Really BIG numbers...

quote:

Originally posted by Bruce Woodhouse:
[QUOTE]

Hi Sniper

I don't really understand everything in War and Peace, but I read it and it enriched my life.

I'm not involved in the other thread but I am a bit confused. Let me just clarify; you have written a book. The title of that book is only to be revealed to those who have passed an intelligence test by making comments on another book as a sort of exhibition of worthiness. Does that not strike you as odd? It sure does me.

I accept you may wish to preserve your privacy, and I'd understand if you withheld the details for that reason. I'd accept feeling nervous about having your writing criticised in a public forum (but then, hey, why publish), but to state that you will only tell those you deem to be suitably intelligent seems really bizarre or rather arrogant. Sorry, that is how it reads. I'd also be wary of assumming anything about the intelligence (or otherwise) of forum contributors!.

I'm just curious. Have I misunderstood your post above?

Bruce

Curiously I have actually actually read 'The Quantum Enigma'! It sits on my bookshelf alongside a few similar books with which I occasionally wrestle.

hello Bruce,

I appreciate it all looks that way from one point of view but I am just looking ahead. I had hoped for some discussion of an interesting subject but rather than being intrigued by the quotes I supplied some here were just dissmissive without saying why and some were arrogant and offensive. I thought being 'intrigued' would be the minimum response but I overestimated the audience (or parts of it). It was obvious from the tone of the challenges that certain people had little of worth to say on the subject. As the thread has 'progressed' (for want of a better word) certain people have made complete fools of themselves in my opinion and it is clear they have no argument whatsoever.

My original post was merely to show those who have been so dissmissive of religious faith and who champion science are possibly equally guilty of faith in something where less evidence actually exists than they might have thought. This irony is totally lost on them. Naturally these people have behaved like fanatics do the world over and have made chumps of themselves in my view.

People believe what they want to believe and what they believe is often driven by emotion not disspassionate evaluation. They read stuff that conforms to their view and ignore stuff that contradicts their view. I read both. They demand answers but they are not really interested in an answer, their minds are already made up and nor do they listen to the answer. My mind is (for the time being)made up but I have researched the whole debate so I am entitled to an opinion. If some new and significant scientific evidence comes to light which negates my position I will embrace it.

When deluged with the views of significant experts in the field who have views contrary to theirs they maintain their position and seek to misdirect, to obfusticate to concentrate on a mis-typed word - anything but look with an open mind.

I expect there are people here who genuinely think the book does not exist (although we must note that no one has put a wager on the table). I find this amusing. Rather than rise to their challenges out of hurt pride or the desire to prove them wrong I am entirely secure in the situation. They can think what they like. I care not. Why should I? The book exists. Poking fun at it is another matter.

I know full well what will happen if I give them the name of my book - they will make ignorant comments without even reading it. If they actually buy the book they will quote out of context, they will scorn conclusions without given the reasons for the conclusions, they will mis-quote, mis-represent and mis-understand. I have no wish to see their tedious nonsense in print or I will have to spend an eternity answering every sentence of it. Insisting on certain requirements being met may look like arrogance to you but to me it is just common sense based on evidence.

It is good to know you have read QE and similar works.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Dudley:
We may soon acheive clarity of a sort. I have emailed Professor Stewart with the following:

"Dear Professor,

I would like to draw your attention to the following:

http://forums.naim-audio.com/e...385/m/5062950927/p/3

in which you may be being traduced by an impersonator calling himself "Sniper", claiming to be you."

This is a wonderful example of how twisted a fundamentalist is in his/her thinking. They are so viciously commited to winning a point they make stuff up before they have even read something twice to make sure they are not making a fool of themselves (again).

Steve2701 seemed to be scoffing at Ian Stewart's claim so I provided details as to professor Stewart's qualifications. That is all. Anything else resides only in the mind of Mike Befuddley.

quote:

Originally posted by mongo:
The mathematician Ian Stewart for instance tells us that:

After Gödel, mathematical truths turned out to be an illusion.

He also states;

'Dennett's views on topics like consciousness and free will seem so much more sensible to me than most of the alternatives—I don't think that quantum mechanics or microtubules or nonalgorithmic computation have any chance of explaining our (apparent?) ability to make choices'

How 'bout that?[/QUOTE]

Yes, tis a pity. He should stick to maths.

*

Sniper

Thanks for your courteous reply.

