Proliferation Of Genius

[blamski]

<tongue placed firmly in cheek>

 

 

i'm an artist, not a scientist, and was expecting most of my ideas to get blown out of the water due to the number of scientific mistakes i inevitably make. now i see i'm one of the more rational ones around here.

 

its only recently since i started using this forum again after a long hiatus, and something has really caught my attention. there is a regular influx of original genius that i hadn't previously noticed. only in the last 3 or 4 weeks we have had people offering perpetual energy machines, whole new space-time theories, various unified theories of physics, revolutionary new bioinformatics systems and more. the common thread here is that all of these geniuses are convinced that they have seen something that none of the pantheon of great scientists before them has seen, and it is exactly their lack of scientific training or experience that has enabled them to arrive at their theories. inevitably, all of us who, in our innocence, try to question these revolutionary findings are proved just as idiotic and misled as the great founders of science themselves. i find this incredible and i'm wondering if it has always been like this, or whether i just rejoined at a particularly serendipitous moment.

 

 

</tongue placed firmly in cheek>

[CraigD]

It’s Good to see you back at hypography, blamski. A lot of old members have taken long breaks from regular participation, and are sorely missed, and the return of yet another a welcome occasion.

 

The “I know the grand secret of everything, because I’m not blinded by indoctrination into the old scientific and philosophical paradigms” mental phenomena is, I think, as old or older than science, and ubiquitous. Most thoughtful people, I think, experience it, usually as children – a happy feeling that we profoundly understand anything, and need just flesh out our understanding with a bit of education and practice. I surely did.

 

What I’ve yet to successfully communicate to one among these endless waves of self-imagined geniuses is my experience, common I think among like-minded folk, of that fleshing-out process not just providing expected useful techniques and interesting challenges, but inconveniently providing tools for showing my grand ideas wrong – the discovery that my expected life of trial-and-error growth would not be just trial (which I welcomed) and trivial error (which I’d already experienced and expected), but profound, back-to-the-drawing-board error.

 

At some point, I found myself confronted by the chilling possibility implied by cold equations like

[math]

p_{\mbox{ultimate success}} = 1 - \left( 1 -p_{\mbox{success} } \right)^{\frac{t_{\mbox{fail}}}{t_{\mbox{alive}}}}

[/math]

that the cycle of hypothesis, trial, error and new hypothesis would continue longer than me.

 

Leaving out the chilling part about dying (I’m pretty extropian, so don’t truly accept this as inevitable), I think if we could somehow convey to people who believe they know the secrets of the universe, but can’t convince people who know science of it because they can’t explain their ideas in scientific language, our experience of having found ourselves wrong, they’d be more humble, and more motivated to learn science.

 

Experience suggests I’m either wrong, or not eloquent or dedicated enough to manage such a feat of communication, even once. :(

[Lancewen]

Hi blamski

 

Sometimes it's enough just to express your ideas in a forum, see how people respond to them and refine your skills at communicating. I must admit I do have my own ideas, but really no way to prove them one way or the other and I do enjoy learning about other peoples ideas if they are not to far out there. I do like the fact that we have theories that have a scientific consensus, because I know they will advance as we learn more. I'm not sure how science forums are going to influence our future, but I have no doubt they will be quite valuable in helping many more people understand more about our reality.

[Buffy]

Chris Hayes of MSNBC on his show this weekend:

 

This is the power of money not just in politics, but in society more broadly: the power to make people listen to your ideas no matter how dumb or uninformed. The other thing that stood out to me was just how under siege, persecuted, and victimized these extremely wealthy people appear to feel.

 

...and I guess you really don't need to be rich to have a pervasive sense of entitlement, or feel that everyone is against you....

 

When a man tells you that he got rich through hard work, ask him: 'Whose?' :phones:

Buffy

[belovelife]

i think i resemble your point, save i have some scientific background

 

if you read this this article

 

the drive they describe is my idea

 

depends on when you left,m but you might recall me talking about this

 

the thing is, i consider myself "outside the box":Music:

 

where i have not been told i have to accept everthing to pass in a class :smart: :shrug:

 

while i learn on my own, which sometimes makes things difficult, i feel everything has to fit together

 

for instance, if thousands of years of chinese believe in chi, then there is a good chance it exists,

 

but where is it in physics

 

the article is of the climatic point of my theory, the bend in space time,

expantion/contraction

 

but the model is nice,

 

anyway, welcome back,

[sman]

The common thread here is that all of these geniuses are convinced that they have seen something that none of the pantheon of great scientists before them has seen, and it is exactly their lack of scientific training or experience that has enabled them to arrive at their theories.

 

Hypography is for amateurs, like us. If you come here looking for verification of your genius ideas you’ve got the wrong idea about what science is & how it works. And so, often hypography’s first technical lesson in science is a hard-knock crash-coarse in the problem of induction. That’s fine.

 

If you already understand this - if you’re already aware of and practiced in the critical thinking of your own ideas - and expect only guidance and honing of this from our panel of skeptics & nay-sayers... that’s fine too. Hell, you can help us with the others (like I notice you’ve been doing). We appreciate the content.

[paigetheoracle]

Well I invented a method to make carrying backpacks less onerous, which died a death.

 

I've also created a logical method for teaching language, specifically English because it is my mother tongue (never got off the ground).

 

Tried writing stories (never got published).

 

Created montage and coloured pencil artwork (Should have just put my pens and pencils away, from the lack of response).

