2 of 2
2
New Law of Physics?
Posted: 31 December 2010 08:58 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1904
Joined  2007-10-28
dougsmith - 29 December 2010 08:50 PM

kkwan, I have no idea what point you’re trying to make. That Gödel and Cantor weren’t cranks and so Palmer’s new physical law isn’t crankish? That Palmer has Asperger’s? That anyone with Asperger’s should be assumed to be a genius? That nobody with Asperger’s is a crank?

That Emmy Noether had Asperger’s?

Huh?

The point is that all of them, notwithstanding whether they had Asperger Syndrome or not, were complex humans with their own strengths and weaknesses. However, because their unique ideas challenged accepted knowledge, they were reviled for their audacity by the authorities of their era and were regarded as cranks until finally, they were recognized for their intellectual worth.

Hence, in the case of Palmer, it is premature and unwarranted to describe his proposed “New Law of Physics” as crankish without compelling evidence that it is false. This is fallacious, Ad hominem abuse.

From the wiki on Ad hominem

Ad hominem abuse (also called personal abuse or personal attacks) usually involves insulting or belittling one’s opponent in order to invalidate his or her argument, but can also involve pointing out factual but ostensible character flaws or actions which are irrelevant to the opponent’s argument. This tactic is logically fallacious because insults and even true negative facts about the opponent’s personal character have nothing to do with the logical merits of the opponent’s arguments or assertions.

 Signature 

I am, therefore I think.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 December 2010 09:25 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15362
Joined  2006-02-14

My claim that the argument is crankish has nothing to do with a personal attack on Palmer. It has everything to do with the form of Palmer’s claim, which is outlandish and appears to be supported only by tenuous links with crank theories from Penrose and a meaningless relationship to Hawking.

Sure, it’s always possible that, all that aside, Palmer is correct. It’s possible that he’s the next Einstein. The point of my rebuttal though is to make clear that this possibility is remotely small, and can be disregarded in the absence of further corroborating evidence.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 December 2010 11:40 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1904
Joined  2007-10-28
dougsmith - 31 December 2010 09:25 AM

My claim that the argument is crankish has nothing to do with a personal attack on Palmer. It has everything to do with the form of Palmer’s claim, which is outlandish and appears to be supported only by tenuous links with crank theories from Penrose and a meaningless relationship to Hawking.

Sure, it’s always possible that, all that aside, Palmer is correct. It’s possible that he’s the next Einstein. The point of my rebuttal though is to make clear that this possibility is remotely small, and can be disregarded in the absence of further corroborating evidence.

Obviously, you have not read Palmer’s paper. Where, in his paper, did he use “crank theories from Penrose and a meaningless relationship to Hawking” to support his proposal of the ISP as a new law of physics?

Whether he is the next Einstein is not the issue here, but to declare that the possibility (of the ISP being true) is “remotely small, and can be disregarded in the absence of further corroborating evidence” without sufficient reasons to back up your conclusion, is specious reasoning.

 Signature 

I am, therefore I think.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 January 2011 05:06 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4481
Joined  2007-08-31
kkwan - 31 December 2010 11:40 PM

Obviously, you have not read Palmer’s paper.

I have. Did you understand it? Did you find the empirical content?

kkwan - 31 December 2010 11:40 PM

Where, in his paper, did he use “crank theories from Penrose…

Exactly where I quoted him:

That is, we acknowledge the reality of something which is fundamentally non algorithmic. As stressed by Penrose (1989), no automaton would be capable of this!

The reference is to The Emperor’s New Mind which is not about the area of Penrose’ specialty. It is a popular science book.

kkwan - 31 December 2010 11:40 PM

and a meaningless relationship to Hawking” to support his proposal of the ISP as a new law of physics?

No, that is what you did. You called him a contemporary of Hawking. What do you suggest with that? We are all contemporaries of Hawking!

kkwan - 31 December 2010 11:40 PM

Whether he is the next Einstein is not the issue here, but to declare that the possibility (of the ISP being true) is “remotely small, and can be disregarded in the absence of further corroborating evidence” without sufficient reasons to back up your conclusion, is specious reasoning.

