Wednesday, November 09, 2011

Something badly wrong in Science2.0?

The censorship in Science2.0 has transformed to a farce. I told already in posting about strange "Access denied":s.

After I had tried in vain to answer to a question of Eugen Stefanovich in the blog of Paolo Ciafaloni, I registered to the group as Eugene proposed: Eugene believed that a technical problem was in question.

I was accepted to Science2.0 as a registered member and went to the group only to find that it was not possible to write any comment!! After that I found that my earlier comment and Eugene's response to it had mysteriously disappeared!

It is clear that complete idiots are behind this insanity and they are rapidly spoiling the credibility of Science2.0. From a long experience I can understand quite well the psychology behind this kind of insane activities: jealousy is a horrible disease. This kind of discussion group should be however immune to the actions of people who do not realize that dirty tricks motivated by jealousy are not science.

To give some idea about the level of accepted comments just one example: a fellow who called himself "photon" expressed his thoughts and feelings using language with quite strong anal aroma:

Keep digging your hole. Ignore particle models of light. Ignore extinction theory. Ignore your eyes when V838 Monocerotis blew up. A century wasted on relativity and wave theory is far too long a wrong turn.

It did not become clear to whom his comment was directed since the message did not contain too may bits. If "shit" is some day accepted as an official unit of strongly negatively emotional dis-information then this message - do not forget that it was accepted for publication- managed to conceive at least Mega-shit of dis-information.

Situation is however not so gloomy: some young student expressed his impressions in the following manner: I find it amusing that even individuals with degrees unimaginable to myself, attack each other personally on a science website.

I have no knowledge in the fields of physics as I am just an 18 year old college student, however the comments I read (albeit the technical terms and the majority of theories went right over my head) are amusing considering you are all "professionals" and you are getting discouraged with one another and fighting like little kids.

Just my thoughts.


At 5:41 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes "something" is seriously wrong with Science2.0. I suspect more nefarious forces at work here. There are major concerns with every internet and communication mechanism hosted in the good ole You Ess of Aye. Why do you think google pulled their iPad app immediately after it was released? It's not just a "glitch" its extremely bizarre ways in which the internet is affecting human minds. The developers cannot be expected to be scientifically minded physicists so when they have "bad experiences" they just cower and refuse to talk in a scientific way then everyone gets scared and tries to cover their ass. "The man" has robots which continually scan sources of information they would like to have a leg up on, but this is a polling mechanism so it just introduces undesirable semantics... I'm sure even my gmail account is censored and screened before it even gets to my eyeballs...

At 6:33 AM, Anonymous said...

Modern information technology provides not only unforeseen possibilities. For both communication and for censorship and control.

My experiences during these three decades have taught to me that at the top of academic hegemony there are people ready for anything. By paying enough for a computer professional all kinds of tricks become possible: just this seems to be happening for Science2.0.

Skeptic can of course ask whether the blog owners use these dirty tricks: I want to believe that this is not the case but cannot be sure.

In any case, nothing can prevent the breakthrough of
new profound idea and this kind of trickery only shows that those behind it are becoming desperate.

At 8:13 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

A lot of these horrible applications of technology can be traced back to 9/11 unfortunately. Fear is an awful thing. For a perspective on why some of this shit might be happening from a US perspective see and I'm sure this crap spills over into the world at large. Personally, I operate on universal principles of peace, openness, acceptance, forgiveness, etc, but I can't help but think some of these folks in power have some really dark ideas.. no matter what seat of power they hail from. I think it is especially dangerous when leaders get doom and gloom feelings because they think they can predict the future and it makes them act in a defensive and hoarding mentality... if they were bright enough they could see how it is possible to build a brighter future for everyone and the aura of fear would receed...

At 3:31 PM, Blogger Ervin Goldfain said...


I completely agree that censorship on Science 2.0 is highly regrettable. Nobody has the right to dismiss comments if they are informed and non-offensive to anyone. Allowing difference of opinions is a healthy way of doing science.

At 8:43 PM, Anonymous said...

There is no doubt that the censor is there and some people are applying really dirty tricks. Very sad.

I have often wondered what happens to a young student full of enthusiasm as his career develops and transforms him to a miserable intriguer for whom life is the curriculum vitae. And why good almost unavoidably seem to induce evil.Evil seems to like a polarization effect: no good without the accompanying evil.

Could this be a law of Nature? Almost by definition life seems to pollute. Every organized attempt to make the world a better place seems to be accompanied by its opposite caused by the fight for power amongst those who lead the process supposed to lead to organized good.

