Suicide For Birthday Best Present Ever

     Today is my 43rd birthday. When I was 34 years old, I walked along a...

Asperger Depressing Double Edged Sword

    Many high IQ Asperger sufferers think that their rationality is ultimately superior...

Asperger Good Yet Discriminated Against

Pathological thought can be helpful, especially the Asperger’s variety. Ludwig Wittgenstein became...

Asperger Love: Loveless Or Unloved Lovers

In time for Autistic Pride Day 18 June:     Why do people congratulate somebody...

User picture.
picture for Robert H Olleypicture for Tommaso Dorigopicture for Michael Martinezpicture for Thor Russellpicture for Bente Lilja Byepicture for Samuel Kenyon
Sascha VongehrRSS Feed of this column.

Dr. Sascha Vongehr [风洒沙] studied phil/math/chem/phys in Germany, obtained a BSc in theoretical physics (electro-mag) & MSc (stringtheory) at Sussex University, UK, and subsequently researched... Read More »


The pharmaceutics industry, too many science bloggers, “skeptics” - they all tell us that we should trust science and that all those who speak out for “natural” solutions are none other but religious idiots, or even monsters, criminals who do not refrain from harming your child for financial benefit. They try to bang it into our heads: Also nature is just chemistry; the often not applicable always-been-there-anyways-argument.

As I explained with help of the example of the vitamins E and D, the “tree huggers” often get it right plainly by staying “natural”.

The title, “The 2010s will be to the 2060s what the 1960s are to us today” is in a sense the most uplifting quote I have heard in a long while (yeah, I know about all the bad things, too, whatever). Since the 60s also stand for quite some influence of psychoactive substances onto later influential, if not revolutionary science and technology that made especially the "2.0" of Science2.0 possible at all, and since indeed the 2.0 part is taking off right now (as is a new wave of psychoactive activity above and underground), I found these quite fitting to add to the topic of Science2.0.

This is PART III of the four part series about the Edge discussion between Lee Smolin and Leonard Susskind. After criticizing Smolin the last time in PART II, it is now time to turn on Susskind.

Leonard Susskind is well read, certainly enough to know about the measure (not “measurement”) problem in modern quantum physics (introduced in PART I).

Why is there anything? It is kind of conceivable that there could be no thing 'existing' at all – no world, no universes, no consciousness. However, there is at least something.

The opposite of “there is something” is “there isn’t anything (e.g. observed)” but not “there is (e.g. observed) some nothing”. This is important to avoid much ado about nothing. “Nothing” refers to the absence of anything. “Nothing” is not another something.

Physics hunts for the ultimate theory; at least that is what the media and people like L. Susskind and M. Tegmark tell us incessantly what physics is all about (god particle, ultimate string theory landscape, ultimate ensemble, and all that). If you are after the ultimate theory, Smolin
Science told us that vitamins are good. The polluted environment and the stress of modern living result in more free radicals than evolution has prepared us for; supplementing is fine. I swallowed it – literally! Science tells us that supposedly “natural” supplements are also just out of molecules and that I am an esoteric mystic if I look into any childish natural stuff.