Skepticism and The Normal

[WWHP]

No, you are the one stating that they wouldn't publish. What evidence do you have of this? Steorn haven't presented anything to any journal for publication, yet you are claiming that journals will not publish them. What do you base this on? I have presented counter evidence that journals do in fact publish comparable papers in similar situations.

Steorn's experience is, as I remember them recanting, is that academia ignored thier request for attention, they were even 'hung up' on over the phone, academia was 'hostile' to them.

I dont have time for internet research right now, but clearly academia chooses not to peer review many claims which they believe to be outlandish.

 

[WWHP]

Viral activity and OS 012.

My server stats just reset last week, and in the past week, they reflect that:



#1 95.8% 160 Google
#2 3.0% 5 Yahoo
#3 1.2% 2 Altavista


Top Keywords Used:

#1 32 os 012
#2 3 os 012
#3 1 non zero sum peace
#4 1 hegel memetics
#5 1 os 0 1 2
#6 1 ,,os 0 1 2,,
#7 1 high intelligence

Notice how many searches coming to the homepage from google on "OS 012"

People talk about this offline, and the idea is naturally spreading via dialogue with other people, who clearly find it interesting enough to do a search on it.

There is no 'promotion' going on about OS 012 other than a handfull of discussions on the internet.

 

[WWHP]

And if it is a scam then all the people who invest in it because of the slick advertising in the Economist, the massed voices of the credulous, and the suspiciously glowing reports from the panel of "independent" scientists lose their money.

Once again, Steorn has said over and over that it will not seek investment until the 12 scientists report thier findings.

At that point, who cares if Academia agrees or not? It either works, or it doesnt. How it works or why it works is irrelevant to a tech company that shows that it works.

And here is where I love to speculate. If steorn does have this, I cant wait to see and record how academia responds. If steorn has what they say they have, I predict that the response of academia will expose the entire political mechanism of the institution, and it will collapse in the same way as the Bush administration. I also suggest that this 'truth' is what is b eing protected unconsciously by the current reactions to the steorn device.

Nobody likes their paradigms being upset, except for us rational and intuitive ternary thinkers, we cant wait for our paradigms to be upset!

BF

 

[WWHP]

The claim that scientists are "bound" by their models and therefore cannot see the amazing discoveries is a very commonly cited one for people making amazing claims without a lot of evidence to back them up.

It is also cited in episteminology. Our models of the world are the world to us. The Laws of thermodynamics are statistical.

Sadly, it completely flies in the face of scientific reality. Scientific and mathematical modeling is always open to reinterpretation and change.

You just contradicted yourself in two sentences. Either scientific laws can change, or they can't. which is it?

If you think scientists wouldn't dare contemplate the revision of the laws of physics, you don't know any scientists. They would simply require fairly convincing experimental evidence that those laws required revision.

of course! Who is suggesting otherwise?

And I know quite a few scientists, and I find that many of them DONT contemplate the revisions of thermodynamics, including my friend doc lo, who has been accused of breaking them on occasion, to many scientists here on this forum.

Why? Because those laws are very well supported by existing evidence, and you don't just toss such things out because some guy says so. You wait for some evidence to back the claims up.

exactly, it's statistical.

Does that make you a slave to scientific orthodoxy? No, it does not.

no, it doesnt

Claims that scientists missed something because they were "inhibited by incorrect theory" should immediately raise red flags.

first off, please stop encouraging others to have emotional reactions to phrases and propositions. We don't respond to red flags, we are not bulls.

A claim that a scientist makes regarding the claim of another scientist should not b e considered a red flag philosophically, as in we should dismiss the claimer, that would not be rational.

Although there are always scientists who are more stubborn than others, any scientist worth their degree would change their mind when provided with evidence. Evidence, by the way, includes seeing unexpected results in the lab.

agreed, and I am really curious to see the academic reaction to steorn's device if they have what they say they have. That will be the evidence of the academic political structure.

The other problem with invoking magnetism, fusion, or fission is that none of these things provides for perpetual motion in the current body of observed evidence, and they have never been observed to break those laws. The laws of physics have been upheld against such challenges because they are supported by the observable evidence, not because scientists worship conservation of energy.

sure, I guess...{shrugs}

ETA: A fundamental problem with perpetual motion is that in order for such a device to be useful, it must not only maintain its movement (which would require negating friction and gravity among other things, or tapping into some unknown force that hasn't been discovered by science, I guess), but it must actually create more energy than is put into it.

yes, I agree we all can agree on what the fundamental problem is.

So in order for Steorn's device to do this, it must not only negate the effects of friction and gravity (among other things), but it must also somehow create usable energy by, say, turning a turbine. It must also do this without using any external force that could ever possibly stop doing work, or else it is by definition a non-perpetual motion machine.

agreed, this is what steorn is directly claiming and directly requesting 12 scientists to either confirm or deny publically.

