Is PF Missing Out on New Ideas? An Insider's Opinion and Offer

  • Thread starter Michael F. Dmitriyev
  • Start date
  • Tags
    noble prize
In summary, Michael F. Dmitriyev joined the PF community in August 2002 and has since offered his opinions and suggestions. However, he feels that his ideas are not being received well and that there is a lack of strategy for new ideas on the forum. He believes that PF has the potential to become a successful business by attracting and supporting new ideas. However, some members, including mentors, may not be open to new ideas and may prioritize protecting the official view in science. Michael urges a change in attitude towards new ideas and hopes that future Nobel Prize winners will credit PF as their starting point. However, some members, such as Integral, may not engage with Michael's posts due to language difficulties and a lack of understanding of
  • #1
Michael F. Dmitriyev
342
1
I had became participant of PF since August 2002. My opinion and offers hereinafter. Say, how it looks from outside. I do not feel " I am inside". A reason is an enigmatic silence after my posts . I do not wonder the reaction of a schoolboy on a new ideas. They wait a "high opinion" and are oriented on it.
Though some of them perceive the difference of idea from a known as insult of the science, as a whole and his personally. This is a baby pranks and this it is understandable.
I am not surprised by position of mentors in the same way. Protection of official glance in science this their work.
But new idea can not look like existing glances on determination.
And I see that forum has not a clear strategy or tacticians, at least, in respect of a new idea.
PF can become very revenue business exactly due to new idea . It is necessary to attract rather then repulse the new ideas on forum. It is necessary to do the estimation to ideas, conclude an agreement with author, publish the idea in scientific journal with observance of all copyrights, search for the sponsors... . This be funny to teach the American on business. This is not my.
I only offer to change the attitude to a new idea.
May be some time, some of a Noble prize winner be able to say:

- I began my way in PF. This is a best scientific school in the world.

Greg, I hope you do not miss such a good chance.

Otherwise you must honestly say what PF is not place for a new idea.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Originally posted by Michael F. Dmitriyev
I had became participant of PF since August 2002. My opinion and offers hereinafter. Say, how it looks from outside. I do not feel " I am inside". A reason is an enigmatic silence after my posts . I do not wonder the reaction of a schoolboy on a new ideas. They wait a "high opinion" and are oriented on it.
Though some of them perceive the difference of idea from a known as insult of the science, as a whole and his personally. This is a baby pranks and this it is understandable.
I am not surprised by position of mentors in the same way. Protection of official glance in science this their work.
But new idea can not look like existing glances on determination.
And I see that forum has not a clear strategy or tacticians, at least, in respect of a new idea.
PF can become very revenue business exactly due to new idea . It is necessary to attract rather then repulse the new ideas on forum. It is necessary to do the estimation to ideas, conclude an agreement with author, publish the idea in scientific journal with observance of all copyrights, search for the sponsors... . This be funny to teach the American on business. This is not my.
I only offer to change the attitude to a new idea.
May be some time, some of a Noble prize winner be able to say:

- I began my way in PF. This is a best scientific school in the world.

Greg, I hope you do not miss such a good chance.

Otherwise you must honestly say what PF is not place for a new idea.

So what's your NEW IDEA? Please say.
 
  • #3
Michael,
I personally shy away from your posts because of the language difficutlies, I frequently am not sure what you are attempting to say. Further, you do not speak of physical concepts in a manner which I am familiar. If you have sound physical concepts the fisrt step in presenting them is to learn the current state of physics, if you have that understanding then it is clear if you are doing valid work. It is not clear to me that you have a grasp of modern physics, Hence you spend a lot of time in Theory Development. I presonlly spend little time there.
 
  • #4
Originally posted by Integral
Michael,
I personally shy away from your posts because of the language difficutlies, I frequently am not sure what you are attempting to say. Further, you do not speak of physical concepts in a manner which I am familiar. If you have sound physical concepts the fisrt step in presenting them is to learn the current state of physics, if you have that understanding then it is clear if you are doing valid work. It is not clear to me that you have a grasp of modern physics, Hence you spend a lot of time in Theory Development. I presonlly spend little time there.

