Banner
No Science Distorting Populism For High Trust Society

The prospect of a peaceful right wing revolution from the heart is no more but an April fools’...

Jews And Aspergerian Racists Dancing Around The Oven

“Not only a new kind of community but a new kind of man comes into history with the development...

More Research For Next Level Asperger Enhanced Thinking And Donald Trump

Genetic variants linked to autism spectrum disorders (ASD) contribute to enhanced cognition and...

Positively Arguing IQ Determinism And Effect Of Education

Many cannot accept that IQ is largely determined by our genes. They do not trust the research....

User picture.
picture for Robert H Olleypicture for Ilias Tyrovolaspicture for Tommaso Dorigopicture for David LePoirepicture for David Hallidaypicture for Quentin Rowe
Sascha VongehrRSS Feed of this column.

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

Blogroll

John Baez writes in "The Crackpot Index - A simple method for rating potentially revolutionary contributions to physics":

Cryptography aims to secure communication. Eve should not be able to eavesdrop on the communication between Alice and Bob. Quantum cryptography is 100% secure in as far as the physics is concerned. However, it is unsatisfying if this security is merely promised by a still new and even partially controversial theory. Who wants to trust their most important secrets to something that may be wrong?

  Modern physics is not accidentally relativistic and quantum, or in other words, Einstein-relative as well as Everett-relative (Bell-violating Everett-relativity is the very core of quantum mechanics!). Modern physics becomes ever more relativistic still today, and description relativity has revolutionized fundamental physics (see string theory dualities, Maldacena conjecture, black hole complementarity/holography, and so on). Why? Because we must take the observer’s perspective, and this means the describer’s perspective, ever more into account.

A common misconception is that all good scientific theory must be based on empirical science and provide ingredients where the theory can be potentially falsified (Karl Popper).

This dogma demands that a hypothesized theory should include something falsifiable, something that could be *possibly observed* and would then refute the theory (here in the words of Lee Smolin).

“Death is not an event in life: we do not live to experience death. If we take eternity to mean not infinite temporal duration but timelessness, then eternal life belongs to those who live in the present. Our life has no end in the way in which our visual field has no limits.” — Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus, 6.431 (emphasis added)

 

-- What is that even supposed to mean, “Finding eternity in the now”?

For several years I felt the desire to give readers a positive message around this time of year, as it is the most depressive for many. Alas, as you can tell from my writing ever less, I have little to say. Mostly because I understand now that my writing is too difficult and dark. I actually kept writing much, enough for a hundred good posts, but I keep revising, unable to let the light I seem to be seeing shine through the words.