Magnetism isn't going to overcome entropy and run forever. It can help to mitigate gravity and friction, but it isn't just going to cancel out all forces involved. Moreover, turning a turbine to extract a usable amount of energy from the system would draw a huge amount of energy from the system (basically, whatever amount of energy you want to extract plus loss to heat and friction).

'Magnetism is not a simple thing, it's a quantum mechanical thing"

http://www.discover.com/issues/dec-02/features/featmagnet/


BF

 

[WWHP]

I find the refrence to mysterious magnetized 'buckyballs' to have a wonderful synergy with our discussion, as OS 012 is founded upon the princaples of Bucky Fuller.

From wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fullerene


Buckminsterfullerene (C60) was named after Richard Buckminster Fuller, a noted architect who popularized the geodesic dome. Since buckminsterfullerenes have a similar shape to that sort of dome, the name was thought to be appropriate. As the discovery of the fullerene family came after buckminsterfullerene, the name was shortened to illustrate that the latter is a type of the former.
[edit]Buckminsterfullerene



Buckminsterfullerene C60
Buckminsterfullerene (IUPAC name (C60-Ih)[5,6]fullerene) is the smallest fullerene in which no two pentagons share an edge (which can be destabilizing — see pentalene). It is also the most common in terms of natural occurrence, as it can often be found in soot.

 

[sinnikal]

It is theoritically unfalsifiable, but it is, in princaple, falsifiable in practice, or at least this is my take on the matter and wish to 'prove' that scientifically.

I think we may have another language issue here.
Bubba, can you tell us what you mean when you use 'unfalsifiable'? Please.

Your server stats don't seem to lead to much input on your forum. Unique hit numbers really don't tell you a great deal. You do understand that don't you?

 

[WWHP]

I think we may have another language issue here.
Bubba, can you tell us what you mean when you use 'unfalsifiable'? Please.

ahh, thanks for this sinnikal. After reading your question, I looked up the term as it is used in the critical sense, and you are correct, my meaning was more subjective.

So as I now understand the term, yes, OS 012 is falsifiable in the sense that one could concieve contradictory statements to it's axioms and propositions, and it is falsifiable in practice.

What I meant to convey was that there is no 'contradiction' in reality to OS 012, and if or when a contradiction is found, then that simply updates the process. OS 012 is recursive upon itself, it 'eats' objective truth and integrates to the higher level. OS 012 is a pure objective framework, it is the most conservative objectivism that could throw Ayn Rand for a loop!

Thank you, nice to see a reasonable challenge and rebuttal from you, keep it up, you help me more when you do!

Your server stats don't seem to lead to much input on your forum.

My forum sucks. It had activity in the beginning, but then the damn thing would go down for months at a time.

Unique hit numbers really don't tell you a great deal. You do understand that don't you?

It tells me that I have unique hits and from where, that's all it tells me. I use the third value, remember? So I note that since the badscience discussion, whose community is in England, I have had around 150 unique hits from England, which now has risen to the number 2 country that OS 012 is recieving the highest hits from.

What does that mean? Just what I wrote. Anything else is mystery.

 

[jimbob]

exactly, it's statistical.

The whole of science is statistical in that sense.

If I hold a pen above my head and then let go I assume it will fall because it has every previous time...

When every observation supports a theory and none don't, then it is a bit beyond statistrical.

If you are actually talking about entropy, then there is the quote about a million monkeys sitting at typewriters eventually produce the works of Shakespere. (In fact I seem to recall seeing some maths that suggests that this would probably take longer than the age of the universe).

Stats with *very* big numbers becomes certainty to any degree of approximation.

Jim

 

[jimbob]

Once again, Steorn has said over and over that it will not seek investment until the 12 scientists report thier findings.

At that point, who cares if Academia agrees or not? It either works, or it doesnt. How it works or why it works is irrelevant to a tech company that shows that it works.

And here is where I love to speculate. If steorn does have this, I cant wait to see and record how academia responds. If steorn has what they say they have, I predict that the response of academia will expose the entire political mechanism of the institution, and it will collapse in the same way as the Bush administration. I also suggest that this 'truth' is what is b eing protected unconsciously by the current reactions to the steorn device.

Nobody likes their paradigms being upset, except for us rational and intuitive ternary thinkers, we cant wait for our paradigms to be upset!

BF

OK

I consider myself to be a highly competent enginee, but I would not be confident about finding *any* trick if it was a hoax. If a reputable magician, was on the panel, and said that they were sure there wasn't a trick, I would feel more confident that *something* was there. I can think of many scientists from my personal acquaintance who would be *easy* to fool. James Randi has said the same.

