Star Trek

"The interesting thing is that that Im just supplying dots and you have to connect then."

You just proved my claim that you weren’t proving your points by saying that you weren’t proving your points. You just said you weren’t proving your points. This kind of discussion requires that you prove your points. You didn’t prove your points but then asked me to prove mine. How wrong can you get this situation?

"If you look at your statements and apply Boolean algebra to it then we can study the words that you say and if it has a logical flow, but a lot of your statements are biocondiatial so they need each other p implies q and in certain areas where you say p is correct and q is wrong and you examine it by the rest that you say Boolean algebra says that you are wrong."

What do you mean by this? In fact you were the one who was always trying to prove your points by just saying they were true. You would say it’s true because it causes x, and I would say how does it cause it and then you would answer because x is caused by it. Some people call this a circular proof. You would say things like we know probability works because the results prove it.

Staggering - Try reading the Tao of Physics. I think what your point is - is that the symbols we attach to our ideas are flawed. Am I correct?

I read a little bit of it when I was younger in high school. No not really. I’m just insisting on the traditional (deductive) form of proof.