Liz, You claim my theory of time is Newtonian but that just demonstrates your complete lack of understanding of the theory...
Edgar On Monday, December 30, 2013 5:02:06 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: > > On 31 December 2013 10:38, John Mikes <[email protected] <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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
