Why is there so much crackpot physics?

[Dancing David]

So BurntSynapse, what are the answers?

"I ask, what tool specifically are you thinking of. You made the claim, what tool, cognitive or technological should be considered that aren't?"
[iteration 2]

What tools?

 

[The Man]

I respect and appreciate such efforts, they do you credit and I thank you.

No problem.

As indicated before, I'm unaware of where this dependency is explicitly specified in this manner, but if we were planning, I would advocate it be restated to prevent the misinterpretation mentioned before: "If (FTL possible state of nature exists) then (successful accomplishment)", which would be invalid. We can only be certain that if (no FTL possible state of nature exists) then (no successful accomplishment)".

Again it is explicitly stated in “vision of success”. What is being visualized is explicitly the success, which was explicitly stated before.

No one but you represented the “misinterpretation mentioned before:”

"Involves" seems too vague to give a simple and non-misleading yes or no. I'd like to provide a clear yes or no that you probably would also like, but to do so I need to be addressing a question specific enough that the answer is meaningful and not misleading.

OK, sorry, I tried to make the meaning as clear as I could but expected it might still have some ambiguity and even explained another variation much further down, let’s see if that is clearer.

Fundamentally I was asking if your vision of success required its own failure and was thus self-contradictory. In that case the “FTL possible state of nature” is irrelevant.

It matters also whether "accomplishing" refers to a future state of nature or refers to something in a vision we use "simply as irreducible posits comparable, epistemologically, to the gods of Homer" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willard_Van_Orman_Quine#Confirmation_holism_and_ontological_relativity)

It refers to both as again the “vision” is “of success”.

My claim is that positing the future state allowing FTL offers benefits of a similar class to those which have historically been obtained from positing the gods of Homer, heliocentrism, and Newton's laws during their day.

Great, so your “claim” and I guess vision doesn't involve “the future state” not “allowing FTL”. See it wasn't so hard to answer after all.

Yes it does seem to imply this, whether the implication is valid or not. This is why the language of logic and philosophy is so nit-picky. I'm not trying to sidestep anything by distinguishing a vision, adopting a vision, and accomplishing a vision, and so forth, I just hope to be as clear as I can.

Oh, you mean like “distinguishing a vision” “of success” form one of failure.

“adopting a vision” “of success”

“and accomplishing a vision” “of success”, by, well, succeeding.

“Logic and philosophy” aren't the only things “so nit-picky”.

So what are you trying to side step, a “relationship” with no dependence (mutual or otherwise)?

I don't think I explicitly claimed that, but I think I'd certainly agree that we are free to choose a vision dependent on anything, but I think we should use potential productivity to select our visions. If being irrational looks like it could be really productive, I think deciding to be irrational could be justified. Whether this applies to any particular situation is another question.

Great, so one can choose “a vision of success” that is dependent on "uncontrollable future events", who would have guessed.

If by "vision" you mean "holding or selecting a particular vision" I disagree. I think my claim only asserts a particular state is a necessary condition for success in accomplishing the vision, but it is mute on whether framing our work by that vision is productive. I wouldn't agree with the claim that my example demonstrates our ability to hold a "vision of success" does or should depend on the "state of nature" in the way you suggest.

So "vision of success" isn't “a particular vision” in that it is at least distinguishable form ‘a vision of failure’?

Say what happened to “not trying to sidestep anything by distinguishing a vision” are you now trying to sidestep “distinguishing a vision”?

Look a “vision of success” in “finding unicorns” is particular to “success” in “finding unicorns” just as a “vision of success” in FTL travel is particular to “success” in FTL travel. (unless of course in that vision FTL travel requires finding and riding unicorns).

Now I do understand that you are probably trying to assert that it is not a vision of a particular method of success, but no one here has claimed that.

Agreed.

Good.

Sure.

Excellent.

Yes, this holds true if the dependency referred to is "successful accomplishment of the vision".

And a “vision of success” refers to what…



Its OK you can say it…



“successful accomplishment”.

While perhaps not referring to a particular means of success (of course depending on the vision ) it does refer explicitly to the success.

