[asdfasgasdgasdg]

We is humanity, as far as I know and as far as brief Googling is able to determine. I am not a physicist, so I have good knowledge of physics up to the high school level, and a dabbler's knowledge of what lies beyond. I am open to correction, so feel free to offer some contradictory evidence if you have any.

[YeGoblynQueenne]

What exactly did you google for?

Are we really communicating here? I'm saying that there is a lot that physicists don't know about physics and that therefore it's impossible to make the assumption that you make, that every law of physics is computable. Because nobody knows all of them, and nobody knows what nobody knows, or how much of it there is.

And you're saying that, given high-school physics and "dabbling", we know all of it and it's all computable.

Is that a good summary of our discussion so far?

[asdfasgasdgasdg]

> Is that a good summary of our discussion so far?

Hrm, I wouldn't say so, and I don't think if that is your impression that it's going to be very productive to continue it.

FWIW: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."

[YeGoblynQueenne]

Yes, I'm aware of the guidelines, thank you. They are not a tool to passive-aggressively end conversations by accusing other commenters of bad faith.

But I agree this is not a productive conversation. I don't see that you have a very clear idea of what you are trying to say.