On Jul 18, 8:10 pm, OwlHoot <ravensd...@googlemail.com> wrote: > On Jul 14, 4:18 pm, "Tim Golden BandTech.com" <tttppp...@yahoo.com> > wrote: > > > On Jul 14, 10:15 am, OwlHoot <ravensd...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > > > [...] > > > > If one works on that assumption (and I fully concede it may be kooky) > > > then broadly speaking studying particle physics amounts to eludating > > > the conditions and symmetries under which particles don't or somehow > > > can't, or are least likely to, or are slowest to, go back and "murder > > > their ancestors". > > > The existence we lead seems to be more stable than your construction > > allows. To me this is a part of the fundamental puzzle that we should > > try to address. > > > [...] > > I'm sure you're right. I really just threw the idea up in > the air, with little conviction, to see what people might > make of it. > > > I have some heavier posts that are not in sci.math or > > sci.space.history groups of this thread you might like > > to read; they are in alt.philosophy and sci.physics and > > sci.logic. > > I'll try and check them out, but as I'm sure you're aware > the search function of Google Groups is completely broken. > So results are patchy to say the least. > > (I must have made thousands of maths & physics usenet > posts over the last 20 years; but only a handful show up > on Google Groups, although for some of the missing ones > that's no bad thing ;-) > > Actually, I prepared a longer reply, but this has now > reached epic lengths and I think would be better placed > on a blog I have just started. So I am currently working > on that and, FWIW, will post a link when ready.
Yes, I'd like to read your blog. The usenet is a distributed medium, and even if it mostly evaporates I think it is the finest uncensored format that exists. Anyone is free to pipe up with the stupidest of ideas. So long as the medium doesn't get destroyed then the crap that comes along is proof of its lack of censorship. The best that could be hoped for is that a culture of integrity could be formed here that would far exceed the journals. Here is exposed human nature and its weaknesses, which I submit are crucially important within the topics of science and math, so long as humans are constructing them.
The blogging thing is OK, though even if you own your own server, it is still not a distributed medium, and you have to be censor there. I think that here we make mistakes is a great thing, and the deletion of the mistakes is not helpful to the furtherance of science. If a topic is confusing even to a master, then shouldn't it be a prime candidate for a new theory? If one cannot own one's mistakes openly then also there is an integrity problem; the journals creep in here as reference standards of perfection that one cannot argue with, yet this ties directly back to that integrity problem. The accumulation and proliferation of those journals and their lack of accessibility, as well as their claim of ownership on thoughts strikes me as wrong. At times like this I entertain some conspiracy theory of a hidden science that is so dangerous that it is being protected from the public, yet this makes a joke of humanity. Even with the conspiracy falsified, the joke remains. We are so capable of following false belief systems that the ridicule we deserve from our descendants will equal that of Pythagoras. Still, if we don't carry on we won't get there. The prison we are in is not so bad, but to expose it cleanly the fundamentals are going to be rewritten; all the way down into simple math. We have some false assumptions down there somewhere such that the expressions we construct are in an inherently flawed language. This premise helps cast the opening. Deconstruction is also entertaining, and since it causes one to go back over the simplest things from scratch it is a healthy thing for an older mind, though the point is to break it open, too, which may take a younger mind. So long as the younger minds are only trained in mimicry then we will not be giving them enough room to find the next step.