On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 11:19 PM, Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]> wrote:
> Liz, > > You claim my theory of time is Newtonian but that just demonstrates your > complete lack of understanding of the theory... > > Well, this one is at least a few hundred years old: "You disagree only because it is obvious that you do not understand my theory!" If anything, Liz is trying to be fair and open-minded. But what's quoted above is not immune to Smullyan's universal refutation: "that's what YOU think, of course" ;-) I sometimes picture a person going through life saying this as often as they can to anybody they might meet... and then smugly walking away self-contented. PGC > 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]> 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. > -- 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.