The "tests" seem set up to provide a veneer of respectability, enabling the company to garner investors...

At that point, who cares if Academia agrees or not? It either works, or it doesnt. How it works or why it works is irrelevant to a tech company that shows that it works.

Any investors who would be about to loose money?

 

[WWHP]

The whole of science is statistical in that sense

indeed, the whole of reality

.

If I hold a pen above my head and then let go I assume it will fall because it has every previous time...

until you go into space, with a different set of gravitational law.

When every observation supports a theory and none don't, then it is a bit beyond statistrical.

no, it's still statistical

If you are actually talking about entropy, then there is the quote about a million monkeys sitting at typewriters eventually produce the works of Shakespere. (In fact I seem to recall seeing some maths that suggests that this would probably take longer than the age of the universe).

I dont understand the connection

Stats with *very* big numbers becomes certainty to any degree of approximation.

agreed. but it's certainty is relative, not absolute.

anomalies occur in universe. statistically speaking, of course;-)

 

[Mojo]

anomalies occur in universe. statistically speaking, of course

I'm not sure that I would want to rely on a technology that relied on statistical anomalies.

"Sure it works.

Sometimes."

 

[Z]

OS 012 is a pure objective framework, it is the most conservative objectivism that could throw Ayn Rand for a loop!

Forgive me if it seems like another language issue, but considering that OS012 remains entirely subjective-dependent, how, then, is it a conservative objective system?

Maybe we're talking at cross-purposes again...

As I understand it, the value of 'mystery' only exists in a subjective framework (even if that framework is a shared subjective one) - and therefore, the only thing that makes this thing unique from normal bivalent systems is a purely subjective component! If anything, you might claim that this is the most conservative SUBJECTIVISM...

Just wondering...

 

[WWHP]

Forgive me if it seems like another language issue, but considering that OS012 remains entirely subjective-dependent, how, then, is it a conservative objective system?

It is not subjective dependent, it is not a subjective system, rather, it is an objective system that 'orders' the subjective experience into an objective language.

As I understand it, the value of 'mystery' only exists in a subjective framework (even if that framework is a shared subjective one) - and therefore, the only thing that makes this thing unique from normal bivalent systems is a purely subjective component! If anything, you might claim that this is the most conservative SUBJECTIVISM...

0, 1, and 2 all have both an objective and subjective component.They are recursive and you dont get one without the other. They 'repeat' perceptionally inside of each other.

The value of 'unknown' may be personal (for example, I dont know propositional calculus, it is an 'unknown' to me) or it may be shared (Anyone alive today may live to be 1000 years) or (UFO) or (death) or (dark matter).

0, 1, and 2 operate metalogically all of our perception. It is OBJECTIVE, not subjective, to state that all points of view share 0, 1, and 2 in common, regardless of the information placed into each category.

 

[Z]

But mystery has no objective component. Objectively - and here, I refer to the point of view in which no person or persons is required; the 'absolute' objective view - there are only true or false compontents in every statement. Only by adding a subject for any given statement does the unknown come into play.

However, I see how you're using 'objective' in this case - that it is a (supposedly) objective system of analysing subjective statements.

Yet, I wonder - even the process of evaluating statements for their truth values is a subjective process. Ergo, I still don't see how you can make such an outrageous claim of pure objectivity in what is still a purely subjective system!

Consider - who evaluates any given statement for its truth value? Conversely, as long as someone is making the evalutation, how can such evaluation be objective? At best, you could possibly manage a shared subjective viewpoint.

 

[WWHP]

I'm not sure that I would want to rely on a technology that relied on statistical anomalies.

"Sure it works.

Sometimes."

The sun rising and setting everyday for untold millenia is a pretty certain truth we can believe will continue, it's 100% statistical. Yet, who knows what cosmic event could change this? Perhaps a comet or meteor hits the earth, reversing it's poles, now we have sun rising in the west, or, when they sun finally extinguishes it's life, the sun wont rise in the morning, it will explode in the morning.

Any violation of our laws are 'anomalies'. Steorn has reported an anomaly, and they are not seeking money until their anomaly is confirmed by science.

I dont know what their anomaly is either, but to me, it doesnt appear like a scam or hoax, more like a delusion or the real thing.

Can any scientist say for certain that no anomalies occur regarding our laws throughout the universe? No, of course not, that would be absurd.

For the sake of science and the sake of our global energy mess, I hope that Steorn really has recorded an anomaly.

"Magnetism is not a simple thing, it is a quantum mechanical thing"
http://www.discover.com/issues/dec-0...es/featmagnet/
regarding magnetized carbon bucky balls discovered, which current 'laws' cannot account for.

