[Physics] The filter of logic & forum suggestion

Tue Oct 18 23:54:01 CEST 2016

Hello Maurice,

You could try to contact Almende in The Netherlands:

http://www.almende.com/research-lines

I've visited them once, and they have an impressive team of software
engineers, doing very interesting computer science research. They also know
how to file for grants for European projects.

Of course, I have no idea if they would be interested in a project like
this, but you can always try.

Best regards,

Arend.

On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 10:32 PM, Master Inventor <
mdaniel at masterinventor.com> wrote:

> Zoltan,
>
> Thanks for your long and thoughtful response.
>
> I think you have allowed yourself to be infected with too much
> negativity.  I agree there are evil people and organizations in the world
> that wish to keep humanity as ignorant as possible to make it easier to
> rule over them.  In previous times the best strategy was to keep knowledge
> hidden, so both the forces of good and the forces of evil kept knowledge
> hidden.  But in the modern age the world is moving towards spiritual
> enlightenment.  The best strategy is to disseminate knowledge to as many
> people as possible so that it can be put to use and so that it erases the
> advantage of those who are evil.  So now we are overwhelmed by huge amounts
> of knowledge mixed with false knowledge.  There is so much information out
> there that no human can hope to be aware of more than a small fraction of
> the knowledge in his own field,  There are 3,000 papers published every
> week on cancer research; no human could keep up with that amount of new
> information.  They are now using a CRAY supercomputer with artificial
> intelligence (AI) software to scan medical data bases for cures to  be
> applied to particular patients.  It has now reached the point that evil
> forces would find it just as impossible as anyone else to determine new
> useful knowledge from worthless knowledge, so there is safety in numbers.
>
> What I suggested is that a University develop a logic core software
> subroutine that could be inserted into other application programs.  The
> university  has both the expertise and personnel to write such a program.
> The money to fund it would come from grants.  The university could then
> sell the software to many other software writers to install in their
> programs.  The university should be able to make a good profit in such an
> enterprise.
>
> A computer program of this type would not make value judgements; it would
> simply list the assumptions and conclusions and state if the the
> conclusions were justified based on the assumptions.  If the conclusions
> are not logical, then the paper is nonsense and should be corrected or
> discarded.  It would then be up to the human readers to determine if the
> assumptions are reasonable.  Not everyone would agree on what assumptions
> are reasonable.  But this process would eliminate a large number of papers
> from consideration, including a large number of peer-reviewed scientific
> papers.
>
> This type of program would work just as well on a discussion of religious
> ideas as it would on a scientific paper.  So I see no reason why it would
> stifle real creativity.  What it would do is eliminate a lot of people's
> opinion disguised as truth.
>
>
>
>
>
> Maurice Daniel, Master Inventor
> mdaniel at masterinventor.com
>
>
>
> On Oct 18, 2016, at 10:22 AM, Zoltan Losonc wrote:
>
> > Maurice’s idea to use the tool of logic for the evaluation of the
> proposed theories and papers is fairly sound. Its proper usage supposed to
> be obligatory in official science as well. But hey, we don’t live in a
> perfect world… There are only two “small” problems to solve first.
> >
> > One problem is that it is unrealistic to expect that we (or anyone for
> that matter) would be able to write a program in a reasonable timeframe
> that could do it automatically. To accomplish such a task one would have to
> employ many programmers, which would require very deep pockets to fund the
> project. It supposed to use some kind of artificial intelligence, and it
> would take quite some time before it would become usable. Therefore we will
> have to perform the logical analysis ourselves, or more specifically those
> who have got sufficient interest in a certain paper, free time, and
> willingness to do it. Which basically boils down to writing a critique and
> posting it.
> >
> > The second problem is that even though we might think, that the rules of
> logic are as strict as the rules of mathematics, there are very few people
> who actually use strict logic in their papers. In most cases the new theory
> bleeds away right at the very start, by building it on false assumptions
> and engrained pseudoscientific dogmas that are deemed to be the unshakable
> foundations of nature. Thus even if we manually implement the test of logic
> via writing a critique, there will be surely opposing opinions about what
> is logical, what is not; and then not to speak about what can be reasonably
> assumed to be an unshakable law of nature, and what can not. Therefore to
> expect a smooth ride while trying to establish a consensus among “dissident
> scientists” coming from so many different branches of science, is
> unrealistic. Be prepared for wild differences of opinion!
> >
> > There is one more tiny problem with the consensus, when it comes to
> important discoveries. I hope that most of the subscribers are aware that
> there are very deep pockets interested in suppressing some of the knowledge
> that we are trying to discover and publish. They consider us to be their
> enemies and wage a war against us (quite successfully so far). The most
> important part of this war for them is intelligence gathering. Therefore
> they have their own undercover agents planted into every community, forum,
> and mailing list they can reach. It is unrealistic to expect that they have
> missed the de Climont's list from where our email addresses were collected.
> Therefore I am sure that there are (or there will be) planted disinfo
> agents amongst us, who will not only collect information, but will also
> create chaos, conflicts, and spread disinformation to derail attention from
> important topics and real science. Watch out for such elements, and don’t
> let yourselves get drawn into traps. I have seen this manifest countless
> times on public free-energy forums.
> >
> > I would suggest to Arend, to convert this email list into a forum.
> Arend, since you have got your own server, this should not be a problem for
> you, because there are very good forum software out there for free. If you
> need recommendation, I can give you some tips; and also about features that
> would be very useful. The main reason why a forum would be preferable is
> that we are coming from diverse fields of science and not everybody is
> interested in everything. In a forum one can very easily choose which
> topics he is interested in, and the discussion and organization of the
> information would be also much easier. The forum does not necessarily have
> to be public, and posting should be enabled only for the list members. Our
> email boxes would also stay much cleaner.
> >
> > Zoltan Losonc
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Physics mailing list
> > Physics at tuks.nl
> > http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Physics mailing list
> Physics at tuks.nl
> http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.tuks.nl/pipermail/physics/attachments/20161018/9148738b/attachment.html>