Re: [Fis] [FIS] A Curious Story

[Jerry LR Chandler]

Dear  Otto: 

> On Jan 11, 2017, at 5:05 AM, Otto E. Rossler  > wrote:
> 
> But as convincing as this may be, it is still not my main point. My main and 
> real point is: CERN refuses to update its official safety report LSAG for 
> exactly as long.
> 
> But there is an even more disturbing point. IF an organization openly refuses 
> to contradict evidence of committing a crime (even the biggest of history), 
> it is very very strange in my own eyes at least that no one in the world, 
> from the media to the profession, from Europe to Africa to America to Asia, 
> is even able to spot this fact as deserving to be alleviated or at least 
> publicly discussed. 
> 
> Can anyone in this illustrious round offer an excuse or explanation for this 
> historically unique phenomenon? 
> (Understanding is sometimes more important than surviving -- right? Forgive 
> me the pun.)
> 
> I am very grateful for the discussion,
> take care, everyone,
> Otto

I will offer some opinions that are related to the  “public” philosophy of 
science policy.  At the end, I will raise a question about the philosophy of 
epistemic mathematics as it manifests itself in the epistemology of physical 
“models” of natural phenomenological events.

My personal experience with the interface between “doing” experimental 
molecular biology and “doing” legally-enforcable public health standards lasted 
over a decade during my service in the US  Public Health Service.  

The vast gaps between specific experimental evidence and the subsequent 
emission of a public statements by senior government officials necessarily 
require a shift from the study of nature to the projections of future social 
behaviors.  The simple example of what I speak is the biological evidence for a 
physical-chemical structure to cause cancer in animals and the removal of that 
particular physical-chemical structure from commerce.  Vinyl chloride is one of 
many such examples where the professional communities preformed a “Risk 
Analysis” that resulted in restricting Vinyl Chloride usage.  In the early 
1980’s I was one of the founding members of the Society for Risk Analysis which 
seeks to illuminate the murky areas between scientific information and public 
policy.   

see: http://www.sra.org  
Risk analysis is broadly defined to include risk assessment, risk 
characterization, risk communication, risk management, and policy relating to 
risk. Our interests include risks to human health and the environment, both 
built and natural. We consider threats from physical, chemical, and biological 
agents and from a variety of human activities as well as natural events. We 
analyze risks of concern to individuals, to public- and private-sector 
organizations, and to society at various geographic scales. Our membership is 
multidisciplinary and international.

Of course, the biological example is remote from the issues of risk analysis 
for CERN experiments, but many parallels exist.   The SRA journal articles may 
provide you deeper insights into "what is going on" behind the public facades.

With regard to your specific concern 
> Can anyone in this illustrious round offer an excuse or explanation for this 
> historically unique phenomenon?

I suggest that at least three principle possibilities exist:

1. Senior CERN officials have evaluated you assertions and rejected them as 
implausible. 

2. Senior CERN officials have evaluated your assertions and accepted the 
mathematical truths but consider the risk to be so minuscule that this risk 
(and your logic) can be ignored.

3. Senior CERN officials have evaluated your assertions and accepted your 
conclusions and have no plausible counter-arguments to the calculated levels of 
risk. Therefore, silence.

I would note that as public officials, senior CERN officials are keenly aware 
of the potential of a detailed risk analysis of experiments could endanger the 
continued public funding of CERN.

The reason the situation is “curious”, as you so adroitly express the current 
stalemate, is because of the deep, deep, deep traditions of the scientific 
community to insist upon the free thought, free speech, free discussions on 
matter of public policy, public risk analysis, …

Thus, I see this “curious” behavior as a political problem that can be 
addressed by seeking a political solution that respects scientific traditions 
and hence, to motivate senior CERN officials to act honorably in the best 
interests of all.


Now, for a comment about epistemic mathematics.  These thoughts are remote from 
the specific issues regarding the risk of local black holes.  These are generic 
w.r.t. the nature of scientific information its communication through logically 
distinctive symbol systems.

