Re: The background to Edgar's book
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 1:55 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy
multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 11:53 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
wrote:
Hi John,
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').
It's interesting to read this. I agree that the current model of
peer-review leads to too much conservatism, and me-too papers are
much more likely to get approved than the ones with novel ideas. On
the other hand, there's only so much time to keep up with the
literature, so some amount of filtering is required.
I see 2 problems: everybody wants to publish + the peer groups that control
certain domains and their journals are too often specialized cowards, that
have to make bread, and fear losing face for publishing something crackpot
style, like those nonsense articles that get through the peer process into
publication from time to time. But the only way for journals to become more
robust and earn scientific merit beyond popularity contests is to allow the
wrong to be read, expose to criticism, and to right the wrongs or point
towards the open problems that were formulated.
Everybody is expected to learn... But not scientific journals. And everybody
smells the irony. This strangles debate and promotes much more dependency
journal x said blah, so that must be right. The focus shifts from the
questions, the work on them, towards results. Reactions to novelty become
crackpot by default, instead of sharpening scientific attitude of
wrestling what somebody new might have to say.
I agree. Here I tend to think like an economist: people react to
incentives. If the system is behaving in a way that is not desirable,
it is maybe a good idea the take a look at the incentive system that's
in place.
You would assume that the goal of a journal is to become as relevant
as possible. The problem is that fighting for relevancy is risky. You
have to expose yourself to ridicule. If you don't, you will never be
relevant because you will only consider the safest, most decaffeinated
ideas. The problem is that this highly conservative strategy is great
to get tenure and grants. So the system encourage mediocrity, in a
way. Importantly, this is an anti-scientific stance, because it
introduces a specific bias. Honest scientists should thrive to be as
free from bias as possible (while realising that it is impossible to
be free from bias).
Another problem is premature specialisation. In some fields, like
medicine and experimental physics, specialisation makes a lot of
sense. Most of science does not involve the stakes of health care nor
the instrumentation complexities of a particle accelerator. But all
fields want to copy this tried-and-true path to respectability. It's a
cargo cult. And it doesn't work either.
I think science is like art: the best stuff is not done for money and
recognition. These things are purely by-products. We need to get rid
of the job mentality. There is incredible technological progress that
could be used to free humanity from labour, but this never seems to
happen. If people are free from labour, then they can pursue their
true interests: science, art, dog training, whatever... Unfortunately,
I think humanity is currently following the wrong path in many senses.
Instead of progress being made in releasing humanity from labour, the
void in work to be done created by new technology is filled with
bullshit jobs, and science is being contaminated with bullshit jobs
too.
Happy new year man (and everyone!)
Telmo.
Maybe the internet will eventually allow for better models, but then I
fear that it will turn into another form of a popularity contest.
Collective moderation tends to reward sensationalism and form over
substance
Yeah, but I don't see a route out of this ossifying aspect of the journal
landscape, as brilliant as many of the articles are that I see every month,
with all these historic weights in its current form. I'll just work blogwise
for now, and bet that time will filter the popularity contest and
sensationalism. PGC
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.
I love to read the negative reviews that famous computer science
papers received:
http://www.fang.ece.ufl.edu/reject.html
Since we've been talking about Turing:
On Computable Numbers, with an Application to the Entscheidungs
Problem. This is a bizarre paper. It begins by defining a computing
device absolutely unlike anything I have seen, then proceeds to show—I
haven't quite followed the
Re: The background to Edgar's book
The reason I asked the original question in this thread is to get some idea of the background to Edgar's work, in particular, I was interest to know if there is any logical or mathematical underpinning to it, if it is a development of ideas that have been previously published, and so on. Getting an instant defensive reaction - and not even from Edgar! - seems just a wee bit over the top. So Edgar, can you fill in the background to you work - the relevant logic / maths, any other people's works you are building on, theories you are extending, references, etc? -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: The background to Edgar's book
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 11:19 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net 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 jam...@gmail.com 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: The background to Edgar's book
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 11:53 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.comwrote:
Hi John,
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').
