Why is the world not insisting on rationality?
Not a single medium with a former voice of its own being visible any more: Why? Why? Why?
]]>As long as there is the slightest chance of disaster, and the disaster in view is total, erasing the humanity and the planet, the correct risk assessment response is to act as if the risk is infinite, which it is. It is not partial, or low, or infinitesmal, as long as there is any credibility in the theorizing which states a possible result is totally fatal.
Furthermore, it must be understood that there is no way to estimate the probability of any outcome, since the actual outcome is unpredictable and therefore unknown.
In this context it is interesting that CERN is now deciding that maybe the Higgs doesn’t exist after all.
As I say, there is no predicting what will happen, only what may happen, and if that includes total extinction, a review has to be held as long as everyone is behaving rationally.
If anyone is behaving rationally.…
]]>Interesting proposed experiment.
I suspect that even if we just accepted determinism at the quantum level (as I think Einstein believed he had already proven at least to himself, though apparently not to “Bell’s original employers”), perhaps that still does not rule out the possibility that some element of true randomness might still exist at some level, that might also avoid the unsettling notion that the future might already be “cast in stone”, and that only a single possible future might exist.
Just interesting.
]]>Thank you for opening the wound with Bell nonlocality which shows how nontrivial the questions raised by Einstein all were. I have a recent article on this maximally challenging frontier of physics which like the smile of a child is too beautiful to be risked by Bell’s original employers. http://www.wissensnavigator.com/documents/Variantology.pdf
]]>The physics community was slow to accept of Relativity theory [1], and that was not Dr. Einstein’s only fight, at least one may still not be settled…
According to a few scientists, Dr. Einstein’s quantum model (a weirdness-free model where light speed is obeyed and unmeasured objects do not exist in a super-position of all possible states, etc.) is still waiting for a chance to be proven correct [2] (“The debate over whether the universe is random or deterministic is not likely to end before such experiments become possible.”)
[1] Encyclopædia Britannica, Albert Einstein, http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/181349/Albert-Einstein/256586/Coming-to-America
[2] NewScientist, Mark Buchanan, 22 March 2008,
Quantum randomness may not be random, http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19726485.700-quantum-randomness-may-not-be-random.html
CERN’s own scientists admit that the Large Hadron Collider may “become a black hole factory” and may generate stable strangelets. Both phenomena would entail equal potential cost: the end of all life on Earth. Consequently, an outside safety review should be a top priority of the international community, and a safety conference on the LHC should be held immediately and regularly.
As Dr. Rossler says, to deny such a request “is a manifest crime.” Indeed, 27% of the world population are children under the age of 15. The lives of thse 1.8 billion minors are being criminally endangered by CERN’s reckless experiments in black hole hole bomb-making.
]]>