Seeing Michio Kaku today. Any questions you'd like me to ask?

[phinds]

I'm not stating a fact, just refuting absurd claims made by "futurists". I don't claim to know much, but reverse engineering the BRAIN in 10 years is probably one of the more absurd claims I've heard since 'Indigo Children'. So, I won't claim what I say is fact, but it's closer than 10 years by (I THINK) orders of magnitude. Better?

Yep, better. As I said, I agree w/ you in principle. I disagree w/ the statements in seventhsigma's post, quoting the book, as I'm sure you do. I do not find it believable that even given the application all of the resources currently avaialble to the human race, the human brain could be reverse engineered (a concept that I don't even think makes much sense regarding the brain) in 10 years. 100 years MAYBE. There's just no way we could figure out enough in 10 years to do it. AHAH ... now I'm stating facts that I can't prove. OK, make it ... I'm REALLY, REALLY sure ...

 

[SeventhSigma]

My only hesitations about the brain engineering aspect is that it's hard enough to simply simulate the hardware -- the literal neurons that fire everything off. The next step would be to integrate it with an environment in such a way that it could interact and behave, which would be a property of genetic and external inputs. A tall order, indeed.

 

[Misericorde]

it is a question of ambition really. if 1 or 2 percent of the population contributed we could give achieve much. complacency kills progress. standards kill intuition. we kill everything alive. sorry had to add that last bit.

Do you have anything like backing for that ridiculous claim? No, of course not; I can't believe I came back here.

Goodbye

 

[gendou2]

SeventhSigma, I'm sorry to say TLDR to your book report...
It's entirely possible my example wasn't the best (worst) in the book.
I did turn to a random page, after all!
There are plenty of great futurist writers out there, Feynman, Sagan, Asimov.
IMHO Kaku is NOT one of them.
Sure, there is sound science behind the speculations he makes in his books.
So, you can take any of his bad sentences and defend the underlying claim.
They're still bad sentences!

 

[HarryRool]

Are Kaku and Tyson crackpots?

Maybe not, but they're not really practicing scientists either.

Kaku: number of papers published since 1995: 3 (all before 2000)
Tyson: number of papers published since 1995: 4 (all having at least 6 other authors, usually many more)

 

[MarkOldDoll]

If you can meet him again, ask him if he still looking

 

[OmCheeto]

I still like Professor Kaku. Unfortunately, before I went to see him, in preparation for asking him a question, I read a slew of his interviews and articles. After doing that, I couldn't think of anything to ask him. He's simply an incredible source of information.

I'm not sure why people insist on bad mouthing him. Perhaps they simply don't understand him.

Here's something someone once wrote in his defence:

Michio Kaku is 61 years old. He will be long dead by the time any of his ideas come to pass. And anyways, most of the things he talks about aren't even his ideas. He just has very good science feeds.

On a side note:
I think the thing I don't like about this thread is how someone can question whether or not someone who built a particle accelerator in their parents garage while in high school is a buffoon. I'm amazed that such a geek nerd can function normally in society.

---------------------------------
Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people - ER

 

[Misericorde]

He's no buffoon, he's just decided to do something else in his golden years than knit socks. Is what he's doing really any worse than Einstein railing against quantum theory around the same age? There is a highly productive period in a theoretical physicist's life, so when it's over why not think of the future and educate people? He doesn't need to publish or perish, and he's making money; I don't think that's buffoonery.

 

[JaredJames]

He doesn't need to publish or perish, and he's making money; I don't think that's buffoonery.

No comment on the guy, but the above is the general theme of most crackpots.

 

[Misericorde]

No comment on the guy, but the above is the general theme of most crackpots.

It's also the theme of everyone making money in industry. I wouldn't think that's a very good metric for finding crackpots, who don't need to be making money to be loony toons.

 

[phinds]

He's no buffoon, he's just decided to do something else in his golden years than knit socks. Is what he's doing really any worse than Einstein railing against quantum theory around the same age? There is a highly productive period in a theoretical physicist's life, so when it's over why not think of the future and educate people? He doesn't need to publish or perish, and he's making money; I don't think that's buffoonery.

