rodney203

Asimov And Kaku

Recommended Posts

Isaac Asimov; I miss him. I never read any of his fiction stories, and may even have only one of his paperbacks, but I loved him. He spoke and wrote about science, science fiction, and science speculation. But what I honor about him now is an ethical/political quality he displayed; one characteristic of scientists of times past, but which seems less common now. When Asimov produced something, he was conscientious enough to make it fairly clear whether he was producing a work of science fiction, a piece of science, or else speculating on science. This was a rational and necessary quality in his work, least any innocent member of his audience be led astray.

Now comes Mr. Michio Kaku, a knowledgeable scientist with a TV show. But Kaku doesn't have character of the likes of Asimov. Kaku knows his audience doesn't want their science "straight up", so mixes in generous bits of fiction and speculation, treating them all the same, saying nothing to his audience about which is which. He is one of the intellectuals that Objectivism warns about, and one of the scientists that Objectivism said would eventually come.

To be rational I must give an example; the example I heard recently, which broke the camels back and made me post here. The gist is that Kaku responded to a caller, on CSPAN, in which he said that "teleportation technology is still many years away". That soon Mr. Kaku?

In fact, any reality based person, possessed with common knowledge of physics, would have to believe that moving objects around in the fashion fantasized about in teleportation would be impossible. In fact, such teleportation would violate Objectivism's law of identy; objects not only have to be WHAT they are, but also WHERE they are, until they move from A to B along a path. There is no reason to believe that objects can move at infinite speed, nor that they can they cease to exist at point A and then magically appear at B. All this would violate the law of identy and if Mr. Kaku has any profound evidence that this might be possible the science community is not sharing it. Evidence of this possibility would be no less shocking than finding actual physical evidence of God, and it is my duty to believe that if such evidence existed the science community would be announcing it loudly, trying to explain it to us dummys.

Please don't write in about the quantum mechanics crap. I probably understand that better than you and that does not apply here.

If it walks like a duck,,,,,,,,,,,,,,. I condemn Kaku.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isaac Asimov; I miss him. I never read any of his fiction stories, and may even have only one of his paperbacks, but I loved him. He spoke and wrote about science, science fiction, and science speculation. But what I honor about him now is an ethical/political quality he displayed; one characteristic of scientists of times past, but which seems less common now. When Asimov produced something, he was conscientious enough to make it fairly clear whether he was producing a work of science fiction, a piece of science, or else speculating on science. This was a rational and necessary quality in his work, least any innocent member of his audience be led astray.

Now comes Mr. Michio Kaku, a knowledgeable scientist with a TV show. But Kaku doesn't have character of the likes of Asimov. Kaku knows his audience doesn't want their science "straight up", so mixes in generous bits of fiction and speculation, treating them all the same, saying nothing to his audience about which is which. He is one of the intellectuals that Objectivism warns about, and one of the scientists that Objectivism said would eventually come.

To be rational I must give an example; the example I heard recently, which broke the camels back and made me post here. The gist is that Kaku responded to a caller, on CSPAN, in which he said that "teleportation technology is still many years away". That soon Mr. Kaku?

In fact, any reality based person, possessed with common knowledge of physics, would have to believe that moving objects around in the fashion fantasized about in teleportation would be impossible. In fact, such teleportation would violate Objectivism's law of identy; objects not only have to be WHAT they are, but also WHERE they are, until they move from A to B along a path. There is no reason to believe that objects can move at infinite speed, nor that they can they cease to exist at point A and then magically appear at B. All this would violate the law of identy and if Mr. Kaku has any profound evidence that this might be possible the science community is not sharing it. Evidence of this possibility would be no less shocking than finding actual physical evidence of God, and it is my duty to believe that if such evidence existed the science community would be announcing it loudly, trying to explain it to us dummys.

Please don't write in about the quantum mechanics crap. I probably understand that better than you and that does not apply here.

If it walks like a duck,,,,,,,,,,,,,,. I condemn Kaku.

I agree with your opinion of both Asimov and Kaku. The latter is full of crap. (And while I read much of Asimov's nonfiction works as a child, I have never been able to finish an entire book of his fiction.) You are slightly off though, with your appeal to the law of identity. If it were the nature of certain things to be able to teleport, then that would be their nature, their identity. What is necessary is simply an appeal to clear language and evidence. What evidence does Kaku provide in support of such notions? None.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please don't write in about the quantum mechanics crap. I probably understand that better than you and that does not apply here.

If it walks like a duck,,,,,,,,,,,,,,. I condemn Kaku.

Quantum Mechanics is not crap. It is the best verified and evidence supported physical theory ever formulated by man.

What other physical theory produces verified predictions good to twelve decimal places? Quantum Field theory is it. Good to 12 decimal places and not yet falsified by experiment. That claim cannot be made by Newton's laws some which which have been falsified experimentally (for example Newton's Law of Gravitation).

I have great doubts about the judgement of anyone who would put a philosophical tautology like the "law of identity" (which tells is nothing specific about the world) in the same class as a a physical law that is supported by vast amounts of experimental evidence and measurement (which does tell us something specific about the world). Metaphysics is sh*t. Science is useful.