For my research on health risk analysis, I undertook a detailed study of the 
origin of scientific units of measure. By way of background, economic units of 
measure are 

Re: [Fis] Fw: A Curious Story

[Pedro C. Marijuan]

Dear Joseph, Bob, and Otto --and All,

Thanks for the responses. First to Joseph and Bob: my interpretation of 
Conrad's is not literal, at least at the time being, as I think that the 
information themes are changing very fast in the quantum --recent 
interpretations of entanglement and black holes by the group IT FROM 
QUBIT say extremely interesting "generative" things about 
space-time-info and cosmology. See Juan Maldacena (Sci. Am. Nov. 2016) 
and Clara Moskowitz (Sci.Am. Jan. 2017). The way I take Conrad's is as a 
call to a new way of thinking on physical information, biologically 
inspired, rather than the common opposite direction. And also I extend 
it to reconsider the nature of physical reality and of "laws of nature" 
themselves--the distributed "genomes" of this cosmos. Our recurrent 
discussions on what's info cannot consolidate until we adumbrate a good 
portion of such new way of thinking--I am not criticizing them, but 
asking for augmented doses of tolerance and patience. Let me be a little 
provocative: none of us has walked yet the extra mile(s) needed. We have 
to recognize that we are far from the new info paradigm and must keep 
circling around Jericho walls...


Unless until the little thing that Otto is warning knocks in our doors. 
I cannot respond to the symmetry difference and to the probability 
arguments--the main question to debate indeed. Sure that the previous 
scientific generation would have entered nonchalantly to this debate. 
But not the business-politics oriented figures of today (social networks 
panic). Well, at least I can comment on the last paragraphs on the 
framework surrounding the frustrated discussion. The global health and 
adaptability of the scientific enterprise seem to be in jeopardy. 
Coincidentally, we are lead to remind Conrad's tradeoff between 
computation and adaptability/evolvability? As computing has enormously 
increased its efficiency and social reach, the social adaptability via 
new thought and new research is decreasing and surrounding itself in a 
tunnel vision. See for instance what are the coming flagship programs in 
the EUnion after the Human Brain Project: "Future of [digital] 
Healthcare" and "Robot Companions for Citizens." Yeah, a lot of people 
--elderly-- will be alone: let's make nice robots for them. Even they 
will learn to smile and laugh, and we will create bonds with them as the 
Szilamandee paper from Otto says--and also my own research on laughter 
(see link below). Techno-pseudo-happiness for everybody... Yes, fresh 
new views from social science and humanities would have plenty to say.


Best wishes--Pedro
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/K-02-2016-0026


El 21/01/2017 a las 9:32, Joseph Brenner escribió:

Dear Pedro and All,
Thanks to Pedro again for this thought-provoking theme. We are all in 
states of greater or lesser ignorance regarding it!
Here is just, again, a thought about your quote of Conrad: "/when we 
look at a biological system we/ are looking at the face of the 
underlying /physics of the universe/."
I.M.H.O., this statement is true but only partially so. There are 
non-thermodynamic parts of the underlying physics of the universe that 
are not visible at the biological level of reality, and a coupling 
between them remains to be demonstrated. Quantum superposition and 
self-duality have analogies in macroscopic physics, but quantum 
non-locality and sub-quantum fluctuations do not.
Of course, if you allow slightly altered laws of nature, many things 
may be possible as Smolin suggests. However, I suggest that the domain 
of interaction between actual and potential states in our everyday 
'grown-up' world also has things to tell us, /e.g./, about 
information, that can be looked at more easily.

Best wishes,
Joseph
- Original Message -
*From:* Pedro C. Marijuan 
*To:* 'fis' 
*Sent:* Friday, January 20, 2017 1:58 PM
*Subject:* Re: [Fis] A Curious Story

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 

Re: [Fis] [Sadhu Sanga] Physics hype ...

[Andrew Fingelkurts / BM-Science]

 

Dear All,

 

In relation to the below mentioned “any non-linear thermodynamical system
actually increases to develop a singularity which is followed

by the reorganization of the system through negative entropy, following the
destruction of the  system in its previous form” we would like to comment
that exactly the same principle is observed in the nested hierarchy of the
brain electromagnetic field that supports the nested hierarchy of mentality
and consciousness in particular (for a complete description and discussion,
please see  http://www.bm-science.com/team/art76.pdf)

 

Greetings,

Andrew and Alexander

 

 

From: Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Diego Lucio
Rapoport
Sent: Monday, 23 January, 2017 05:28
To: online_sadhu_sa...@googlegroups.com; squ...@gotsky.com; Jeremy
Dunning-Davies
Cc: fis; bjf...@sciences.demon.co.uk; cont...@howgravityworks.org
Subject: Re: [Fis] [Sadhu Sanga] Physics hype ...