Two observations

You say how you champion those willing to read evidence contrary to their own beliefs and how you are prepared to question your own ideas and convictions yet by witholding the name of your publication from the forum you are denying exactly that possibility to your potential readership. This is like arguing for free speech but practising censorship.

Secondly you express an unwillingness to have your book misquoted or misrepresented. However when any work is published it is released unconditionally to the world, not to a selected audience. Some may read it and make quite different interpretations, so be it. This may reflect an inadequacy of your reader, or of your writing or simply an alternate conclusion that may even be novel and exciting to you. Every reaction to a published work, or indeed a work of art, is valid as long as it is honest.

If you publish something then you have to accept the reaction. If you don't like it then I would suggest your error is in believing you'd need to refute such arguments line-by-line. You'd always have the option of deciding yo do not agree and walking away from the debate. With the vigorous sense of certainty that radiates from your posting I cannot believe you are frightened of criticism.

Do not forget that this forum is populated by a large number of people, not all of whom post conspicously. You may find a more appreciative audience than you think. It would be nice to at least have the option.

Risk it!

Bruce

@Mike L

Funny how people read things completely differently; you see pack bullying, I see someone spouting unsubstantiated nonsense and people picking him up on this. This someone then starts insulting them and your, so called, 3 stooges, defend themselves and keep calling him up on his relentless BS. Seems perfectly reasonable to me. (Come on Mike ‘Sniper – Grassy Knoll’ should set some alarm bells ringing)

I also don’t see the forum being dragged down, quite the opposite. A bit of robust discussion is fun, a lot more fun anyway than the tedious (self) promotion of a specific dealer by his acolytes.

Peter

By Sniper;

'As the thread has 'progressed' (for want of a better word) certain people have made complete fools of themselves in my opinion and it is clear they have no argument whatsoever.'

Well at least you got that right.

quote:

Originally posted by Sniper:

quote:

Originally posted by mongo:
The mathematician Ian Stewart for instance tells us that:

After Gödel, mathematical truths turned out to be an illusion.

He also states;

'Dennett's views on topics like consciousness and free will seem so much more sensible to me than most of the alternatives—I don't think that quantum mechanics or microtubules or nonalgorithmic computation have any chance of explaining our (apparent?) ability to make choices'

How 'bout that?

Yes, tis a pity. He should stick to maths.[/QUOTE]

Why? Because his opinion differs from yours?
You should stick to your medicine.

Sniper,
instead of making stupid cut & paste answers, (anyone can use google, it's not beyond us) just put the answer to the question.
It's obvious to all here that you appear to be playing a game with those who you deem to be several leagues below you on an intelectual level.
If all you want to do is wind them up - then continue.
As for my post - I was not scoffing at anyone - if you or Mr Stewart would like to show that we have had maths so completely incorrect for so long - then please do so by showing that 1+1 does not equal 2, and 2+2 does not equal 4. (Please, not another cut and paste job or supposition nonsense, or some dream I need to be on in a forest someplace - I deal in real numbers everyday here - working to stupid tolerances when needed to) If they do not then I would love to see your soduku puzzle answers. Also it would appear we have all had incorrect wages for a very long time.
This is also apparently art



- or so we are led to believe by those 'who know best'
I guess I'm just stupid to think it's a pile of junk and needs to go to the tip.

By 'Sniper'

'When deluged with the views of significant experts in the field who have views contrary to theirs they maintain their position and seek to misdirect, to obfusticate to concentrate on a mis-typed word - anything but look with an open mind.


I expect there are people here who genuinely think the book does not exist (although we must note that no one has put a wager on the table). I find this amusing. Rather than rise to their challenges out of hurt pride or the desire to prove them wrong I am entirely secure in the situation. They can think what they like. I care not. Why should I? The book exists. Poking fun at it is another matter.'



'significant experts'

Sniper, you are funny.

To Exist, a thing must have substance outside the space between your ears my off planet friend.

I know that you seem to be here to wind up people, but conciously or not, you are the most erm...'entertaining' poster around here. And even though I know it's vulgar to laugh at the afflicted I can't help myself.


Long may you persevere.

Your 'non imaginary' friend Paul.

I have had an email from Professor Stewart who confirms he is not "Snipr", but that he is "looking into it".

quote:

then please do so by showing that 1+1 does not equal 2, and 2+2 does not equal 4.