No: We are free to hold completely delusional visions of success (involving unicorns or Gods on Mt. Olympus) without any observational verification. In 1951, Quine began arguing the value of a vision or theory is in its utility for progress and prediction. He rejects Popper's falsifiability based on the observation that people can save any belief, (no matter how ridiculous), "given sufficiently radical modifications of the containing theory". This seems plausible to me, especially after discussions with my sister about astrology.

No one here argued the “the value of a vision” or claimed one is not “free to hold completely delusional visions” In fact I gave examples of such.

However, if you are going to claim that said “visions” don’t depend on what is being visualized then you just fail at your “so nit-picky ““distinguishing a vision” stage.

I agree such a proposition seems non-sensical.

Good as that was the other example I felt would be more clear.

If, at a decision point, we take an outcome to be certain when it depends on both our decisions/actions and an unknown future state (and perhaps other things), then our decision based on that is considered a bad decision.

Well taking the unknown as certain would be contradictory, but that wasn't what you asserted before.

Since we cannot know at the decision point (purchase) whether a ticket wins, appealing to a future unknown as a justification for doing anything would be a mistake.

The reason I don't see this position as contradictory is that I argue we should not assume such certainty. My position is one of cautious optimism, with emphasis on the caution.

“Such certainty”, about what?
Oh if only there was a word to express such an appeal that ”we should not assume such certainty”. I guess it will have to remain “unknown”.

For example, using extreme care monitoring for any signs of defects in the vision or defects in our approach, as is a best practice for successfully accomplishing complex goals.


There's been decades of wrestling with rules for good science that are not to tight, excluding productive science, nor to loose that would allow astrology to gain status as a legitimate science.

So what, it doesn't address the point being made of you contradicting yourself.

Your objection is quite true, but if we can see that some productive cognitive frameworks in the history science that would have been tossed out by only allowing known possibilities, this rule might seem too tight.

What “objection is quite true”? My actually objection, that you have and continue to present your position in a self-contradictory manor or some other “objection” that you would just like to ascribe to me?

Of course, if my (or any) recommendation is overly risky, unreliable, and/or unproductive we would want to be able to clearly tell. Based on the continuing debates around explanation and causation, this demarcation problem doesn't seem to have especially well resolved rules.

Yep, some other “objection” as I surmised.

I'm trying pretty hard...how am I doing?

Unfortunately, overall, not very well. You spent so much time and effort trying to chew on the burned up dried out skin (that you wrapped all this in) by the time you got down to the meat and bones you didn't seem to have much left. Now at least you did finally try to sink some teeth into that part.

If, at a decision point, we take an outcome to be certain when it depends on both our decisions/actions and an unknown future state (and perhaps other things), then our decision based on that is considered a bad decision.

Is a much better assertion for one trying to cite the advantages of exploring the unknown (as you seem to be) than the previous assertion…

Since we cannot know at the decision point (purchase) whether a ticket wins, appealing to a future unknown as a justification for doing anything would be a mistake.

However, then you close by seemingly agreeing with an objection perhaps someone else, if not you, (certainly not me) made that you don’t really seem to agree with.


I congratulate you on finding a more self-consistent way of framing that previous assertion and I certainly do appreciate the effort.

 

[Perpetual Student]

This thread is providing more insight into crackpot types. Crackpot ideas come in a variety of forms. In this thread, for example, we have Farsight's idea that an electron is a photon in a double loop -- in the face of overwhelming contradictory evidence. Another example, of a very different species, is BurntSynapse's notion that we can overturn the known laws of physics and achieve faster than light travel through superior project management. Although quite different in approach, both these ideas register quite high on the crackpot scale.

 

[Jono]

http://blog.darkbuzz.com/

Schlafly (yes he's one of Phyllis sons) has a tendency to hold a bit cranky-pottery views every now and then. He's also one of those who champions the cause of replacing Einstein with Poincaré, believing that the former is basically credited for what the latter did.

 

[BurntSynapse]

So BurntSynapse, what are the answers?

"I ask, what tool specifically are you thinking of. You made the claim, what tool, cognitive or technological should be considered that aren't?"
[iteration 2]

What tools?

See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yu05gAi3UE @5:36 where you can have what, IMO, is an important tool waved across your screen, and I explain what I see as key, relevant points.

This short book (CSoSR) is similar to resources NSB members told me had not been incorporated into planning, which they thought was unwise. As I said before, "ignored" may have been used.

