[extropy-chat] the structure of randomness

[gts]

On Mon, 02 Jan 2006 00:45:56 -0500, The Avantguardian  
<avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Therefore, I do not believe Walker has refuted
> Scnoll's data, although he might have pointed out a
> source of error for the immediate time measurements,
> he does in no way refute the periodicity of Schnoll's
> data which is the truly interesting part of it anyway.

I'm not sure Walker believed it either. Sarfatti believed Walker's  
refutation, and unlike Walker, Sarfatti is a theoretical physicist.

In one abstract by Walker he suggested the Shnoll effect might be real  
even despite his results, so perhaps Walker didn't agree with Sarfatti. I  
don't know.

Emphasis here on the past tense. These discussions to which we are  
referring took place around '00-'01. The issue may be settled by now.

> I understand that there is an urge to ignore anything
> that does not fit into ones tidy little paradigm, but
> all true progress of the paradigm depends on analyzing
> the anomalies and not ignoring them.

Yes.

I once knew John Walker, though in a different capacity and one in which  
he would not remember me. I
sent him an email several years ago about a subject related to this thread  
-- something about radioactive decay. He responded with an intelligent and  
thoughtful answer, never realizing that we were once business associates.  
:) Unfortunately I lost his email and he has since removed it from his  
website.

Walker is the genius who founded Autodesk. Many years ago he left the  
company and moved to Switzerland.

-gts