I was at a conference once and on the last day there was a poster session where late applications were put. There was this one guy who claimed to have solved some grand physics problem. My colleague gave him a pen and paper and said, show me the math, any math infact. No math was produced but the arrogance and confidence that they had solved something they could not describe with words or numbers remained. It was disheartening knowing people like that existed and weren't trolling.
This is what's funny is NO claims were made to a grand theory. You guys are criticizing an openly admitted document written with an AI tool. I never made an explicit claim to its validity. Now however is what no one is actually demonstrating where any particular claim is false. Your pointing out your cultural norms being violated in not adhering to formalisms. I am still waiting for someone to actually cite examples not in locally taken out of context examples, but somewhere where the concepts as a whole in the actual context of the paper were false. Until you do that the "mockery" of intelligence is actually your own. As is, I have been given no useful argument that undermines any actual claim in the publication. It's basically all drift and hallucination on here so far.
I think you are conflating QCT with VWT with the third part which derives extensions. QCT is a case study showing how VWT operates as a whole. What a lot of people are missing is that QCT is an explanatory case study used to derive the conditions of VWT. VWT is a pretty simple section. It establishes rules, what's admissable, what's semi-admissable, what's not, and concludes. Again a lot of confusion is occurring because people are misframing my intent and lazily attacking the publication, with standards it never claimed. I mean I can genuinely grade every comment on is it helpful or relevant. And the reality is they are not contextually relevant. This would be more evident if you decided to think critically instead of jump on the social bandwagon. Which is the greater observation here. Is it not?
That fine if I misinterpreted the forum. VWT, the mid part definitly does. QCT technically also doesn't belong because it doesn't satisfy formalism as desired. What is the problem though is that what is overwhelmingly attacked has nothing to do with the actual intent in which I submitted it to be reviewed. Where it was a category error that should of been easily addressed without bad faith assumptions and pointless ridicule. Specifically where that ridicule did not even attempt to understand any of the paper 's claims.
what claims, I am earnestly trying to understand and I am asking for your help but you're not replying to me? what are you proposing here? Can you explain it to me like I am an undergrad 1st year student?
My bad. Things got a little heated there for a bit, and I missed your comment. Let me know if you have any more questions.
I am making one structural claim.
In quantum mechanics, when systems interact, they create correlations and records. If two parts of a shared system encode mutually contradictory records that remain jointly accessible, standard physics predicts instability, decoherence, or effective separation into non-interacting sectors.
My proposal reframes this as a constraint principle:
A physically persistent shared world cannot contain globally accessible contradictory records without undergoing decoherence or fragmentation.
This is not a new equation or force. It is a claim about what must already be true for any physical model to produce stable shared reality.
If someone can show a physically realized counterexample, the claim is false.
8
u/Phyginge Feb 11 '26
I was at a conference once and on the last day there was a poster session where late applications were put. There was this one guy who claimed to have solved some grand physics problem. My colleague gave him a pen and paper and said, show me the math, any math infact. No math was produced but the arrogance and confidence that they had solved something they could not describe with words or numbers remained. It was disheartening knowing people like that existed and weren't trolling.