I think this is the 3rd time I've addressed this.

 

[BurntSynapse]

Again it is explicitly stated in “vision of success”. What is being visualized is explicitly the success, which was explicitly stated before.

That's true, but you've swapped the meaning of "it" in the first sentence above. You claimed the dependency of our selection of a vision on an unknown state of nature was explicit. I stand by my prior answer to that question.

No one but you represented the “misinterpretation mentioned before:”

It seemed appropriate, since there were so many claims that I supported the opposite of my actual opinion.

OK, sorry, I tried to make the meaning as clear as I could but expected it might still have some ambiguity and even explained another variation much further down, let’s see if that is clearer.

Fundamentally I was asking if your vision of success required its own failure and was thus self-contradictory. In that case the “FTL possible state of nature” is irrelevant.

Cool, thanks.

BurntSynapse" "It matters also whether "accomplishing" refers to a future state of nature or refers to..."

It refers to both as again the “vision” is “of success”.

I've started a reply to this 3 times now...enough to convince me I'm not understanding the meaning.

I think if we always stick to some long form of the terms which distinguishes clearly between concepts, it would help. Are we talking about the success we envision, the possible future state of nature where we have accomplished success by realizing our vision, the possible future state of nature that allows realization, the possible state that does not allow successful realization, etc.? Knowing what is being asked, I make a decent effort to respond sensibly at least.

One thing that I'm uncertain is clear is sort of a hidden agenda lurking in the background: I don't believe the primary value of a focus on establishing FTL capability oriented research would be that we could build a Starship Enterprise. It seems much more likely that better productivity and other benefits from new theoretical models would be, in the future, deemed much more significant...if the history of science is any guide.

Great, so your “claim” and I guess vision doesn't involve “the future state” not “allowing FTL”. See it wasn't so hard to answer after all.

If one chooses to ignore http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referent#Potential_ambiguity, quite true. In this case, you seem to want to, I don't think it has served the discussion well, and choose avoid what seemed recurring problems.

Oh, you mean like “distinguishing a vision” “of success” form one of failure.

No, since I've never observed a need for it, nor a mention in the literature, and I've never seen such a thing. It seems like a solution for a non-existent problem.

So what are you trying to side step, a “relationship” with no dependence (mutual or otherwise)?

Trying to sidestep confusion, errors, unproductive discussion...

Great, so one can choose “a vision of success” that is dependent on "uncontrollable future events", who would have guessed.

If we are interested in consciously choosing to make bad decisions, I suppose. My description assumed constraints of good decisions, but in a political, free-speech sort of way, we are perfectly free to make as bad a decision as we like.

The point is valid under those conditions.

So "vision of success" isn't “a particular vision” in that it is at least distinguishable form ‘a vision of failure’?

It could be.

Say what happened to “not trying to sidestep anything by distinguishing a vision” are you now trying to sidestep “distinguishing a vision”?

Not AFAIK.

Look a “vision of success” in “finding unicorns” is particular to “success” in “finding unicorns” just as a “vision of success” in FTL travel is particular to “success” in FTL travel. (unless of course in that vision FTL travel requires finding and riding unicorns).

Now I do understand that you are probably trying to assert that it is not a vision of a particular method of success, but no one here has claimed that.

That seems pretty close.

And a “vision of success” refers to what…

The image we hold in our minds of a future state that guides our problem-solving creativity.

Its OK you can say it…“successful accomplishment”.

True, I'm free to say that in the political sense just as I'm free to utter any falsehood, but it would be misleading and likely to create confusion, IMO.

While perhaps not referring to a particular means of success (of course depending on the vision ) it does refer explicitly to the success.

Referent ambiguity raises it's ugly head again...<sigh>

"The success" as a thing to which our vision of the future refers, exists as a referent in our brains. The future state referred to by our vision does not exist at the time we select our vision as anything but an imaginary construct in our brains. While we are politically free to assert and believe with absolute certainty that we know this future outcome, that it is actually real and not unknown, etc.; In decision theory, these actions would be mistakes, and are one of the most common types, as discussed before.

No one here argued the “the value of a vision” or claimed one is not “free to hold completely delusional visions” In fact I gave examples of such.

Agreed.