May I point you to the fact that I read the article, and reacted on it in this thread. You are careful avoiding to discuss with the one you know who read it. Interesting.

GdB

 Signature 

GdB

“The light is on, but there is nobody at home”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 January 2011 10:23 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1904
Joined  2007-10-28
GdB - 01 January 2011 05:06 AM
kkwan - 31 December 2010 11:40 PM

Obviously, you have not read Palmer’s paper.

I have. Did you understand it? Did you find the empirical content?

kkwan - 31 December 2010 11:40 PM

Where, in his paper, did he use “crank theories from Penrose…

Exactly where I quoted him:

That is, we acknowledge the reality of something which is fundamentally non algorithmic. As stressed by Penrose (1989), no automaton would be capable of this!

The reference is to The Emperor’s New Mind which is not about the area of Penrose’ specialty. It is a popular science book.

kkwan - 31 December 2010 11:40 PM

and a meaningless relationship to Hawking” to support his proposal of the ISP as a new law of physics?

No, that is what you did. You called him a contemporary of Hawking. What do you suggest with that? We are all contemporaries of Hawking!

kkwan - 31 December 2010 11:40 PM

Whether he is the next Einstein is not the issue here, but to declare that the possibility (of the ISP being true) is “remotely small, and can be disregarded in the absence of further corroborating evidence” without sufficient reasons to back up your conclusion, is specious reasoning.

May I point you to the fact that I read the article, and reacted on it in this thread. You are careful avoiding to discuss with the one you know who read it. Interesting.

GdB

The key ideas in his paper are not difficult to understand as expressed in the introduction, though I do not claim to understand the more abstract mathematics to which he refers to in some of the sections of his paper. There are philosophical implications wrt to the nature of fundamental reality, interpretation of QM and free will, if the ISP is true.

These are only 3 references to Penrose, from a total of about 37:

1965 Gravitational collapse and space-time singularities. Phys. Rev. Lett. 14, 57–59. (doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.14.57)
CrossRefWeb of Science

1989 The emperor’s new mind. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
 
2008 Causality, quantum theory and Cosmology. In On Space and Time (ed. Majid Shahn). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

From the wiki on the ISP

The proposer of the postulate is climate scientist and physicist Tim Palmer. Palmer completed a PhD at the University of Oxford under the same supervisor that Stephen Hawking had and then worked with Hawking himself at the University of Cambridge on supergravity theory.

Surely, we cannot seriously claim to be contemporaries of Hawking, not having studied with him under the same supervisor and worked with him, even though we are living in the same era.

Do you have compelling reasons to reject the ISP?

From this article in Physorg

As if extra dimensions weren’t strange enough, new research has probed an even more mind-bending possibility: that spacetime has dimensions that change depending on the scale, and the dimensions could have fractal properties on small scales. In a recent study, Dario Benedetti, a physicist at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Waterloo, Ontario, has investigated two possible examples of spacetime with scale-dependent dimensions deviating from classical values at short scales.

“In simple words, the relation between quantum groups and noncommutative geometry is as follows,” he explained. “Classically, we know that certain spaces are invariant under the action of some classical groups; for example, Euclidean space is invariant under rotations and translations. A quantum group is a deformation of a given classical group, and is such that no classical space can have it as a symmetry group. The invariant space has to be as well a deformation of a classical space, a deformation that makes it noncommutative. No relation of all this to fractals is known, but in my work I’ve found that they do have a common property, that is, a non-integer dimension (at some scale).”

And the wiki on causal dynamical triangulation

At large scales, it re-creates the familiar 4-dimensional spacetime, but it shows spacetime to be 2-d near the Planck scale, and reveals a fractal structure on slices of constant time.