This was at the bottom of my mind as I formulated a pessimistic view about what I call Negentropy Maximization Principle. Number theoretic negentropy is a number theoretic variant of entanglement entropy having negative values and thus allowing an interpretation as a measure of genuine information. Negentropic entanglement would carry genuine information and be the basic characteristic of life: this is not possible in the world of standard physics where the best one can achieve is no entropy and no negentropy : the entire Universe as a gigantic dump pit. This would first suggest a breaking of second law but perhaps this is too good to be true.

With my life experiences it was natural for me to propose that the creation of the islands of negative entropy - something new from the perspective of standard physics- is always accompanied by regions of compensating positive entropy. All the ideas that science and art produce are beautiful and certainly highly negentropic. Does the community producing these ideas become a dump pit as a compensation? I often have the feeling that scientists are the most amoral and hypocritical people in the society. Negentropy creation is supposed to be the job of scientists: do scientists themselves and scientific community become the dump pit?

One can consider this also at personal level. At my age one becomes fully aware what aging really means to the biological body. I feel myself a dump pit also physically! Could aging be a compensation for the negentropy we possibly manage to generate during our life time: by taking care of our offspring at least or even by performing some mission?

I am unable to make theoretical sense about the idea that biological death would be the end of consciousness: therefore I am cautious and speak about biological death only. Suppose optimistically that I manage to generate some negentropy compensating the entropy of my biological body. Where do the bits of this negentropy go? Could some fraction contribute to my conscious experience after my biological death? Since I live in TGD world, I would like to assign these bits to what I call my magnetic body. Could all this misery and pain (I wonder what pearl oyster feels) give rise to a gem after all?

At 4:09 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

What is the relation of the second law of thermodynamics and zero-energy ontology?

And to begin with, there is serious problem in "science as it is" (vs. any idealized ideal science) promoting itself to the top of the power pyramid of its own making - as the highest form of knowledge,,, when already Aristotle could categorize other more open and active and ethical intellectual virtues than epistemic aka scientific:

"According to Aristotle, the intellectual virtues include: scientific knowledge (episteme), artistic or technical knowledge (techne), intuitive reason (nous), practical wisdom (phronesis), and philosophic wisdom (sophia). Scientific knowledge is a knowledge of what is necessary and universal. Artistic or technical knowledge is a knowledge of how to make things, or of how to develop a craft. Intuitive reason is the process that establishes the first principles of knowledge. Practical wisdom is the capacity to act in accordance with the good of humanity. Philosophic wisdom is the combination of intuitive reason and scientific knowledge."

And then again, it's empirical truth that certain traits or potentials of human characters don't mix well with hierarchical power structures aka king of the hill -games. Like the fact that many don't want to play but those who like to play and tend to win are psychopaths. Especially the power hierarchies called "corporations" - which our system gives legal personhood and life duration not bound by carnal biology. System of exponentially increasing complexity of materialistic (aka "scientific") production vs. health of biosphere - humans included?

In terms of "as is" academic science is materialistic power cult, and people working there are not happy with how things have become. In terms of our genetical closest relatives, chimps and bono-bonos, we expand and explore both those horizons - in good and bad.

At 11:04 PM, Blogger Ulla said...

We live in an open thermodynamic system. Our Sun flood us with energy all the time. Our planet Earth in uncapable of accommodating for all that energy, and Life contribute much to that accommodation. I think that is the main reason Life was ever created (here). So even Life goes to Entropy. Remember that all those beautiful experiencies are done in a state of Entropy. Negentropy in itself is just noise, and in that aspect creates evil, maybe. Negentropy is the Evil picture in metaphysics, the tree of knowledge (left brain) compared to the tree of heart (right brain, holism). Negentropy also contains hidden messages, patterns hide for our normal senses, extracted/relaxed by ? - entropy???

Entropy itself is the most misunderstood state of being? What is its relation to entanglement? Is there many states of Entropy too, as there are states of negentropy? Like a quantized entropy? Remember that entropy is nothing in itself, it is like a mirror-image.

Money is disturbing this pic a lot. It has a high value. Is that also a high negentropy?

We have known for some time that Science 2.0 is no objective blogsite. It would maybe be healthy to know its interests?

At 6:19 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

There is a waiting time after registration before the new member is allowed to publish Blogs on Science 2.0, then there is censorship, but not uniform from one category to another or from day to day. There is an editorial policy but it continually changes.