However, if you are going to claim that said “visions” don’t depend on what is being visualized then you just fail at your “so nit-picky ““distinguishing a vision” stage.

Agreed - hence we should make clear whether we mean our vision, the object of our vision as existing in a known future state (mistake), etc.

Good as that was the other example I felt would be more clear.


Well taking the unknown as certain would be contradictory, but that wasn't what you asserted before.

I hope the information on referent ambiguity clears this up.

“Such certainty”, about what?

In history of science, important examples would include certainty of the real existence of that upon which a theory depends, like "crystal spheres", "separate species", "aether". For us today: assuming the reality of that to which the term "spacetime dimensions" refers is this type of error, not in and of itself necessarily, but because the assumption is undocumented.

This lack of explicit documentation leads research to focus on answering specific questions without monitoring for risk indicators that model assumptions are wrong.

The focus is exclusively on, for example, answering "Does nature have more than four spacetime dimensions? If so, what is their size? Are dimensions a fundamental property of the universe or an emergent result of other physical laws? Can we experimentally "see" evidence of higher spatial dimensions?"

Oh if only there was a word to express such an appeal that ”we should not assume such certainty”. I guess it will have to remain “unknown”.

I don't know about a word, though much of PMBOK Chapter 11 applies to best practices for handling this.

 

[godless dave]

Once again, the existence of four spacetime dimensions is not an assumption, it was a conclusion based on work done in the late 19th and early 20th Century.

The possible existence of more (not higher) dimensions is a possibility raised by M theory.

 

[The Man]

That's true, but you've swapped the meaning of "it" in the first sentence above. You claimed the dependency of our selection of a vision on an unknown state of nature was explicit. I stand by my prior answer to that question.

Nope I neither “swapped the meaning of "it"” nor made such a claim.

In "a vision of success", what is being visualized (the success) is the “accomplishment ” , FTL travel in this case, and thus explicitly dependent that “state of nature”. Is your claim now that your “vision of success" (for FTL travel) involves not accomplishing FTL travel?

Again what is explicit is what is being visualized, in this case “success” in FTL travel.

If you want to try to apply a reference to a particular case as a general claim of your own choosing then that is your claim and no one else’s.

For example I could envision myself as being born Australian, throwing shrimps on the barbi, drinking Fosters and participating in the Australian only thread. Such vision does not depend any future unknown state of nature, as the ‘state’ I was born in is already well known.

It seemed appropriate, since there were so many claims that I supported the opposite of my actual opinion.

Unfortunately that can be expected if one presents their position in a self-contradictory manor.

Cool, thanks.

No problem.

I've started a reply to this 3 times now...enough to convince me I'm not understanding the meaning.

I think if we always stick to some long form of the terms which distinguishes clearly between concepts, it would help. Are we talking about the success we envision, the possible future state of nature where we have accomplished success by realizing our vision, the possible future state of nature that allows realization, the possible state that does not allow successful realization, etc.? Knowing what is being asked, I make a decent effort to respond sensibly at least.

Again it depends on what is (hopefully explicitly) being envisioned.

One thing that I'm uncertain is clear is sort of a hidden agenda lurking in the background: I don't believe the primary value of a focus on establishing FTL capability oriented research would be that we could build a Starship Enterprise. It seems much more likely that better productivity and other benefits from new theoretical models would be, in the future, deemed much more significant...if the history of science is any guide.

Well that’s a different “vision” one of “a hidden agenda lurking in the background” and it seems just more “theoretical” research.

If one chooses to ignore http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referent#Potential_ambiguity, quite true. In this case, you seem to want to, I don't think it has served the discussion well, and choose avoid what seemed recurring problems.

Ignore it? How? I even asserted that I expected the question to potentialy come off as ambiguous, though you seem to have gotten the gist of it.

No, since I've never observed a need for it, nor a mention in the literature, and I've never seen such a thing. It seems like a solution for a non-existent problem.

Well if you don’t understand the need for it and why it might not be mentioned in the literature then you do have an existent problem.

I’ll give you a hint: It has to do with one of the axioms I mentioned some pages ago.

Trying to sidestep confusion, errors, unproductive discussion...

…and the implications of a “relationship”, evidently.

If we are interested in consciously choosing to make bad decisions, I suppose. My description assumed constraints of good decisions, but in a political, free-speech sort of way, we are perfectly free to make as bad a decision as we like.