It's interesting to read this. I agree that the current model of
peer-review leads to too much conservatism, and me-too papers are
much more likely to get approved than the ones with novel ideas. On
the other hand, there's only so much time to keep up with the
literature, so some amount of filtering is required.
I see 2 problems: everybody wants to publish + the peer groups that control
certain domains and their journals are too often specialized cowards, that
have to make bread, and fear losing face for publishing something
crackpot style, like those nonsense articles that get through the peer
process into publication from time to time. But the only way for journals
to become more robust and earn scientific merit beyond popularity contests
is to allow the wrong to be read, expose to criticism, and to right the
wrongs or point towards the open problems that were formulated.
Everybody is expected to learn... But not scientific journals. And
everybody smells the irony. This strangles debate and promotes much more
dependency journal x said blah, so that must be right. The focus shifts
from the questions, the work on them, towards results. Reactions to novelty
become crackpot by default, instead of sharpening scientific attitude of
wrestling what somebody new might have to say.
Maybe the internet will eventually allow for better models, but then I
fear that it will turn into another form of a popularity contest.
Collective moderation tends to reward sensationalism and form over
substance
Yeah, but I don't see a route out of this ossifying aspect of the journal
landscape, as brilliant as many of the articles are that I see every month,
with all these historic weights in its current form. I'll just work
blogwise for now, and bet that time will filter the popularity contest and
sensationalism. PGC
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.
I love to read the negative reviews that famous computer science
papers received:
http://www.fang.ece.ufl.edu/reject.html
Since we've been talking about Turing:
On Computable Numbers, with an Application to the Entscheidungs
Problem. This is a bizarre paper. It begins by defining a computing
device absolutely unlike anything I have seen, then proceeds to show—I
haven't quite followed the needlessly complicated formalism—that there
are numbers that it can't compute. As I see it, there are two
alternatives that apply to any machine that will ever be built: Either
these numbers are too big to be represented in the machine, in which
case the conclusion is obvious, or they are not; in that case, a
machine that can't compute them is simply broken!
Any tabulating machine worth its rent can compute all the values in
the range it represents, and any number computable by a function—that
is, by applying the four operations a number of times—can be computed
by any modern tabulating machine since these machines—unlike the one
proposed here with its bizarre mechanism——have the four operations
hardwired. It seems that the improvement proposed by Turing is not
an improvement over current technology at all, and I strongly suspect
the machine is too simple to be of any use.
If the article is accepted, Turing should remember that the language
of this journal is English and change the title accordingly.
I'm sure there are equivalents in every field.
While it does not support the 'new' ideas, it does not prove them wrong
by
itself, either.
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.
Would you share that paper with us?
Cheers
Telmo.
John Mikes
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 3:35 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Edgar,
Have you written any peer-reviewed papers on your ideas? Most scientific
popularisations are written to explain a theory that has been worked out
mathematically (like David Deutsch's Fabric Of Reality) or which are
the
product of long (and intense) discussions amongst scientists and
philosophers working in the relevant fields(s), which have often
involved
substantial modification to the original ideas (like, I imagine, Russell
Standish's Theory Of Nothing). Or most likely both, in a lot of cases.