Ouch.

I'm not doing "valid work" -- but I'm doing "interesting thinking" (to me). And what better place for "theory development" than this?

To Michael:

Start from the beginning with your new idea -- just one or two sentences per post -- and you will make it easier for people to respond. The biggest bonus, however, is when people disagree, because it will help you to better EXPRESS your case...or to modify it.

P.S. to Integral:

I truly respect your preference not to deal with the "less informed". It's more fun -- and more challenging -- to play tennis with someone at -- or ABOVE -- one's skill level. Mentoring, of course, has its rewards as well, but I'm with you on this...that there's only so much time.

By the way, what YOUR pet theory? (Just send me to a post.)
 
  • #5
I have no problem with dealing with "the less informed" when the less informed come to ask questions and learn. I do have problems with the "less informed" who come here pretending that they have solutions to all the worlds problems.
I do not believe that all Physicists for the last 400yrs are total idiots who have been wasting their time developing the current state of Physics.

Pet theory? Why should I have a pet theory? I have a pet dog, a pet cat? I do not place them in the same category as theories. My goal is to attempt to understand the world we live in. My primary interest has been the world of Newton, simply because that is the world we live in. Sub atomic particles and the universe at large have not been my main thrust. I am educated in Physics sufficiently to have a pretty good BS detector.

I do not view the purpose of this forum as a place to overturn the world of Physics. I do see it a place where a High school student can come to learn some deeper facts of Physics then is presented in the average HS physics class. This is why I watch the Physics forums carefully. I have posted a warning on one of your posts simply because I cannot recoginze what you said as sound Physics. I have left the content in place, I could have after all simply deleted it. I have posted warning so those who are learning will know to investigate your words further. Perhaps the only problem is your usage, I am still not convinced that you have presented sound physical information. It is confused at best.

My aplogies if I have offended you.
 
  • #6
Originally posted by Integral
I have no problem with dealing with "the less informed" when the less informed come to ask questions and learn. I do have problems with the "less informed" who come here pretending that they have solutions to all the worlds problems.
I do not believe that all Physicists for the last 400yrs are total idiots who have been wasting their time developing the current state of Physics.

Pet theory? Why should I have a pet theory? I have a pet dog, a pet cat? I do not place them in the same category as theories. My goal is to attempt to understand the world we live in. My primary interest has been the world of Newton, simply because that is the world we live in. Sub atomic particles and the universe at large have not been my main thrust. I am educated in Physics sufficiently to have a pretty good BS detector.

I do not view the purpose of this forum as a place to overturn the world of Physics. I do see it a place where a High school student can come to learn some deeper facts of Physics then is presented in the average HS physics class. This is why I watch the Physics forums carefully. I have posted a warning on one of your posts simply because I cannot recoginze what you said as sound Physics. I have left the content in place, I could have after all simply deleted it. I have posted warning so those who are learning will know to investigate your words further. Perhaps the only problem is your usage, I am still not convinced that you have presented sound physical information. It is confused at best.

My aplogies if I have offended you.

How do I know when I've been "warned". To which post do you refer? I just now checked my PM to see if something is there. But no.

We each have our own particular areas of interest, levels of information, and abilities to express. While not trying to "overturn the world of Physics," I wouldn't mind if I had an insight that was proven "right" someday.

I've been admonished more than once in the 5 weeks I've been here for violating Occam's Razor...but, upon review of my posts, I believe they (my assertions) would be better characterized a "propositions". In other words, I am "taking the case" that thus and such is so, so as to pursue "possibilities" beyond what is "known"...or CAN be known.

Perhaps I should use a disclaimer like "I am not a physicist, but..." ...in addition to the "I speculate that..." or "IMO"...which I try to insert periodically even as I get carried away by my own ruminations. Henceforth, I will try not to show up as a blip on your BS detector.

Trust me: I am VERY FEARFUL of getting "ousted" like two others have been during my brief relationship with the Forum, so I will take any warnings very seriously.

