[lit-ideas] Re: [lit-ideas] Re: [lit-ideas] Le Pesa nteur et la Gr âce
- From: "Mike Geary" <atlas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 13:32:31 -0500
I wish you guys would restate your initial positions. I know that's asking
a lot and I should have been paying attention earlier, and no I'm going to
go dig it up in the archives. I THINK Paul is saying that attempts to
popularize the ideas of quantum physics through comparisons to popularized
notions of Taoism yield neither good Taoism nor good science. I think Mike
is saying who the hell is Paul to tell us what's real and what is not. I
could be wrong, and in fact I probably am, but that's what it sounds like
and I'd like know if that is so. I've read Capra and Zukav and Bentov and
half of Greene. None of it made any sense to me. I wanted physics to hand
me the God particle, but physics doesn't know God from Speranza . All
physics knows is math and I couldn't pass a first year algebra test. So I'm
not real sure what you guys are agruing about. It sounds like a revised
Snow-Leavis divide. Well, if you must do it all again, have at it, but
don't think you're going to convince anyone either way.
Mike Geary
weighing in with grace
Memphistopheles
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Chase" <goya@xxxxxxx>
To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2004 12:49 PM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: [lit-ideas] Le Pesa nteur et la Gr âce
>
> Le 7 ao=FBt 04, =E0 11:41, Paul Stone a =E9crit :
>
> > <snip>
> >
> > I think it was Feynman who said "anyone who says he understands =
> Quantum
> > Physics, doesn't." The whole "eastern mysticism" link to what is now=20=
>
> > known
> > as physics was probably initially popularized by Fritjof Capra's
"Tao=20=
>
> > of
> > Physics" and a lot of other guys who ran with THAT ball ("Dancing Wu =
> Li
> > Masters" by Gary Zukav and most recently Brian Greene's "Elegant=20
> > Universe"
> > and "The Fabric of the Cosmos" come to mind).
>
> M.C. Interesting to see Brian Greene ranged among P. Stone's list of=20
> scientific ignoramuses. That would be the Brian Greene, the Rhodes=20
> scholar who got his PhD at Oxford, became Full Professor at Cornell,=20
> then became Professor of Physics and Mathematics at Columbia=20
> university, and who, according to MathSciNet, is the author of over 75=20=
>
> publications in such artsy-fartsy journals as Nuclear Physics. B,=20
> Studies in Advanced Mathematics=A0; International Journal of Modern=20
> Physics A. Particles and Fields. Gravitation. Cosmology=A0; Journal
of=20=
>
> Mathematical Physics=A0; Nuclear Physics and the Proceedings of the=20
> Spring School on Nonperturbative Aspects of String Theory and=20
> Supersymmetric Gauge Theories and the Conference on Super-five-branes=20
> and Physics in $5+1$ Dimensions held in Trieste, March 23--31 and
April=20=
>
> 1--3, 1998, etc., etc.
>
> On the face of it, one might have assumed that Professor Greene =
> know=20
> *almost* as much about science as P. Stone, and just possibly a teensy=20=
>
> bit more.
>
> Oh, and by the the way, there is not one word about Eastern =
> mysticism=20
> in The Elegant Universe, which is about string theory. You might try=20
> reading it.
>
>
> > But this attempted bridging
> > of the gap between Western Philsophy and Eastern Mysticism has=20
> > basically
> > proven exactly the opposite of what Julie said "Because it turns=20
> > ontology
> > and epistemology on their ears." If'n it's right in any way! Anyone =
> can
> > make up a theory that is controversial and ground-breaking and
stands=20=
>
> > stuff
> > on its head, but unless it has any semblance of truth in reality,
>
> M.C. Problem is, not everybody agrees with *your* conception of=20
> reality. What you're saying is equivalent to =93I'm willing to
entertain=20=
>
> any scientific theory, as long as it corresponds to my basic=20
> assumptions about the nature of reality". It follows from this that -=20
> since one's notion of "proof" is a function of one's notion of=20
> "reality", no theories that challenge P. Stone's conception of=20
> "reality" can possibly be "proved", because proof *just is*=20
> correspondence with the views he already holds. People like P. Stone=20
> have thus very effectively eliminated even the theoretical possibility=20=
>
> that they might ever have to change their views=A0; perhaps this is
the=20=
>
> sense in which it's said that ignorance is bliss.
>
> Once again, Kuhn's theory is confirmed : the way that scientific=20=
>
> paradigms change is that the believers in the old paradigm eventually=20
> die off. Kind of like the dinosaurs.
>
> <snip>
> >
> > The problem is that there is absolutely no proof at all for any of =
> this
> > 'nonsense' (not my words) and many "real" [traditional, maybe even=20
> > stodgy,
> > blinkered philistines -- for Mike] scientists call it what it is:=20
> > fluff.
>
> M.C. Yeah,, right. Even though quantum physics is, together with=20
> general relativity, the best-confirmed theory *ever produced* - it=20
> contains, for instance, effects which can be computed to be accurate
to=20=
>
> about one part in 10 to the 11th power (Penrose et al., The Large, the=20=
>
> small, and the human mind, Cambridge 1997, p. 51) it's probably just=20
> fluff. Why? Because P. Stone says so, along with "many "real"=20
> [...scientists]". Who are these scientists, by the way? Can you name=20
> just one?
>
> Michael Chase
> (goya@xxxxxxxxxxx)
> CNRS UPR 76
> 7, rue Guy Moquet
> Villejuif 94801
> France
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
> digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
>
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
- » [lit-ideas] Re: [lit-ideas] Re: [lit-ideas] Le Pesa nteur et la Gr âce
