For NightFox1234

For NightFox1234, just trying to explain things a little better, hope this helps a bit.

Peace.

Pro.

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• NightFox1234
• pro
• theory
• of
• everything

[protheory]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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