Regarding Michael F. Dmitriyev, I was trying to be helpful and encouraging -- and maybe a little "protective" -- tendencies I had better curb as well. Who am I, Mother Teresa?
 
  • #7
M. Gaspar
Please, forgive me, I have had a senior moment, and confused you with someone else. My apologies.
 
  • #8
Originally posted by Integral
M. Gaspar
Please, forgive me, I have had a senior moment, and confused you with someone else. My apologies.

Please create a smilie that's wiping sweat from its brow.

Thank you.
 
  • #9


Originally posted by M. Gaspar
So what's your NEW IDEA? Please say.
The Universe is straight inverse to beliefs about it. And I have much proofs. I can't understand why nobody does not see this, except me.
 
  • #10
Originally posted by Integral
I have no problem with dealing with "the less informed" when the less informed come to ask questions and learn. I do have problems with the "less informed" who come here pretending that they have solutions to all the worlds problems.
I do not believe that all Physicists for the last 400yrs are total idiots who have been wasting their time developing the current state of Physics.
Why you have solved that who offers the new theory this " the less informed"? Has the current state of Physics the answers on all questions? Can be someone is vested by God's grant, sees the mistake, which has made by science of its way from begining? The Illusory perception of reality by human's is guilty here.
 
  • #11


Originally posted by Michael F. Dmitriyev
The Universe is straight inverse to beliefs about it. And I have much proofs. I can't understand why nobody does not see this, except me.

Maybe I would "see" it if I UNDERSTOOD what you mean by "The Universe is straight inverse to beliefs about it."

Are you saying that the Universe is the OPPOSITE of what "everyone" THINKS it is? Unfortunately, there is NO "opposite" because "everyone" believes DIFFERENT THINGS about what the Universe is.

Just start with ONE SIMPLE CONCEPT and, keep in mind, English is not an EASY LANGUAGE ...and while you speak it fairly well, there may be phrases than don't translate into what you REALLY MEAN.

I am interested in your new idea...so try again, OK? :smile:
 
  • #12
Originally posted by Michael F. Dmitriyev
Why you have solved that who offers the new theory this " the less informed"? Has the current state of Physics the answers on all questions? Can be someone is vested by God's grant, sees the mistake, which has made by science of its way from begining? The Illusory perception of reality by human's is guilty here.

Forgive me, Michael, but as a part-time ESOL ("English as a Second Language") tutor, I feel COMPELLED to restate the above paragraph in terms more comprehensible to this audience:

"Why is someone with a new theory considered "less informed"?

(By the way, Michael, I'm the one who used the term "less informed" first...and Integral was just responding to MY post, OK?)

"Are all the questions now ANSWERED in Physics? Might not someone be granted (by God) the ability to see certain fundamental errors made by science? Might not scientists be guilty of false perceptions?"

Please don't be offended by what I have done. I am simply showing you why people might not "get" what you are proposing.

I have a similar problem...except, people "get" what I'm saying. They just DISAGREE! :wink:
 
  • #13
Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Forgive me, Michael, but as a part-time ESOL ("English as a Second Language") tutor, I feel COMPELLED to restate the above paragraph in terms more comprehensible to this audience:

"Why is someone with a new theory considered "less informed"?

(By the way, Michael, I'm the one who used the term "less informed" first...and Integral was just responding to MY post, OK?)

"Are all the questions now ANSWERED in Physics? Might not someone be granted (by God) the ability to see certain fundamental errors made by science? Might not scientists be guilty of false perceptions?"

Please don't be offended by what I have done. I am simply showing you why people might not "get" what you are proposing.

