Re: John Baez on string theory [Archive]

Serg

May10-04, 05:54 AM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>It seems John Baez was framed :\n\nhttp://www.groupsrv.com/science/viewtopic.php?t=34306\n\nJack Sarfatti wrote:\n\nQuote:\n>From my new book Super Cosmos:\n\nJohn Baez on the String and Loop Mafias\n[snip]\n\nIf there were a God, jacko, you\'d be a burned spot for besmirching the\nname of a decent, expert, and creative man.\n--\nUncle Al\n\n===================\n[Moderator\'s note: Jack Sarfatti\'s book is available at\n\nhttp://qedcorp.com/destiny/SUPERCOSMOS.doc\n\nThe current understanding is that the part of Daniel\'s text up to\nthe words "Quantum Quandaries:A Category-Theoretic Perspective John C.\nBaez" was written by John Baez, while the second half was written by\nJack Sarfatti himself, who was not mentioned by Daniel. We will always\ntry to correct such errors, but it is important keep in mind the sentence\nfrom the second paragraph of the SPS charter:\n\nhttp://schwinger.harvard.edu/~sps/\n\n"Moderators will however not be responsible for the technical correctness\nof accepted posts, though they may reject posts or send the posting back\nsuggesting revision when they note errors."\n\nThis rule is very important in the case of political statements of\nJack Sarfatti and John Baez. We do not have resources to verify\nevery detail in the postings with such statements.\n\nAs far as my reply goes, one sentence of it should also be corrected.\nThe sentence\n\n"John Baez enjoys to politicize science in virtually every\nsentence he writes - in this text, he relates..."\n\nshould be replaced by\n\n"John Baez and Jack Sarfatti enjoy to politicize science in virtually every\nsentence they write - in this text, they relate..."\n\nThe comments about the relation of string theory to the Bush administration\ncome from John Baez, the comments about McCarthy\'s era were probably written\nby Sarfatti, and my qualitative conclusions are unchanged. LM]\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>It seems John Baez was framed :

http://www.groupsrv.com/science/viewtopic.php?t=34306

Jack Sarfatti wrote:

Quote:
>From my new book Super Cosmos:

John Baez on the String and Loop Mafias
[snip]

If there were a God, jacko, you'd be a burned spot for besmirching the
name of a decent, expert, and creative man.
--
Uncle Al

===================
[Moderator's note: Jack Sarfatti's book is available at

http://qedcorp.com/destiny/SUPERCOSMOS.doc

The current understanding is that the part of Daniel's text up to
the words "Quantum Quandaries:A Category-Theoretic Perspective John C.
Baez" was written by John Baez, while the second half was written by
Jack Sarfatti himself, who was not mentioned by Daniel. We will always
try to correct such errors, but it is important keep in mind the sentence
from the second paragraph of the SPS charter:

http://schwinger.harvard.edu/~sps/

"Moderators will however not be responsible for the technical correctness
of accepted posts, though they may reject posts or send the posting back
suggesting revision when they note errors."

This rule is very important in the case of political statements of
Jack Sarfatti and John Baez. We do not have resources to verify
every detail in the postings with such statements.

As far as my reply goes, one sentence of it should also be corrected.
The sentence

"John Baez enjoys to politicize science in virtually every
sentence he writes - in this text, he relates..."

should be replaced by

"John Baez and Jack Sarfatti enjoy to politicize science in virtually every
sentence they write - in this text, they relate..."

