Dear Louis, Pedro and FISers,

I have been knowing Otto for about a litle less than 10 years now.
What I have learned from him is that he has a very subtle sense of humor
and wisdom.
What I conclude about this issue with CERN's LHC is that he wishes nothing
more/less than an a priori theoretical proof that the black hole
experiments will not lead to a collaps of the Earth.
He would be more than happy if somebody provides this proof and his
concerns about our future appear ungrounded, so that the experiments can
continue without any fear about the possible end of humanity. But as he
said, nobody has done this until now. Nobody has taken these concerns
seriously. The key question for us is why do we allow such experiments
without having such a proof? Why do we play with fire in our own kitchen
without being sure that we can deal with its breakout? If the accident
occurs, then it will be too late to prevent the danger, unless we have a
time machine, which is not the case at the moment, I am afraid.

So, I think that Otto's appeal can be considered as a challenge not less
important than the one with the proof of Fermat's last theorem.
While there was no danger from keeping this problem unsolved for 300+
years, we may have a real problem now.
So, why not trying to administer science for being performed in a
reasonable way: to not place the horses (experimental science) before the
cabin (theoretical science) - which is the case with LHC?
Otto only wishes to say: "We should not do such experients, until we have a
theoretical proof or at least to have a computer simulation demonstrating
that the chance of having such a disaster is diminishing." And even if this
is the case, we should carry a referendum over 4+ billion people on Earth
on wether to allow such experiments or not. They are not only an issue ofr
a government or of an over-excited community of physicists. Please correct
me if I am wrong, Otto.

I hope this helps.

All the best.



On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 6:09 PM, Louis H Kauffman <> wrote:

> Dear Folks,
> It is very important to not be hasty and assume that the warning Professor
> Rossler made is to be taken seriously.
> It is relatively easy to check if a mathematical reasoning is true or
> false.
> It is much more difficult to see if a piece of mathematics is correctly
> alligned to physical prediction.
> Note also that a reaction such as
> Is not in the form of scientific rational discussion, but rather in the
> form of taking a given conclusion for granted
>  and using it to support another opinion that is just that - an opinion.
> By concatenating such behaviors we arrive at the present political state
> of the world.
> This is why, in my letter, I have asked for an honest discussion of the
> possible validity of Professor Rossler’s arguments.
> At this point I run out of commentary room for this week and I shall read
> and look forward to making further comments next week.
> Best,
> Lou Kauffman
> On Jan 9, 2017, at 7:17 AM, Pedro C. Marijuan <>
> wrote:
> From Alex Hankey
> -------- Mensaje reenviado --------
> Asunto: Re: [Fis] A Curious Story
> Fecha: Sun, 8 Jan 2017 19:55:55 +0530
> De: Alex Hankey <> <>
> <>
> On 5 January 2017 at 16:36, PEDRO CLEMENTE MARIJUAN FERNANDEZ <
>> wrote:
>> Dear FISers,
>> Herewith the Lecture inaugurating our 2017 sessions.
>> I really hope that this Curious Story is just that, a curiosity.
>> But in science we should not look for hopes but for arguments and
>> counter-arguments...
>> Best wishes to All and exciting times for the New Year!
>> --Pedro
>> ------------------------------
>> *De:* Otto E. Rossler []
>> *Enviado el:* miércoles, 04 de enero de 2017 17:51
>> *Asunto:* NY session
>> ----------------------
>> *A Curious Story*
>> Otto E. Rossler, University of Tübingen, Germany
>> Maybe I am the only one who finds it curious. Which fact would then make
>> it even more curious for me. It goes like this: Someone says “I can save
>> your house from a time bomb planted into the basement” and you respond by
>> saying “I don’t care.” This curious story is taken from the Buddhist
>> bible.
>> It of course depends on who is offering to help. It could be a lunatic
>> person claiming that he alone can save the planet from a time-bomb about to
>> be planted into it. In that case, there would be no reason to worry. On the
>> other hand, it could also be that you, the manager, are a bit high at the
>> moment so that you don't fully appreciate the offer made to you. How
>> serious is my offer herewith made to you today?
>> I only say that for eight years' time already, there exists no
>> counter-proof in the literature to my at first highly publicized proof of
>> danger. I was able to demonstrate that the miniature black holes officially
>> attempted to be produced at CERN do possess two radically new properties:
>>    - they cannot Hawking evaporate
>>    - they grow exponentially inside matter
>> If these two findings hold water, the current attempt at producing
>> ultra-slow miniature black holes on earth near the town of Geneva means
>> that the slower-most specimen will get stuck inside earth and grow there
>> exponentially to turn the planet into a 2-cm black hole after several of
>> undetectable growth. Therefore the current attempt of CERN's to produce
>> them near Geneva is a bit curious.
>> What is so curious about CERN's attempt? It is the fact that no one finds
>> it curious. I am reminded of an old joke: The professor informs the
>> candidate about the outcome of the oral exam with the following words “You
>> are bound to laugh but you have flunked the test.” I never understood the
>> punchline. I likewise cannot understand why a never refuted proof of the
>> biggest danger of history leaves everyone unconcerned. Why NOT check an
>> unattended piece of luggage on the airport called Earth?
>> To my mind, this is the most curious story ever -- for the very reason
>> that everyone finds it boring. A successful counter-proof would thus
>> alleviate but a single person’s fears – mine. You, my dear reader, are thus
>> my last hope that you might be able to explain the punch line to me: “Why
>> is it that it does not matter downstairs that the first floor is ablaze?” I
>> am genuinely curious to learn why attempting planetocide is fun.  Are you
>> not?
>> For J.O.R.
>> ---------------
>> _______________________________________________
>> Fis mailing list
> --
> Alex Hankey M.A. (Cantab.) PhD (M.I.T.)
> Distinguished Professor of Yoga and Physical Science,
> SVYASA, Eknath Bhavan, 19 Gavipuram Circle
> Bangalore 560019, Karnataka, India
> Mobile (Intn'l): +44 7710 534195 <+44%207710%20534195>
> Mobile (India) +91 900 800 8789
> ____________________________________________________________
> 2015 JPBMB Special Issue on Integral Biomathics: Life Sciences,
> Mathematics and Phenomenological Philosophy
> <>
> _______________________________________________
> Fis mailing list
> _______________________________________________
> Fis mailing list
Fis mailing list

Reply via email to