User talk:NedBoomerson

Welcome!

Hello, NedBoomerson, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Talk:Matter. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help. Need some ideas about what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! - FlightTime (open channel) 00:38, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 2024

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. - FlightTime (open channel) 00:39, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HeardNedBoomerson (talk) 00:54, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 2024

Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia pages, such as those you made to Physics, even if you intend to fix them later. Your edits have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use your sandbox. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 01:12, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion @Drmies is being extremely nice.

@NedBoomerson based on your contribution history I suggest you read Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. Johnjbarton (talk) 01:34, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have attempted several times to explain to NedBoomerson that there are two main issues with their contributions—i.e. 1) idiosyncratic and unencyclopedic style, and 2) tendentious emphasis on a minority perspective, sometimes with original research—and it is disappointing that they have not really engaged with any of my explanations in terms of site policy so far. I worry they are not interested in contributing constructively according to the same rules as everyone else, which would be a shame since I am sympathetic to their position. Remsense ‥ 论 01:39, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

love your neighbor >>>> path integral formulation

NedBoomerson (talk) 04:01, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is difficult to have substantive conversations where we identify and address disagreements and discrepancies when you speak exclusively in poetry and riddles. I do not mind writing and conversing with personality, I must be clear about that—but when we repeat over and over that we are confused by your writing and need you to work with us in language we can both understand, it is rude to leave that unacknowledged as well. You have to be able to reach consensus with your fellow editors, or you will only create disruption. Remsense ‥ 论 04:32, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If fundamental-physics maintains an explanatory gap^[1] demanding recourse to^[2] idealism and super-natural intervention, then physics is not fundamental, but an aspect of a more fundamental personalism.

If mechanics is the dependant of self-causation, and evolution is the (plural) dance about the (functional, as opposed to apparent) consensus, then the moral opportunities surrounding personal (not physical) relationships are at the heart of science (what the most interesting “stuff” in “the universe” could never dream of), and the way we (casually mis-)treat people is actual provable-in-the-court (high) crime against nature!

It is not controversial that science remains a work in progress (Physics). Here is a whole page of (Wikipedia approved) open questions: List of unsolved problems in physics. There is (are) an (many) explanatory gap(s) in “reality.” Science observers are as apt as theists to prematurely fill that gap. Quantum chemistry shows no hope of ever being able to subsume neurochemistry. Non-equilibrium thermodynamics shows no hope of ever being able to predict the nervous system. Science of the gaps is as flawed as epically as god of the gaps. Human creativity has not been explained by science. The invention of the refrigeration cycle, the refrigerator, is not the causal product of any established fundamental physics. (Thank you for your service.) What do you do with the explanatory gaps in your reality?^[3] Why?^[4] Constructor theory is a (Wikipedia approved) page for a theory of super-natural intervention! Complex systems is effectively a page for (Wikipedia approved) science-that-has given up the hope of closing the fundamental explanatory gap!

No people can excel at the games of complex systems without a solid foundation of good-will? That thing where the (Constructor theory) slaves are all outfitted with nervous system interruptors permitting the controllers to sell them back their (freely given, by the grace of God) corporal faculties (on a subscription basis) is an option too? Thank you for your service? physixx NedBoomerson (talk) 16:03, 24 September 2024 (UTC) NedBoomerson (talk) 16:03, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Quantum chemistry, you may be blocked from editing. Qflib (talk) 20:32, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This edit on Physics: 1. everything is a work in progress, and the statement by Planck is, first of all, from 1904, and secondly it concerns two concepts, not the discipline as a whole; 2. the second statement is a tautology, and I question whether such a general but rather obvious statement is made in an article on neutron scattering; 3. the "our continued failure" is odd, and there's no definition of who the "us" is who is making that judgement. As others have said, this is not the kind of writing that readers of Wikipedia expect or should expect. Drmies (talk) 21:41, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- We know you are averse to my physics edit. I won’t work on that page again without first responding to your comment(s) here. But, the first issue, here, is my (unlinked) work at quantum chemistry. I take your silence as admission that my change from “frustration” to “incompetence” handled your solitary (minor) objection, and my latest revision should be sanctioned.? “Going twice.”
  Further, your reversion of my edit at neurochemistry (link), which had been challenged before standing some 12 days at the time of your revert (upon seeing my physics edit), came with even less objection: do you have one? “Going once.” NedBoomerson (talk) 14:46, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't get it: "we know"? Who is "we"? It's you arguing/editing against a number of other editors. And what "silence" in Quantum chemistry? Another editor reverted you there--thank you User:Qflib. What is your point about Neurochemistry? I do have an objection: your "consider" (again, an active verb requiring at least an implied subject) introduces a note of editorial commentary, and that is not what we do. Drmies (talk) 21:29, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You’ve had an opportunity in my talk page to defend your behavior in quantum chemistry and neurochemistry.
    
    As for the physics page, that “the energy and entropy of the world do not permit of definition” (ref) thing* is a final judgment, not a work in progress.
    
    Physixx is not an arm-chair curiosity. You are immanent in your creation.
    
    Suggestions?
    
