Re: A short proof of the inconsistency of The Shit

W dniu 23.08.2024 o 14:44, gharnagel pisze:

On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 4:27:34 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

>
W dniu 23.08.2024 o 01:31, gharnagel pisze:

>
On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 18:23:07 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

>
Yes, it is. There is just one observer in the
example.

>
If there's only one observer, then there is no
observation of two intervals of time.

>
Sure there is no observation. Like usually in a
gedanken.

 Wozniak just asserted that there is ONE observer
and now that there is no observation, so HE is
being inconsistent.

Harrie mumbles some delusions like an idiot
he is.

There are still 2 denying themself predictions
of observation derivable

 And he's being inconsistent again.  And he's dead
wrong anyway: a thought experiment can have as
many observers as desired

"As many as desired" is one in this case.
It's mine thought experiment so I know
for sure how many observers are desired
in it, it is one.
.  He is desiring only

one observer when, in fact, he has set up a sham
situation:  arguing a definition against an
observation.

The thread is not about any observations. They
are irrelevant.
Its about claims of The Shit of your idiot guru,
spoken directly by the idiot or derivable other
way, for instance from definitions.