Oh that. Well then 
Click.
How about this: you point out all the bad points. 
It’s a draft , sorely in need of edit, I was in an inopportune place at the time, but the essential correspondence with iambig is present.
Will try to make more ‘sense’ of it .the bad and good points may offer reverse images, not necessarily invalidating each other on different levels, only by which they can be demoted as different.
The matrices between succeeding mathological limits, are mirrored in the three part Buddhic altar, as the various figures and facial Buddha expressions can correspondingly be related to the interplay of matrices.
Click.
How about this: you point out all the bad points. [/quote
There may be bad points and also good points but not necessarily so. Some points are not as good or bad. Even contradictory ones may be on vastly differing levels, or within linke-able contexts.
This particularly touched a familiar theme:
"And, just for the record, over and over again I make it abundantly clear that my own assumptions about determinism are rooted somewhere in the murky, muddled middle where an educated guess and a wild-ass guess meet and do their thing.
Just like all the rest of you.
I could not possibly be less a hard determinist. If I were, I would be exempting myself from my own point of view!"
I am still trying to connect the specifics which CAUSED such apprehension.call it gut level at this point
Sure, educated guesses and wild-ass guesses.
If that’s what you have then you’re not coming in over and over with the same thing as if you are delivering the stone tablets. Are you?
Stuff like this :
My pencil
Nature to phyllo:
Look, don’t blame him if my laws work in mysterious – and repetitive – ways.
Not that you were ever able not to.
_
- A creator God created the universe… but does one exist?
- The universe created itself… from what, how, and why?
- The natural laws created the universe… did they not come into being after the fact?
- Maths created the universe… did it use a calculator or abacus?
- Science created the universe… does the scientific method know about this?
Apart from all that ^^^ what would be the reason for a universe to pre-determinately create itself, or to have always been? so no cause, all effect… all 0s and 1s. Is the universe very Basic Maths, churning out code to create itself, one atom at a time… randomness, becoming formulaic over time, creating a consistency of the production of astral bodies as we know them.
Interesting article. 
Rubbish.
scirp.org/journal/paperinfo … rid=109629
Like every other clown with a new cosmology in his back pocket, he says that every observation of others is unreliable.
PLONK!
How closed minded can someone be? You seem like a very cynical individual. Thank God we have people in this world who think outside of the box. Right away you call him a clown. How rude and dismissive can you be. There have been discoveries that were shown to turn the scientific world upside down. This man has been using checks and balances and is finding the data regarding an expanding universe may be flawed. He gives his reasons based on a checklist. He didn’t pull this out of a hat. If he was wrong, time will tell, but an open minded scientist doesn’t just throw it out because he doesn’t like it. That’s too easy and could hold up progress for centuries if a belief about the world that has become non-negotiable takes us in a wrong direction.
I find that having belief in the existence of dark matter in-order to fully explain the workings of the Universe, is like having belief in a god in-order to fully explain humanity, in that they are both hinged on having faith… because neither of them have been proven to exist.
I do not err on the side of the Big Bang theory… the Maths and Science for it is continuing to not add up without adjustments having to be made and factored in… does nature allow for adjustments?
Mag…
Even standard scientists now agree that there is a wavelength outside of the light spectrum that exists and encompasses most of the universe.
They call it dark matter and dark energy.
The observable part of the universe is on the light spectrum available only to our narrow band of perception.
I am well aware of that, and the fact that much of the matter/content of the Universe is probably not visible to us, but they still don’t know exactly what it is… but they have named/labelled it, to the best of their ability.
What’s in a name, if you don’t know what it actually is…
There are a million of them out there, from second rate universities all over the US.
I’m not sure when it all went wrong for American education, but there seems a desperate need to continue to be relevant, maybe they are all fighting loss of tenure? Alongside these desperate “scientists” is a panoply of garbage media peddling any senstation that comes along.
ANd there is part of the problem right there. God has fuck all to do with this. But belief in god is exactly the wrong sort of ideological basis for science. Science does not work on faith, but evidence, he has none.
I can do much better than that.
I mean did you even read the paper?? 
Yes 1 “discovery” in a million.
We are truly fortunate to have so many experts in cosmology, physics and mathematics visiting this site and giving us the benefits of their vast knowledge.
Thank you
Hey, the pleasure is all mine.
Pood, he thinks that whatever could not be gives him some kind of one-up-man-ship. He said nothing that determinists don’t know. So strange.