Hi m.a., hi Colin,
On 06 Mar 2009, at 05:07, m.a. wrote:
> Bruno,
> I've often wondered why neither Dr. Deutsch nor Alan
> Forrester has commented on your theory of UDA and AUDA. I certainly
> would be interested in their views. A theory that has execised some
> of the best minds on this list for months on end certainly deserves
> serious consideration. Best,
> martin
> a.
>
>
It is a delicate question. You could perhaps ask them.
I can provide general clues.
- Quantum mechanics is not known by logicians. So it is easy to make
someone interested in modern physics looking crazy for a logician:
just say ``look it seems the guy is open to the notion of parallel
universe".
- Gödel's theorem is not known by physicists. So it easy to make
someone interested in self-reference looking crazy for a physicist:
look even the big Penrose said craps on Gödel's theorem, no need to
imagine what can say a total unknown and solitary researcher.
- Neither physicists nor logicians really knows about the mind-body
problem. So it is easy to make someone interested in consciousness
looking crazy: just say: this guy is interested on consciousness (with
a grin).
Why does some people want me so much looking crazy? Well if I tell
you, I would myself find you insane to believe me. So I will not even
try.
If you known Belgium recent story, you can imagine, and reality is
beyond what you can imagine.
Let us just say, like Colin Hales says in his rejection_101 document
that it is hard to do inter-disciplinary work in a world of extreme
specialization. That's at least true for all of us.
But I don't want you to give the impression that I feel being
rejected. I am just ignored. And I have always been accepted by
serious and humble scientists, but none listen to them, like if it
existed Academy and Academy. And I have even been praised, more than
often, but with no follow-up. Never. There are good but unspeakable
local and less local reasons.
Now, even when all scientists in a some field agree, plausible
evidences take time to be accepted. Look at the health politics in
most countries. It is not just total non sense, it is criminal and
economical non sense. Yet nothing changes. I believe more in cold
fusion than in the danger of cannabis or salvia divinorum, you know,
or even tobacco, when used properly. At least cold fusion and water
memory does not arm. But the overall resistance to harm reduction
technics toward even just legal drugs can make you depressed and
despaired about the willingness of human collectivity to be a bit more
rational, and a bit more healthy.
I do appreciate David Deutsch and Alan Forrester. And I would
certainly be pleased to have their opinions. But new things take time,
especially when circumstances don't help. Give them enough time.
Bruno
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bruno Marchal" <marchal.domain.name.hidden>
> To: <everything-list.domain.name.hidden>
> Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 2:49 PM
> Subject: Re: The Amoeba's Secret - English Version started
>
>
> > Even with politics operating behind the scene (which you have
> > hinted), I can't imagine that nothing of the work is publishable.
>
>
> I already discussed proposition of publishing "Conscience et
> Mécanisme" with three publishers, before my thesis was judged not
> receivable (meaning no private defense, nor public defense, I have
> *never* met those who criticize, not even my work, but a product of
> their imagination). Then silence, even after the defense in Lille, and
> even more after the paradoxical price in Paris.
>
> I cannot explain. Or I can explain except that here reality is far
> beyond fiction as usual, but also more sad, and rather delicate if
> only because that story is not finished.
> My life is more unbelievable than any thing I assert in my works. It
> took me 22 years to understand what happened in 1977, and since then.
>
> I feel responsible to let them build they own trap, and then get
> myself a bit worried seeing them to protect themselves from Brussels
> to Paris!
>
> It is not because I have done an "original work" (say) in Brussels,
> that I got problems there. It is because I got problems in Brussels
> that I have done an original work. In 1977, they give me no chance,
> not even getting out of Belgium.
> In 1994, my work was criticize vaguely as "not original", "too much
> simple", and then "delirious". And now already "not from him" in some
> place. Which again shows the problems is not related with my findings,
> except it belongs to the kind of things you can easily use to treat
> you as a fool (Gödel's theorem, Quantum mechanics, consciousness: few
> understand so it is easy to say "not serious").
>
> The little scandal has grown up all the time and is too big, now. It
> is the kind of manipulation which makes everyone feel responsible,
> from corporatist reflex to corporatist reflex, when actually there is
> only one, very clever, but very bad, guy.
> Now that "little scandal" has become big enough to throw light on
> other really bigger scandals. There are "cadavres dans les placards",
> as we say in French (corpses hidden in boxes). Mean of pressures.
>
> I still believe in academies, but like in School "serial killer" can
> exist. When you see the time made by religious institution to protect
> their member of their hierarchy from their much grave behavior, I
> estimate it could take a long time if ever to understand and recognize
> what happened.
> And I have no problem with serious academicians and scientists which
> understand enough to understand it is "serious", even if probably
> wrong, which I have myself never ceased to believe plausible (which
> explains why I am eager to discuss the validity of the UDA steps, with
> people interested). I did defend the work as PhD thesis. I was asked
> many questions, I answered them and everyone got the idea. Some people
> takes time, but most get enough to trust the interest of the work.
> Still today, few get both UDA and AUDA.
>
> UDA is almost easy, but not so easy. AUDA is very *simple*, once you
> understand enough standard logic (which I have discovered is
> excessively rare). The whole thing is strongly interdisciplinary, and
> between disciplines, rumors circulate more quickly than "scientific
> bridge", which often makes people feeling being aggressed on their
> territories. Even more so when the work approaches question
> traditionally qualified as "philosophical".
>
> My initial power comes from the fact that in 1977, I did abandoned,
> for bad reasons (but it will take many years to understand that), the
> idea of doing academic research, and so I did come back to the very
> fundamental questioning I have always been living. I didn't and don't
> complain (my weakness probably).
> And it is the Academy, 20 years later, which will push me back again,
> and again. I have never submitted publications by myself. All have
> been asked by people, having heard I said something new, sometimes
> insisting gently. Nowadays, since those events, even ordered paper (or
> jobs) get jeopardized quickly. Last year I was asked to write a paper
> for a book in homage to the late logician Jean Ladričre, (who offered
> to me its formidable book on Gödel theorems: Les limitations internes
> des formalismes"), and then ... nothing again. I am used to it.
>
> Thanks for your interest,
>
> Bruno
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
>
>
>
> >
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Fri Mar 06 2009 - 07:24:35 PST