On 1/3/2013 11:47 PM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Russell Standish
Most scientific publications are based on the 19th century religious cult of
materialism,
which dogmatically rejects mind and spirit for atheistic purposes (not reasons,
there are none).
Do you have any citations showing where this dogma is written down?
It cannot deal with fields at all,
Ever hear of quantum *field* theory.
for example the theory of relativity, since that
theory asserts that there is no such thing as space (and yet it works).
General relativity is a theory of metric space.
M does not
believe in fields, for they are anathema: immaterial, purely mathematical.
So of course monads and morphisms are nonsense to a materialist.
He lives in a fantasy world.
You must be living in some other world to think scientist cannot deal with fields - a
concept they invented.
Brent
[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
1/4/2013
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Russell Standish
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-03, 18:32:37
Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.
On Thu, Jan 03, 2013 at 01:46:20PM -0500, Richard Ruquist wrote:
While you may investigate such things you will be at a loss to publish
them except on the internet. Even the Cornell internet archives
arXiv.com refuses to publish such results or such thinking. The last
person to get such thinking published on arXiv was Nobelist Brian
Josephson almost a decade ago http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0312012.
Thankfully Peter Gibbs has created a similar list vixra.org where
almost anything rejected by arXiv can be published, for example my
last paper http://vixra.org/pdf/1101.0044v1.pdf
Richard
I'm sceptical of Sheldrake's explanation in terms of "morphic fields"
(or even monads). It makes no sense. However, the empirical effect he
observed may well stand. We should probe such results, test for any
methodological flaws, and if they continue to hold up, look for
alternative explanations that might work.
Of course it is a hard row to hoe. A few years ago, I had some
empirical results that literally flew in the face of neutral evolution
thoery
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_theory_of_molecular_evolution). I
could not get these results published, and got treated by scorn by
journal referees. Then after about a year of thought, I worked out the
mechanism - in the end it was quite a simple, but nevertheless real
effect. This time, the paper was accepted without question.
You can see the resulting paper at arXiv:nlin.AO/0404012
In spite of thise result having quite profound implications for
things like the "molecular clock" idea, AFAIK, nobody has investigated
whether anything like this happens in real biology.
It does also stand as an example of what is required to publish
contra-paradigmatic results.
Cheers
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