The point is valid under those conditions.

Would those be the constraints you asserted before…

Since we cannot know at the decision point (purchase) whether a ticket wins, appealing to a future unknown as a justification for doing anything would be a mistake.

Or the later version?

If, at a decision point, we take an outcome to be certain when it depends on both our decisions/actions and an unknown future state (and perhaps other things), then our decision based on that is considered a bad decision.

It could be.

And hopefully is otherwise it is just self-contradictory

Not AFAIK.

Your lack of knowledge does not preclude you from doing so and by your assertion before…

No, since I've never observed a need for it, nor a mention in the literature, and I've never seen such a thing. It seems like a solution for a non-existent problem.

you do seem aware of that.

That seems pretty close.

Good.

The image we hold in our minds of a future state that guides our problem-solving creativity.

Guides us to what?

True, I'm free to say that in the political sense just as I'm free to utter any falsehood, but it would be misleading and likely to create confusion, IMO.

Given your propensity for creating confusion just about your own position perhaps you need to examine that truth and in a context not dependent on your particular “political sense” vision asserted above.

Referent ambiguity raises it's ugly head again...<sigh>

"The success" as a thing to which our vision of the future refers, ….

See, I knew you could say it, without that “political sense” vision you were holding.

…exists as a referent in our brains.

Thus making just it a vision.

The future state referred to by our vision does not exist at the time we select our vision as anything but an imaginary construct in our brains.

Let me guess it was the word “future” that gave it away for you?

In this vision is that “future state” envisioned to be just “an imaginary construct in our brains”? If so then the vision can be just a tautology becoming its own success. If not then what is envisioned is when/if “The future state referred to by our vision does” “exist” as not just “an imaginary construct in our brains”.

While we are politically free to assert and believe with absolute certainty that we know this future outcome, that it is actually real and not unknown, etc.; In decision theory, these actions would be mistakes, and are one of the most common types, as discussed before.

Again asserting the unknown as known is just self-contradictory even outside of “decision theory”.

Look just because what one may be envisioning is when/if “The future state referred to by our vision does” “exist” as not just “an imaginary construct in our brains” doesn’t mean one must be hold the unknown as known

Agreed.

OK.

Agreed - hence we should make clear whether we mean our vision, the object of our vision as existing in a known future state (mistake), etc.

Well, again sometimes (as stated above) “our vision,” is of “ the object of our vision as existing in a known future state”. What seems to be tripping you up is the currently unknown part and that envisioning it will/may be known in the future in no way implies or infers that it is known now (as again that would be just self-contradictory)

I hope the information on referent ambiguity clears this up.

Clear what up? That you’ve changed your assertion to make it more consistent with your other stated positions. How would that help? There was nothing ambiguous about your previous assertion and if you just misspoke yourself that doesn’t make that assertion or its referances now ambiguous.

In history of science, important examples would include certainty of the real existence of that upon which a theory depends, like "crystal spheres", "separate species", "aether". For us today: assuming the reality of that to which the term "spacetime dimensions" refers is this type of error, not in and of itself necessarily, but because the assumption is undocumented.

Well I’m certain many scientists are certain that scientists certainly have been wrong before.

What “assumption is undocumented”? The axioms of Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory
are well documented.

See here you go again “For us today: assuming the reality of that to which the term "spacetime dimensions" refers is this type of error, not in and of itself necessarily, but because the assumption is undocumented.”
So It is that type of error but “not in and of itself necessarily” because evidently you just don’t know “because the assumption is undocumented.”?
Look if you didn’t/don’t know what such certainty was being assumed you just don’t know what you’re arguing.

This lack of explicit documentation leads research to focus on answering specific questions without monitoring for risk indicators that model assumptions are wrong.

Read some sometime, there is an awful lot of documentation out there and it tends to be extremely explicit (as well as well reference to other extremely explicit mounds of documentation), even those “that model assumptions are wrong”.

The focus is exclusively on, for example, answering "Does nature have more than four spacetime dimensions? If so, what is their size? Are dimensions a fundamental property of the universe or an emergent result of other physical laws? Can we experimentally "see" evidence of higher spatial dimensions?"

