Re: ...Why Space Solar Power should be the future of NASA!


"Alain Fournier" <alain245@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:tc-dneYrAcLxUbjXnZ2dnUVZ_gydnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Jeff Findley wrote:
"Alain Fournier" <alain245@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:sa2dnZHVzuzPp7zXnZ2dnUVZ_v6dnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxx

Jeff Findley wrote:

Science and technology can be understood by people with the right education
and/or training. Just what are your credentials? I've got a B.S. in
Aeronautical and Astronautical engineering. In this field, that's not
highly qualified, but I certainly know enough to call b.s.

Having a B.S. is enough to call b.s. ?!? :-)

IMHO, yes.

I disagree with you on that. I have known many people having a
B.S., or even a Ph.D. who can't see the difference between a valid
argument and b.s. And I have known many without such credentials
who can tell the difference. I guess some B.S. are only b.s.


I spent the four years needed to get a math degree. And I can
remember roughly .05% of the math I learned in all that time.
In fact, I can't remember the titles of a good half of the courses
let alone any of the math within.. And this is from one of the better
math depts at the time at good ol' Mich State Univ.

However, aside from the various political rants and such, most of my
posts are based almost entirely on a new field of mathematics the two of
you might know the name of, but that's it. And I've hobbied in this
graduate level field of math regularly for several years now.
Neither of you have even a clue concerning the concepts
I try to discuss. Yet claim it's b.s. I find that to be b.s.
It's like hearing someone say that calculus is b.s. when
they don't even know what an integral is.
That's how most of the people here sound to me.

My sin is I take these concepts as I understand them
and run with them to their logical limit, as I see it anyways.
Just for the fun of it, and because whenever I apply these
concepts I come out smelling like a rose.

For instance, I'm the only person I know of that publicly predicted
the stock market crash the day before it happened, and also
accurately called just how far the market would crash.

And these concepts showed me exactly how to make a prediction
generally thought of as impossible. Which is to predict a panic, it's
time and depth, the day before it actually happens.
Scientifically speaking, predicting a stock market crash is like
successfully predicting an earthquake. Complexity science makes
things like this possible now, in fact I should've predicted the
crash a couple of weeks earlier if I'd been paying attention.

You can't even grasp the core idea in complexity science which allows
this kind of thing. Which is that complexity, as defined by complexity
science, is now analogous to uncertainty. Panics are the result of
uncertainty. So having the ability to quantify uncertainty comes
in very handy these days. Especially since so few know how to
do it.

The one place where everyone else, the classically trained, throw up
their hands in frustration at the messiness of it all....is the one place
where things are exceedingly simple and rote for me.
When total system uncertainty is at a max, then emergent outside
system forces overwhelm internal system forces. And the whole
behaves according to the new emergent force. Which in the
stock market would be trader psychology. In short, at max
complexity the stock behavior is decided by the traders, it behaves
as the traders expect under the circumstances.

This way I don't need to know all about company X and it's problems.
I can predict the behavior better than an insider without insider
knowledge. Once it's at the complex realm that is, my little
specialty. A 'specialty' responsible for the creation of all
visible order in the universe including life.

I'm surprised so few seem willing or able to try to grasp concepts
that make such bold and seemingly absurd claims.
It's not enough to say something is b.s., you need to
show it is.


http://necsi.org/publications/dcs/

http://www.calresco.org/




In your case, years of your postings here on usenet proved to me
you know enough to call b.s., but it is not because of your B.S.


Alain Fournier


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: More questions for Sean Pitman.
    ... complexity of its source. ... a scientific theory, but think about it. ... predicting the future with a certain degree of accuracy. ... Who formulated the "law of conservation of functional informational ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: JSH: One of the great relations?
    ... but must not that complexity must grow by time to avoid repetition of old math. ... about the obsolete work of dead people who used to do ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: SproutMethod.pdf
    ... After a deep breath, and honest reflection, most should agree that whatever ... created OO in the first place to reduce complexity. ... existing sw engineering paradigms like the formal grammars, ... of the math and parts of the world the math is being applied to. ...
    (comp.object)
  • Re: very sad
    ... How about half a dozen "with very long and specialized careers in math and physics" who tend to be open-minded about the possibility of predicting the lottery and half a dozen of those closed-minded people with short or medium ...
    (rec.gambling.lottery)
  • Re: TDD and Refactoring
    ... Replacing temps with queries produced method explosions in the key ... As complexity increases, I'd expect that there is something to do about ... besides Extract Method, as you know, and Extract Method alone does tend to add ... I'm also wondering why there were special cases in the math. ...
    (comp.object)
Quantcast