4 ms·

The trouble I had with it is that it reasons from weak metaphors, and seems to attempt to persuade based on those metaphors. For example, in the passage I quot

The trouble I had with it is that it reasons from weak metaphors, and seems to attempt to persuade based on those metaphors. For example, in the passage I quoted the first thing he does is treat the speed of light as hypothetically finite. Everything we know about the universe tells us it is finite, and this was established long ago. So that's already an odd sentence. The next sentence is meaningless, however. Phrases like "aether of this reality" are poetic, referring to a term from Greek mythology where a god blew out his breath to create the universe, not anything to do with science. Then, with zero reasoning, the sentence proceeds to claim that a finite speed of light must (somehow) mean "fractal entropy." Again this is poetic and not scientifically meaningful. Fractal is self-similar patterns at different scales of a system. Entropy is a measure how little we know of the organization of a system. You can torture yourself and call the measures "fractal" but that doesn't lead you anywhere toward understanding anything. The talk of ripples again carries this further using visual metaphors detached from meaning. I think that's why I had such trouble with it. As for how I found it, I sort by new and look for headlines that interest me. Tachyons, in a scientific context, interest me. No I'm not looking for an argument or fight. Discussion is always welcome. I just hold the actual opinion that what I read in the article is insubstantial as science and uncompelling as rhetoric.

keepamovin 3y ago
Alright, that's interesting. Thank you for your analysis, I can see you value critical inquiry and just have a particular and slightly different bent to me. Good to know. Did you by chance take a look at my conversation with the ChatGPT about this? What did you think of that? :) I just think it might be possible that maybe it saw something in there that you didn't, and when you read it, it might enlighten you toward some value in there? I don't know--I'm just curious, and I don't want to see something that's valuable but looks weird thrown away! Haha! :)
- slowmovintarget 3y ago
  > While these concepts are intriguing, the paper seems to lack the rigorous mathematical formulations and empirical evidence that would be required to take these ideas from the realm of speculation into the realm of accepted physical theory. I agree with the LLM, here, though calling them intriguing seems to me... generous. There are good reasons that the ideas of ether or aether, a static background for the universe, have been dismissed. General Relativity tells us there is no static background, and experiments confirm there is no background bias. That the ancients knew and encoded electric antenna and circuit designs into floor patterns and cities seems more coincidence to me. That there good have been some knowledge on the part of the artist in geometry seems reasonable. That such an artist took joy in expressing an abstract consistency in the geometry he or she found also seems reasonable. That these were expressions of some secret knowledge of advanced physics concepts humanity has lost seems a lot less reasonable.

keepamovin 3y ago

Alright, that's interesting. Thank you for your analysis, I can see you value critical inquiry and just have a particular and slightly different bent to me. Good to know. Did you by chance take a look at my conversation with the ChatGPT about this? What did you think of that? :) I just think it might be possible that maybe it saw something in there that you didn't, and when you read it, it might enlighten you toward some value in there? I don't know--I'm just curious, and I don't want to see something that's valuable but looks weird thrown away! Haha! :)

slowmovintarget 3y ago
> While these concepts are intriguing, the paper seems to lack the rigorous mathematical formulations and empirical evidence that would be required to take these ideas from the realm of speculation into the realm of accepted physical theory. I agree with the LLM, here, though calling them intriguing seems to me... generous. There are good reasons that the ideas of ether or aether, a static background for the universe, have been dismissed. General Relativity tells us there is no static background, and experiments confirm there is no background bias. That the ancients knew and encoded electric antenna and circuit designs into floor patterns and cities seems more coincidence to me. That there good have been some knowledge on the part of the artist in geometry seems reasonable. That such an artist took joy in expressing an abstract consistency in the geometry he or she found also seems reasonable. That these were expressions of some secret knowledge of advanced physics concepts humanity has lost seems a lot less reasonable.