I have a similar problem...except, people "get" what I'm saying. They just DISAGREE! :wink:
Thank you for the English lesson, M. Gaspar. My bad English can create some problems indeed. But I see on replyes that basically my posts are understandable. My problem in the other. Suppose, I began the new subject. After several replyes (sometimes happens nor one not get) my topic "is frozen".
Though I take fundamental subjects such as infinity, space, time and cite my look at their essence.
As a result, I consider that my point is right since nobody has not refused it. Thereby I have proven following:
- infinity of universe is directed inward to absolute zero (as ideal), but not in meaningless expansion outward;
- entropy is necessary element of evolution;
- a space this illusion, created by the time and light;
- each object in universe exists at its Time Cycle (TC);
- a value of object's TC defines its energy;
- all interactions between objects occur in the manner of interactions their TC;
- all known and an unknown yet forces and phenomenas are due to attempt of the change object's TC on the part of the other object or several them;
- all the laws of conservation are a quotient by events of the general law of conservation TC;
- time has counting down from the initially installed importance of TC onto a zero;
- a count of time goes the discrete quantum of time Qt which corresponds Plank time;
- Qt synchronizes TC of all objects in universe;
- an universe exists in realities in current Qt only;
- discrete defines all advantage of the digital information system what is it is an universe, indeed, before analog one, as this is perceived by people.

As you can see, my vision of universe differs from official scientific glance completely and in ditto time does not disagree nor one result of the practical experience and observations. On my glance, such universe beautiful and intelligent.

But. That further? That I must prove else?
 
  • #14
Michael:

I have printed out your last post so that I can "process" your ideas.

I will reply soon (but not tonight).

Meanwhile, I DO agree with one thing -- if you mean it LITERALLY -- which is: the Universe is beautiful and intelligent .
 
  • #15
Originally posted by Michael F. Dmitriyev
[BThough I take fundamental subjects such as infinity, space, time and cite my look at their essence.
As a result, I consider that my point is right since nobody has not refused it. Thereby I have proven following:
Of course, you realize that NOT being refuted is NOT THE SAME as "proving" that a contention is so.
- infinity of universe is directed inward to absolute zero (as ideal), but not in meaningless expansion outward;
I don't think I understand what you're getting at...'though I will say that when you use the word "meaningless" perhaps you are saying that you don't believe the Universe will CONTINUE to EXPAND...and I would be in AGREEMENT with you on this.
- entropy is necessary element of evolution;
While I understand how certain systems within the Universe can lose energy and become chaotic, I do NOT see how the Universe at LARGE can experience entropy AS A WHOLE due to the conservation of energy. But how is the loss of energy -- or a state of chaos -- necessary for evolution. I would think it is just the OPPOSITE.
- a space this illusion, created by the time and light;
Some say "time" is an illusion. Still, if "real", I do not see -- or, more accurately, I haven't THOUGHT ABOUT -- how time and LIGHT? creates the illusion of space.
- each object in universe exists at its Time Cycle (TC);
If I understand this correctly, you are saying that dynamic, coherent systems can only exist for a finite period of time...so perhaps this is what you mean by ENTROPY being necessary for evolution. But I don't "see" this clearly.
- a value of object's TC defines its energy;
I would think it's the other way around: that a system's initial ENERGY dictates how long it will "live". But, again, I might not "get" what you are proposing.
- all interactions between objects occur in the manner of interactions their TC;
Do you mean the "life cycles" of different systems EFFECT each other?
- all known and an unknown yet forces and phenomenas are due to attempt of the change object's TC on the part of the other object or several them;
Are you saying that systems are trying to "steal" -- or draw from -- each other's energy?
- all the laws of conservation are a quotient by events of the general law of conservation TC;
Since a "quotient" is a quantity resulting from division of one quantity by another, are you saying that...in fact, I can't begin to GUESS what you are saying. Please explain.
- time has counting down from the initially installed importance of TC onto a zero;
Are you saying that there is a finite amount of energy in the Universe, and that It's "life cycle" is GIVEN by that amount of energy?
- a count of time goes the discrete quantum of time Qt which corresponds Plank time;
Sorry. No comprendo.
- Qt synchronizes TC of all objects in universe;
You have defined TC, but not Qt (quantum theory?). Please define...and explain.
- an universe exists in realities in current Qt only;
- discrete defines all advantage of the digital information system what is it is an universe, indeed, before analog one, as this is perceived by people.
I don't get these either.
As you can see, my vision of universe differs from official scientific glance completely and in ditto time does not disagree nor one result of the practical experience and observations. On my glance, such universe beautiful and intelligent.
But. That further? That I must prove else? [/B]
I agree that the Universe is beautiful and INTELLIGENT (actually, I contend that is it CONSCIOUS). But I don't "get" what you mean by the words in the last line of your post.If interested in MY speculations, please go to the thread under Philosophy: "A Conscious Universe". Otherwise, we can continue here.
 
