Orac, let’s have some clarity. Look at the OP; I didn’t refer it to you; and unless you believe you are the only poster on SAGG who can answer a question, I see no reason why you would assume it was addressed to you.
I agree the OP was not directed to me but your responses above clearly are (they quote me), even after I asked not to be involved because I don't consider it a valid science thought experiment. Then you want to argue what I should think a valid science thought experiment to be.
The choice to respond was yours. Are you suggesting I should have ignored your response?
Yes I make the choice to reply or not as I feel, as I do with nutcases like Paul and Marosz. I answered it to explain you have gone into an area of philosophy which I am not interested in. Whether you consider it philosophy or science is not under question here, nor relevant.
If you chose to misinterpret what I say, and berate me for what you wrongly impute to me, there seems little point attempting discussions.
I highlight in red your exact words in the OP, which you say I misinterpret ... ok then must be that english thing again. I am not berating you for anything, I just set some solid hard limits on this discussion which if you cross I am not interested in. To me in your response, you then not only ignored the limits I set but want to argue I shouldn't have those limits.
So I am not berating you when I say, I am not interested in discussing what you consider a science thought experiment, it isn't remotely relevant to me. I have a definition of science thought experiment it differs from yours and it sets the limits to which I am willing to discuss things. As I said it stops me putting a GOD in a science thought experiment. That is exactly what your thought experiment does (replace your time reverse point with GOD deciding to reverse time when the ball gets to the point... same thing ... no consideration for if it's possible). However I now get you don't see it like that, so lets just leave it. I tried to get you to adjust the question so I could discuss it. You don't want to, so fine I will leave it, not a problem to me.
On any actual real science forum you would simply have got a warning from moderator the thought experiment isn't scientific and they would generally lock the thread. They wouldn't let you argue it either because it's not up to them to define such things. It is a little more problematic on this loose forum and I have to tell you when you drift to far for me.
However when I tell you that you have strayed out of what I call science, I would appreciate if you do not try and argue what I call science. What you or others choose to call science may differ and it isn't relevant to me as my definition is inflexible and not up for discussion by you. You have seen that Rev K tries to say his stuff is scientific and I won't discuss that either, and I don't care if he calls it science it doesn't change anything to me as it fails the basic rules.
So again I say to you, your OP is not a valid or suitable post for a science forum it fails the basic rules. I am not the moderator on this pseudo science forum AR2 is, so I can only ask and you may well select to ignore me and say it is science and I will ignore the thread like the other stuff here I find as not science.