Only fictional works tend
Re: The background to Edgar's book
Hi Liz, The Two kinds of time theory is original with me dating back to 2007. I've presented it in quite a clear logical framework from a couple different perspectives in my posts to this group. The logic is quite clear and quite convincing, but only when the underlying concept is clearly understood. The proper approach (as for all new theories) is to first understand and assume the concept, then follow the logic to see whether it works or not. The crux of the theory that absolutely must be understood to comprehend it is the assumption there are actually two completely distinct kinds of time. As long as one is confused with the other, specifically as long as Present Moment time is confused with or tried to be measured or described by clock time measures or SR clock time theory, it will be impossible to comprehend. That is sadly true of all critics of the theory here. There is always some attempt to describe or critic Present Moment time with clock time theory. That just doesn't work In the theory the math of SR stands unchanged and completely accepted, it just is NOT applicable to Present Moment time in any way whatsoever, it is only and elegantly applicable to clock time as it always was. All of the arguments against my theory presented so far make this mistake of trying to apply and measure Present Moment time on the basis of the clock time theory of SR, and so they all miss the target. And I do give a valid convincing argument that in fact Present Moment time is clearly not the same as clock time. It's really hard for me to see how I could make it any clearer. The basic problem, I fear, is that the notion of a single time is just too massively embedded the people's psyches for them to raise their heads and confront and understand the very obvious and easy to prove fact that it's not true. it's like trying to convince ancient men of the street that the earth was a sphere rather than flat. The evidence, even the visual evidence, is quite clear, but it was still an impossible paradigm shift for them to make. One wonders how long it will take for people to understand and accept that there are two kinds of time. The evidence is overwhelming, but the paradigm shift is apparently just too much for people Best, Edgar On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 5:40:48 AM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: The reason I asked the original question in this thread is to get some idea of the background to Edgar's work, in particular, I was interest to know if there is any logical or mathematical underpinning to it, if it is a development of ideas that have been previously published, and so on. Getting an instant defensive reaction - and not even from Edgar! - seems just a wee bit over the top. So Edgar, can you fill in the background to you work - the relevant logic / maths, any other people's works you are building on, theories you are extending, references, etc? -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: The background to Edgar's book
On Dec 31, 2013, at 8:22 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Hi Liz, The Two kinds of time theory is original with me dating back to 2007. I've presented it in quite a clear logical framework from a couple different perspectives in my posts to this group. The logic is quite clear and quite convincing, but only when the underlying concept is clearly understood. The proper approach (as for all new theories) is to first understand and assume the concept, then follow the logic to see whether it works or not. The crux of the theory that absolutely must be understood to comprehend it is the assumption there are actually two completely distinct kinds of time. As long as one is confused with the other, specifically as long as Present Moment time is confused with or tried to be measured or described by clock time measures or SR clock time theory, it will be impossible to comprehend. That is sadly true of all critics of the theory here. There is always some attempt to describe or critic Present Moment time with clock time theory. That just doesn't work In the theory the math of SR stands unchanged and completely accepted, it just is NOT applicable to Present Moment time in any way whatsoever, it is only and elegantly applicable to clock time as it always was. All of the arguments against my theory presented so far make this mistake of trying to apply and measure Present Moment time on the basis of the clock time theory of SR, and so they all miss the target. And I do give a valid convincing argument that in fact Present Moment time is clearly not the same as clock time. It's really hard for me to see how I could make it any clearer. The basic problem, I fear, is that the notion of a single time is just too massively embedded the people's psyches for them to raise their heads and confront and understand the very obvious and easy to prove fact that it's not true. it's like trying to convince ancient men of the street that the earth was a sphere rather than flat. The evidence, even the visual evidence, is quite clear, but it was still an impossible paradigm shift for them to make. One wonders how long it will take for people to understand and accept that there are two kinds of time. The evidence is overwhelming, but the paradigm shift is apparently just too much for people If your theory preserves completely the math and time of special relativity, why is some other time required? What more does P-time explain that isn't covered by relativity? Jason Best, Edgar On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 5:40:48 AM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: The reason I asked the original question in this thread is to get some idea of the background to Edgar's work, in particular, I was interest to know if there is any logical or mathematical underpinning to it, if it is a development of ideas that have been previously published, and so on. Getting an instant defensive reaction - and not even from Edgar! - seems just a wee bit over the top. So Edgar, can you fill in the background to you work - the relevant logic / maths, any other people's works you are building on, theories you are extending, references, etc? -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: The background to Edgar's book
