Re: Stephen Hawking is wrong

[John M <***>]

Jack, I thought you (and the list) know me better!
Of course not, we have a saying: "great minds when
they meet" (also a joke). 
There is a certain "floating around of ideas" and it
brings out interesting coincidental matches.
*
When on my Ford-Foundation Sabbatical I had a lecture
in Redwood City (1966) at a company producing similar
novelties there to what I came up with at almost
diagonally on the globe (Hungary) and my lecture was:
"You people had this novelty and publshed (ref). Now I
will tell you what you did NOT publish of it"
First they were amused, then not and the boss asked me
quite seriously where did I take the data from? I told
them: I went through the same research effort and just
told them what "I" did not publish either. 
We became friends.
Ruppert Sheldrake has similar about the 'floating'
ideas. Without real cross-fertilization.

John
--- Jack Park <***> wrote:

> John,
> Are you saying Lawson pirated your work?
> Jack
> 
> On 11/30/05, John M <***> wrote:
> > Dear Jack,
> > it was so boring to read that Lawson text: I felt
> I am
> > reading my own writing. Of course he used
> 'closure'
> > and I use 'model', but that does not change too
> much.
> >
> > Thanks for the info, I am sorry all that did not
> come
> > out with my name. (Maybe his English and style is
> a
> > bit better)<G>. I had the details spread into
> posts on
> > diverse lists, some here.
> >
> > John M
> >
> > --- Jack Park <***> wrote:
> >
> > > This paper is found at
> > >
> >
>
http://www.arn.org/docs2/news/stephenhawkingwrong112201.htm
> > > Jack
> > >
> > > On 11/27/05, Rodrigo Peláez
> <***>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > With regard to the thoughts recently brought
> by
> > > Judith, I consider it
> > > > pertinent to copy an article written by Hilary
> > > Lawson. I don't know how to
> > > > attach an archive to the list, so excuse me
> the
> > > length of the post.
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 Tim Gwinn writes about a
> > > "?book entitled Closure: A
> > > > Story of Everything by Hilary Lawson
> (Routledge,
> > > 2001). After reading this,
> > > > I find the ideas presented therein to be very
> > > enlightening and persuasive. I
> > > > also find that they are consonant with
> Rosennean
> > > complexity in a very deep
> > > > way, such that I feel it has opened up and
> > > broadened my understanding of
> > > > complexity and its pervasiveness greatly."
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Stephen Hawking is wrong. By Hilary Lawson
> > > >
> > > > The notion that we might uncover the nature of
> the
> > > world through a
> > > > combination of careful observation and logic
> goes
> > > back to the inception of
> > > > the scientific project. It was the dream of
> the
> > > Enlightenment and it could
> > > > even be said that this vision has defined
> modern
> > > western culture. A
> > > > motivating and liberating force, it has given
> us a
> > > sense of progress, a
> > > > sense that unlike previous cultures and other
> > > societies we are on the road
> > > > to truth. Nevertheless, it is profoundly
> mistaken.
> > > >
> > > > In the closing pages of A Brief History of
> Time
> > > Stephen Hawking took a
> > > > sideswipe at contemporary philosophy, arguing
> that
> > > it has been reduced to an
> > > > analysis of language. In his haste to dismiss
> > > philosophy he allowed himself
> > > > to misunderstand not only language but the
> nature
> > > of the world. Hawking
> > > > makes the simple error of assuming that the
> world
> > > and our descriptions of it
> > > > might be one and the same. In our descriptions
> of
> > > the world we divide it
> > > > into things: trees and houses, people and
> events,
> > > stars and planets, atoms
> > > > and molecules. But the world is not a thing or
> a
> > > combination of things, for
> > > > these categories-these closures, as I call
> > > them-are the outcome of our
> > > > descriptions. Instead, the world is open and
> it is
> > > we who close it. Through
> > > > our closures we grasp the openness of the
> world as
> > > things, and out of these
> > > > things we build stories and models through
> which
> > > we are able to intervene.
> > > > But these stories and models are not the
> world,
> > > nor could they in principle
> > > > come close to being the world.
> > > >
> > > > The world does not come pre-packaged and
> divided
> > > into its parts. We are not
> > > > in a cosmic supermarket identifying
> cling-wrapped
> > > items of reality. Instead
> > > > we find ourselves in openness, and in order to
> > > make sense of it, to have
> > > > some means of intervening to certain effect,
> we
> > > realise closure. We do not
> > > > form our closures in a vacuum. We find
> ourselves
> > > in a network of linguistic
> > > > closures already realised and handed down by
> our
> > > culture from generation to
> > > > generation. As biological organisms, we are
> > > already set up, through
> > > > evolution, to generate certain types of
> sensory
> > > closure. These biological
> > > > and cultural systems of closure have been
> adopted
> > > because they prove useful,
> > > > not because they are true.
> > > >
> > > > Current theories of astrophysics, with tales
> of
> > > the big bang, black holes
> > > > and antimatter, have the feel of science
> fiction.
> > > And in a sense that is
> > > > what they are: the stories of contemporary
> > > science. These stories are not
> > > > unconstrained; they do not allow anything to
> be
> > > said. For the stories of
> > > > science have an internal logic which drives
> them
> > > forward. They are often
> > > > useful. We live by our closures. But we should
> not
> > > imagine that we have
> > > > thereby captured the secrets of the universe.
> Nor
> > > should we suppose that
> > > > there are not countless alternatives, offering
> > > other ways of holding the
> > > > world that may be equally valid.
> > > >
> > > > The closures of contemporary science appear to
> be
> > > unavoidable because they
> > > > take their place in a system of closures that
> has
> > > been built and defended
> > > > over centuries. When Hawking describes the
> > > universe as a vast array of
> > > > galaxies exploding into the emptiness of space
> > > propelled by the energy from
> > > > the original big bang, it is the outcome of a
> > > history of preceding closures
> > > > which combine to make it look as if Hawkins's
> > > closure is the only available
> > > > option. Yet there are other options, at every
> > > level of the account, from the
> > > > tiniest detail to the most general theory;
> options
> > > that would grasp openness
> > > > differently in some respect, that would draw
> > > attention to different patterns
> > > > and different connections, and which would as
> a
> > > consequence offer different
> > > > ways of intervening and to different purposes.
> > > >
> > > > In his new book, The Universe in a Nutshell,
> 
=== message truncated ===