***" This is my point with Dick. He uses an older conceptual scheme of mathematical statements, and as a result his conclusions contain a paradox. " You should be careful with that statement, as it seems to imply that newer conceptual schemes are free from paradoxes, which is probably far from being the case.***

Didn't mean to imply that newer conceptual schemes are paradox free. I only mean that his older conceptual scheme is inadequate for today, as our current conceptual scheme will prove inadequate for tomorrow.

***" The paradox is that post-1960's physics is no where to be seen in his conclusions! " Come on Harv, you're smarter than that. If he got 1960 years of physics, you can be sure that nothing stands in his way of getting 40 more. That is not the problem with his position.***

Come on Aurino. You know that's not possible. Newton couldn't derive Einstein's equations anymore than Einstein could derive Hawking's equations. You need new conceptual schemes that were unavailable to them, and it takes a great deal of scientific development before we know which conceptual scheme to select. Any ole conceptual scheme will not do. Einstein needed global symmetry principles and Maxwellian science before Lorentzian symmetry made any sense. Newton wouldn't comprehend it without those 'advances' in the classical conceptual scheme.

***To be fair, I think the only problem with Dick's position is that it has no problems. His paper is completely meaningless and adds nothing to our knowledge of reality. Since it doesn't tell anything about reality, no fact can invalidate it. Arguing with him is a waste of time as he's absolutely right and he knows it. The best argument you can offer him is silence. If he's not saying anything of any significance, why should anyone bother?***

Well I agree, it is completely meaningless, not because he reproduces our knowledge in the 60's, but because his terms are ridiculous. His whole paper is nothing but a condemnation on science and does nothing to answer the problems that he supposedly trying to solve. He doesn't realize it, but ego prevents him from admitting he's wrong.

• As always on Fridays... - aurino_s - May 9, 2003 - 20:43 UTC
  • Good to have a Friday agreement! - harvey1 - May 9, 2003 - 21:50 UTC
    • Cultural issues? - aurino_s - May 12, 2003 - 15:10 UTC
      • Well... - harvey1 - May 12, 2003 - 16:18 UTC
        • There's an ocean between Europe and America - aurino_s - May 12, 2003 - 17:16 UTC
          • An ocean between two posts by Aurino - quiet - May 13, 2003 - 01:30 UTC
            • I'm flattered that you read my posts... - aurino_s - May 13, 2003 - 19:18 UTC
              • I'm as Latino as yo, but a better scientist and/or theologian - quiet - May 13, 2003 - 20:30 UTC
                • What are your credentials to call yourself a scientist - yaniru - May 14, 2003 - 01:09 UTC
                  • OOOOO O OOOO OOO O OOO OO - quiet - May 14, 2003 - 06:31 UTC
                  • My 100+ credits in science are more recent than yours - quiet - May 14, 2003 - 06:39 UTC
                    • I published my best ever paper here - yaniru - May 14, 2003 - 12:07 UTC
                      • Yanniru must be a forgetful Harvard alumnus - quiet - May 14, 2003 - 15:13 UTC
                        • "I will not be answering Yanniru's spams any more - quiet - May 14, 2003 - 15:14 UTC
                          • You forgot to mention what school so we could check it out - yaniru - May 15, 2003 - 02:24 UTC
                  • Scientists have PhDs, Not BSs - yaniru - May 15, 2003 - 02:26 UTC