[extropy-chat] the structure of randomness
gts_2000 at yahoo.com
Mon Jan 2 07:10:54 UTC 2006
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
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.
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
Walker is the genius who founded Autodesk. Many years ago he left the
company and moved to Switzerland.
More information about the extropy-chat