That's well said, but he DOES know better than some of what he propounds as likely science ... to be charitable, maybe that's how he figures he can get kids interested in science the way he was and of course I'm sure he DOES like the attention and the money.

 

[glueball8]

Oh I don't think anyone is questioning his abilities as a scientist.

Its how he talks about science to be public. There are a lot of things where there is nothing wrong. But once in a while he talks about things like extra dimensions/time travel/etc. like its 99.99% sure or its accepted in the scientific community which is not.

This type of wordings or topics isn't really science or scientifically talked about. It might/has caused people (mostly teens) to talk about crackpottary/ cause them not to know the difference between something ABOUT science and science/have a 16 years old that doesn't know calculus and think they found unification. Again comparing his way of informing the public about science vs Richard Feynman way of informing the public about science, Richard Feynman's wordings are perfectly clear nothing can be turned into bs and there is a real understand science. (I don't expect anyone to be the same as Feynman, but if he could be more "Feynman like" on his shows then I think it would be much better. (I'm a big Feynman fan ))

Also, I don't consider Neil deGrasse Tyson to be in the same categorize as Prof. Kaku. In fact, if Prof.Kaku could be more like Neil deGrasse Tyson, it would be great.

 

[JaredJames]

It's also the theme of everyone making money in industry. I wouldn't think that's a very good metric for finding crackpots, who don't need to be making money to be loony toons.

But the theme of discussion is science, not general industry. Let's not twist what I say.

In science, when pushing new theories and especially what appear to be "out there" ideas you generally publish in order to gain acceptance. Those who don't, and work solely on the basis of making money are dubious. You can find a lot of crackpots this way.

 

[Frankly]

I used to think he was going to be the next Carl Sagan. Then he put on a leather jacket and went into 'sciencetainment' instead.

 

[Darken-Sol]

is there proof time travel and other dimensions aren't possible?

 

[JaredJames]

is there proof time travel and other dimensions aren't possible?

No, the question is is there any evidence it does exist.

You can't prove a negative.

 

[Darken-Sol]

No, the question is is there any evidence it does exist.

You can't prove a negative.

and is he claiming these things exist or may exist in the future? i got the impression he is doing science fiction from the earlier posts. i still haven't had a chance to check out this kaku fellow. at what point does he degenerate to this heretic everyone paints him as?

 

[Misericorde]

But the theme of discussion is science, not general industry. Let's not twist what I say.

In science, when pushing new theories and especially what appear to be "out there" ideas you generally publish in order to gain acceptance. Those who don't, and work solely on the basis of making money are dubious. You can find a lot of crackpots this way.

He's on pop-tv, not pushing new theories; his very lack of publications should tell you that. My point is simply that instead of being a pauper in retirement he's chosen to teach, and be fast and loose with what he teaches on television. There's a world of difference between popsci, and crackpot, but you seem like you're wound pretty tight so maybe you don't see that.

If he claimed that he had a wormhole in his basement, now that would be a crackpot; describing what it would be like to fall into a black hole, is just a fun and loose way to rope in newbies, make money, and get a bit of fame. You should get some sleep, a massage, maybe a mud-bath, but damn you need to relax.

 

[JaredJames]

He's on pop-tv, not pushing new theories; his very lack of publications should tell you that. My point is simply that instead of being a pauper in retirement he's chosen to teach, and be fast and loose with what he teaches on television. There's a world of difference between popsci, and crackpot, but you seem like you're wound pretty tight so maybe you don't see that.

If he claimed that he had a wormhole in his basement, now that would be a crackpot; describing what it would be like to fall into a black hole, is just a fun and loose way to rope in newbies, make money, and get a bit of fame. You should get some sleep, a massage, maybe a mud-bath, but damn you need to relax.

You must have missed the part where I said I "have no comment on the guy".

I don't know who he is, don't care, just pointing out a few things I've noted in a general sense.

I've not commented on any distinction between crackpot/mainstream/'popsci' etc, only on what is a common trait.

Again, misreading/misinterpreting/misrepresentation of what I actually have said.

