You all know that you each have a respective hand on the elephant, and thsoe who would contribute their qunatum mathematics are new comers to what had already existed. As the craftsman Plato, I created the elephant in the thought of the man for this time:)
Genesis Timaeus 27c-34a
Sometimes as you read my dialogues you discover the flavour of individuals who had passed through these readings, and in selected words, highlighted the logic with which they would highlight my approach, and speak about science and the way of it?
Had I known that when I wrote this dialogue that minds like Einstein, or a Hooft would travel through these sections, I might then of assigned the "Craftsman" to different people here, as they developed the models of the world, with which this process speaks too.
Let me pick an example then for you and say that this perspectve I select holds one accountable, and recognizes that in this case it is becoming and perishable. A I highlight a section for you and you read you will understand.
Now some of you know that early on in this blog John Baez's view about the soccer ball was most appealing one for consideration, but indeed, the sphere as the closet example could all of a sudden become the ideas for triangulations never crossed my mind. Nor that Max Tegmark would tell us, about the nature of these things.
Is not, as John would like us to have believed? The "soccer ball" is dead, but not my Platomic form. It will remain, and live in the hall of the infamous, as a model of the way the world is created? It's underlying nature? It's "to be," as a Shakespearean thought would also have it's "infliction" on my very own words.
But let me first clarify some things here before I loose myself amongst all mmy writings, as it is difficult to retain the mind of individuals in the characters of these dialogues so that the discourse is found relevant in ways of a future, as I have first shown thus.
Timaeus:
First then, in my judgment, we must make a distinction and ask, What is that which always is and has no becoming; and what is that which is always becoming and never is? That which is apprehended by intelligence and reason is always in the same state; but that which is conceived by opinion with the help of sensation and without reason, is always in a process of becoming and perishing and never really is. Now everything that becomes or is created must of necessity be created by some cause, for without a cause nothing can be created.
Now let me say that if you are to define the rules of the game, then it will be that each would come from their corner, and from these distinctive positions, bias themselves to what I had always laid first before you.
So the ground rules had been laid long before any of you would speak on the ideas of emergence or not, first principle or not, and the defined shapes or not?
So by these implications you have to then known the logic with which you would approach this discourse with science and all who have used my dialogues :)
Lee Smolin:
-Stick to the issues raised. If someone raises a criticism, whether its done according to your standards of rhetoric or not, just answer the substantial science issue. Don’t waste our time with discussion about anything else. Don’t respond to a criticism on a specific point by changing the subject.
-No personal attacks, absolutely none. If someone has a Ph.D., then they are credentialed. Discuss with them in good faith and with respect.
-Let’s strive to agree on facts before discussing interpretation. Insist on precision and honesty, don’t allow exaggeration, and admit it gracefully when you are wrong or when the evidence does not support something you would like to be true. If someone questions the status of a claim, don’t say “everyone I respect believes X is true.” Say, X is in fact unproven, but there is evidence for it, which is exactly the following….
-Listen carefully to those professional colleagues who read the evidence differently from you, and try to understand sympathetically and in good faith, why they do so.
-Restrain your own communities. Make it clear that it is not acceptable to you when those in your committee insult others or publish or post things that are exaggerated or false. If someone insists on behaving badly, it is up to their community to restrain them. Make it clear that repeatedly treating colleagues disrespectfully in a public forum amounts to professional misconduct. The same is true for repeated cases of knowingly exaggerated or misleading statements in a public forum.
If we can all agree to some basic rules like this I am optimistic that we-and science- will come out better from the debates ahead.
While Lubos has some ideas of his own here, then it seems fair that we should work on these "ground rules" so that each understands that when they step on stage, they had both agreed to the plot that would take hold of science for all to see.
Lubos Motl:
These rules are, first of all, a proposal for a complete and thorough politicization of all of science. The first point is that personal integrity (or scientific integrity) is a very subjective thing that a person simply has or has not. And people will never agree whether certain things have been honest or not.
So if Lee Smolin, sets the "ground rules" while Lubos seeks to develope clarity from position and Clifford the stage, then we would know that your bias's would have to be put aside, in order to proceed. Previous conversations failed, Lubos and Lee:)I have watched your respective positions and felt Lee's feelings on trying, but never really succeeding, to adventure respective positions as one would have put it on stage. The Krauss issue timing is impecabble not for book publicity gain but for how one were to develope the scripts of science in dicussion.
At these meetings of mind, the idealization had been first spelt out in my story of Timaeus, now it is your turn as "to be" the Shakespeare, Einstein or t"hooft would be.
No comments:
Post a Comment