Wall for Ron Maimon

@WolfInSheepSkin: It's accurate--- uncivil language is polarizing. That's a GOOD THING when you have a bullshit consensus opinion and you need to replace it with something correct. There's no way to do that without a period of polarization between those indoctrinated in the old idea and those who support the correct replacement. Incivility would not be necessary if argument from authority didn't happen.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jcc4.12009/abstract

Yes, I am still banned, but I don't respond to such things usually, as the thesis speaks for itself. Lubos's criticism is simply nonsense, he doesn't know how to read someone with a different philosophy than himself. His position is that the encoding of knowledge is in the wavefunction fundamentally, and this is only problematic when you have macroscopic interference which never happens. The paper and thesis faced worse criticism in Bohr's time (as Lubos is continuing), and it is an accepted classic now, and there is nothing further to say regarding this old nonsense.

Are you still banned by Lubos?

I thought you might have posted a few comments on his latest posting on Everett:

http://motls.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/fallacious-thinking-in-hugh-everetts.html

The phrasing was "DO understand the scientific content", not "DO NOT understand the scientific content".

Ok.

This stuff changes the tenor of the discussions. Please put it back as a comment. I will write it as an answer too, in different words, and terser.

You turned my comment to Arnold into an answer to a question. Ask me to do it, don't do it for me.

I moved a few discussions to chat, because they weren't standard meta-style posts, and even Arnold agreed to it. Don't be silly.

No, I don't know what you're saying.

I made one comment an answer upon Arnold's request, but that's after you made your previous comment.