As to Dr. Kaku, he has hired himself out as an entertainer and he does very well at that task. It is honest labor for which he is well paid. Other physicists like Bryan Cox have also hired themselves out as entertainers and I am sure Dr. Cox knows a fookin' lot more physics than you do. He also does useful work at the Large Hadron Collider. Entertaining a mass audience is not a crime and it is not a wrong.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited by BaalChatzaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with your opinion of both Asimov and Kaku. The latter is full of crap. (And while I read much of Asimov's nonfiction works as a child, I have never been able to finish an entire book of his fiction.) You are slightly off though, with your appeal to the law of identity. If it were the nature of certain things to be able to teleport, then that would be their nature, their identity. What is necessary is simply an appeal to clear language and evidence. What evidence does Kaku provide in support of such notions? None.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_teleportation

Also see http://www.research.ibm.com/quantuminfo/teleportation/, paragraph two.

Plain enough for you ?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with your opinion of both Asimov and Kaku. The latter is full of crap. (And while I read much of Asimov's nonfiction works as a child, I have never been able to finish an entire book of his fiction.) You are slightly off though, with your appeal to the law of identity. If it were the nature of certain things to be able to teleport, then that would be their nature, their identity. What is necessary is simply an appeal to clear language and evidence. What evidence does Kaku provide in support of such notions? None.

See http://en.wikipedia....m_teleportation

Also see http://www.research..../teleportation/, paragraph two.

Plain enough for you ?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Yes, wikipedia and a fan site about the "teleportation" of quantum particles (neither macroscopic nor information bearing) are the basis upon which you expect me to take seriously Kaku's kaka. You call being paid for lies an honest living. Quite clear, Bob. Your sole perverse interest here is in being a contrarian. You will not take a stand in favor of such things as the finite yet unbounded universe model which comport with Aristotelian metaphysics, but you are quite happy to pretend that teleportation gobbledy gook has some actual meaning so long as it contradicts a view of the universe which requires coherent, evidence-based statements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, wikipedia and a fan site about the "teleportation" of quantum particles (neither macroscopic nor information bearing) are the basis upon which you expect me to take seriously Kaku's kaka. You call being paid for lies an honest living. Quite clear, Bob. Your sole perverse interest here is in being a contrarian. You will not take a stand in favor of such things as the finite yet unbounded universe model which comport with Aristotelian metaphysics, but you are quite happy to pretend that teleportation gobbledy gook has some actual meaning so long as it contradicts a view of the universe which requires coherent, evidence-based statements.

Lies and Entertainment. All fiction are lies. Kaku has sold some of his time to be entertainer. As did Isaac Asimov. Asimov know full well that the shrink machine in -Fantastic Voyage- contradicted quantum theory, but he wrote an entertaining fiction based on his lie.

Aristotelean Metaphysics, along with all other metaphysics is kaka, crap, crud, a waste product of the human intellect. It is a waste of time. It produces nothing useful.

Qbit computers (very simple and trivial ones) have been constructed and they work. That is quantum teleportation in action. Unfortunately the components decohere so swiftly that they do not make for a practical computer. Entanglement is as real as rain and experiments have demonstrated it (and the failure of Bell's Inequalities) since the 1970s.

I will agree with a finite unbounded universe (somewhat like the surface of a hypersphere) as soon as it is shown empirically that the overall curvature of the cosmos is positive. So far all evidence point to a mostly flat or slightly negatively curved cosmos. The last word on this matter has not been said and improved technology will clarify the matter further.

I am not a contrarian. I am a mathematician.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will agree with a finite unbounded universe (somewhat like the surface of a hypersphere) as soon as it is shown empirically that the overall curvature of the cosmos is positive. So far all evidence point to a mostly flat or slightly negatively curved cosmos. The last word on this matter has not been said and improved technology will clarify the matter further.

Are you distinguishing between a spatially finite universe at any given time, and a closed, positively curved spacetime? The latter is the one that appears to contradict observation, not the former.

If you are not a contrarian, why did you bring up the nonsense of teleportation, and refer me to wikipedia as if it had something useful to say? There is no evidence that matter can be teleported in any genuine sense of the word either "quantumly" or by wormhole. Transmission of data is not teleportation of matter.

I suppose we can agree to agree on Kaku.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lies and Entertainment. All fiction are lies. Kaku has sold some of his time to be entertainer. As did Isaac Asimov. Asimov know full well that the shrink machine in -Fantastic Voyage- contradicted quantum theory, but he wrote an entertaining fiction based on his lie.

Aristotelean Metaphysics, along with all other metaphysics is kaka, crap, crud, a waste product of the human intellect. It is a waste of time. It produces nothing useful.

You should use a dictionary before telling us fiction about fiction--i.e., "All fiction are [sic] lies."