Jason, As I've explained on a number of occasions SR has nothing to say about why clock times are different in a SHARED same actual present moment in which the twins coexist for the rest of their lives after they meet up again. SR (actually GR for the twins since their clocks read different due to relative accelerations) explains perfectly why clock times can end up non-simultaneous, but not why that clock time NON-simultaneity occurs in an actual present moment simultaneity. The fact of an actual Present time simultaneity is the only way we can measure and confirm the clock time NON-simultaneity. It is the necessary reference to make that observation. All of SR and GR time theory actually assumes an unrecognized absolute background frame of reference against which the clock time phenomena are formulable and measurable. If we can even say things change and a different (or the same) we absolutely have to be able to compare them relative to some background frame. That unrecognized background frame is Present time which is the same for all observers. If there was no common background present time it would be impossible to even compare various clock time t values to see if they were different or the same. All comparisons assume a shared standard frame of reference. That is Present time. That same common Present time is experimentally confirmed at the same space location by the handshakes of observers with different clock times, and logically confirmed for spatially separated observers as outlined in my previous posts. Edgar On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 10:54:12 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Dec 31, 2013, at 8:22 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: wrote: Hi Liz, The Two kinds of time theory is original with me dating back to 2007. I've presented it in quite a clear logical framework from a couple different perspectives in my posts to this group. The logic is quite clear and quite convincing, but only when the underlying concept is clearly understood. The proper approach (as for all new theories) is to first understand and assume the concept, then follow the logic to see whether it works or not. The crux of the theory that absolutely must be understood to comprehend it is the assumption there are actually two completely distinct kinds of time. As long as one is confused with the other, specifically as long as Present Moment time is confused with or tried to be measured or described by clock time measures or SR clock time theory, it will be impossible to comprehend. That is sadly true of all critics of the theory here. There is always some attempt to describe or critic Present Moment time with clock time theory. That just doesn't work In the theory the math of SR stands unchanged and completely accepted, it just is NOT applicable to Present Moment time in any way whatsoever, it is only and elegantly applicable to clock time as it always was. All of the arguments against my theory presented so far make this mistake of trying to apply and measure Present Moment time on the basis of the clock time theory of SR, and so they all miss the target. And I do give a valid convincing argument that in fact Present Moment time is clearly not the same as clock time. It's really hard for me to see how I could make it any clearer. The basic problem, I fear, is that the notion of a single time is just too massively embedded the people's psyches for them to raise their heads and confront and understand the very obvious and easy to prove fact that it's not true. it's like trying to convince ancient men of the street that the earth was a sphere rather than flat. The evidence, even the visual evidence, is quite clear, but it was still an impossible paradigm shift for them to make. One wonders how long it will take for people to understand and accept that there are two kinds of time. The evidence is overwhelming, but the paradigm shift is apparently just too much for people If your theory preserves completely the math and time of special relativity, why is some other time required? What more does P-time explain that isn't covered by relativity? Jason Best, Edgar On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 5:40:48 AM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: The reason I asked the original question in this thread is to get some idea of the background to Edgar's work, in particular, I was interest to know if there is any logical or mathematical underpinning to it, if it is a development of ideas that have been previously published, and so on. Getting an instant defensive reaction - and not even from Edgar! - seems just a wee bit over the top. So Edgar, can you fill in the background to you work - the relevant logic / maths, any other people's works you are building on, theories you are extending, references, etc? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To
Re: The background to Edgar's book
