15-08-2024, 11:13 AM
Antonio, undoubtedly one reason for people's indifference towards your approach is the fact that there is no way in which it can be checked, either positively (confirmed) or negatively (disproven). This is the infamous 'unfalsifiable' that was mentioned quite a bit recently.
The best that most people can do is say: "perhaps" or "I don't think so".
This does not lead to great discussion.
Now you have this advantage over people proposing relatively simple ciphers and a specific plain text language. For them, there is considerable evidence against their theories. When this evidence is rejected by the proposer (for whatever reason) it also leads to a slow-down of discussion.
Except when people are provoked, typically by grand claims.
This suggests that you could trigger more discussion by making such grand claims, but I really appreciate that you are not doing that.
The best that most people can do is say: "perhaps" or "I don't think so".
This does not lead to great discussion.
Now you have this advantage over people proposing relatively simple ciphers and a specific plain text language. For them, there is considerable evidence against their theories. When this evidence is rejected by the proposer (for whatever reason) it also leads to a slow-down of discussion.
Except when people are provoked, typically by grand claims.
This suggests that you could trigger more discussion by making such grand claims, but I really appreciate that you are not doing that.