|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
| Re: John Baez Wins FQXI Prize for Crackpot Research |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
Group: alt.philosophy · Group Profile
Author: hhc314hhc314 Date: Aug 10, 2008 12:08
On Aug 9, 7:56Â pm, Traveler nowhere.net> wrote:> On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 00:39:32 +0100, "Androcles"
>
>
>
>
>
> wrote:
>
>>"Traveler" nowhere.net> wrote in message
>>news:fs4s94tanser1fms7tac6o14i0kkje1060@4ax.com...
>>| On Sat, 9 Aug 2008 13:40:44 -0700 (PDT), postdoc4e...@gmail.com wrote:
>>|
>>| >http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=762#comment-42541
>>| >
>>| >http://www.fqxi.org/large-grants/awardee/details/2008/baezsays,
>>| >
>>| >"Dr. John Baez
>>| >University of California at Riverside
>>| >
>>| >Project Title:
>>| >Categorifying Fundamental Physics
>>| >
>>| >Summary:
>>| >In ordinary mathematics, and physics as well, equations are
>>| >fundamental. However, every equation is a half-truth: after all, if
>>| >the two sides of the equation look different, why are we saying
>>| >they're the same? 'Categorification' is a fancy name for coming clean
>>| >on this issue: instead of merely saying that two things are the same,
>>| >we specify a way of regarding them as the same.
>>| >
>>| >This has surprising consequences. For example, we usually think of
>>| >quantities like energy as continuously variable, or 'analog'. Quantum
>>| >mechanics shows there is a certain discreteness built into the world,
>>| >but it still uses analog ideas. Using categorification, we can phrase
>>| >large portions of quantum mechanics in a purely discrete way. We want
>>| >to know how far we can push this.
>>| >
>>| >In addition to thinking about physics in new ways, we shall explore
>>| >new methods of carrying out research. We intend to share not just our
>>| >results, but the process by which we find them. We will do this by
>>| >incorporating a wide range of multi-media into our research, including
>>| >videos of lectures and seminars made publicly available online. "
>>| >
>>| >Good to see John Baez got some funding, but then again, FQXI is using
>>| >Baez's very own "crackpot index" as a metric by which to parcel out
>>| >the two+ mil:
>>| >
>>| >http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
>>| >
>>| >Is it just me, or does Baez's description seem somewhat snarky,
>>| >especially in light of his crackpot index?
>>| >
>>| >Baez writes, "In ordinary mathematics, and physics as well, equations
>>| >are fundamental. However, every equation is a half-truth: after all,
>>| >if the two sides of the equation look different, why are we saying
>>| >they're the same? 'Categorification' is a fancy name for coming clean
>>| >on this issue: instead of merely saying that two things are the same,
>>| >we specify a way of regarding them as the same."
>>| >
>>| >I guess we will find out what it means to "regard things as the same"
>>| >when his youtube videos go live: "We will do this by incorporating a
>>| >wide range of multi-media into our research, including videos of
>>| >lectures and seminars made publicly available online." Imagine that.
>>| >Publicly-available video on line!
>>| >
>>| >Too bad Sesame Street already did this whole study on "two things
>>| >being the same," and also has the scientific genius to post it online
>>| >in a publicly-available multi-media format, including video, words,
>>| >categorification, and music:
>>| >
>>| >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZIvgQ9ik48
>>|
>>| ahahaha... I love it. Dr. John Baez of UC Riverside, who loves to
>>| point out that he regularly flies to conferences around the world
>>| (he's a proud jet-setting physicist), is the well-known usenet
>>| crackpot and math puzzle fanatic who once wrote this wonderful gem:
>>|
>>| Â I would prefer to say that there are infinitely many "nows", but no
>>| Â one "now" that is any better than the rest. Â In special or general
>>| Â relativity, we can define a "now" to be a spacelike hypersurface -
>>| Â or more technically, a Cauchy surface. Â In one "now", I am typing
>>| Â this article while sitting at my desk on a hot summer morning in
>>| Â Riverside. In another, I am asleep on an airplane flying to
>>| Â Portugal. Â In most of them, I don't exist. Â Since we can describe
>>| Â the state of the universe by giving the values of fields at any
>>| Â given "now", all these "nows" give isomorphic descriptions of the
>>| Â universe. Â The isomorphism between them is what we call "the
>>| Â passage of time".
