Me when I talk about made up stuff vs me when I talk about scholarly stuff
You only think you’re big brained on the left.
Oddly when I ask people like this too many questions they find it difficult to explain their beliefs with any specificity. Questions like “what is energy,” or “how exactly does the tetractys connect to quantum physics,” or “how can we apply any of this knowledge in a falsifiable way?”
they don’t actually understand it. My guess is that if someone is interested in learning quantum mechanics they would talk about more niche things within the field than superposition and/or entanglement.
similarly, when someone talks to me about the concept of calculus, that’s not what interests me. When I think of discussions in calculus I think of how gauss proved that for any 3 dimensional surface there is no 2 dimensional projection of it without distorting some areas of it. Hence why there is no perfect 2 dimensional representation of our globe, It’s been mathematically proven you can’t have a perfect map of earth. Theorems Egregium
Wouldn’t want it it to be falsifiable, then you might be wrong
Scientists hate this one trick
Unless you know the maths you sound the same to someone who does when you talk about vibrations, energy and dimensions.
You sound like the right regardless
Just write a boom with that setting instead of bringing it to reality. It will be more worthwhile in the end
He deals the cards to find an answer,
The sacred geometry of chance…
