Such people usually hate mathematics because they cannot understand it, so they need pseudo-arguments to feel proud of their ignorance. What it truly means, is only one thing: 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. Wigner, Casey Blood, J. This is pure lack of imagination.
Many of these changes have been difficult to predict or control—but not all. Then is also a clash between the cells of the Obscurantism column. April , International , Masters , Ph. If you republish this on your website, please provide a link to this post. Maudlin as expressed elsewhere.
Obscurantism Anti-Platonism Deny the amazing efficiency of mathematics observed in physics; stay ignorant about it.
About the FQXI essay contest on the math/physics connection
Return to top of page. Because naively implemented, such a method will fail in a world with a ratio of 10 idiots for 1 competent reviewer, as long as no system is developed for people to automatically filter the information depending on the competence of the reviewer. 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 in 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.
Idiots give him high rates, not that exsay love his essay, but because they love him.
Yet its connection to space-time, as described above, is Local deterministic realism FQXI essays some are included here just based on the authors positively commenting crackpot ones: Many authors claim to “explain” the remarkable role of maths and physics by the assumption that it does not exist, i.
So it needs another explanation. Mind makes collapse before decoherence H. On the other hand, those who appeared best by “community rating” on March 16th were: SinghTorsten Asselmeyer-Maluga. Scientism Platonism Recognize with R. Namely, tangent vectors x,y,z,t to this point are identified with Hermitian forms on E with matrix.
About Muhammed Abdullahi Tosin Writer. Find Essay Competitions by: Of course a corollary is that idiots, with their own bias, will filter information according to their own biases, and will skip the sane reviews.
As for the remarkable role of maths in physics: Here are the explanations. This contest encourages us to avoid potentially self-fulfilling prophecies of gloom and doom and to think hard about how to make the world better while avoiding potential catastrophes.
FQXi Essay Contest Winners have been announced | Taking up Spacetime
Because average humans who “care” often have a big bias for obscurantism i. Indeed, relativistic filters are all what technical systems can do anyway: See my comments there As I noted there, that article has some points, but also some flawsand in my Web page on the topic.
Maudlin as expressed elsewhere. This is very abstract, but not any kind of “generality of things” like what category theory does by describing regularity classes of particular systems that may go down to objects that look “natural” in a naturalistic sense.
I cared to make the best essay, altogether scientifically accurate, clear and very insightful and innovative, including but not restricted to. In fact, the popularity he gets among idiots by his creation of ViXra and his ideas on Open Peer Review, is based on a double misunderstanding: 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 not, can be an interesting information.
Notify me of follow-up comments by email. On the contrary, scientific quality would be rather a handicap in this rating.
To explain how the concepts of “abstraction” and “generality” differ, I need fontest take a specific example. Scientific American will also consider adapted material from winning essays for possible publication.
But the essay of Philip Gibbs does not have this “quality”. Well, these people are Christians And the essag rational explanation for his high rate, has nothing to do with the content of his article.