Well given your ‘exclusive’ focus seems fairly inclusive (dimension wise anyway) what exactly would you expect dimensional research to focus on, inclusively that is?

I don't know about a word, though much of PMBOK Chapter 11 applies to best practices for handling this.

See here’s the problem if you want to cite a book and chapter as being helpful for you in this area of discussion you have to actually convince others it has at least helped you in this area. Being self-inconsistent and generally inconsistent doesn’t help do that.

 

[ben m]

See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yu05gAi3UE @5:36 where you can have what, IMO, is an important tool waved across your screen, and I explain what I see as key, relevant points.

This short book (CSoSR) is similar to resources NSB members told me had not been incorporated into planning, which they thought was unwise. As I said before, "ignored" may have been used.

I think this is the 3rd time I've addressed this.

Thomas Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" is a retrospective history of some past scientific revolutions. It provides no advice whatsoever on how to engineer, plan, or project-manage an upcoming revolution.

I repeat the formulation I've used above. When my project-manager walks into my office and says "Task #101 has a resource conflict with Task #102", I turn that into an action---I reschedule Task 102, or find new resources for it. When my project-manager walks into my office and says "Task #500 is going to slip unless we can break its dependence on Task #481; can it get those inputs from somewhere else?", I can try to turn that into an action.

You walk into Ed Witten's office with a copy of Kuhn.
Burnt: "We need to be aware of a potential revolution in spacetime physics."
Witten: "Uh huh."
Burnt: "Thomas Kuhn says that things that look like minor anomalies today sometimes turn out to be paradigm shift hints."
Witten: "Yep. We know."
Burnt: "So you should be working in that direction."
Witten: "We're working in every direction, including that one."
Burnt: "But, more so, in a more project-managed way."
Witten: "Go ahead and manage then."
Burnt: "Like, um, take the collection of anomalies and look at them together."
Witten: "Already happening. It's what physicists do. What else?"
Burnt: "And look at each individually with an open mind."
Witten: "Been doing that. Lots of progress. Many past anomalies, indeed, turned out to be minor anomalies. Others are still interesting. And?"
Burnt: "And don't assume that FTL is impossible."
Witten: "We don't. Open mind, remember?"
Burnt: "Are people looking at dark matter? Dark energy? The CNGS superluminal neutrinos? Black holes?"
Witten: "Yes; yes; yes for a while but the neutrinos were remeasured and shown not to be superluminal; yes."
Burnt: "With an open mind? Not assuming FTL is impossible."
Witten: "Yes. Please go away."
Burnt: "What! And leave you without a project manager? Think of the risk!"

This is what we're asking for, Burnt. You walk into Ed Witten's office with a copy of Kuhn. What happens next, in your mind?

 

[lpetrich]

godless dave, the idea of additional space-time dimensions was proposed in the 1920's by Theodor Kaluza and Oskar Klein.

They imagined a fifth one that is wrapped around in a tiny circle. They found that it splits the space-time metric into three parts: the familiar 4D one, a vector field, and a scalar field.

More recent work on KK mechanisms has usually featured more extra dimensions, like 6 (superstrings) or 7 (M-theory).


That reminds me of another odd opinion. Farsight has claimed that a lot of mainstream speculations are nothing but crackpottery: supersymmetry, string theory, multiverses, ... This is because there is supposedly no evidence for any of these.

 

[ben m]

For us today: assuming the reality of that to which the term "spacetime dimensions" refers is this type of error, not in and of itself necessarily, but because the assumption is undocumented.

This lack of explicit documentation leads research to focus on answering specific questions without monitoring for risk indicators that model assumptions are wrong.

This is getting interesting. What makes you think that "spacetime dimensions" is undocumented? I crack open my copy of Misner Thorne and Wheeler (a popular GR textbook) and find a step-by-step discussion of ways of understanding spacetime dimensionality, including a preview of caveats and interpretive issues, on page 10. I find a long discussion of "pregeometry", quoting people like Wheeler and Sakharov, running from page 1203 to 1217, which does NOT assume that 4D spacetime is really an underlying reality; it's a discussion of whether spacetime is itself emergent from something less intuitive.

The focus is exclusively on, for example, answering "Does nature have more than four spacetime dimensions? If so, what is their size? Are dimensions a fundamental property of the universe or an emergent result of other physical laws? Can we experimentally "see" evidence of higher spatial dimensions?"