We do not yet fully understand gravity, and if we dont fully understand gravity, then how can we even say these are true anomalies, and not consistant with another law of the universe as yet undiscovered?

 

[WWHP]

But mystery has no objective component.

we dont know that, it's mystery. If it has no objective component, then it's subjective, and not a 0 value, but a 2 value.

All we know about mystery is that we dont know what mystery is. There are mutual observable mysteries, like existence, universe, death, future, and women;-)

'Not Knowing' is something we also share in common, although the set of knowledge may change, so regardless, we all share mystery in common as a metalogic.

You are still attached to the idea of knowledge, and 0, 1, and 2 transcends knowledge. All knowledge begins in 0, and then we distinguish 1 and 2, based on our subjective points of view, and OUR point of view combined.

Objectively - and here, I refer to the point of view in which no person or persons is required; the 'absolute' objective view - there are only true or false compontents in every statement.

an 'absolute objective point of view', as in you mean omnisence? I dont think that is a mathematical possibility. Perhaps it could be an experience, but no true knowledge can be had, for there is no way to account for all information in the universe at once in a conceptual map.

Only by adding a subject for any given statement does the unknown come into play.

same is true with true and false. Subject needs an object, and object needs a subject.

However, I see how you're using 'objective' in this case - that it is a (supposedly) objective system of analysing subjective statements.

Rather, analyzing objective, subjective, and unknown statements

Yet, I wonder - even the process of evaluating statements for their truth values is a subjective process. Ergo, I still don't see how you can make such an outrageous claim of pure objectivity in what is still a purely subjective system!

'Objective' is merely the information we all share in common. OS 012 seeks to distinguish that objective information from each 'point of view'. For example, if I say " I HATE APPLES", that is very subjective, but there is objective information inside of there. Apples are objective, and so is the subject.

OS 012 simply has a highly objective framework for distinguishing truth values.

Consider - who evaluates any given statement for its truth value?

any and all of us

Conversely, as long as someone is making the evalutation, how can such evaluation be objective?

when the evaluation is mutually agreed upon due to it's mutual viewability

At best, you could possibly manage a shared subjective viewpoint.

'Objective' Reality is just the reality we all can agree on. What is objective reality 'outside' of what we can percieve with our brains and nervous systems? What is the 'ding an sich'? It can only and always be mystery, the third value. Objective reality is the piece of the mystery that we all can agree on. Our shared environment as opposed to our unique and internal subjective environment.

Each point of view is going to have a unique relationship/experience with that piece of 'shared' information (objective reality, 1), and that is the 2 value in relationship to the 1, just like in ordering and counting numbers.

 

[WWHP]

I consider myself to be a highly competent enginee, but I would not be confident about finding *any* trick if it was a hoax. If a reputable magician, was on the panel, and said that they were sure there wasn't a trick, I would feel more confident that *something* was there. I can think of many scientists from my personal acquaintance who would be *easy* to fool. James Randi has said the same.

Oh give me a break, please, you have been too fooled by Randi. Scientists can distinguish scientific BS just fine.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/genes/article/0,2763,1684860,00.html

and dont you all do that all the time here?

http://www.badscience.net/

and to think that someone who was smart enough to pull of a hoax would give the device to 12 scientists and engineers and assume that NO one would find the hidden wire and battery, I mean, c'mon dude!

The "tests" seem set up to provide a veneer of respectability, enabling the company to garner investors...
Any investors who would be about to loose money?

Steorn has stated over and over that they are not seeking nor asking for money until all 12 scientists confirm their device.

 

[WWHP]

13 things that do not make 'sense'. Mysteries that science cannot fully account for.

http://space.newscientist.com/article/mg18524911.600-13-things-that-do-not-make-sense.html

hey zaay, look at the top of the list. it's the placebo effect.

Until we have a comprehensive and scientific understanding of ourselves and the universe, we will find anomalies.

Anomalies are objective unknowns.

BF

 

[WWHP]

Aubrey De Grey even states that our most basic component, the cell, is still an unknown, as in we dont know how cells really work yet.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llvP-7XgTEE&mode=related&search=

 

[immaterial]

Me too, I dont think they have a magical energy, and they are not claiming too either. Notice how you frame the scenario...'magic energy'....

But energy is magical, isn't it? We can't really explain it, just watch it being there, being the cause of all the activity in the world. We can describe and predict how it behaves, when it interacts with natural laws (which we also can describe only, but not really explain either), but what it IS we don't really know. And energy is infinite, unlimited, from an absolute perspective. Science may not be able to prove that, but it can be proven logically, from what we know.

So I don't really see why the presence of energy in one context (e.g. the Steorn device) would be more improbably than in another (the one we already know and "can explain"). In the end they're both equally magical and unexplainable, in that the presence of energy itself is unexplainable in whatever context.

--
im