    NedBoomerson (talk) 02:47, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The onus is on you to secure agreement from other editors and demonstrate that consensus exists to make your edits, it is not on others to 'defend their behavior'. Repeating the same edits again and again will not work. MrOllie (talk) 21:18, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    “Grant, O God, I humbly beseech Thee, that I may bring with me into this state of Holy Religion a mind humble and obedient, a heart tender with compunction, and a body the apt and docile instrument of my soul.”-Karen Armstrong, “Through the narrow gate”
    
    [=](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3_TSG4AkOE&t=anjulie+stand+behind+the+music)[x](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnAbKuGss4Y&t=so+paid)[=](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2%%%%%%%%%)
    
    Please repent,
    
    [S](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quantum_chemistry&diff=prev&oldid=1249978946)
    
    [N](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neurochemistry&diff=prev&oldid=1249979042)
    
    [w](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Physics&diff=prev&oldid=1249979373)
    
    [t](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Quantum_chemistry&diff=prev&oldid=1249982054)
    
    E$$$$ NedBoomerson (talk) 06:50, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Qflib,

Some 5* days ago you reverted an edit of mine on Quantum chemistry and then gave me this warning about disruptive editing here. You did not link to the edits; here is yours:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quantum_chemistry&diff=prev&oldid=1247753811

your added description of your edit read “Original reversion by another editor was correct and for a correct reason.”

Below here (on my talk page and in reply to your warning) that other editor “hung you out to dry” with your revision:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NedBoomerson&diff=prev&oldid=1247946520

I call on you to defend your behavior. The version of the page I last submitted addressed the issue raised by the prior editor (to the point that that editor left your reversion solely on you (and the discussion about the status of the page “between you and me”)), *** so what is your rationale for reverting?!***

“Incompetence” does not adequately coddle science’s ego? Is "frustration/incompetence” something Wikipedia will tolerate? ???:

Still, the fact that the myriad (dynamic) chemical behaviors observed in real world phenomena^[5] remain largely without ultimate quantum chemical explanation^[6] is demonstrated by the status of non-equilibrium thermodynamics (and complex systems.)

?

Namaste,

NedBoomerson (talk) 21:24, 30 September 2024 (UTC) NedBoomerson (talk) 21:24, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reflist-talk

References

^ “The unity of logic, the unity of congruous conceptions, is the only unity that joins by one unbroken tie the diverse forms of the inorganic, the organic, and the psychic, and thus spans all the breaks between mechanical, chemical, physiological, and psychic genesis, by a continuous logical genesis, and at the same time closes the gap profound between the so-called Unknowable and explanation.” George Howison, “The Limits of Evolution,” 1905. https://archive.org/details/limitsevolution00howigoog/page/36/mode/2up
^ Hänggi, Esther; Wehner, Stephanie (2013). "A violation of the uncertainty principle implies a violation of the second law of thermodynamics". Nature Communications. 4: 1670. https://arxiv.org/abs/1205.6894
^ Hänggi, Esther; Wehner, Stephanie (2013). "A violation of the uncertainty principle implies a violation of the second law of thermodynamics". Nature Communications. 4: 1670. https://arxiv.org/abs/1205.6894
^ “The unity of logic, the unity of congruous conceptions, is the only unity that joins by one unbroken tie the diverse forms of the inorganic, the organic, and the psychic, and thus spans all the breaks between mechanical, chemical, physiological, and psychic genesis, by a continuous logical genesis, and at the same time closes the gap profound between the so-called Unknowable and explanation.” George Howison, “The Limits of Evolution,” 1905. https://archive.org/details/limitsevolution00howigoog/page/36/mode/2up
^ "The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2013" (Press release). Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/2013/press.html
^ Zhen-Gang Wang, J. Chem. Phys. 117, 481–500 (2002), “Concentration fluctuation in binary polymer blends: χ parameter, spinodal and Ginzburg criterion” https://pubs.aip.org/aip/jcp/article-abstract/117/1/481/463142/Concentration-fluctuation-in-binary-polymer-blends?redirectedFrom=fulltext

[1] “The unity of logic, the unity of congruous conceptions, is the only unity that joins by one unbroken tie the diverse forms of the inorganic, the organic, and the psychic, and thus spans all the breaks between mechanical, chemical, physiological, and psychic genesis, by a continuous logical genesis, and at the same time closes the gap profound between the so-called Unknowable and explanation.” George Howison, “The Limits of Evolution,” 1905. https://archive.org/details/limitsevolution00howigoog/page/36/mode/2up

[2] Hänggi, Esther; Wehner, Stephanie (2013). "A violation of the uncertainty principle implies a violation of the second law of thermodynamics". Nature Communications. 4: 1670. https://arxiv.org/abs/1205.6894

[3] Hänggi, Esther; Wehner, Stephanie (2013). "A violation of the uncertainty principle implies a violation of the second law of thermodynamics". Nature Communications. 4: 1670. https://arxiv.org/abs/1205.6894

[4] “The unity of logic, the unity of congruous conceptions, is the only unity that joins by one unbroken tie the diverse forms of the inorganic, the organic, and the psychic, and thus spans all the breaks between mechanical, chemical, physiological, and psychic genesis, by a continuous logical genesis, and at the same time closes the gap profound between the so-called Unknowable and explanation.” George Howison, “The Limits of Evolution,” 1905. https://archive.org/details/limitsevolution00howigoog/page/36/mode/2up

[5] "The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2013" (Press release). Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/2013/press.html

[6] Zhen-Gang Wang, J. Chem. Phys. 117, 481–500 (2002), “Concentration fluctuation in binary polymer blends: χ parameter, spinodal and Ginzburg criterion” https://pubs.aip.org/aip/jcp/article-abstract/117/1/481/463142/Concentration-fluctuation-in-binary-polymer-blends?redirectedFrom=fulltext

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]