Your problem is that you haven't either followed the discussion or understood it. I couldn't work out why they were continually arguing round in circles and so I decided to find out and try to sort out the confusion, since no-one else was doing that. I succeeded very easily. It all boiled down to the definitions they were/are using. It proves that you imagine, in your own mind, that I'm the one who is using these definitions. Wishful thinking. In fact, if you'd read my long post with any understanding, you would have realised that I am NOT recommending these definitions. I believe they're confused and I understand where the confusion has arisen. The fact that you think I'm recommending definitions of weak or strong is characteristic of both your habitual misrepresentation of other people's posts and also your complete lack of understanding. You're good with words but I don't think you have a high IQ. Either that or something is causing you to become confused. Something in you.
Yes, I know...it's always in the other poster(s).
. Reading your next sentence will point out one of the numerous reasons why you are one of them. With most posters I am quite cordial, but I believe in eye for an eye with posters that like to throw their weight around indiscriminately, and I have been known to confront posters that spread misinformation, or troll consistently. Since you dabble in all three...
If you try to define the processes in terms of the utility of results and not the method used to obtain them, you are dealing in ideal hypotheses which have no basis in practice. You seem to assume that the results will magically arise and proclaim themselves, perhaps as weak or strong.
The entire process we're trying to discuss is based on obtaining the results and of course, obtaining results demands a method to obtain them. I have described pretty clearly why it is not possible to define them in terms of utility .... what they may be useful for .... if you cannot produce them in the first place.
Nothing in your sermon furthers the project. You also seem to think I'm proposing a strong solution, That is, of course, a strong process. You should read and try to understand what I wrote above. I'm actually describing what I think is the only possible process to arrive at any solution whatever. Weak and strong cannot in practice be distinguished from one-another, except by hindsight. Try to understand why, before you write anything else. I don't recall a discussion about the multiverse. I think I may have explained what I think the multiverse idea is good for and why it's different from "Many Worlds" although the two are very often conflated. You shouldn't conflate such a discussion with this discussion either. You'll confuse yourself even more.
It's a fact that these discussions regarding "solving" have led nowhere, except to interminable, circular arguments. You bear just as much blame for that as the others. If you can't actually visualise the processes involved but merely try to parrot the ideas of so-called experts, you and others are not helping anyone. Read what I wrote in #923 and this time try to understand it.
You still don't understand...the solutions don't need to proclaim themselves as "weak" or "strong" which you still seem to be using as fuzzy rankings of...something. They either fit the criteria, or they don't.
If I followed your logic, then how could anyone do any kind of science experiment with documented results? I might as well just poke an object with sticks until it magically reveals its inner workings, *then* define the stick poking process that already occurred.
Weak and strong solutions are exactly distinguishable from each other, by their definitions. Hindsight is not really applicable in this context...but if it were, there would still be a significant and easily documentable difference between the various methodologies that could be used to go after weak and strong solutions. If you want to discuss methodology, then discuss methodology and stop mixing up your terms. Stop arguing that the beakers are mislabeled or that two beakers are the same beaker and propose which liquids you're going to pour in them to get a chemical reaction.
I'm not the one who is easily confused by simple analogies or definitions (clearly). I have no trouble at all visualizing the processes involved. It's the scope of what's involved that is the problem. I know how to go after solving chess, and could tackle either type of methodology (brute force or *attempting* to build a prioritized lexicon of chess principles with absolute valuations for every possible position) but if all of humanity combined does not have the resources to bring to bear to achieve either (because proving those principles will still require brute force as well), then it doesn't really matter.
Meanwhile, there's a good deal of "the emperor has no clothes" going on here. You pretend that you have greater understanding, but can produce nothing but complaints about everyone else's understanding .
Your problem is that you haven't either followed the discussion or understood it. I couldn't work out why they were continually arguing round in circles and so I decided to find out and try to sort out the confusion, since no-one else was doing that. I succeeded very easily. It all boiled down to the definitions they were/are using. It proves that you imagine, in your own mind, that I'm the one who is using these definitions. Wishful thinking. In fact, if you'd read my long post with any understanding, you would have realised that I am NOT recommending these definitions. I believe they're confused and I understand where the confusion has arisen. The fact that you think I'm recommending definitions of weak or strong is characteristic of both your habitual misrepresentation of other people's posts and also your complete lack of understanding. You're good with words but I don't think you have a high IQ. Either that or something is causing you to become confused. Something in you.