You'll only get a result proving your statement if you manipulate the set to reflect the view you want it to prove. The best researchers are not those who focus solely and completely on their research subjects, not even those who make said subject their main objective in life. You're portraying what you want the "best scientists" to be, not what they really are.
I'm not quite sure what the basis behind your points here is; no proof or even an attempt at proof is shown. What is this "manipulation of the set" that you speak of? What is defined as a "best researcher or a "best scientist?" As I said in the other thread, I could say that you are simply wrong and it would be about as good of an argument.
Crap, why am I arguing this again? I'll let time show you what is true and what isn't.
Only you know that.
As for the second bit, it cannot be determined according to the fact that the fundamental assumption is an assumption, but hey, sure. For the fourth or fifth time, wait for a few decades.
Not to mention, that you are not an admin, so you CAN be banned.
hey, I didn't do anything wrong, so there is no real reason; rules never said weird people are banned.
Besides, we all must be finding this fun, or we wouldn't be writing at all, and the HL forum is for general off-topic stuff anyway, right?
So by that Quote, CP's thinking is not progress towards a better humanity and Physics is far better than maths.
okay...how is "love, fatherhood, etc." desirable when there is technology? (doubt I will get a straight answer here
) Also, I said that diversity in ideas in usually a good thing. Nothing is stated about physics in there, but look into physics in depth and you will simply see an extension of math into the material universe.
