In my experience, people with rational reasons for rejecting claims can articulate said reasons, rather than simply calling them bullshit and telling other people to fuck off. I’m not convinced of the article’s claims, but I’m also not convinced you know what you’re talking about either. The difference is that the article admits its claims are speculative and hypothetical, while you’re just slinging insults.
It read to me like they provided a reason for denying causality though: that the associative breakdown in entropic state suggests causality can be violated. I don’t have the expertise to evaluate that claim, but if you do, why don’t you just explain to me why it’s wrong? Or is that demanding too much of a random person on the internet?
In my experience, people with rational reasons for rejecting claims can articulate said reasons, rather than simply calling them bullshit and telling other people to fuck off. I’m not convinced of the article’s claims, but I’m also not convinced you know what you’re talking about either. The difference is that the article admits its claims are speculative and hypothetical, while you’re just slinging insults.
deleted by creator
It read to me like they provided a reason for denying causality though: that the associative breakdown in entropic state suggests causality can be violated. I don’t have the expertise to evaluate that claim, but if you do, why don’t you just explain to me why it’s wrong? Or is that demanding too much of a random person on the internet?
deleted by creator
That’s good, because I’m pretty sick of you too. What an arrogant POS.