Dear Otto and colleagues,

Thanks for the curious story and sorry that my absorption in low level administrative themes has knocked me down-down during these weeks. But not being a physicist, and even not a third rate aficionado, I can contribute very little to the exchanges. At least I will try to remark a couple of lateral aspects:

First, when I heard about this story, I was amazed how hysterical the web records were. On the one side, the tabloid style comments and the malicious personal attacks, and on the other side the offended, irritated scientists. That your opinion deserved a "Charge of the Nobel Brigade" with all those big names hurried together to smitten any possible doubt, was sort of humorous. Wasn't from Horace that saying of "vociferant montes et parturient ridiculus mus"? My impression is that all those hyperactive new media have deteriorated the exchange and maturation of scientific opinion. The fate of your position on those hypothetic risks was irrationally discounted.

And about the theme itself, I join one of the initial comments on the energy of singular cosmic rays, probabilistically having to cause such microscopic destructive black holes in The Moon and somewhere else. The wide swaths of the cosmos we watch today do not show sudden instances of planet or star disappearance. As many thousands and millions of those are well followed nowadays without reports of sudden destruction: can this "stable" cosmos be an extra argument in the discussion? Let me improvise some further views: Black holes relate "quite a bit" to information matters. The controversy between Hawking, Penrose, etc. about the fate of the quantum information engulfed seemingly emitted is not the end of the story I think. If everything should make functional sense in an integrated "organismic" cosmos, the functionality of black holes is really enigmatic. They just become a reservoir of dark matter for gravity? In this point our common friend Michael Conrad (1996) put"/when we look at a biological system we/ are looking at the face of the underlying /physics of the universe/." Thereupon, I have always thought about the similarity between cellular proteasomes (protein destructing machines) and the cosmic (destructive) black holes. But the former RECYCLE and emit single amino acid components for reuse, and then would the latter provide only residual gravity? Lee Smolin said something bold: they recycle too, and produce "baby universes" with slightly altered laws of nature. Our planet final blimps would have some more fun incorporated (with the big IF, of course)...

Best wishes


  lEl 11/01/2017 a las 11:33, Otto E. Rossler escribió:
I like this response from Lou,

*From:* Louis H Kauffman <>
*To:* Pedro C. Marijuan <>
*Cc:* fis <>
*Sent:* Tuesday, January 10, 2017 6:09 PM
*Subject:* Re: [Fis] A Curious Story

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
"THIS STORY IS A GOOD REASON FOR SHUTTING DOWN CERN PERMANENTLY AND SAVING A LOT OF LARGELY WASTED MONEY.”. 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.
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

    Best wishes to All and exciting times for the New Year!

    *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 <> bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

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
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 <>

Pedro C. Marijuán
Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group
Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud
Centro de Investigación Biomédica de Aragón (CIBA)
Avda. San Juan Bosco, 13, planta 0
50009 Zaragoza, Spain
Tfno. +34 976 71 3526 (& 6818)

Fis mailing list

Reply via email to