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jason, As I've explained on a number of occasions SR has nothing to say about why clock times are different in a SHARED same actual present moment in which the twins coexist for the rest of their lives after they meet up again. I thought that was exactly the kind of situation SR excelled at explaining. SR (actually GR for the twins since their clocks read different due to relative accelerations) GR isn't necessary to explain the twin paradox. If you look at the paths through space time, no matter how you arrange your view, the twin who traveled has a shorter path through proper time relative to the twin who remained home. explains perfectly why clock times can end up non-simultaneous, but not why that clock time NON-simultaneity occurs in an actual present moment simultaneity. You mean it does not explain how something in a different coordinate of proper time can interact with something with a different coordinate in that same dimension? Proper time measures clock time, if you want to see if two things can interact or not, you should translate it back to coordinate time. The coordinate time is still the same for the two twins, since both traveled the same distance through spacetime over the time they were separated. The fact of an actual Present time simultaneity is the only way we can measure and confirm the clock time NON-simultaneity. It is the necessary reference to make that observation. All of SR and GR time theory actually assumes an unrecognized absolute background frame of reference against which the clock time phenomena are formulable and measurable. If we can even say things change and a different (or the same) we absolutely have to be able to compare them relative to some background frame. That unrecognized background frame is Present time which is the same for all observers. If there was no common background present time it would be impossible to even compare various clock time t values to see if they were different or the same. All comparisons assume a shared standard frame of reference. That is Present time. That same common Present time is experimentally confirmed at the same space location by the handshakes of observers with different clock times, and logically confirmed for spatially separated observers as outlined in my previous posts. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that without your particular present time, there would be no way for the twins in the twin paradox to interact. Is that right? I am not sure that I agree, but I thank you for answering my question. Jason On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 10:54:12 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Dec 31, 2013, at 8:22 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote: Hi Liz, The Two kinds of time theory is original with me dating back to 2007. I've presented it in quite a clear logical framework from a couple different perspectives in my posts to this group. The logic is quite clear and quite convincing, but only when the underlying concept is clearly understood. The proper approach (as for all new theories) is to first understand and assume the concept, then follow the logic to see whether it works or not. The crux of the theory that absolutely must be understood to comprehend it is the assumption there are actually two completely distinct kinds of time. As long as one is confused with the other, specifically as long as Present Moment time is confused with or tried to be measured or described by clock time measures or SR clock time theory, it will be impossible to comprehend. That is sadly true of all critics of the theory here. There is always some attempt to describe or critic Present Moment time with clock time theory. That just doesn't work In the theory the math of SR stands unchanged and completely accepted, it just is NOT applicable to Present Moment time in any way whatsoever, it is only and elegantly applicable to clock time as it always was. All of the arguments against my theory presented so far make this mistake of trying to apply and measure Present Moment time on the basis of the clock time theory of SR, and so they all miss the target. And I do give a valid convincing argument that in fact Present Moment time is clearly not the same as clock time. It's really hard for me to see how I could make it any clearer. The basic problem, I fear, is that the notion of a single time is just too massively embedded the people's psyches for them to raise their heads and confront and understand the very obvious and easy to prove fact that it's not true. it's like trying to convince ancient men of the street that the earth was a sphere rather than flat. The evidence, even the visual evidence, is quite clear, but it was still an impossible paradigm shift for them to make. One wonders how long it will take for people to understand and accept that there are two kinds of
Re: The background to Edgar's book
Jason, Correct on your last point. Without the twins being in the exact same actual present moment there would be no way for them to shake hands and compare watches, specifically their watches that show different clock times. Their Present time is simultaneous but their clock times aren't. The only way they can confirm their clock times are different is by comparing them in the same Present time moment. Edgar On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 12:42:33 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: wrote: Jason, As I've explained on a number of occasions SR has nothing to say about why clock times are different in a SHARED same actual present moment in which the twins coexist for the rest of their lives after they meet up again. I thought that was exactly the kind of situation SR excelled at explaining. SR (actually GR for the twins since their clocks read different due to relative accelerations) GR isn't necessary to explain the twin paradox. If you look at the paths through space time, no matter how you arrange your view, the twin who traveled has a shorter path through proper time relative to the twin who remained home. explains perfectly why clock times can end up non-simultaneous, but not why that clock time NON-simultaneity occurs in an actual present moment simultaneity. You mean it does not