I've checked this twice and and it is definitely right unless somebody wants to dispute Peano's axioms, which no sane man has ever done. It is from these axioms that the whole of number theory comes so if 1+1 is not 2 then we are all a bit stuffed really (unless we are using base 2, of course) .... wow what an interesting subject this is.

Just to prove my last point here be a detailed explanation - enjoy!

ROTF - I bet you found the colour of the numerical answer to be octarine - yes?

quote:

Originally posted by Steve2701:
ROTF - I bet you found the colour of the numerical answer to be octarine - yes?

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Dudley:
I have had an email from Professor Stewart who confirms he is not "Snipr", but that he is "looking into it".

make sure you post his reply.

quote:

Originally posted by Sniper:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Dudley:
I have had an email from Professor Stewart who confirms he is not "Snipr", but that he is "looking into it".

make sure you post his reply.

In case it does not exist?

That only applies to your claims my hallucinatory correspondent.

Mike Befuddley,

Any reply from Professor Ian Stewart yet?

quote:

Originally posted by mongo:
By 'Sniper'

'When deluged with the views of significant experts in the field who have views contrary to theirs they maintain their position and seek to misdirect, to obfusticate to concentrate on a mis-typed word - anything but look with an open mind.


I expect there are people here who genuinely think the book does not exist (although we must note that no one has put a wager on the table). I find this amusing. Rather than rise to their challenges out of hurt pride or the desire to prove them wrong I am entirely secure in the situation. They can think what they like. I care not. Why should I? The book exists. Poking fun at it is another matter.'



'significant experts'

Sniper, you are funny.

To Exist, a thing must have substance outside the space between your ears my off planet friend.

I know that you seem to be here to wind up people, but conciously or not, you are the most erm...'entertaining' poster around here. And even though I know it's vulgar to laugh at the afflicted I can't help myself.


Long may you persevere.

Your 'non imaginary' friend Paul.

Put your money on the table. When you have done this you will prove you are a big man and worthy of some attention. Until then....

Steve2701,

Read about Gödel's incompleteness theorems (e.g. on Wikipedia)If you understand it you will understand the Prof. Stewart quote. If you don't understand it - please don't bother replying with anymore 2+2 tosh. btw - I agree with you about the art.

SO now it's for you to decide whether I can reply or not - which is dependant on me understanding a theory (that was still a theory when I was reading that stuff back in'79)
We both know you can't prove that 2+2 doesn't = 4, at least not with empirical data that is not theory.
Basic maths, I would suggest, is not tosh as you say.
At least we both agree that those who know better than us, and are indeed held in the highest of esteem by the greatest experts in the field of art can get it completely wrong.

As I understand it from Sniper's posts, the idea that Quantum Theory is directly linked to the nature of conciousness, is still an unsubstantiated hypothesis. It seems that all we have is some professional physicists who are proposing it, and on the other hand, some who are opposing it.

ie: Not proved.

I haven't seen any proposals as to how a test of the hypothesis could be progressed, either.

My computer thinks 1 + 1 = 10
Don overcast downtown York

Blackadder: "Baldrick - I have some stones. Now, if I take out one stone and put it there, I have one stone. If I take out another stone and put it with the first, how many do I have?"

Baldrick: "Some stones..."

quote:

Originally posted by Sniper:

quote:

Originally posted by mongo:
By 'Sniper'

'When deluged with the views of significant experts in the field who have views contrary to theirs they maintain their position and seek to misdirect, to obfusticate to concentrate on a mis-typed word - anything but look with an open mind.


I expect there are people here who genuinely think the book does not exist (although we must note that no one has put a wager on the table). I find this amusing. Rather than rise to their challenges out of hurt pride or the desire to prove them wrong I am entirely secure in the situation. They can think what they like. I care not. Why should I? The book exists. Poking fun at it is another matter.'



'significant experts'

Sniper, you are funny.

To Exist, a thing must have substance outside the space between your ears my off planet friend.

I know that you seem to be here to wind up people, but conciously or not, you are the most erm...'entertaining' poster around here. And even though I know it's vulgar to laugh at the afflicted I can't help myself.


Long may you persevere.

Your 'non imaginary' friend Paul.

Put your money on the table. When you have done this you will prove you are a big man and worthy of some attention. Until then....

Sniper, I will do better. I will put my money in your pocket. Just tell me the title of your book.

quote:

Originally posted by Don Phillips:
My computer thinks 1 + 1 = 10
Don overcast downtown York

I wish your computer worked out my wages.