Hi John,

On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 7:20 PM, John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 Telmo Menezes <te...@telmomenezes.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> > TED recently censured two talks by Rupert Sheldrake and Graham Hancock.
>> > Did did it one the grounds of
>> classifying their claims as pseudo-science.
>
>
> My respect for TED just went up several notches.
>
>>
>> > I find this disturbing
>
>
> Ted has a good reputation. They want to keep it.

Sure, and with a strong incentive to do so, at 6000$+ a ticket. They
don't pay the speakers and have major sponsors, so I'm sure it's a
quite profitable business. What bothers me, though, is precisely what
is necessary to do nowadays to protect one's reputation. I'm not sure
what it feels like, but it doesn't feel like freedom.

>> > they are just proposing hypothesis based on experience.
>
>
> They are proposing a hypothesis to explain a phenomenon that, despite the
> best efforts of many for well over a century, nobody can show exists.

Possibly because it doesn't, but that's a very narrow view of what
Sheldrake is talking about. Graham Hancock is talking about his
personal experiences with ayahuasca. Do you believe he is lying?

>I will
> make a bet with you or with anyone else on this list that if either of the 2
> most respected  science journals on planet earth, Science and Nature,
> publish a pro parapsychology article before March 22 2014 I will give you
> $100, if they don't you only have to pay me $10. Do we have a bet?

No, I agree with your odds.
More importantly, this bet proposal worries me. I don't think we have
the same understanding of what science is.

> And speaking of Science magazine, if you like wild and wacky stuff, and who
> doesn't, you don't need to read supermarket tabloids and listen to junk
> science by Rupert Sheldrake, Science Magazine has plenty of weird wonderful
> stuff, and what's more this is stuff that could change  our world beyond all
> recognition; Rupert Sheldrake never will.

Why do you assume I don't read it?

> For example, almost all of the March 8 2013 issue of Science Magazine is
> devoted to articles about Quantum Computers, and a working Quantum Computer
> would stand the world on its head like nothing seen before. Here are what
> world class physicists have to report on the latest developments:
>
> "The concept of solving problems with the use of quantum algorithms,
> introduced in the early 1990s was welcomed as a revolutionary change in the
> theory of computational complexity, but the feat of actually building a
> quantum computer was then thought to be impossible. The invention of quantum
> error correction introduced hope that a quantum computer might one day be
> built, most likely by future generations of physicists and engineers.
> However, less than 20 years later, we have witnessed so many advances that
> successful quantum computations, and other applications of quantum
> information processing such as quantum simulation and long distance quantum
> communication appear reachable within our lifetime"
>
> "A final measurement of the system can then yield information pertaining to
> all 2^N states. For merely N= 400 qubits, we find that the encoded
> information of 2^ 400 = 10^120 values is more than the number of fundamental
> particles in the universe; such a computation could never be performed
> without the parallel processing enabled by quantum mechanics. In a sense,
> entanglement between qubits acts as an invisible wiring that can potentially
> be exploited to solve certain problems that are intractable otherwise. [...]
> Remarkably, we have not yet encountered any fundamental physical principles
> that would prohibit the building of quite large quantum processors."
>
> "The past decade has seen remarkable progress in isolating and controlling
> quantum coherence using charges and spins in semiconductors. Quantum control
> has been established at room temperature, and electron spin coherence times
> now exceed several seconds, a nine order-of-magnitude increase in coherence
> compared with the first semiconductor qubits."
>
> "Although many challenges remain on the road to constructing a useful
> quantum computer, the pace of discovery seems to be accelerating, and spins
> in semiconductors are poised to play a major role."
>
>
> There was even a article on the most radical sort of Quantum computer, a
> Topological Quantum Computer using non-Abelian pseudo-particles, and even
> here they report "substantial progress in this field".

Yes, I eagerly follow the advances in the field. I don't understand
what this has to do with the topic.

Cheers,
Telmo.

>   John K Clark
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Reply via email to