explain how something in a different coordinate of proper time can interact with something with a different coordinate in that same dimension? Proper time measures clock time, if you want to see if two things can interact or not, you should translate it back to coordinate time. The coordinate time is still the same for the two twins, since both traveled the same distance through spacetime over the time they were separated. The fact of an actual Present time simultaneity is the only way we can measure and confirm the clock time NON-simultaneity. It is the necessary reference to make that observation. All of SR and GR time theory actually assumes an unrecognized absolute background frame of reference against which the clock time phenomena are formulable and measurable. If we can even say things change and a different (or the same) we absolutely have to be able to compare them relative to some background frame. That unrecognized background frame is Present time which is the same for all observers. If there was no common background present time it would be impossible to even compare various clock time t values to see if they were different or the same. All comparisons assume a shared standard frame of reference. That is Present time. That same common Present time is experimentally confirmed at the same space location by the handshakes of observers with different clock times, and logically confirmed for spatially separated observers as outlined in my previous posts. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that without your particular present time, there would be no way for the twins in the twin paradox to interact. Is that right? I am not sure that I agree, but I thank you for answering my question. Jason On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 10:54:12 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Dec 31, 2013, at 8:22 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote: Hi Liz, The Two kinds of time theory is original with me dating back to 2007. I've presented it in quite a clear logical framework from a couple different perspectives in my posts to this group. The logic is quite clear and quite convincing, but only when the underlying concept is clearly understood. The proper approach (as for all new theories) is to first understand and assume the concept, then follow the logic to see whether it works or not. The crux of the theory that absolutely must be understood to comprehend it is the assumption there are actually two completely distinct kinds of time. As long as one is confused with the other, specifically as long as Present Moment time is confused with or tried to be measured or described by clock time measures or SR clock time theory, it will be impossible to comprehend. That is sadly true of all critics of the theory here. There is always some attempt to describe or critic Present Moment time with clock time theory. That just doesn't work In the theory the math of SR stands unchanged and completely accepted, it just is NOT applicable to Present Moment time in any way whatsoever, it is only and elegantly applicable to clock time as it always was. All of the arguments against my theory presented so far make this mistake of trying to apply and measure Present Moment time on the basis of the clock time theory of SR, and so they all miss the target. And I do give a valid convincing argument that in fact Present Moment time is clearly not the same as clock time. It's really hard for me to see how I could make
Re: The background to Edgar's book
Dear Liz: you wrote in your PS: epitheton is itself an ornamental
epitheton, I'd say. I do hope it wasn't just a typo!
I looked up epitheton and found (German) vocabulary meanings without any
hint to an ornamental nature.
In a Google English translational part it appeared as EPITHET with the
following text: (still no ornamentalist side-tone)
The noun epithet is a descriptive nickname, such as Richard the
Lionhearted, or Tommy the Terrible. When it takes a turn for the worse, *it
can also be a word or phrase that offends*.
Don’t let *epithet’s* bad reputation fool you — that’s only half the
story. An epithet can be harmless, a nickname that catches on, like all
hockey fans knowing that Sid the Kid is Sidney Crosby. On the flip side, *an
epithet can be an abusive word or phrase* that should never be used, like a
racial epithet that offends and angers everyone.
It included *'epithet ornans'*. I found no hint to any 'ornamental' meaning
included. Did you mean that 'ornamental' serves the same addition as the
(unspecified) epitheton? I wanted to emphasize my appreciative cognotion of
that (not too benevolent) characterization by the reviewer..
JM
.
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 5:02 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 31 December 2013 10:38, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to
Re: The background to Edgar's book
On 1 January 2014 02:55, Platonist Guitar Cowboy
multiplecit...@gmail.comwrote:
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 11:53 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.comwrote:
Hi John,
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').
It's interesting to read this. I agree that the current model of
peer-review leads to too much conservatism, and me-too papers are
much more likely to get approved than the ones with novel ideas. On
the other hand, there's only so much time to keep up with the
literature, so some amount of filtering is required.
I see 2 problems: everybody wants to publish + the peer groups that
control certain domains and their journals are too often specialized
cowards, that have to make bread, and fear losing face for publishing
something crackpot style, like those nonsense articles that get through the
peer process into publication from time to time.
Like Alan Sokal - my hero!!!