>>|
>>| ahahaha... Wait, it gets even better. In response to the following
>>| mesmerizing nugget of wisdom by fellow crackpot, Mark William Hopkins:
>>|
>>| Â In reality, there is no "I". Â It's all an illusion based entirely
>>| Â on the abovementioned misperception. Â Once you begin to perceive
>>| Â yourself as you actually are (i.e., part of a 4-dimensional
>>| Â web-like structure) then the "I" part just disappears.
>>|
>>| Baez brilliantly replies with the refined aplomb of a professional
>>| academic crank:
>>|
>>| Â Â I wouldn't say there is no "I". Â I would instead say there are
>>| Â Â many.
>>|
>>| ahahaha... I am not making this shit up, I swear. This shit is forever
>>| recorded in the annals of sci.physics.research, one of Baez's favorite
>>| censored hangout.
>>|
>>|http://www.lns.cornell.edu/spr/1999-07/msg0016990.html
>>|
>>| The only other academic crackpot (that I know of) that may surpass Dr.
>>| John Baez in crackpottery is Dr. David Deutsch of quantum computing
>>| fame. Deutsch wrote the book on voodoo physics. ahahaha... Having said
>>| that, I must add that the little con artist in the wheelchair is not
>>| too far behind. Ah, the wonderful farce of physics. Insane nerds
>>| having fun with the little games they love to play. I love it.
>>|
>>| ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
>>|
>>| Louis Savain
>>|>
>>You are so right, Louis.
>>But not about some of the shit you come out with.
>>I could respect you if you did not behave as they* do, but what
>>the fuck, you are just another druggy with a fucked-up head and
>>its too late to fix it.
>
>>Androcles.
>
>>* Â "They" being the characters you've nominated, including the
>>twerp in the wheelchair whom I met at Sussex U. some 30 odd
>>years ago. The dozy bastard refused a pint when it was my round,
>>no self-respecting Englishman would do such a thing.
>>I once said there was no such thing as a black hole, but I was
>>wrong. There is one in the middle of his head.
>
>>Act 1. scene one. Â The bar as Sussex U. after a long day, still
>>discussing physics. Up comes a gurney, pushed by a woman.
>>The gurney occupant makes a remark, by my glass and the glasses
>>of my colleagues are empty.
>
>>Androcles: Â "Can I buy you a beer?"
>>Stephen Hawking's first wife: Â "Do you know who this is?"
>>Androcles, ever honest: Â "Err... no..."
>>Stephen Hawking's first wife: "HE...(pause for effect)... is Stephen
>>Hawking.
>>Androcles: "Yeah, ok, but would you like a drink?"
>
>>Exit stage left: Â Mistress Hawking, gurney and Stephen.
>
>>At least he had the sense to marry a second time....
>
>>WHAT AM I SAYING? Â Dang! I did that, whatta mistaka to
>>maka. I must be dwinky poo.
>
> ahahaha... Funny. I think it was Hawking's first wife who said that
> her job as Hawking's wife was to keep reminding him that he was not
> God. I'd say. It's a little hard to be God when you're a crumpled fool
> in a wheelchair making shit up that don't exist. The most annoying
> thing about physicists is not their crackpottery but their
> insufferable pomposity.
>
> ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
>
> Louis Savain
>
> Rebel Science News:http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Here is another sad but true truth. The pomposity of many physicists
grows inversely to the rarity of their research accomplishments, and
directly with the intellectual significance of the college that
granted their degrees.
This is particularly evidenced by the total lack of pomposity in
phsicists and other major figures in the physical sciences who have
actually made great contributions. To their various fields. These
individuals could be best categorized as having a great deal of
humility, coupled with a rather keen sense of humor that helps them to
keep their accomplishments in perspective.
The same thing is true in medicine. A well known (for his
accomplishments) surgeon once told me that he cannot heal anyone, and
that he simply creates consitions that are conductive for God to
accomplish the actual healing.
Also, since I spent many years living in the Princeton area, there are
many jokes circulated about Dr. Einstein, and most are actually funny.
It is said that Einstein himself had created many of these stores, and
none of the locals who would talk with him on his daily walks doubted
this, because he always had a new joke to share with them, even the
local grocer.
Even Dr. Feynman played the Bongo Drums in his spare time, and never
took himself very seriously. (See the book: "Surely you're joking,
Mr. Feynman".) He's the guy that authored the well known physics
lectures under his name.
I personally have no time for those pompous individuals whose brains
are so shallow and self centered that they do not find a need to
relieve the stress with a bit of humor rather than alcohol or other
drugs (which is not exactly rare in the world of acadaemia).
And when you need a surgeon....
Nuff said.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