Nope. That's one focus; in particular it's a focus of certain versions of string theory. In more ADS/CfT-like theories, we think about strongly-coupled 3-D theories for which our 4D world is the weakly-coupled holographic dual. In other stringy theories, the phenomenology doesn't recognize a distinction between "extra spatial dimensions" and "extra scalar degrees of freedom". And so on.

 

[The Man]

This thread is providing more insight into crackpot types. Crackpot ideas come in a variety of forms. In this thread, for example, we have Farsight's idea that an electron is a photon in a double loop -- in the face of overwhelming contradictory evidence. Another example, of a very different species, is BurntSynapse's notion that we can overturn the known laws of physics and achieve faster than light travel through superior project management. Although quite different in approach, both these ideas register quite high on the crackpot scale.

Agreed to some degree, both approaches do seem to be centered on a particular vision, Farsight’s of how things are and BurntSynapse’s more of how things might be (though to at least some degree how things are). Both also seem to have as a crucial element some missed knowledge or explanation. Farsight directly while for BurntSynapse it doesn’t seem quite so direct but suggested in better information systems and project management. Certainly BurntSynapse is a bit more subtle than Farsight in his rejection of the advancements in science over the past century (it would be hard to be any less subtle than Farsight in that regard) though it is still quite evident and a central theme. Both also seem to be trying to bring some ‘expert knowledge’ to bare, Project Management for BurntSynapse and some bizzarro world/counter Earth interpretation of Einstein for Farsight. Other than just the difference in the intensity of the two approaches I really can’t see much significant difference, much as I’d like to.

 

[BurntSynapse]

Nope I neither “swapped the meaning of "it"” nor made such a claim.

The Man, If you wish to maintain that your objections:

Except when your "vision of success" depends explicitly on "A state of nature", FTL travel being both in this case and not some "vision of "balance"".

and

In "a vision of success", what is being visualized (the success) is the “accomplishment ” , FTL travel in this case, and thus explicitly dependent that “state of nature”.

...do not constitute a claim that "the dependency of our selection of a vision on an unknown state of nature was explicit", which gave rise to my response:

I'm unaware of where this dependency is explicitly specified in this manner, but if we were planning, I would advocate it be restated to prevent the misinterpretation mentioned before...

...then I will simply state I disagree, feeling that argumentation for what seem so self-evident is a poor investment of limited time.

Enhancing this opinion are the repeated, equally false claims about my opinions, such as

...you think that "spacetime dimensions" is undocumented?

Substituting the spacetime object concept in a brain for the act of making an assumption, for example, seems to prohibit rational, productive discussion.

I don't really want to keep repeating explanations that seem mainly to be used for making points and confirming preconceptions of crackpots.

Using imaginary conversations as evidence, with and assuming another has the burden to explain statements one would never make show just how far this bias can take some participants.

I wouldn't engage creationists in their misrepresentations about the claims of science, nor can I afford to engage others in similarly faulty statements about philosophy of science and project management, especially when aversion to understanding is evidenced.

I retire from this thread with personal and profession thanks for your effort in critiquing my reasoning. You have my gratitude, and are welcome to contact me in the future if you ever have an interest or reason to do so.

Also, thanks to other contributors.

 

[The Man]

Nope I neither “swapped the meaning of "it"” nor made such a claim.

The Man, If you wish to maintain that your objections:


and


...do not constitute a claim that "the dependency of our selection of a vision on an unknown state of nature was explicit", which gave rise to my response:

Exactly where do imagine you see any reference to “the dependency of our selection of a vision…” in those quotes?

...then I will simply state I disagree, feeling that argumentation for what seem so self-evident is a poor investment of limited time.

You continue to waste your time by not reading what was written and then trying to assert something that wasn't. However, you are free to waste your time as you see fit, Heck I’ll even help you if that is what you want.

Enhancing this opinion are the repeated, equally false claims about my opinions, such as

Good luck with that ‘enhanced’ opinion. Though trying to enhance what was actually written hasn't severed you well so far.

Substituting the spacetime object concept in a brain for the act of making an assumption, for example, seems to prohibit rational, productive discussion.

