- Cheers

No, I didn’t read your paper – but I most certainly will! I’m looking forward to doing so.

Thanks for calling me a reasonable person (In despite of my bad English), but I still don’t agree that he’s damaging anything. I am sure that you are more into this stuff than I am and have studied the matter on a whole other level than I have.

But calling him dangorous is the same as calling a priest’s work damaging to the congregation because he deviates from the holy text in the favour of ’scientific proofs’ – without turning down the point of origin.

I don’t think any ‘normal’ person with no knowledge of this matter will get affected by what he says. Heck, they wouldn’t even read his essay. ‘Hard science’ is nothing more – when it comes to the origin of the universe – than saying, ‘What’s plausible?’ And that’s the exact point he makes in this rather ironic interview. ‘The empirical proof’ is what he somehow makes fun of – without turning it down, that is.In my opinion.

irony is a good thing, but it is not enough to justify any weird behaviour. I read all his papers -rather, you might not have read mine here above, which demonstrates I did go through one of them with care. And yes, I have seen the interview you point at. Nice funny chap, but that is exactly what I am arguing against. You seem open-minded enough about this to listen to my point.

When a person who has earned the respect of the field and the title of “theoretical physicist”, when one is a professor, teaches at a University, etcetera, when somebody with that rank lets go with these kinds of delusions of a “god” -as he clarifies in his interview this is not maybe a god with all the bells and whistles, but still a superior entity playing with us mice in the lab- he is damaging the image of serious science, because people who listen to that interview are justified if they start believing that he is a representative sample of theoretical physicists. Hell, not many get interviewed by CNN, NYT, etcetera these days. So he is damaging the field by projecting a improper image.
He is also damaging the field by mingling together the idea of a supernatural entity with hard science. People are justified if they look at the interview and conclude that scientists are nutcases and that they are not too different from theologists.

You look a reasonable person, so I cannot see how you do not see this.

Cheers,
T.

He always has the irony. I think he’s reached a point where he just makes wild theories – but he’s always argumenting. I don’t think he’s damaging anything. Take it or leave it. I don’t say that I agree or anything but what’s wrong with trying something new. Did you read his essay? It’s really is interesting. Did you watch the interview? He is not certain about anything, he’s having fun. Does he, himself, believe in the theory? Not really. But this is a test. I think people are overreacting. He’s always been nuts but that’s his condition.

Hmm, that’s not a consensus’ I’ve heard about. I’ve attended many of his classes at the University of Copenhagen, and even though I don’t always follow his arguments or theories, I still think he’s an inspiration.

we are seeing some Nielsen Ninomiya phenomena….

Please realize that this blog is inactive – my new blog is now at http://www.scientificblogging.com/quantum_diaries_survivor/ in case you (or others) are interested.
Cheers,
T.