If you really want to get into it, I've had a look at some of his stuff and it seems he pushes certain areas as though they are certainly possible or incredibly likely when in reality there is nothing to support it at all.

 

[Loren Booda]

Has anyone here mentioned Kaku's scholarly book (700+ pages) on quantum field theory? It's mostly beyond me.

 

[Misericorde]

You must have missed the part where I said I "have no comment on the guy".

I don't know who he is, don't care, just pointing out a few things I've noted in a general sense.

I've not commented on any distinction between crackpot/mainstream/'popsci' etc, only on what is a common trait.

Again, misreading/misinterpreting/misrepresentation of what I actually have said.

If you really want to get into it, I've had a look at some of his stuff and it seems he pushes certain areas as though they are certainly possible or incredibly likely when in reality there is nothing to support it at all.

Yeah, you definitely need a vacation.

 

[OmCheeto]

Has anyone here mentioned Kaku's scholarly book (700+ pages) on quantum field theory? It's mostly beyond me.

I used to hang out at Kaku's forum. It was a crazy fun kind of place. All areas were GD. I think one person was banned in the 3 years I was there. It did attract some smart people, who of course I could not understand. There was one very smart mathematician that tried to explain string theory to us laymen, but of course we did not understand. One day I told him that I'd like to understand string theory, and he told me that I should start by getting John M. Lee's book "Introduction to Smooth Manifolds". So I did. Unfortunately, it had been 30 years since I'd taken a calculus class, and the first 3 pages were all Greek, so I put it on the bookshelf with all my other "Gads I want to understand this stuff" books.

I think the forum was most fun in that it introduced me lots of scientists. I actually sent and received a response from Max Tegmark. That was pretty cool. Not since Tim Berners-Lee refused my box of chocolates, was I so delighted.

hmm...

I should go home.

btw, does anyone know who Sunfist was?

 

[flyingpig]

This is not "today" anymore...

 

[lisab]

This is not "today" anymore...

No, it's still today. It's not yesterday anymore, though.

 

[Frankly]

Ask him if he smokes a lot of pot, or if it just seems that way.

 

[Darken-Sol]

and is he claiming these things exist or may exist in the future? i got the impression he is doing science fiction from the earlier posts. i still haven't had a chance to check out this kaku fellow. at what point does he degenerate to this heretic everyone paints him as?

bump

 

[OmCheeto]

No, it's still today. It's not yesterday anymore, though.

Looks like proof of time travel to me. Thanks!

 

[Andre]

Looks like proof of time travel to me. Thanks!

I guess not, as it will never be tomorrow. So if you are never there, how can you get back?

 

[Misericorde]

I guess not, as it will never be tomorrow. So if you are never there, how can you get back?

If you don't choose yourself as a preferred reference frame...

 

[JaredJames]

If you don't choose yourself as a preferred reference frame...

Is there any reference frame that would permit that?

 

[Misericorde]

Is there any reference frame that would permit that?

You could just define any arbitrary set of coordinates; that's why you have past and future light cones around such chosen points. It's purely on paper of course, this isn't something that changes life as we know it, just the process of specifying 4 numbers to designate "you are here" and then everything before and after it.

If you mean a reference frame that would permit travel into the past, I believe that involves a universe unlike the one we live in. You can certainly construct one on paper however, in which events repeat a given number of times in CTCs.

 

[Loren Booda]

Is there any reference frame that would permit that?

Take into account quantum effects?

 

[Misericorde]

Take into account quantum effects?

Nothing that fancy, I was just being boring with whatever *space you cared to use in defining coordinates in time. Going back to the light cones and world lines as it were, not a physically realizable bit of excitement.

 

[OmCheeto]

I guess not, as it will never be tomorrow. So if you are never there, how can you get back?

So I can start drinking and spending money like there's no tomorrow, because there isn't one?

Yippie!

 

[Misericorde]

So I can start drinking and spending money like there's no tomorrow, because there isn't one?

Yippie!

I believe a group of apocalyptic nuts are literally doing that today... probably without the drinking.

Always a bit odd when the world of jokes and fun crosses over with the world of crazy sublimated suicidal urges of a religious mass.