--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: The background to Edgar's book
On 1 January 2014 03:22, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Hi Liz, The Two kinds of time theory is original with me dating back to 2007. I've presented it in quite a clear logical framework from a couple different perspectives in my posts to this group. The logic is quite clear and quite convincing, but only when the underlying concept is clearly understood. The proper approach (as for all new theories) is to first understand and assume the concept, then follow the logic to see whether it works or not. I have seen nothing expressed in any formal logical system, with rigorous derivations of consequences from the original axioms. So, we have two distinct time dimensions. Derive the consequences mathematically, and show what happens. The crux of the theory that absolutely must be understood to comprehend it is the assumption there are actually two completely distinct kinds of time. As long as one is confused with the other, specifically as long as Present Moment time is confused with or tried to be measured or described by clock time measures or SR clock time theory, it will be impossible to comprehend. That is sadly true of all critics of the theory here. There is always some attempt to describe or critic Present Moment time with clock time theory. That just doesn't work In the theory the math of SR stands unchanged and completely accepted, it just is NOT applicable to Present Moment time in any way whatsoever, it is only and elegantly applicable to clock time as it always was. All of the arguments against my theory presented so far make this mistake of trying to apply and measure Present Moment time on the basis of the clock time theory of SR, and so they all miss the target. This is because, sadly, there is no target. The world is run by invisible pink unicorns. Always has been, always will be. It's so obvious - why oh why can't anyone else see them? And I do give a valid convincing argument that in fact Present Moment time is clearly not the same as clock time. It's really hard for me to see how I could make it any clearer. By actually explaining how you get around the relativity of simultaneity. I've asked you seeveral times now. Any time is susceptible to the same argument that Einstein used - call it P tiem or clock time or whatever. HOW DO YOU AVOID THIS? -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: The background to Edgar's book
On 12/31/2013 5:55 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 11:53 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
mailto:te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
Hi John,
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').
It's interesting to read this. I agree that the current model of
peer-review leads to too much conservatism, and me-too papers are
much more likely to get approved than the ones with novel ideas. On
the other hand, there's only so much time to keep up with the
literature, so some amount of filtering is required.
I see 2 problems: everybody wants to publish + the peer groups that control certain
domains and their journals are too often specialized cowards, that have to make bread,
and fear losing face for publishing something crackpot style, like those nonsense
articles that get through the peer process into publication from time to time. But the
only way for journals to become more robust and earn scientific merit beyond popularity
contests is to allow the wrong to be read, expose to criticism, and to right the wrongs
or point towards the open problems that were formulated.
They're not going to win popularity contests by publishing everything that crosses their
desk. The main service they provide is screening. So if you don't like arXiv's standards
you can go find some other site with different filters. But what you can't do (at least I
can't) is read everything. One of the advantages of being on a good mailing list like
this is occasionally getting pointed to interesting papers.
Everybody is expected to learn... But not scientific journals. And everybody smells the
irony. This strangles debate and promotes much more dependency journal x said blah, so
that must be right. The focus shifts from the questions, the work on them, towards
results. Reactions to novelty become crackpot by default, instead of sharpening
scientific attitude of wrestling what somebody new might have to say.
One of the important filters is to make sure that the somebody new actually says something
new and definite.
Brent
--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: The background to Edgar's book
On 12/31/2013 8:39 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: SR (actually GR for the twins since their clocks read different due to relative accelerations) explains perfectly why clock times can end up non-simultaneous Again you betray you lack of comprehension of relativity theory. The difference in proper time for the twins has nothing to do with acceleration, it's just a simple geometric consequence the fact that a broken line between two events is shorter than straight line between them. Brent -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: The background to Edgar's book
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').
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.
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.
John Mikes
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 3:35 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Edgar,
Have you written any peer-reviewed papers on your ideas? Most scientific
popularisations are written to explain a theory that has been worked out
mathematically (like David Deutsch's Fabric Of Reality) or which are the
product of long (and intense) discussions amongst scientists and
philosophers working in the relevant fields(s), which have often involved
substantial modification to the original ideas (like, I imagine, Russell
Standish's Theory Of Nothing). Or most likely both, in a lot of cases.
Only fictional works tend to be written entirely from the author's
imagination, without much in the way of feedback (I say much because
having done this myself I know that it's very hard *not* to solicit
feedback, and *not* to act on it to some extent. But I always try to bear
in mind this advice from Neil Gaiman: Remember: when people tell you
something's wrong or doesn't work for them, they are almost always right.
When they tell you exactly what they think is wrong and how to fix it, they
are almost always wrong.).
I hesitate to guess which of the above categories your magnum opus might
fall into.
--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: The background to Edgar's book
On 31 December 2013 10:38, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: The background to Edgar's book
John, and Liz,
Yes John is correct here. Without a current academic affiliation it's well
nigh impossible to be accepted for publication in a peer reviewed journal...
Sad but true...
Edgar
On Monday, December 30, 2013 4:38:40 PM UTC-5, JohnM 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').