Last edited:
  • #16
Technically, this is not the correct forum for the direction this discussion is taking.

Michael,
Some of your points could be the starting point of valid physical discussions, others are best mulled over in phiolophy. Perhaps if you were to create shorter posts with a single point they would be easier to respond to. Long posts combined with your admirable but still difficult to follow English, make it very hard for me to get clear to the end. This in turn makes it difficult to respond in an intellegent manner.
 
Last edited:
  • #17
Ok. Since all my topics are located in "Theory Development" that I'll be there. In "Philosophy" probably too. I hope on a good discussion.
 
  • #18
The Question was – What about new ideas?
I don’t see answer.
Perhaps to be not unreasonable to do in PF bank of ideas, where authors will be able to place a summary of his idea, something like subject of invention.
 
  • #19
Originally posted by vlamir
The Question was – What about new ideas?
I don’t see answer.
Perhaps to be not unreasonable to do in PF bank of ideas, where authors will be able to place a summary of his idea, something like subject of invention.

If you have a new idea, start a thread. :smile:
 
  • #20
Read: Theory Development/Polytron II
 
  • #21
Originally posted by vlamir
Read: Theory Development/Polytron II

Couldn't find the thread. Sorry.
 
  • #22
Presently Polytron II is placed in the page 2 of Theory Development.
One of the questions I discuss in Science Forums/Organic Chemistry.
If you want to get acquainted with idea in more detail, begin with

http://www.sibnet.ru/~polytron/ [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #23
Originally posted by vlamir
Presently Polytron II is placed in the page 2 of Theory Development.
One of the questions I discuss in Science Forums/Organic Chemistry.
If you want to get acquainted with idea in more detail, begin with

http://www.sibnet.ru/~polytron/ [Broken]

This is WAY OVER MY HEAD!

One question: What does the theory suggest about the make-up of the Universe? Please state your answer in one sentense as if you were talking to a child.

Meanwhile, I hope you find someone who is smart enough to talk to you about this theory.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #24
I don’t think, that many members of PF are less strong in physics and mathematics.
Nevertheless, you see, that in Polytron II there are no replies.
Besides, I feel a major need for obtaining new experimental data from the foreign references.
And, again, from PF there is no help.

Now about my idea “in one sentence”.
I consider that more important task is a riddle of origin of life on the Earth, instead of the make-up of the Universe.
The life on our planet has arisen in water and all living on the Earth more than on three quarters consists of water. Moreover, grey substance of our brain, i.e. neurons, consist of 84 % water, blood - 80 %! “ The Living organism is animated water ” – The French physiologist and philosopher Ýìèëü Äþáóà-Ðåéìîí speak.
But the water in all cells of our organism is not simple H2O. She is system-organized and has structure named liquid crystal. The similar structure is saved approximately within day with pure thawed water, about which miracle properties everyone familiar by hearsay.
Thus, the first indicating that structurally-organized water is either immediate participant or direct witness of Creation of a World we have.
Now we direct our look to the sky.
The Universe consists of hydrogen on 70-80%, and the Earth at great height is surrounded, though also thin, by the ozone layer. Conditions for derivation of water are fine, and the cosmic cold instantaneously converts her into ice, i.e. in the crystalline form. Now, it is necessary to find, where and how in this crystalline water the information is stored.
It appears that all more than simply!
The frozen water can have 10 crystalline modifications, i.e. the information is reconstructed and is stored as geometrically exact slices of space in the decimal system of numeration.
Maybe, therefore God has yielded for us ten fingers on hands?