I don't really want to keep repeating explanations that seem mainly to be used for making points and confirming preconceptions of crackpots.

Using imaginary conversations as evidence, with and assuming another has the burden to explain statements one would never make show just how far this bias can take some participants.

I wouldn't engage creationists in their misrepresentations about the claims of science, nor can I afford to engage others in similarly faulty statements about philosophy of science and project management, especially when aversion to understanding is evidenced.

I retire from this thread with personal and profession thanks for your effort in critiquing my reasoning. You have my gratitude, and are welcome to contact me in the future if you ever have an interest or reason to do so.

Also, thanks to other contributors.

Oh no, not the “creationists” comparison!!!!!

Accusations of “aversion to understanding is evidenced”

And of course “bias”.

Almost a crackpot trifecta.

You are more than welcome BurntSynapse and I had sincerely wished that you would have at least been interested in exploring the relationship you noted yourself.

As the letters capitalized in your user name are BS I had considered the possibility that you were just having us on and the irony of you bemoaning “imaginary conversations” in a post where you just imagine some reference to “our selection of a vision” by me is certainly not lost on me.

 

[ben m]

Using imaginary conversations as evidence, with and assuming another has the burden to explain statements one would never make show just how far this bias can take some participants.

Did I use my imaginary conversation as "evidence"? I used my imaginary conversation to clarify, to you, for your benefit, what I believe to be the difference between "I have a risk-management plan" an "I am pretending to have a risk-management plan". I ended the imaginary-conversation by saying this explicitly, and inviting you to write a version that would clarify your idea of what the plan is.

 

[Dancing David]

See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yu05gAi3UE @5:36 where you can have what, IMO, is an important tool waved across your screen, and I explain what I see as key, relevant points.

This short book (CSoSR) is similar to resources NSB members told me had not been incorporated into planning, which they thought was unwise. As I said before, "ignored" may have been used.

I think this is the 3rd time I've addressed this.

This may be the third time you addressed this, but seriously, I consider you unable to answer the question.

You stated that there were tools not being considered and now you are unable to state what that tool exactly is.

you give a rhetorical non answer to what is a direct question, I will take it that you can't answer the question as directed to you.

{back to hiatus}

 

[BurntSynapse]

Another example, of a very different species, is BurntSynapse's notion that we can overturn the known laws of physics and achieve faster than light travel through superior project management. Although quite different in approach, both these ideas register quite high on the crackpot scale.

Should Copernicus' notion that he could overturn the known laws of astrology and achieve a consistent calendar through drawing imaginary lines and circles in the sky have rated high on the crackpot scale at that time?

Why or why not?

 

[BurntSynapse]

This may be the third time you addressed this, but seriously, I consider you unable to answer the question.

You stated that there were tools not being considered and now you are unable to state what that tool exactly is.

you give a rhetorical non answer to what is a direct question, I will take it that you can't answer the question as directed to you.

{back to hiatus}

One tool is the criteria that appears to distinguish "especially significant" moments in the history of science. This criteria is whether a new cognitive frame features "replacement of an established object concept by an event concept". Kepler's orbit is an exemplar used to illustrate application of the criteria.

Is this acceptable?

 

[Dancing David]

One tool is the criteria that appears to distinguish "especially significant" moments in the history of science. This criteria is whether a new cognitive frame features "replacement of an established object concept by an event concept". Kepler's orbit is an exemplar used to illustrate application of the criteria.

Is this acceptable?

So far you are a waving a book and calling it a tool. Why don't you explain how exactly that qualifies as 'tools not being considered', explain exactly what is being disregarded.

What tools are not being used in research, I can get your original quote.

So you gave a vague, opaque answer at best, and I would say, no, that is not a tool.

 

[ben m]

Should Copernicus' notion that he could overturn the known laws of astrology and achieve a consistent calendar through drawing imaginary lines and circles in the sky have rated high on the crackpot scale at that time?

First: even as a notion, at the time, "drawing imaginary circles in the sky" was perfectly mainstream metholology. Everyone was admittedly drawing imaginary circles, and perfectly happy with imaginary-circle-drawing as a valid calculational technique.

Second: in the end, Copernicus was not merely criticizing everyone else's circles, nor proposing to draw his own. He actually drew the circles and they actually worked (with some caveats).