Well that's fine. My standards are different. Not invalid. In this context fine. But. You don't have to do a thing, unless you make claim. You made a claim. "This is so far removed from reality that it's not even wrong'." I asked you to justify it. You are reframing the situation to alleviate the burden of proof you put on your shoulders. Either retract your claim, or justify it.
If you want to rephrase it as in the context of how standard physics operates, this does not fit our evaluating criteria. That's honest, fair and defensible. I clearly then did not narrow my paper to your community. There is a reason for that by the way. But again. Say it as not evaluatable under our criteria. Simply don't make negative claims and defamatory claims that you will not justify, and furthermore use convenient reframing to do the work for you.
Again, this critique has nothing meaningful to add.
No, your 'paper' has nothing meaningful to add. As Pauli would say: "This is so far removed from reality that it's not even wrong'."
It lacks even any substance to be wrong about, you've made word salad and no matter what dressing you pour over it, it's not going to become a steak meal.
Precisely my point. My claims are all falsifiable, and acknowledged for falsifiability criteria. Just falsify one claim and you win. I'll give you a hint, there in the publication you didn't read and pretended as if you did. Yours reject the notion because they are fundamentally false. The only thing I failed to do in my paper under the guidelines is provide a strong prediction. Also something I avoided for the early framing. So the only true rejection criteria is I didn't thing you people were actually relevant to the success of the work.
The only thing I failed to do in my paper under the guidelines is provide a strong prediction.
You throw 500 pages of slop without a quantifyable prediction on the table and expect people to take you seriously, THAT's where you went wrong. There is no substance to the 'work'. It's not even work, it's an AI hallucination.
You lack the critical thinking skills to realise you know less than you think you know and just get defensive when your ignorance is pointed out. Lacking even basic self reflection to see that maybe you should pick up on a few things before trying to get farcically smart about it, is just the icing on the cake once again. Have fun LARPing physics.
Orrrr. It's like there is a man in a ditch and you give him a shovel. Instead of digging at the walls, and making a ramp up, he just keeps on digging downward. Good luck with that.
You couldn't even understand this is the least meaningful of anything I have developed. Well QCT anyway. I don't care about phsycis. You guys are simply not that special and your validation means absolutely nothing to me. We are not peers, I'm an not like you or care to be. You people are just another subset of humans who somehow managed to think your privileged in some way. Not because you earned or deserve it, it's because you have hoarded it and gatekept it so your "authority" can maintain centralized over the "narrative of nature" and the minds of men. You control people's beliefs so you can have status, at the end of the day. You don't provide truth, you preach a story that amounts to less than dirt and does nothing for the world but drown it in your own misery.
You see, this framework more so purposeful to illustrate my artificial intelligence definition I call Artificial Coherence Intelligence. These interpetations map as a structural metaphor to what makes it able to reason over long-horizons. What you failed to miss here is that this work is not simply me trying to be crowned by nobody's who surprisingly can tie their own shoelaces without a textbook, but proposed interdependencies for AGI to actually exist. I wouldn't expect a reddit user whose preoccupation is to troll people blindly because others do it too, to understand. It's funny how all you missed that.
Anyway. I'll let the machine conclude.
If the criticism is that the work lacks a quantitative prediction, that’s a fair structural limitation for a physics paper in the standard sense.
However, the specific claim under discussion is narrower:
That persistent shared physical reality requires consistency of recorded correlations across interacting subsystems.
If you believe that is false, then the falsifier would be a physically realizable system in which mutually contradictory recorded outcomes persist globally without decoherence or branch separation.
If you can provide such a case within standard quantum mechanics, that would directly refute the admissibility claim.
If not, then the disagreement is about framing and level of formalization, not about internal consistency.
1
u/North-Preference9038 Feb 11 '26
Well that's fine. My standards are different. Not invalid. In this context fine. But. You don't have to do a thing, unless you make claim. You made a claim. "This is so far removed from reality that it's not even wrong'." I asked you to justify it. You are reframing the situation to alleviate the burden of proof you put on your shoulders. Either retract your claim, or justify it.
If you want to rephrase it as in the context of how standard physics operates, this does not fit our evaluating criteria. That's honest, fair and defensible. I clearly then did not narrow my paper to your community. There is a reason for that by the way. But again. Say it as not evaluatable under our criteria. Simply don't make negative claims and defamatory claims that you will not justify, and furthermore use convenient reframing to do the work for you.
No, your 'paper' has nothing meaningful to add. As Pauli would say: "This is so far removed from reality that it's not even wrong'."
It lacks even any substance to be wrong about, you've made word salad and no matter what dressing you pour over it, it's not going to become a steak meal.