 

Dear Colleagues

Returning to the issue discussed by Dr Rich Norman  of the validity of the
second law of thermodynamics in relation to biology where negative entropy
drives

systems to self-organize, I would like to comment that any non-linear
thermodynamical system actually increases to develop a singularity which is
followed

by the reorganization of the system through negative entropy, following the
destruction of the  system in its previous form.


This is related to the non-orientability -say Mobius strip- of the
compactified complex number system as discussed in
https://www.academia.edu/30485983/Klein_Bottle_Logophysics_Self-reference_He
terarchies_Genomic_Topologies_Harmonics_and_Evolution._Part_I_Morphomechanic
s_Space_and_Time_in_Biology_and_Physics_Cognition_Non-Linearity_and_the_Stru
cture_of_Uncertainty

and the implications to chemistry, biology, cognition, metamathematics,
genomics and evolution are discussed in


https://www.academia.edu/30546256/Klein_Bottle_Logophysics_Self-reference_He
terarchies_Genomic_Topologies_Harmonics_and_Evolution._Part_II_Non-orientabi
lity_Cognition_Chemical_Topology_and_Eversions_in_Nature

https://www.academia.edu/30518156/Klein_Bottle_Logophysics_Self-reference_He
terarchies_Genomic_Topologies_Harmonics_and_Evolution._Part_III_The_Klein_Bo
ttle_Logic_of_Genomics_and_its_Dynamics_Quantum_Information_Complexity_and_P
alindromic_Repeats_in_Evolution

Best regards

Diego Rapoport






w). Thank you for starting this topic, Dr. Ford.  Your piece is correct by
my estimation, and fits quite exactly with many statements in our new book.
[Are you familiar with Bechamp?…that chalk sir! You may request a paper
which makes tangible use of physics within cell biology.  Those were
stunning images in your paper.]  There is a great deal of this rot in
physics and cosmology.  Before I begin a new thread concerning causality, I
must add my sad approval to the exhausted refrain below, which did not
offend me in any way.  The situation in my broken country and the world
inspires such painful honesty.  I will put a link to a paper concerning
gravitation which is in keeping, added below the following comment by Eric
Sabo, and then a possible explanation.  

 

“At CERN and Fermilab, no two collisions are exactly the same.

Their efforts are a waste of time as any particles they create only last
nanoseconds and then they "evaporate".

 

The really odd thing is not one physicist at those facilities ever ask
"Where did they evaporate to?"...

(The only logical answer is, back to the Aether.) It's just a jobs program
for physicists.

 

What's really odd is they pat themselves on the backs and hand out Nobel
Prizes for their efforts.

I see the real benefit of those projects is that it's all good magnet
R (For future Antimatter Containment)

 

. . . .Residing in the urban environment give me the impression that the
stupid people have propagated out of control.

And, every one of them has the right to exist. and vote!... (There's
no hope for Humanity.)”

 

You sir, are right!
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/310845151_Practical_and_theoretical
_assessment_of_relativistic_theory_v_2?ev=prf_pub

 

I have just completed a book detailing a great deal of this kind of thing.
A LONG book, gentlemen!  Science hype, and deception.  Just look at all that
overstatement and deception.  Have you read the papers debunking LIGO?  Here
is our new book Beyond the Veil: Deception, truth and the hidden promise of
science.

 

https://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Veil-Deception-Thoughts-Conventional/dp/154111
7409/ref=sr_1_1?s=books

=UTF8=1483385806=1-1

 

Here is a new thought for you:

 

Does the second law of thermodynamics imply by necessity the social
turbulence we see all around us?  The answer is no, entropy increase itself
does not imply social discord as a necessary consequence.  Biological life
is itself an expression of