A is A "is kaka, crap, crud, a waste product of the human intellect." A is B isn't? You know less about philosophy than I know about actual, workable physics, but I don't lecture you about that. Metaphysics and epistemology are basically very simple: metaphysics is the road and epistemology is how you are enabled to drive down that road and without those two your science wouldn't even exist. But you use them while shitting on them while if you had a modicum of grace you'd just keep quiet.

--Brant

Edited by Brant Gaede

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
. But you use them while shitting on them while if you had a modicum of grace you'd just keep quiet.

--Brant

A is A tells us nothing specific and useful about the world. If you know A is A will that tell you where to buy your supper?

Tautologies have limited use. If you contradict a tautology you know you're wrong. That is about all they are good for. A tautology will not tell you what is right.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
. But you use them while shitting on them while if you had a modicum of grace you'd just keep quiet.

--Brant

A is A tells us nothing specific and useful about the world. If you know A is A will that tell you where to buy your supper?

Tautologies have limited use. If you contradict a tautology you know you're wrong. That is about all they are good for. A tautology will not tell you what is right.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Right; you have to add in some thinking. Please do. You are an A is A man but the philosopher has to rebut the A is B man and they are all over the place. He starts with A is A because he has to do the differentation. You just use it while giving us other folk the finger. It's hypocritical hogwash or ignorant hogwash or stupid hogwash or various combinations of hogwash, perhaps some I've yet to come up with.

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ted:

"You are slightly off though, with your appeal to the law of identity. If it were the nature of certain things to be able to teleport, then that would be their nature, their identity."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for the parts of my topic that you did recognized as worthy. But regarding your above comment; then please tell me what existing knowledge I am allowed to "appeal to" in order to know what to believe, what to dismiss, or what to be skeptical of. Or, is my only allowable response to any claim made, to be "show me the evidence". I see you have trouble using existing knowledge in your thinking. Further, were you intending to imply, by your comment, that if teleportation were discovered I would then continue to deny it using the law of identity?

Joel:

"Is QM crap because you know more about it or because it is wrong?"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, the "crap" word was in reference to the people who would bring up QM when specifically invited not to.

QM has nothing to do with this topic. ZERO. It doesn't apply.

Regarding Mr. Chatzaf; his posts are just "Ba'al shit". If you'all ignore him, he will go away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding Mr. Chatzaf; his posts are just "Ba'al shit". If you'all ignore him, he will go away.

Dear Noob, you know not of which you speak.

http://randzapper.blogspot.com/2007/05/bob-kolker-come-on-down.html

http://randzapper.blogspot.com/2007/05/encore.html

That's right, you're talking to (and denigrating) a hall of famer.

As to teleportation, there's a really fun chapter on that in Lawrence Krauss's Physics of Star Trek. I'm not even much of a Star Trek fan, but I really enjoyed that book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In return here is something I hope you will like -

Ah yes, the five and ten.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kaku is on C-Span 2 for the next hour EST

Edited by Selene

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know. That's the interview that prompted me to start this topic.

Ahh, well I am watching it now...he is talking about teleportation. He also just went through the plankton energy and the slices of time and space and the projection that we could actually "...become God's..." and make the heated bubble of space that "creates new universes".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Plankton Energy? Isn't that a sports drink?

Do you mean Planck?

All BookTV shows are available for streaming any time at their website.

Not that I'd want to listen to Kuku's oleaginous hogwash. I'd probably rather rubberneck a car crash at Turnpike exit 8A.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Plankton Energy? Isn't that a sports drink?

Do you mean Planck?

All BookTV shows are available for streaming any time at their website.

Not that I'd want to listen to Kuku's oleaginous hogwash. I'd probably rather rubberneck a car crash at Turnpike exit 8A.

Yes Ted, I meant Planck.

And I am aware of their excellent archiving system. It is on Saturday's schedule, so those who do not use their website could avail themselves of their TV if they wanted too.

But thanks for the correction on the Planck, I "hear" the word when I type and will miss something like that.

Adam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly. Note everyone that he can talk endlessly about all that gobbldegook, but he will not simply start explaining, to his audience, observations that scientists have actually made to give real thinkers any reason to question the doubts we have about certain of his claims. If one challenged him he would likely say something like "well, that would be above my audiences level".

All knowledge that mankind has is, at bottom, empirical (coming from direct observation). Even all of our concepts have to be built up from something somebody observed at one time or another.

One of the favorite science stories I enjoy telling people, who might be interested, is how they first "weighed the earth" (i.e.; determined its mass). But this is apparently not how Kaku thinks about the incredible theories he has.

P.S., for you science buffs, the earth actually "weighs" about 195 pounds, when I haven't had too much pizza.

Edited by rodney203

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which book(s) is/was better The Foundation trilogy or Atlas Shrugged?

Atlas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which book(s) is/was better The Foundation trilogy or Atlas Shrugged?

Atlas.

I read most of I, Robot. I have never been able to get past page 50 of any other of Asimov's books.

Anything be Heinlein, Niven or Herbert is better than Asimov's Sci Fi.

Atlas Shrugged is more fun, but Fountainhead is better literarily.

Whether I say Rand or Tolkien depends on my mood.

Edited by Ted Keer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...