[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]

/lit/ - Literature

Search:


View post   

>> No.22863179 [View]
File: 1.03 MB, 800x1200, bill gaede rope hypothesis summary.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
22863179

>>22863157
This is important because once you get down to the atom, there's no experiment that you could possibly run to see or touch the mediators. If light is the torsion of a tiny rope, how are you going to "see" this? You can't, you can only infer it. So normie science is just a tool for navigating the world, developing technology, surviving etc. It's not a tool that was designed to understand a phenomena rationally. Scientists will continue to speculate about action at a distance phenomena until the end of time, they will always invent new particles / equations to keep themselves busy

>> No.22168767 [View]
File: 1.03 MB, 800x1200, bill gaede rope hypothesis summary.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
22168767

>>22168505
Whether you care or don't care is just your personal religion.

It is deceptive to imagine that a published, successful author understands how fiction works, and that a rando with a different point of view, does not.

For the most part, the great authors learned what they do through trial and error. They are just voracious readers who intuitively "picked up" things like free indirect style, pacing, psychic distance, etc -- in the same way that Dall-E picked up how to draw puppies and flowers. This is why they can't actually explain very much about what they're doing. The mind is something mysterious, so they go with their gut.

There is also another problem with this line of reasoning, and it is the mistaken notion of popularity. Whether an author should be taken seriously based on the quality of his work is a matter of opinion, or how you feel about the material. Science is about explaining a theory rationally so that the other person understands it -- what people believe after the presentation is not objective.

Bill Gaede's Rational Scientific Method has been used to "wrap up" some of the final subjects of human inquiry: gravity, magnetism, electricity, time, existence, geometry, numbers etc. I feel that it gives us the clues to finally understand psychology and by extension the arts. It is by understanding the fundamentals that one truly "masters" a subject.

The RatSci argument summarized: https://youtu.be/cTPEdaay2Og

>> No.22157553 [View]
File: 1.03 MB, 800x1200, bill gaede rope hypothesis summary.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
22157553

>>22157049
>>22157064
>>22157074
>>22157145
>>22157156
>>22157284
EPUB: https://files.catbox.moe/hydc4s.epub
PDF: https://files.catbox.moe/4i35qr.pdf

Navigation
View posts[+24][+48][+96]