' Therein lies the adaptive difference, the choice I make depending on the context I'm asked in. I'm a thinker and philosopher first and foremost rather than one for concrete numbers and ideas. For what it's worth I'm well aware how annoying I am too, and believe me if I'd never had my epiphany I'd be against this theory too :p
You always talk about answering everything at once, why don't you talk about not answering everything at once, or neutral (not talking I'd guess). You claim pro theory is a theory of everything simply because it maintains it's own consistencey, but by that logic it proves itself inconsistent and neutral. If every theory is a TOE and is not a TOE and neutral, why are you spending you time on this one? Let me guess, your not spending you time on this, and neutral.
Ok, good points all from you, I'm sorry. I now see what you mean, my theory should be described as a TOE, not a TOE plus neutral literally speaking. And you're right (as such) by my theory's own consistency it does indeed prove itself inconsistent and neutral. I won't dispute this, I may however add the opposite and neutral to this statement though. I say three things because when three things are said it's everything (plus etc etc). If you've got specific questions I'll make you a video
hmmm nice explanation, i still don't get it :@ !!! i mean , ok ok yes and no and neutral and all these kind of stuff but in the end , i don't think that pro theory helped me at all, i don't know i might be stupid or something but, whatever i ll leave the thing be , bye
It's not annoying I'm really glad you comment back. I don't critisize to show that you're in error, I just don't know any other way to see my own.
bluesrunthegame 3 years ago
Bluesrunthegame, I did make a concession about the car being blue but you'll notice hopefully that I said that this would be when I'm in normal mode as it were, not in TOE mode. This is the difference, I lead a normal life so I can't talk in threes all the time. I made this video for NightFox to try to explain.
protheory 3 years ago
I think this movie reveals the fundamental flaw in pro theory when you made the concession that the car "is obviously blue". Pro theory may be a theory of everything but it has no use in the real world in which the asnwers are as obviously singular as the blue car.
bluesrunthegame 3 years ago
I've explained the concession now I'll explain the seemingly flawed nature of Pro TOE. I never claimed to be fair that Pro theory would have any real or practical value in the so called 'real world.' Honestly, I've never said this that I can remember. I've never said Pro theory will make you win the lottery or whatever, only that Pro theory is a TOE (plus opposites, neutral...). My whole interest is my theory of everything, not practical real world stuff. This is pure theory, pure 'what if.'
protheory 3 years ago
And it's not a fundamental flaw in my theory to say that in real life the car is blue, in fact it has nothing to do with my theory at all. When I made this concession I clearly stated that this is what I'm like when I'm in the pub or on the street or whatever. What I meant was that when I'm in normal life, i.e. not in Pro theory (silly paradox etc) mode you see me saying three things but for example if you ask me what colour my Ford Mondeo is I'll say 'it's green' because it is.
protheory 3 years ago
If on the other hand you were to ask 'what does Pro theory say about your Ford Mondeo?' I'd say 'Pro theory states that it is green, not green, plus neutral.' Therein lies the adaptive difference, the choice I make depending on the context I'm asked in. I'm a thinker and philosopher first and foremost rather than one for concrete numbers and ideas. For what it's worth I'm well aware how annoying I am too, and believe me if I'd never had my epiphany I'd be against this theory too :p
protheory 3 years ago
You always talk about answering everything at once, why don't you talk about not answering everything at once, or neutral (not talking I'd guess). You claim pro theory is a theory of everything simply because it maintains it's own consistencey, but by that logic it proves itself inconsistent and neutral. If every theory is a TOE and is not a TOE and neutral, why are you spending you time on this one? Let me guess, your not spending you time on this, and neutral.
bluesrunthegame 3 years ago
Ok, good points all from you, I'm sorry. I now see what you mean, my theory should be described as a TOE, not a TOE plus neutral literally speaking. And you're right (as such) by my theory's own consistency it does indeed prove itself inconsistent and neutral. I won't dispute this, I may however add the opposite and neutral to this statement though. I say three things because when three things are said it's everything (plus etc etc). If you've got specific questions I'll make you a video
protheory 3 years ago
hmmm nice explanation, i still don't get it :@ !!! i mean , ok ok yes and no and neutral and all these kind of stuff but in the end , i don't think that pro theory helped me at all, i don't know i might be stupid or something but, whatever i ll leave the thing be , bye
nightfox1234 3 years ago