You claim my theory of time is Newtonian but that just demonstrates your 
complete lack of understanding of the theory...


On Monday, December 30, 2013 5:02:06 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
> On 31 December 2013 10:38, John Mikes < <javascript:>>wrote:
>> Dear Liz,
>> as a former ed-in-chief of a science magazine (Ion Exchange and 
>> Membranes) I know the difficulties one can run into if trying to get 
>> peer-review approval on "NEW" ideas that do not fit into the conventional 
>> scientific fabric of college courses. I was a risk-taker and provided space 
>> for several new ideas that made sens - to me. ('Let the readership decide 
>> and debate').
> There are two things being presented here. One is an idea which is fine in 
> itself - reality is computed. It isn't obviously self-contradictory, and 
> has I think been suggested quite a few times in various flavours (I'm sure 
> Conway must have come up with this, as have Russell Standish, I think, and 
> Bruno of course, plus probably some other people). It's a fairly obvious 
> idea for the age - "it steam-engines when it comes steam engine time" or 
> whatever.
> The other is a Newtonian theory of time. This contradicts special 
> relativity, and hence is an "extraordinary claim". This claim has not yet 
> had any support that shows its author understands what the problems with it 
> are. Hence it not only "doesn't fit into the scientific fabric of college 
> courses", it flatly contradicts everything we've learned about reality 
> since 1905 - all the experimental confirmation of SR, the whole lot. That 
> should require extraordinary evidence before it is worth considering.
>> Sometimes new ideas (versions?) do not fit into the 'reductionistic' 
>> conventional stuff of the Rosenesque MODEL content, limited to the already 
>> known inventory of science etc. While it does not support the 'new' ideas, 
>> it does not prove them wrong by itself, either. 
> There is no contradiction between Edgar's theory and reductionism, it is a 
> reductionist theory. What proves (or comes very close to proving) Edgar's 
> theory of time wrong is that it contradicts most of 20th century physics, 
> both theoretical and experimental. His theory of computational reality 
> isn't itself rendered wrong by the "known inventory of science" of course. 
> (By the way, your use of these buzz phrases does rather suggest that you 
> are pushing an agenda here. Science is far more than you are trying to make 
> out - it isn't all conventional, blinkered fuddy-duddies dismissing 
> crackpot ideas, but has room for plenty of outrageous speculation - as long 
> as it is properly grounded, doesn't flat-out contradict a century of 
> experimentation, etc.)
>> I submitted a paper once with some 'mild' novelty (J. of Consciousness 
>> Sci) and an irate (conservative) reviewer called me a 
>> "homespun fireside philosopher" - an ornamental epitheton I value highly 
>> ever since. 
>> Always easiest to think your opponents have dismissed your ideas because 
> they are "conservative" (or "bourgeois", or "heretics" or whatever 
> epitheton you wish to apply) -- rather than because just maybe they knew 
> more about the subject, and could see where your ideas were wrong.
> PS "epitheton" is itself an "ornamental epitheton", I'd say. I do hope it 
> wasn't just a typo!

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 post to this group, send email to
Visit this group at
For more options, visit

Reply via email to