User talk:Dan Polansky

Archives 2020-2024

Could you do another manual revert on Web design now that it’s semi-protected?

See https://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Web_design&diff=next&oldid=1936739 (the only contribution from that IP). They replaced the CSS Zen Garden screenshot – which is admittedly somewhat outdated, but still more relevant to web design than a 19th century painting. --78.23.192.69 (discuss) 21:16, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Reverted as you proposed (diff}}. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 13:48, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

What prevents Monism Panpsychism Pantheism Theorem from being posted on wikiphilophers?

Hello, thank you for all your replies so far.

But I have responded to everything you made challenge of. I removed the empty set, I removed nothing implies nothing... and I rebutted your claim that nothing could logically exist.

Do you have any more challenges to my proof?

If not, could you add my proof to wikiphilosophers?

https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User:MarsSterlingTurner/What_there_is_Consciousness

I know you're an atheist. But that should not stop me from adding a proof of this quality from wikiphilosophers.... should it?

Only Christopher Langan's CTMU and Baroch Spinoza's Ethics come close to the quality of the proof that I provided... and both are considered academic material. MarsSterlingTurner (discuss • contribs) 00:24, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

User:MarsSterlingTurner/What there is Consciousness is rank nonsense.

The question is at what length one should spend time here and effort to articulate point-by-point that your nonsense is nonsense; I don't know.

Your user page has some red flags as well, e.g. "I invented several stars and nuclear reactors" and "I invented a cheap and effective form of synthetic telepathy". It could also be meaningful to block you for block evasion (if it really is block evasion, but it seems very likely).

An example of a page that was moved to user space as not good enough: User:TyEvSkyo/Particle Sphere Theory, although it is pseudophysics, not pseudophilosophy. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 03:46, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Do you believe it's impossible to invent a nuclear reactor or envision a giant one capable of being a light and or electron source?

Do you believe synthetic telepathy is fake or something? Feel free to search the patent office for "synthetic telepathy". My invention does work, I have already applied it. and it produced extraordinary results.

You claimed that nothing can or did exist at some time. Which to me is rank nonsense that you have not proven. Do you think your mere claims can rebut logical tautologies? MarsSterlingTurner (discuss • contribs) 23:42, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

For the record, I requested a block at Wikiversity:Request custodian action#Block of MarsSterlingTurner, which was implemented. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 05:26, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

A later note: by searching for "nothing has the property of nothing", I found also the following 2025 discussion apparently started by MarsSterlingTurner (the user account there has a photo of the face):

• what pure logical tautologies can deduce, June 2025, atheistdiscussion.org

There are 5 pages of discussion. Apparently, the discussion members do show some engagement with this brand of low-grade material; they bother to respond. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 10:44, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

The only argument you held against my work was that "nothing can't imply nothing"; but what do you think of the following;

I know you will grant that nothing is nothing.

But is can refer to the law of identity and therefore the biconditional; ↔

Therefore you must grant that {}↔{}

Now if the conditional can go both ways, it therefore is materially equivalent to going one way; →

Therefore you must grant {}→{}

In other words ({}is{})→({}↔{})→({}→{}) AssumingNOTHING (discuss • contribs) 21:53, 29 August 2025 (UTC)