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.
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.
John Mikes
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 3:35 PM, LizR liz...@gmail.com javascript:wrote:
Edgar,
Have you written any peer-reviewed papers on your ideas? Most scientific
popularisations are written to explain a theory that has been worked out
mathematically (like David Deutsch's Fabric Of Reality) or which are the
product of long (and intense) discussions amongst scientists and
philosophers working in the relevant fields(s), which have often involved
substantial modification to the original ideas (like, I imagine, Russell
Standish's Theory Of Nothing). Or most likely both, in a lot of cases.
Only fictional works tend to be written entirely from the author's
imagination, without much in the way of feedback (I say much because
having done this myself I know that it's very hard *not* to solicit
feedback, and *not* to act on it to some extent. But I always try to
bear in mind this advice from Neil Gaiman: Remember: when people tell you
something's wrong or doesn't work for them, they are almost always right.
When they tell you exactly what they think is wrong and how to fix it, they
are almost always wrong.).
I hesitate to guess which of the above categories your magnum opus might
fall into.
--
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 everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript:
.
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: The background to Edgar's book
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 jam...@gmail.com 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: The background to Edgar's book
On 31 December 2013 11:19, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Liz, You claim my theory of time is Newtonian but that just demonstrates your complete lack of understanding of the theory... It's just the simplest way to describe it. A common present moment is exactly how Newton envsiaged time. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: The background to Edgar's book
Hi John,
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').
It's interesting to read this. I agree that the current model of
peer-review leads to too much conservatism, and me-too papers are
much more likely to get approved than the ones with novel ideas. On
the other hand, there's only so much time to keep up with the
literature, so some amount of filtering is required.
Maybe the internet will eventually allow for better models, but then I
fear that it will turn into another form of a popularity contest.
Collective moderation tends to reward sensationalism and form over
substance
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.
I love to read the negative reviews that famous computer science
papers received:
http://www.fang.ece.ufl.edu/reject.html
Since we've been talking about Turing:
On Computable Numbers, with an Application to the Entscheidungs
Problem. This is a bizarre paper. It begins by defining a computing
device absolutely unlike anything I have seen, then proceeds to show—I
haven't quite followed the needlessly complicated formalism—that there
are numbers that it can't compute. As I see it, there are two
alternatives that apply to any machine that will ever be built: Either
these numbers are too big to be represented in the machine, in which
case the conclusion is obvious, or they are not; in that case, a
machine that can't compute them is simply broken!
Any tabulating machine worth its rent can compute all the values in
the range it represents, and any number computable by a function—that
is, by applying the four operations a number of times—can be computed
by any modern tabulating machine since these machines—unlike the one
proposed here with its bizarre mechanism——have the four operations
hardwired. It seems that the improvement proposed by Turing is not
an improvement over current technology at all, and I strongly suspect
the machine is too simple to be of any use.
If the article is accepted, Turing should remember that the language
of this journal is English and change the title accordingly.
I'm sure there are equivalents in every field.
While it does not support the 'new' ideas, it does not prove them wrong by
itself, either.
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.
Would you share that paper with us?
Cheers
Telmo.
John Mikes
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 3:35 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Edgar,
Have you written any peer-reviewed papers on your ideas? Most scientific
popularisations are written to explain a theory that has been worked out
mathematically (like David Deutsch's Fabric Of Reality) or which are the
product of long (and intense) discussions amongst scientists and
philosophers working in the relevant fields(s), which have often involved
substantial modification to the original ideas (like, I imagine, Russell
Standish's Theory Of Nothing). Or most likely both, in a lot of cases.
Only fictional works tend to be written entirely from the author's
imagination, without much in the way of feedback (I say much because
having done this myself I know that it's very hard not to solicit feedback,
and not to act on it to some extent. But I always try to bear in mind this
advice from Neil Gaiman: Remember: when people tell you something's wrong
or doesn't work for them, they are almost always right. When they tell you
exactly what they think is wrong and how to fix it, they are almost always
wrong.).
I hesitate to guess which of the above categories your magnum opus might
fall into.
--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit
