[ExI] mersenne primes again

spike spike66 at att.net
Thu Apr 1 06:36:37 UTC 2010


 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org 
> [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of 
> Damien Broderick
> Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2010 10:44 PM
> To: ExI chat list
> Subject: Re: [ExI] mersenne primes again
> 
> On 3/31/2010 11:42 PM, spike wrote:
> 
> > If any phenomenon has no theoretical explanation, it is 
> either missing 
> > in the experiemental data or it was a bad experiment.  We couldn't 
> > find real psi if it slapped us in the face.
> >
> > Damien, you may use that, with my blessing.  Note I am not saying I 
> > think psi is real, only that we couldn't find it if it is.
> 
> The first paragraph above is so preposterous I can't believe 
> that I'm really  seeing it on my monitor. Almost *no* 
> phenomena studied by scientists during the last 400 years had 
> a theoretical explanation until fairly recently, and even now 
> it tends to boil down to something like "symmetry demands 
> it," and if that doesn't work "broken symmetry demands it." 
> Wow, *symmetry*, eh? That certainly saves us from all those 
> bad experiments and a slap in the face.
> 
> Damien Broderick

Do have a sense of humor, my published friend.  I was using the comment as a
form of self-deprecating humor for scientific types to jab ourselves.  Yes
it is preposterous: our current mathematical techniques encorage us to
disregard findings we cannot explain.  We are driven by theoretical
considerations, far more than we are by measurements.  For instance, the
whole cold-fusion debate is really all about theory.  No one seems
particularly interested in who is measuring excess heat.  I am not saying I
believe in cold fusion, I don't.  I am agreeing I wouldn't get it if it bit
me on the ass. 

The way statistical methods are being taught in colleges actually makes the
problem worse.  We miss a bunch of stuff because it doesn't make a
completely arbitrary level of weirdness.  We disregard perfectly good data
if the signal is sufficiently weird.

If anything, over time we are getting worse instead of better at either
missing or disregarding signal, because we were taught with sincerity that
there is something magic about 95% confidence level.  MAGIC don't you know!
Because of that notion, if there really is some form of weak psi, it could
*easily* fly under the radar indefinitely, seldom making the magic 95%
weirdness level, and being disregarded as a mistake whenever it does.

If we are uncomfortable with the psi example, do let us go to an alternate
notion with at least some theoretically imaginable basis: the possibility
that we are all simulated beings, or that you are, YOU dear reader, the only
actual being (kinda like Truman Burbank) and we are all actors or simulated
actors.  Such a thing could be imagined, and there would be very subtle
hints of our (our your) digitally simulated nature that pop up here and
there on occasion.  Like in Truman's case, there always seemed to be a
logical enough explanation.  In our (or your) case, the professor or
textbook that explained to you statistical significance as if it is some law
of nature rather than an arbitrary protocol holds us (or you) in our (your)
simulated world.

spike





More information about the extropy-chat mailing list