The comments about the relation of string theory to the Bush administration
come from John Baez, the comments about McCarthy's era were probably written
by Sarfatti, and my qualitative conclusions are unchanged. LM]

John Baez

May12-04, 02:54 PM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>I glanced at this thread hoping to find out what I thought about\nstring theory... but no luck.\n\nIf anyone knows what I think, please tell me. In the meantime,\nhere are a few corrections.\n\nIn this article written by "Daniel":\n\nhttp://www.google.com/groups?selm=ba566c17.0405082222.96b484e-100000%40posting.google.com\n\nthere is a long passage beginning with the header:\n\n> John Baez on the String and Loop Mafias\n> =======================================\n\nand interspersed with commentary written by Lubos Motl,\nwho seemed to think I wrote this stuff.\n\nActually, most of this passage was written by Jack Sarfatti:\n\nhttp://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Ifbnc.65221%24ps5.5518%40newssvr25.new s.prodigy.com\n\nNONE of it was written by me except for this short bit:\n\n"There is not one whit of experimental evidence for either string theory\nor loop quantum gravity, and both theories have some serious problems, so\nit might seem premature for philosophers to consider their implications.\nIt indeed makes little sense for philosophers to spend time chasing every\nshort-lived fad in these fast-moving subjects. Instead, what is worthy of\nreflection is that these two approaches to quantum gravity, while\ndisagreeing heatedly on so many issues, have so much in common. It\nsuggests that in our attempts to reconcile the quantum-theoretic notions\nof state and process with the relativistic notions of space and spacetime,\nwe have a limited supply of promising ideas. It is an open question\nwhether these ideas will be up to the task of describing nature. But\nthis actually makes it more urgent, not less, for philosophers to\nclarify and question these ideas and the implicit assumptions upon\nwhich they rest."\n\nThis is a passage from my paper "Quantum Quandaries: a Category-Theoretic\nPerspective", available here:\n\nhttp://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/quantum/\n\nA couple more corrections follow as corollaries....\n\nLubos Motl writes:\n\n> The current understanding is that the part of Daniel\'s text up to\n> the words "Quantum Quandaries:A Category-Theoretic Perspective John C.\n> Baez" was written by John Baez, while the second half was written by\n> Jack Sarfatti himself, who was not mentioned by Daniel.\n\nThis is not true; only the short passage above was written by me.\n\n> The comments about the relation of string theory to the Bush\n> administration come from John Baez, [....]\n\nNo, they don\'t. Sarfatti wrote that.\n\n\n\n\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>I glanced at this thread hoping to find out what I thought about
string theory... but no luck.

If anyone knows what I think, please tell me. In the meantime,
here are a few corrections.

In this article written by "Daniel":

http://www.google.com/groups?selm=ba566c17.0405082222.96b484e-100000%40posting.google.com

there is a long passage beginning with the header:

> John Baez on the String and Loop Mafias
> =======================================

and interspersed with commentary written by Lubos Motl,
who seemed to think I wrote this stuff.

Actually, most of this passage was written by Jack Sarfatti:

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Ifbnc.65221%24ps5.5518%40newssvr25.new s.prodigy.com

NONE of it was written by me except for this short bit:

"There is not one whit of experimental evidence for either string theory
or loop quantum gravity, and both theories have some serious problems, so
it might seem premature for philosophers to consider their implications.
It indeed makes little sense for philosophers to spend time chasing every
short-lived fad in these fast-moving subjects. Instead, what is worthy of
reflection is that these two approaches to quantum gravity, while
disagreeing heatedly on so many issues, have so much in common. It
suggests that in our attempts to reconcile the quantum-theoretic notions
of state and process with the relativistic notions of space and spacetime,
we have a limited supply of promising ideas. It is an open question
whether these ideas will be up to the task of describing nature. But
this actually makes it more urgent, not less, for philosophers to
clarify and question these ideas and the implicit assumptions upon
which they rest."

This is a passage from my paper "Quantum Quandaries: a Category-Theoretic
Perspective", available here:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/quantum/

A couple more corrections follow as corollaries....

Lubos Motl writes:

> The current understanding is that the part of Daniel's text up to
> the words "Quantum Quandaries:A Category-Theoretic Perspective John C.
> Baez" was written by John Baez, while the second half was written by
> Jack Sarfatti himself, who was not mentioned by Daniel.

This is not true; only the short passage above was written by me.

> The comments about the relation of string theory to the Bush
> administration come from John Baez, [....]

No, they don't. Sarfatti wrote that.