Without the usual nuttery. As Ross Pomeroy tells it, Feynman was a jerk where women are concerned, except when he regarded them as colleagues.

Ashutosh Jogalekar, who penned the article at Scientific American, described having a similar reaction to Feynman’s “casual sexism,” which also manifested in more than just social arenas. But, he noted, though some of his actions are “disturbing and even offensive” when viewed from the socially-evolved lens of today, “they were probably no different than the attitudes of a male-dominated American society in the giddy postwar years.” Thus, Jogalekar reasoned, we should not condemn Feynman wholly as a sexist.

Actually, in a lot of places, a guy who behaved that way was viewed as a jerk in those days too. And if he offended the sisters of veterans, he could end up in the ER. Some did.

But it all sounds, to some of us at least, like a reasonable discussion we can have. Who knows about/remembers life in North America in the early to mid twentieth century? How acceptable do we think Feynman’s described behaviour would have been? Where? When? Why? To what extent?

At least back then, people were rarely nuts, as some must be at *Scientific American* today:

Ashutosh Jogalekar’s Feynman article appeared last Friday. The next day, it was taken down, and Jogalekar was abruptly excused from

Scientific American‘s blog network. (The article has since been reposted “in the interest of openness and transparency.”)

Scientific Americaneditor Curtis Brainard offered an explanation for the dismissal earlier this week. He said that some of Jogalekar’s posts lacked clarity, which made them insensitive to “valid concerns that many readers have about past and existing biases and prejudices in our society.”

Yada yada yuck.

From Pomeroy:

“A scientific topic cannot be declared off limits or whitewashed because its findings can be socially or politically controversial,” Jogalekar sagely wrote in one of his pieces.

Apparently,

Scientific Americandisagrees. And in their politically correct world where feelings come before facts, that means you lose your job.

Grab a numbered ticket from the machine, Jog. Big world out there. You’ll be okay.

We suggest people remember this when they hear *Scientific American*’s bold advocacy of the multiverse and Darwinian evolution.

*See also:* Forrest Mims, previous PC dump-ee, comments.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Scientific American is just a political rag who insists on insulting the intelligence of its readers. Their favorite topics are global warming alarmism and, of course, the infallibility of Darwinian evolution and materialism.

Speaking of SciAm, there was an article published in the late 1960’s that proposed new universes spawning from black holes.

The illustrations showed a membrane representation of a gravitational space-time distortion. When the distortion was deep enough, the article speculated that a teardrop shape formed at the pointy tip (think about the mathematical implications), which then broke off as a brand new spherical universe, blissfully floating off somewhere in something.

Maybe Stephen Hawking read the article. Maybe Kip Thorne wrote it. Dunno.

-Q

Yeah, Mapou. Sadly true. Didn’t they fire a popular columnist some years back when they found out he was a [gasp!] Christian?

-Q

It sounds as if the Scientific American is to American science what the Christian Science sect is to historical, Christian-driven science, properly so-called.

Nothing but a waste of fresh air these imbeciles.

Scientific American has forgotten the lesson it learned about the “public relations nightmares” (their phrase) that can occur when they dump a writer with an opposing view. (In my case they at least published several of my letters to the editor and even a news story about some of my research for NASA in Brazil after I was dismissed as a columnist.) Today’s staff has continued the ruination of the legacy of a once great magazine. The staff would do well to carefully review the history of Scientific American. Perhaps in doing so they will come to respect the Christian views and writings of Rufus Porter, the magazine’s founder. Porter was an authentic scientist and writer who knew both his Creator and his responsibilities to his audience. He was definitely not a journalism school widget trained in political correctness.

Richard Feynman, who was instrumental in unifying special relativity and quantum mechanics (QED), states that ‘it takes an infinite amount of logic to figure out what one stinky tiny bit of space-time is going to do’.

I don’t know about Feynman, but as for myself, being a Christian Theist, I find it rather comforting to know that it takes an ‘infinite amount of logic to figure out what one stinky tiny bit of space-time is going to do’:

of note: ‘the Word’ in John1:1 is translated from ‘Logos’ in Greek. Logos is the root word from which we derive our modern word logic

http://etymonline.com/?term=logic

In fact, the unification of Quantum Mechanics and special relativity, QED, was only possible by ‘brushing infinity under the rug’.

But alas, infinity is not so easily ignored. Infinity pops up again in the attempt to reconcile Special Relativity-Quantum Mechanics (QED) with General Relativity.

An interesting nuance to draw out of this irreconcilable infinity problem between Quantum Mechanics, Special Relativity (QED), and General Relativity, is that we have two very different ‘eternities’ associated with Special Relativity and General Relativity.

Needless to say, the implications of this ‘eternity of destruction’ should be fairly disturbing for those of us who are of the ‘spiritually minded’ persuasion!

