[Physics] The filter of logic & forum suggestion

Wed Oct 19 20:28:39 CEST 2016

Another option might be to give it a go yourself.

There is a "natural language toolkit" for python, which might already
contain much of what would be needed:

http://www.nltk.org/

A very nice platform for version control and collaboration is Github. I
have a number of repositories on there, relating to a project I'm working
on:

https://github.com/l4m4re?tab=repositories

Python is a really nice language for developing new concepts, because it is
very expressive and has a *lot* of libraries.

Best regards,

Arend.

Arend Lammertink, MScEE,
Goor, The Netherlands.

Please note that I'm currently overwhelmed with e-mails. If you're
interested in discussing science and/or physics, please consider
subscribing to the mailing list I created for that purpose:

http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics

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/20161019/e4e3df1b/attachment.html>