But it’s not even that he tries to defend any obscurantist ideology there: Hawking asked for such social input not that long ago so the concepts do seem to converge and be responsibly related. We can make use of such insights and training regardless of whether we solve or agree on the ultimate status of “will”, “consciousness” etc. I cared to make the best essay, altogether scientifically accurate, clear and very insightful and innovative, including but not restricted to. As I commented there:
I can see that his topic is popular with the crowd at the FQXi page for obvious reasons, but it doesn’t actually address the problem. Open peer review does not work simply because most papers will never get any review. So to be workable, an open peer review system would also need a kind of filter, to let anyone filter the measure of reviews according to his own standards. The question reveals a pitiful degree of hubris an delusion. They also need to be the sort of sophisticated, “quality” nonsense able to give idiots the feeling that it constitutes an intelligent, convincing defense of their obscurantist ideology. When the healers snakes entwine or the Ourobus worm loops to consume itself we all seem to know what the metaphor means for hope and that there can be a certain end by lack of belief in the Ivory towers of ourselves that risks the Neverending Story.
Namely, tangent vectors x,y,z,t to this point are identified with Hermitian forms on E esssay matrix. Needless to say, all of these points are addressed in my essay, but then I’m one of those old-fashioned academics who think that peer review sometimes does work just fine.
Because average humans who “care” often have a big bias for obscurantism i. Such people usually hate mathematics because they cannot understand it, so they need pseudo-arguments to feel proud of their ignorance. This remarkable character of the success of mathematics in physics really means something non-necessary, and really remarkableas expressed in several essays: DocG, this is an example showing that the first thought can be better than the second one.: I can see that his topic is popular with the crowd at the FQXi page for obvious reasons, but it doesn’t actually address the problem.
Nature is a little relaxed and we a little lazy for now to find a better chart to get our priorities straight before we realize we may urgently need them. The letters on a transparent sheet you mentioned I had never heard of but the effect, implying illusions or facts of nature I did intuit from simpler observations, structural phenomena in thinking about chirality, abstractly the same right and left effect.
Dear Bee, Nice ideas in your essay; to make them work may take a lot of work and innovation. Hawking asked for such social input not that long ago so the concepts do seem to converge and be responsibly related. Mind makes collapse before decoherence H.
On the FQXI math/physics essay contest
Scientism Platonism Recognize with R. However, he does not seem to realize the difficulty of the task, and how it can fail if it is done in a naive manner. They are hopeless as contributors to the progress of science anyway. I would like you to consider the case of the Dirac equation. Klingman calls himself “physicalist” here but expressed spiritualism in another essay.
Admittedly my analysis is speculative, but the practical proposal mostly, more critical thinking and willpower training could be helpful regardless of one’s philosophical positions on free will etc.
Two parabolas, one larger and perpendicular made with flat mirrors can melt lead, but if we made lens to perfection for practical uses we would melt the pot.
I infer from that, that matching a person’s preferences with movie characteristics, some kind of figuring out the esssay distance measure to use in a high-dimensional space with discrete coordinates actors, movie directors, script writers, movie genre, plot characteristics, cinematographers, music types, etc. We can make use of such insights and training regardless of whether we solve or agree on the ultimate status of “will”, “consciousness” etc.
Namely, having works openly reviewed and criticized by anyone, and knowing who writes each review so as to make it possible to figure out if the reviewer is competent or fqxk, can be an interesting information. Returning to Christianity, it had started in a somewhat similar epoch of the end of the previous kind of development and civilisations and the emerging new times and needs as well as other big monotheistic religions.
I was going to say that Humanity Should Steer the Future by starting a new religion, one that reflects all our finest values and rejects bigotry, hate and willful ignorance. If god loves the poor, crippled, and stupid, then god can bloody well pay for them or take them back. How do you steer the future with that? His proposition of open peer review, where anyone can bring a review, can be nice, as, for example, my ideas how to better explain maths and physics do not find place cotnest the institutions just because it is not in the usual official jobs of researchers to consider such things as changes in the curriculum, so I would need to find “peers” elsewhere.
How well does it actually work? In speculative fiction and some scientific models we van go back to an earlier time and change things, bring back someone to the future.
About the FQXI essay contest on the math/physics connection
As I commented there: Something to think about at least. To say roughly, we can define this space as the sum of 2 spinor spaces with conjugate typeswhere a spinor space is a 2-dimensional complex space E such that the space of hermitian forms on E is identified with the tangent space to this point of space-time. That is one reason why we must navigate by the moral quality of our actions, not the moral quality of our goals.
The problems with the academic system are not in peer review itself.
Opponents in fqqxi a chess game reverse this in a box or space region that makes such quantized gravity not distinctly top or bottom but a loop. The question reveals a pitiful degree of hubris an delusion.