It should also be noted that Kurt Gödel, by studying the ‘logic of infinity’, formulated his infamous incompleteness theorem:

Kurt Godel’s part in bringing the incompleteness theorem to fruition can be picked up here

As you can see, somewhat from the preceding ‘Dangerous Knowledge’ video, mathematics cannot be held to be ‘true’ unless an assumption for a highest transcendent infinity is held to be true. A highest infinity which Cantor, and even Godel, held to be God.

Thus, with all that in mind, Dr. William Dembski in this following comment, though not directly addressing the Zero/Infinity conflict between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics-special relativity, offers insight into this ‘unification’ of the infinite and the finite:

With all this in mind and in light of this dilemma that the two very different eternities present to us spiritually minded people, and the fact that Gravity is, in so far as we can tell, completely incompatible with Quantum Mechanics, it is interesting to point out a subtle nuance on the Shroud of Turin. Namely that Gravity was overcome in the resurrection event of Christ:

Moreover, as would be expected if General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics (QED) were truly unified in the resurrection of Christ from death, the image on the shroud is found to be formed by a quantum process. The image was not formed by a ‘classical’ process:

It seems readily apparent from the evidence that we have now examined that when one allows God into math, as Godel indicated must ultimately be done to keep math from being ‘incomplete’, then there actually exists a very credible, empirically backed, reconciliation between Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity into a ‘Theory of Everything’! As a footnote; Godel, who proved you cannot have a mathematical ‘Theory of Everything’, without allowing God to bring completeness to the ‘Theory of Everything’, also had this to say:

While I agree with a criticism, from a Christian that God needed no help from the universe in the resurrection event of Christ, I am, none-the-less, very happy to see what is considered the number one problem of Physicists and Mathematicians in physics today, of a unification into a ‘theory of everything’ for what is in essence the materialistic world of General Relativity and the infinite Theistic world of Quantum Mechanics, does in fact seem to find a very credible resolution for ‘unification’ within the resurrection event of Jesus Christ Himself. It seems almost overwhelmingly apparent to me from the ‘scientific evidence’ we now have that Christ literally ripped a hole in the entropic space-time of this universe so as to reunite infinite God with finite man. That modern science would even offer such a almost tangible glimpse into the mechanics of what happened in the tomb of Christ should be a source of great wonder and comfort for the Christian heart.

Verse and Music:

bornagain77:

Come on, man. First off, nobody has unified special relativity with quantum mechanics. The former is a classical deterministic theory based on continuity while the latter is probabilistic and discrete. This is the reason that Einstein wrote that God does not play dice with the universe.

Second, if Feynman believed in infinity, he would be a crackpot in my book. Why? Because if infinity existed, it would lead to a contradiction: any finite quantity is infinitely smaller than infinity. IOW, infinity calls for quantities to be both finite and infinitesimal at the same time. That’s not even wrong.

That the physics community is still talking about infinity as if it were a logical concept is a sign of the general malaise that has gripped science in the last one hundred years or so. But then again, this is not very surprising since worthless rags like Scientific American can prosper by preaching voodoo nonsense like multiple universes, robot consciousness, time travel and the like. It’s enough to make a grown man cry.

But then again, this is not very surprising since worthless rags like Scientific American can prosper by preaching voodoo nonsense like multiple universes, robot consciousness, time travel and the like. It’s enough to make a grown man cry.”

Well put 😉

OT: Christianity and Panentheism – (conflict or concordance?) – video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xki03G_TO4&list=UU5qDet6sa6rODi7t6wfpg8g

Its funny but predictable that once a establishment decides to control thoughts and speech then they have to control everyone.

I don’t know about this guy and women or if the writer was being malicious or unfair. however it smacks of DON’t question our favourites.

anyways i can’t pronounce this writers name. Its not really from mainstreet historic america. its really those folks turing on their own.

anyways its all about truth, freedom of conscience and so freedom of thoughts and speech.

We must fight once again as we did in the old days.

Its fun and profitable for creationists to lead in this and gain the fruits of victory. its not JUST creationism anymore being attacked and censored and punished.

‘ infinity calls for quantities to be both finite and infinitesimal at the same time.’

No, mapou. Surely not. Anything finite would interrupt, would break up infinity, in the measure of its own dimensions. They’d have to exist in different reference frames.

Or was that your drift?

Axel:

I’m sorry but I don’t understand your comment. Is not the number 2 (a finite number) infinitely smaller than infinity? If so, the concept of infinity is illogical. It’s that simple. There was no hidden magic in my argument.

Well then, following such inscrutable logic,,, the finite must certainly not exist! 🙂

Oh wait, you want it to mean the other way around. OOPS

If it doesn’t make sense to you, it’s probably not sensible, but to me, the answer to your question is, no: That would be, infinity minus 2, i.e. 2 less than infinity.