I had a few comments deleted, but others of the same type were not, almost like some of the moderators didn't comprehend the subject matter. Other times they just get too busy to read all of the comments. Then they get mad if your level of comprehension is too far advanced than theirs, or you differ too far from the standard model.

Hank Campbell can over ride the system and give access to write before the wait time expires. On the other hand he once called Matti an amateur, until Jerry Decker corrected him.

Science 2.0 lets someone like Jerry Decker write there, but he is about as far from moderators expectations as anyone can get, and still be published on Science 2.0. At least the moderators understand what he says. Moderators don’t understand Matti, although he extends the work from a long history of other writers, and comes up with a theory that doesn’t harm any one. Jerry builds on a background of highly dangerous materials that cause him to be registered with Montreal Protocol and Atomic Energy Commission. Then he writes of things that could destroy one world and create another, but Science 2.0 allows it to be published, at least part of the time, in some categories.

If a writer on Science 2.0 deletes some published articles, there is another waiting period without writing privileges, sometimes as much as 6 months. Then privileges are restored. Hank can also over ride this.

Think of Science 2.0 as a publishing business with a lot of demands on it and an editorial policy that changes often.

I am known as Writer A, a recent reader of Matti, 40 years a correspondent of Jerry.

At 6:47 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

One further comment on access to Science 2.0 is that the writers of articles have some ability to restrict who can comment on their pages. These changes occur over time in an experimental way. Jerry Decker once told me that on some pages he can only see his comments when he is logged on, but not when he is anonymous. It’s a type of controlled access, with public censorship controlled by the featured writers.

Once again I am Writer A.

At 8:58 PM, Anonymous said...

Anonymous asked about the relation of second law to zero energy ontology. I try to explain briefly.

*Zero energy states are pairs of positive and negative energy states localized at the opposite boundaries of CDs (causal diamond). All quantum numbers are opposite for these pairs, not only energy. Everything can be created from vacuum in ZEO.

*There is time-like entanglement between positive and negative energy parts of the state. This defines what I call M-matrix. All possible M-matrices define U-matrix which is unitary so that M-matrices are like orthogonal rows of unitary matrix. M-matrix
is product of hermitian square root of density matrix and of unitary S-matrix so that a connection with thermodynamics, where density matrix is fundamental, emerges. Quantum TGD is square root of thermodynamics, one might say.

*In accordance with state preparation postulate one can assume that the positive energy part (initial state in ordinary ontology) is a many-particle state with well-defined particle numbers and also other quantum numbers. Negative energy part of the state (counterpart of final state) cannot satisfy this condition if S-matrix is non-trivial.

This implies the arrow of time and second law at the level of quantum states (zero energy states now).

Two important differences:

*Usually second law follows from non-determinism of state preparation process at the level of ensemble. Now ensemble assumption is not needed.

*It could happen that the roles of positive and negative energy parts are changed in which geometric arrow of time changes.

At 9:20 PM, Anonymous said...

Dear Anonynous,

still about the sad situation Science 2.0.

The situation in my case has not been the one you described.

a) I patiently waited before I got acceptance to my registration. I got it and still it was impossible to type text and earlier comment and response to it by Eugene and also by this Italian blogger himself (!) had disappeared: only an idiot could believe that this is not censorship of worst kind.

b) This episode was preceded by this "Access denied" circus which always could be blamed to be a technical difficulty which it of course was not. There was even this ridiculous procedure in which I should have be able to type greek letters like \nu to prove that I am not a robot!! Someone in the control room is clearly insane.

c) This Italian fellow and also one previous blogger removed my comment after he himself had commented it!! This after the ridiculous "Access denied" manouvre.

c) I agree that the behavior of moderators creates impression that their understanding about physics is below graduate level. Perhaps this is indeed the case.

Physics is a difficult discipline requiring a life long devotion and often those who enjoy of the pleasures produced by censoring activities are not those who understand what they are censoring.

This is basically about competence of moderators.

Therefore a modest proposal: Could it be possible to have more competent moderators in Science 2.0 with strong moral spine to tolerate the pressures posed by the corrupted hegemony?

And for heaven's sake: stop these idiotic "Access denied" games before all credibility is lost.

At 10:27 AM, Blogger Ulla said...

Look at Tommaso's blog

Sascha Vongehr has serious troubles, what could be foreseen from earlier. I bet he is not so long there.


Post a Comment

<< Home