In the light of above mentioned, the history of appearance of the first proteinaceous molecules on the Earth is represented as transporting on a surface of a planet and in its atmosphere not molecules, but information about their structure - some kind of the engineering and design documentations. The building material was available in a sufficient amount in place, and the weather conditions favoured to a bookmark of the biological base of the Earth civilization.
The role of “canisters” with the information is fulfilled with crystals of water. For them, on delivery of the information from high layers of atmosphere to the Earth surface is assigned about day. In a day after transition in a liquid phase the water loses electromagnetic memory and the information is dissolved in a common background.
The role of hydrogen in transmission and saving of the information is more responsible and, apparently, concerns the information of the higher order - unavailable to our understanding.
It is the privilege of the Creator.
 
  • #25
Originally posted by vlamir

I consider that more important task is a riddle of origin of life on the Earth, instead of the make-up of the Universe.
The life on our planet has arisen in water and all living on the Earth more than on three quarters consists of water. Moreover, grey substance of our brain, i.e. neurons, consist of 84 % water, blood - 80 %! “ The Living organism is animated water ”

Thus, the first indicating that structurally-organized water is either immediate participant or direct witness of Creation of a World we have.

Now we direct our look to the sky.

The Universe consists of hydrogen on 70-80%, and the Earth at great height is surrounded, though also thin, by the ozone layer. Conditions for derivation of water are fine, and the cosmic cold instantaneously converts her into ice, i.e. in the crystalline form. Now, it is necessary to find, where and how in this crystalline water the information is stored.

The frozen water can have 10 crystalline modifications, i.e. the information is reconstructed and is stored as geometrically exact slices of space in the decimal system of numeration.

In the light of above mentioned, the history of appearance of the first proteinaceous molecules on the Earth is represented as transporting on a surface of a planet and in its atmosphere not molecules, but information about their structure - some kind of the engineering and design documentations. The building material was available in a sufficient amount in place, and the weather conditions favoured to a bookmark of the biological base of the Earth civilization.

The role of “canisters” with the information is fulfilled with crystals of water. For them, on delivery of the information from high layers of atmosphere to the Earth surface is assigned about day. In a day after transition in a liquid phase the water loses electromagnetic memory and the information is dissolved in a common background.

The role of hydrogen in transmission and saving of the information is more responsible and, apparently, concerns the information of the higher order - unavailable to our understanding.
It is the privilege of the Creator. [/B]

I have "boiled your theory down" -- so to speak :wink: -- so that I might better understand it.

Are you saying that when a hydrogen atom combines with two oxygen atoms -- and the temperature goes below 0 degress Censius -- then information about CREATING LIFE is encoded in the CRYSTAL?

I will send someone to this thread who will be better able to discuss same with you...if he is interested.

Meanwhile, I suggest that, instead of starting a thread titled "Polytron II"...you ask a question like "Does Water in Crystal Form Hold Information about the Creation of Life?" ...or whatever you want to ask.

My point is that if you want to have a discussion, you probably need to find ways of talking about your theory in simple terms as you have done for me.
 
  • #26
I want to say that my polytrons are canisters with the same resonance information.
“Nothing is static, all vibrates and the whole our Universe — it is dynamical, mutable and developing continuity”.
If we can understand, how the living substance at a primary level operates, then we can better understand, how our brain operates.
Then, maybe, we can invent new ways of activation and intensification of our intelligence and we begin better to understand phenomena, which happen both in the Universe, and in the microcosmos.
The Russian physician Áóòåéêî (Buteyko) considers, that the God of Life is a carbon.
I think, that the carbon is only one of the Gods of Life. In number of these gods enter hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen and oxygen.
Now I research carbon and hydrocarbon compounds.
I know, that this information is difficult for understanding, especially mathematics, but other way for check and proof of similar ideas does not exist.
I now shall try to attach the small file with a figure, which displays a structure of molecule of simple organic compound - methane.
If the file will not attach, then load it from my new home page:

http://www.sinor.ru/~polytron/FORM of METHANE MOLECULE.pdf [Broken]
 