I wonder if you are somehow seeing infinity as a finite concept of endlessness, instead of simply, endlessness – in which case it would brook no interruption at all.

As a comparison, eternity minus two years, or two nanoseconds would be less than eternity.

bornagain77:

bornagain77, you must do better than that. Finite quantities are observed. Thus they are not in question. It is infinity that is never observed. It’s a pseudoscientific concept in the Popperian sense. And please, knock off the sarcasm.

Axel:

Sorry. Infinity minus any finite quantity is still infinity. You are coming up with your own proof against infinity without realising it.

Mapou you state

Really??? And where is your proof that the finite is real and the infinite is unreal? the uncertainty principle?

or Did you prove reality to be finite, and the infinite to be illusory, by showing the electron to have a definite internal structure?

or Did you prove reality to be finite, and the infinite to be illusory, by showing that any mathematics precise enough to have the ‘finite’ counting numbers in it is a ‘complete’ mathematical description of reality instead of a ‘incomplete’ mathematical description of reality?

or Did you prove reality to be finite, and the infinite to be illusory, by showing that collapsed state of the wave function was real while the uncollapsed infinite dimensional wave function was illusory?

Thus Mapou, I have principled reasons to doubt that you have found any ‘finite’ parameter that allows you to say ‘aha there is no infinite past the finite’, and I have much reason to believe, instead, that the ‘finite’ is what is truly illusory when compared to the infinite that resides in God and in God alone:

Verse and Music:

boragain77:

Absolutely. I don’t understand your expression of shock, unless you’re mocking me again (which is not cool). I’m the one who should be shocked by your response.

The finite is real by observation. The infinite does not exist because it leads to a contradiction. You’re beating around the bush, bornagain77. You are not addressing my argument. But don’t bother. This topic is getting old.

Mapou, contrary to what you seem to believe with such certainty, there is no finite particle or parameter that you can point to that would prevent the infinite from existing. In fact, it is now known that particles are not self sustaining finite entities but are reliant on something beyond themselves to explain their existence.

from incompleteness theorem we have:

“Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle—something you have to assume but cannot prove.”

and for empirical confirmation of ‘incompleteness’ we have,,

Quantum Mechanics has now been extended to falsify local realism (reductive materialism) without even using quantum entanglement to do it:

Falsification of Local Realism without using Quantum Entanglement – Anton Zeilinger – video

http://vimeo.com/34168474

‘Quantum Magic’ Without Any ‘Spooky Action at a Distance’ – June 2011

Excerpt: A team of researchers led by Anton Zeilinger at the University of Vienna and the Institute for Quantum Optics and Quantum Information of the Austrian Academy of Sciences used a system which does not allow for entanglement, and still found results which cannot be interpreted classically. http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....111942.htm

Thus, we may ‘observe the finite’, but the belief that their is nothing beyond the finite is refuted since particles are not self sustaining.

Mapou this may help,

If an actual infinite doesn’t exist, then how can God exist? – Dr. Craig – video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXQ9Hc_rfdc

,,, the logical contradictions inherent in believing in an infinite number of

THINGSonly applies to the infinite materialistic conjectures of the infinite multiverses to ‘explain away’ the fine-tuning of the universe and the quasi-infinite Many Worlds scenario used to ‘explain away’ collapse of the infinite dimensional quantum wave function. Such logical contradictions inherent in the materialistic conjectures for infinity is indeed a powerful argument against those materialistic conjectures of infinity being true. But God is not a finite “thing”. As Isaac Newton put it:“The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, absolutely perfect;,,, from his true dominion it follows that the true God is a living, intelligent, and powerful Being; and, from his other perfections, that he is supreme, or most perfect. He is eternal and infinite, omnipotent and omniscient; that is, his duration reaches from eternity to eternity; his presence from infinity to infinity; he governs all things, and knows all things that are or can be done. He is not eternity or infinity, but eternal and infinite; he is not duration or space, but he endures and is present. He endures for ever, and is every where present”:

Sir Isaac Newton – Quoted from what many consider the greatest science masterpiece of all time, his book “Principia”

http://gravitee.tripod.com/genschol.htm

please note the last sentence:

“He is not eternity or infinity, but eternal and infinite; he is not duration or space, but he endures and is present. He endures for ever, and is every where present”Infinity is a mathematical concept pertaining to

quantity.The Reality that transcends space-time is neither finite nor infinite. It is altogether outside the domain of quantity. It is thesourceof quantity, not subject to it.P.S. the only way we can deal with the mathematical concept of infinity is to

get rid of them, usually by cancellation, in our equations whenever we come across them, thus revealing their illusory nature.