It is widely accepted that, at the very smallest scales, space is not static but is instead dynamically-varying. Near the Planck scale, the structure of spacetime itself is constantly changing, due to quantum fluctuations. This theory uses a triangulation process which is dynamically-varying and follows deterministic rules, or is dynamical, to map out how this can evolve into dimensional spaces similar to that of our universe. The results of researchers suggests that this is a good way to model the early universe, and describe its evolution.

BTW, from the wiki on Roger Penrose

Sir Roger Penrose OM FRS (born 8 August 1931) is an English mathematical physicist and Emeritus Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics at the Mathematical Institute, University of Oxford and Emeritus Fellow of Wadham College. He has received a number of prizes and awards, including the 1988 Wolf Prize for physics which he shared with Stephen Hawking for their contribution to our understanding of the universe. He is renowned for his work in mathematical physics, in particular his contributions to general relativity and cosmology. He is also a recreational mathematician and philosopher.

 Signature 

I am, therefore I think.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 January 2011 11:36 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4154
Joined  2010-08-15
kkwan - 31 December 2010 08:58 AM

Hence, in the case of Palmer, it is premature and unwarranted to describe his proposed “New Law of Physics” as crankish without compelling evidence that it is false. This is fallacious, Ad hominem abuse.

Interesting thread that I keep getting sucked into read through again.  And, I admit I got no right getting involved in it, since it is out of my league. Except the above line keeps smacking me in the face.
Is the claim: a smart guy’s theory should be respected until compelling evidence proves it false?
Do you believe this?
That sounds kind of backwards to me.  <head scratch smilie>

 Signature 

How many times do lies need to be exposed
before we have permission to trash them?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 January 2011 04:20 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4481
Joined  2007-08-31
citizenschallenge.pm - 02 January 2011 11:36 AM

Is the claim: a smart guy’s theory should be respected until compelling evidence proves it false?

Exactly.

Let’s give it time, and wait if it becomes established science once or not. To take it as truth already, as kkwan does, is much to early.

kkwan, please give rational arguments that Palmer’s Invariant Set Postulate

-  has empirical consequences that can be tested
or
- reduces the number of presuppositions of needed to ground QM and/or relativity
or
- that it really makes GR and QM consistent

OK?

Until then I take it as an interesting mathematical hypothesis, to be proven. As there are many of them.

GdB

PS A contemporary is somebody who lives in the same time. We all live in the same time as Hawking.
PPS I could write an article with many references. So what?
PPPS I do not discuss Penrose’ authority in his specialities. I’ve been on a seminar with Brian Josephson, Nobel price winner, and it was BS. citizenschallenge.pm hit the bullet.

 Signature 

GdB

“The light is on, but there is nobody at home”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 January 2011 08:23 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1904
Joined  2007-10-28
citizenschallenge.pm - 02 January 2011 11:36 AM
kkwan - 31 December 2010 08:58 AM

Hence, in the case of Palmer, it is premature and unwarranted to describe his proposed “New Law of Physics” as crankish without compelling evidence that it is false. This is fallacious, Ad hominem abuse.

Interesting thread that I keep getting sucked into read through again.  And, I admit I got no right getting involved in it, since it is out of my league. Except the above line keeps smacking me in the face.
Is the claim: a smart guy’s theory should be respected until compelling evidence proves it false?
Do you believe this?
That sounds kind of backwards to me.  <head scratch smilie>

If one considers a theory to be crankish, compelling evidence must be produced to support one’s conclusion that it is false.

However, it does not mean that “a smart guy’s theory should be respected until compelling evidence proves it false”. That is not my claim. Generally, a proponent of a theory should show evidence to support it and be prepared to defend it.

Palmer proposed the ISP in his paper as a new law of physics which can determine what is real or unreal, reconcile Einstein with QM and resolve its paradoxes. That is a remarkable synthesis (if it is true), and with a deeper understanding of the fundamental nature of space/time, clear the way to develop a TOE.

It is a fascinating theory, which is definitely not as preposterous as string theory with its 11 dimensions or Everett’s hypothesis of multiple universes which are akin to ideas in science fiction. In comparison to them, the ISP is minimalist and it makes more philosophical sense…...Occam’s razor.