Attachments

  • form of methane molecule.pdf
    85.6 KB · Views: 226
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #27
Originally posted by Integral
I have no problem with dealing with "the less informed" when the less informed come to ask questions and learn. I do have problems with the "less informed" who come here pretending that they have solutions to all the worlds problems.
I do not believe that all Physicists for the last 400yrs are total idiots who have been wasting their time developing the current state of Physics.
Certainly, all physicists for the last 400yrs are NOT total idiots.
Certainly, their contributions deserves of the respect also. Not their blame, that from the beginning, they was goed on a wrong way. This way of the perception of illusions as an reality. May be a such way is determined for people. But having vented an apple from the tree of cognition, people certainly wants to hear the truth about device of the world, in which they are living.
The Universe is not an analog object, as it is perceived by us.
This is a digital information system. So, all attempts of it's description in analog form must ends by failure.
The Boolean algebra much more suits for the description of our universe, than Maxvell's equations.
The digital technologies exists in human society beside of 50 years. They have proved their unconditional advantages before analog systems at this short period . At the all positions, without exception. This is only a small part of unique technologys of universe, which was spyed by people . How can we, measly part of the creations of nature, to expect any superiority before her? To say the least this is not wisely.
 
  • #28
Testing one, two, three

I logged myself off by accident.

This is a test to see if I'm back.
 
  • #29
Dmitriyev:

On another thread, you made a statement about integers that seemed to suggest that one PART of a WHOLE cannot have properties that the WHOLE does not have.

Is that what you meant? And is it true?

Thanks for your help.

M. Gaspar
 
  • #30
Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Dmitriyev:

On another thread, you made a statement about integers that seemed to suggest that one PART of a WHOLE cannot have properties that the WHOLE does not have.

Is that what you meant? And is it true?

Thanks for your help.

M. Gaspar
Yes. I am sure of this point.
 
  • #31
Originally posted by Michael F. Dmitriyev
Yes. I am sure of this point.

Others are not so "sure" you are correct. I refer you to Tom's answer to this question on page 20 of "A Conscious Universe" thread in Philosophy section.

He gives an example of how sodium and chlorine are dangerous to humans, but when combined and to become SALT (NaCl), they are no longer harmful.

I'm not sure whether his example is "parallel" to what you are suggesting, but he is making the point the PARTS of something CAN have characteristics that the WHOLE does not possess.

Please say more about why you think you are correct.
 
Last edited:

1. What is the main argument of "Is PF Missing Out on New Ideas? An Insider's Opinion and Offer"?

The main argument of this article is that the organization PF (short for "Potential Future") is not open to new ideas and is missing out on potential growth and success as a result.

2. What evidence does the author provide to support their argument?

The author, who claims to be an insider at PF, provides personal anecdotes and observations about the organization's resistance to change and lack of innovation. They also mention specific instances where new ideas were shut down or ignored by higher-ups in the company.

3. How does the author suggest that PF can start incorporating new ideas?

The author suggests that PF should create a more open and inclusive culture where employees feel comfortable sharing their ideas and suggestions. They also propose implementing a system for reviewing and evaluating new ideas, rather than dismissing them outright.

4. Does the author believe that PF is doomed to fail if they don't change their approach to new ideas?

While the author does not explicitly state that PF will fail if they continue to reject new ideas, they do argue that the organization will not reach its full potential and may struggle to compete with other companies that are more open to innovation.

5. Is this article based on fact or opinion?

This article is primarily based on the author's personal opinion and observations as an insider at PF. However, they do provide some evidence and examples to support their claims.

Similar threads

  • Feedback and Announcements
Replies
25
Views
2K
  • Feedback and Announcements
2
Replies
57
Views
3K
  • Feedback and Announcements
Replies
1
Views
267
  • Feedback and Announcements
Replies
3
Views
773
Replies
2
Views
924
  • Feedback and Announcements
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • Feedback and Announcements
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • Feedback and Announcements
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
20
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
998
Back
Top