 

paigetheoracle.imagekind.com/

 

I recently went on to create card and t-shirt shops at Cafe Press

 

allwhitetees

 

backtofronttees

 

and as it's close to the holidays:-

 

itsonthecards

 

 

Get the picture? Well nobody else has! (sales nil as of this point in almost everything). I seem to remember Ford saying genius was something like 95% perspiration and 5% inspiration. Well as you can see the effort has led me all over the place, including this and other forums, plus contacting various people with various ideas. Well if creation is genius at play, then I've been playing quite hard, for quite a long time but with no result in social terms but personal satisfaction, yes! I feel like I'm the pariah at the party, that everyone tries to ignore because he's too noisy, too smelly, too indiscreet etc. Turtle called me a troll for playing around with the idea of evolution but if I'd been Professor Oracle, with a globally recognized reputation, would this have happened? This isn't just bile but a genuine question. Do guardians stand at the entrance gate to society, asking for passwords or bribes? Do the truly untalented like Tracey Emin and Damien Hirst in the art field (I'm sure as scientists, philosophers etc. you are aware of others who seem to have garnered accolades, who don't seem to deserve it either). Am I saying I'm an unrecognized genius? Only in the sense Ford meant it as I believe the rest is personal opinion, especially in the arts as opposed to the sciences or at least technology/ engineering (If if doesn't work, you shouldn't either). Anyway enough of my ranting.

 

Happy Christmas to all my readers (or at least most!).

[Lancewen]

Well I invented a method to make carrying backpacks less onerous, which died a death.

 

I've also created a logical method for teaching language, specifically English because it is my mother tongue (never got off the ground).

 

Tried writing stories (never got published).

 

Created montage and coloured pencil artwork (Should have just put my pens and pencils away, from the lack of response).

 

paigetheoracle.imagekind.com/

 

I recently went on to create card and t-shirt shops at Cafe Press

 

allwhitetees

 

backtofronttees

 

and as it's close to the holidays:-

 

itsonthecards

 

 

Get the picture? Well nobody else has! (sales nil as of this point in almost everything). I seem to remember Ford saying genius was something like 95% perspiration and 5% inspiration. Well as you can see the effort has led me all over the place, including this and other forums, plus contacting various people with various ideas. Well if creation is genius at play, then I've been playing quite hard, for quite a long time but with no result in social terms but personal satisfaction, yes! I feel like I'm the pariah at the party, that everyone tries to ignore because he's too noisy, too smelly, too indiscreet etc. Turtle called me a troll for playing around with the idea of evolution but if I'd been Professor Oracle, with a globally recognized reputation, would this have happened? This isn't just bile but a genuine question. Do guardians stand at the entrance gate to society, asking for passwords or bribes? Do the truly untalented like Tracey Emin and Damien Hirst in the art field (I'm sure as scientists, philosophers etc. you are aware of others who seem to have garnered accolades, who don't seem to deserve it either). Am I saying I'm an unrecognized genius? Only in the sense Ford meant it as I believe the rest is personal opinion, especially in the arts as opposed to the sciences or at least technology/ engineering (If if doesn't work, you shouldn't either). Anyway enough of my ranting.

 

Happy Christmas to all my readers (or at least most!).

 

It's obvious you need a good marketing person on your payroll. Even good products don't sell themselves. If you haven't tried Ebay yet, you should check it out. They get more online traffic everyday than just about any other site on the Internet.

[LaurieAG]

Hi CraigD,

 

I think if we could somehow convey to people who believe they know the secrets of the universe, but can’t convince people who know science of it because they can’t explain their ideas in scientific language, our experience of having found ourselves wrong, they’d be more humble, and more motivated to learn science.

I agree whole heartedly so don't give up as there are many different ways to skin this cat.

 

I first started reading the ancient greek classics because these people were educated, although not by our own modern standards, and had an audience at a lower intellectual level than themselves, but they still managed to get their message across in the simplest possible way.

 

That's the difference between subjective science and objective science, subjective science is rooted in reality while objective science is fast becoming a global industry in itself.

 

Experience suggests I’m either wrong, or not eloquent or dedicated enough to manage such a feat of communication, even once. :(

 

I share the same frustrations about attempting to build a bridge from reality to the imaginary world based on first principles.

[LaurieAG]

It might help if I state that I don't really have any issues with using current physics for conceptually analysing stationary objects (stationary at the point of measurement like LHC and cosmological observations).

 

My main issue is with the introduction of rotation into conceptual schemas that do not completely take into account the fact that the base model is stationary and leave an incomplete conversion that is interpreted as dark/anti matter/energy.

 

There is no prize for pointing out a flaw in the maths/process but there seems to be an industry developing at the moment that is concentrating on gaining prizes for working out just another different way through the maze to prove that anti/dark matter/energy universal expansion etc exists.

 

So when I build a bridge from real world foundations and then build the same bridge from the quantum worlds foundations I find that both ends do not match up and the error is out by a factor that is very close to the conversion factor of the reduced Compton wavelength back to its non reduced form.

 

Stephen Hawking discussed the conception issue with Roger Penrose in their lecture series 'The Nature of Space and Time'.

 

Chapter 7, The Debate 'THESE LECTURES HAVE SHOWN very clearly the difference between Roger and me. He's a Platonist and I'm a positivist. He's worried that Schrodingers cat is in a quantum state, where it is half alive and half dead. He feels that can't correspond to reality. But that doesn't bother me. I don't demand that a theory correspond to reality because I don't know what that is. Reality is not a quality you can test with a litmus paper. All I'm concerned about is that the theory should predict the results of measurements.'

 

Seeing things from both sides there is a huge grey area where the results do not meet the expectations of either the Platonists or the Positivists, especially since the middle of the bridge is not in the quantum world but is actually the changeover point and dark/anti matter energy is clearly a denizen of the quantum world.

 

I don't think that any further Nobel prizes should be awarded for new ways to determine anti/dark matter energy and universal expansion calculations until the Platonists and the Positivists can agree on solid foundations for current and future research by building that bridge between them.