One can suspend judgment without outright rejection or acceptance of the ISP.

smile

[ Edited: 04 January 2011 01:29 AM by kkwan ]
 Signature 

I am, therefore I think.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 January 2011 09:00 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1904
Joined  2007-10-28
GdB - 02 January 2011 04:20 PM

Let’s give it time, and wait if it becomes established science once or not. To take it as truth already, as kkwan does, is much to early.

kkwan, please give rational arguments that Palmer’s Invariant Set Postulate

-  has empirical consequences that can be tested
or
- reduces the number of presuppositions of needed to ground QM and/or relativity
or
- that it really makes GR and QM consistent

Did you not notice the title of this post as “New Law of Physics?” and that I wrote “if it is true”, NOT “it is true”, in my initial posting? I agree that time will determine whether it is true or false.

It is not my postulate and thus, there is no onus on me to defend it.  Palmer has written on these issues in his paper. Please refer to it.

 Signature 

I am, therefore I think.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 January 2011 03:22 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 25 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6023
Joined  2006-12-20
kkwan - 02 January 2011 09:00 PM
GdB - 02 January 2011 04:20 PM

Let’s give it time, and wait if it becomes established science once or not. To take it as truth already, as kkwan does, is much to early.

kkwan, please give rational arguments that Palmer’s Invariant Set Postulate

-  has empirical consequences that can be tested
or
- reduces the number of presuppositions of needed to ground QM and/or relativity
or
- that it really makes GR and QM consistent

Did you not notice the title of this post as “New Law of Physics?” and that I wrote “if it is true”, NOT “it is true”, in my initial posting? I agree that time will determine whether it is true or false.

It is not my postulate and thus, there is no onus on me to defend it.  Palmer has written on these issues in his paper. Please refer to it.

Hi Kkwan,

I find the responses on this thread pretty bizarre. You’ve posted something that you found interesting and might be of interest to others and that’s about it really.

Stephen

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 January 2011 04:06 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 26 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4481
Joined  2007-08-31
StephenLawrence - 03 January 2011 03:22 AM

I find the responses on this thread pretty bizarre. You’ve posted something that you found interesting and might be of interest to others and that’s about it really.

Not that bizarre, if you take kkwan’s final sentence in his OP:

So, it seems that at the most fundamental level, fractal geometry rules, but we have free will. OK? 

This sounds stronger than just “interesting”.

We don’t find free will “at the most fundamental level”, so why search there? Because Penrose does? Or other physicists who have no understanding of philosophy and free will?

GdB

 Signature 

GdB

“The light is on, but there is nobody at home”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 January 2011 04:32 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 27 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6023
Joined  2006-12-20
GdB - 03 January 2011 04:06 AM

So, it seems that at the most fundamental level, fractal geometry rules, but we have free will. OK? 

This sounds stronger than just “interesting”.

I’m pretty sure you’re not taking this in the spirit intended GdB

1) there is a question mark at the end and 2) more importantly you left out the most important part which was

LOL

Stephen

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 January 2011 01:27 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 28 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1904
Joined  2007-10-28
StephenLawrence - 03 January 2011 03:22 AM

Hi Kkwan,

I find the responses on this thread pretty bizarre. You’ve posted something that you found interesting and might be of interest to others and that’s about it really.

Stephen

Hi Stephen,

Quite so. What made me LOL  was that (if the ISP is true) it’s fractal geometry from the cosmological to the quantum scale which is the modern abstract equivalent of “it’s turtles or elephants all the way down”. Also, as the invariant fractal state space, I, is inherently non-computable and fundamentally non-algorithmic, we have free will.

Professor Tim Palmer is quite cool (for a scientist):

My hobbies include playing lead guitar and singing in a rock and roll band, golf, and riding my mountain bike over the beautiful West Berkshire Downs, where I live.

Would that make him a contemporary of the Beatles, I wonder?

Cheers and a happy new year.

kkwan

 Signature 

I am, therefore I think.

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 2
2