0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
quote:(One's objection that these propositions are not axiomatic is nothing but one's inability to perceive the truth. These propositions are clearly axiomatic to the author.)
quote:Originally posted by SimonBut protein folding does not demonstrate "intelligent" activity. Folding is driven thermodynamically through a number of processes that result in the "funnelling" of interactions until the energy minima is found. Similarly the use of chaperone and scavenging molecules help to facilitate efficient structure formation and if necessary remove misfolded poly-peptides. I cannot see how there is any need for some form of outside "help". Simon
quote:Originally posted by Sandwalkerquote:(One's objection that these propositions are not axiomatic is nothing but one's inability to perceive the truth. These propositions are clearly axiomatic to the author.)How to gain friends and influence people! Tell them their stupid.Exactly where and how does the 'Non - Spatial Thinking Process' happen, if 'The central non - spatial superhuman thoughts are processed in zero time because of no spatial limitations'.
quote:Please consult "George Johnson's, A shortcut through time" for the problem of newly minted protein, which he regards as the hardest problem in the universe. There are some other famous books as well like "The 20 biggest problems in science".
quote:Originally posted by Simonquote:Please consult "George Johnson's, A shortcut through time" for the problem of newly minted protein, which he regards as the hardest problem in the universe. There are some other famous books as well like "The 20 biggest problems in science". I am a structural biochemist, I know full well what the problem of protein folding is. My question is related to how this "NTSP" theory impacts the science, and therefore how it is useful. Can you give a more detailed example with perhaps reference to some peer-reviewed articles regarding this theory? Simon
quote:3) A phenomenally conscious self is a temporal stream of non - spatial phenomenal mental events. ( A Non - Spatial Thinking Process (NSTP), as every feeling is itself a thought or idea. )
quote:Originally posted by SimonAt risk of wasting my time with this discussion: We cannot exactly model the mechanism of protein folding, however we are fairly sure of at least a number of important influencing factors. As such it is this "partial" understanding that drives the research simply because we KNOW our models are not fool proof and hence we experiment further. As far as I understand from what you've written above, this "theory" is simply an atheistic re-hash of the classical "God of the gaps" argument so favoured by those whose world-view relies on the mystical. As "NSTP" does not drive or encourage research, I question its usefulness.Simon
quote:'you are completely ignorant'
quote:'ultimately they have to get to the NSTP theory, there is no escape.'
quote:'It's obviously very difficult to understand the NSTP theory'
quote:'If not understood it's more obvious that it causes serious confusion.
quote:Originally posted by Darken RahlSo Basically what's actually happening here is that you've invented a very complicated theroy which, in your mind, explains everything (maybe not, i'm generalising) and you claim to be a scientist and philosipher. so why, when people suggest to you that your theory is flawed, do you simply ignore them and refuse to change your views? Surely if you're really a scienctist and philosipher you should be open to new ideas and change?Or maybe you're just desperate for attention?Which seems more likely to everyone else?Fear the Extra-Temporal Chrono-Bananas
quote:Originally posted by AlexhI think everyone would agree that the theory you have laid out is one of the many possible answers to the biggest questions - what is the universe, what are we doing here and why do things seem to work as well as they do?Unfortunately it suffers from the same problems as other answers which have been put forward - omnipotent gods or the possibility that there is only one conscious entity (me in this case) imagining the rest of creation.If Galileo, Newton or Einstein had believed in the theory to the level you do, why would they have bothered looking for the answer to the question "Why do things fall to earth and stay there?"? The answer is clear - because thats the way the algorithm that runs Virtual Reality is written (BTTWTATRVRIW).Actually, there do appear to be laws that govern why objects fall to earth that we can understand and as we look deeper and deeper we see how more of these laws work. The current "problems" that appear to have no solution - like the protein folding problem are just ones that appear to have no solution now. Of course, there is always the possibility that you are right and in these areas we have reached the level beyond which the answer is (BTTWTATRVRIW) but it seems a bit of a coincidence that we are reaching them now and not at any point in the last 25 centuries or so of scientific experimentation and philosophy.In one sense, your theory is no different logically from the omnipotent god theory as in at any point the answer to any physical question can be "because that's the way God wants it" and THAT answer has been a fundamental drain on our assault on the unknown.maybe by continuing to explore the fundamentals of physical law we can actually test your theory - or just discover it to be correct. Either way, as a useful mechanism for furthering our understanding of the Universe, it falls down.In the meantime then, we should just carry on and leave it in one of our folders as a possible explanation for all things like any other religion - and I have to say that your defence of your theory does sound fundamentalist in another sense.Keep trying though - perhaps you could use it in a science fiction novella?
quote:Originally posted by gsmollinDear Mr. Joshi,I think the basic resistance to your idea, "NSTP", is that you are only telling us what it is "not", e. g., it is "non-spatial", and so on. You would do better to tell us what it "is", and what it can do for us.As an example, when Einstein published general relativity, it was a pretty pointless theory. Newtonian mechanics was perfectly suited to everything we humans wanted to do or know. The ideas were outlandish, and required a complete paradigm shift to comprehend. Einstein was good enough to explain his ideas thoroughly, defining new terms very carefully, in both simple qualitative ways, and complex quantitative ways. Then he also put forth several tests of GR that were within the scope of scientific observation, such as the perihelion rotation of Mercury, and the bending of starlight as it passes near a massive object. These were all necessary parts of a new theory, because scientists could understand what GR was about, and what answers to tough questions it could provide.I don't see you doing this here. Right up front you claim you can resolve wave-particle duality, but I never saw it done. You use a lot of terminology without definition. Unprovable axioms are the stuff of philosophy, not science. I refer you to Einstein's explanation of the equivalence principle as an example of doing a theory right. Read that over a few times, and then try to explain your non-spatial principal just as well. If there is some other body of work that you have written that we should see, then please give us a reference. The world is full of philosophical ideas not too different from yours. Most of them, your's included, give unsatisfying answers to tough questions. If you wish to have your ideas taken seriously, then you must do a better job of explaining what they are, and why anybody would want to use them.
quote:Originally posted by AlexhKedarI don't think I can be called closed minded because I apply equal weight to any unprovable hypothesis - I am not denying that you might be right.Also, I do not get annoyed by the use of any of those words (Consciousness, non-spatial, philosphy, God). Damn, I am only on this forum because these are the things that interest me most (well, maybe not non-spatial..). I am not scared or disturbed by the theory you have launched upon the world - I just want to point out that your idea and edifice you have built upon it is really no different from any of the others that have already been espoused by many other equally evangelistic proponents.BTW, I notice you have submitted your ideas to a number of other scientific forums - I recommend the Darwin Awards Scientific Philosophy Forum [nofollow] if you really want some feedback. I would reconsider your approach (ie. calling anyone who disagrees with you stupid) though, because those guys will eat you alive.
quote:Originally posted by Kedar JoshiThe NSTP theory is a mathematical theory (both pure and applied : its axiomatic part is pure while the hypothetical part is applied)..... It is a mathematical theory speaking about reality. (Any mathematical theory does speak about reality.)
quote:Originally posted by gsmollinDear Mr. Joshi,You should not compare yourself to Newton, or any other physicist like him. A comparison to Kant or another philosopher would be better. Newton's works were carefully thought out and were verifiable by experiment. We all know there were problems with his physics and the physics of his followers, such as Maxwell, because parts of it could not be verified by experiment.Unprovable axioms and logically proven theorems are the stuff of philosophy and mathematics. This is fine, there are many systems of philosphy, logic, and mathematics that have been developed for the edification of their authors. A few have broad interest. Most do not.