"My Ignorance is as Good as Your Knowledge" --Asimov

[Tralay]

Well you will have no problem providing a sample of any of the following

Time

Soul

Thought

I'll accept photos of any if exist from a museum

If you wish to post samples to me give me some moments to send you the required postage and packaging

Also allow me to check with customs who a very strict in Australia

This is an electric reality that we live in. As such, everything within it is composed of electrons all vibrating at perspective frequencies. If one were to theoretically stand out of this reality and create a test of it with an osciliscope they wouldn't be ale to tell the difference between humans or their thoughts and ideas based on the sine waves they would detect, unless they were to have that data already ready for them. So therefore, our idea of what "real" actually is would be based on how deep you want to go

 

[C C]

if someone said to me that their ignorance was as good as my knowledge I would respond thusly, "you're ignorance is surely as real my knowledge."

I very much doubt that the "hoi polloi" or whatever applicable population is highlighted by the topic (which intellects are supposedly frowning upon) would usually refer to their own personal views as "ignorance", anyway. The statement would not be the original remarks, but a reflection of how a purported scholarly authority has already subjectively evaluated or framed the discourse later (i.e., "You are of an unlearned group. Your claimed knowing or feeling about _X_ is wrong or equivalent to ignorance"). The statement is not a fragment of a non-mediated account of what might transpire in such cases or encounters. A filter and judgment has already been descriptively implemented.

- - -

 

[Tralay]

I very much doubt that the "hoi polloi" or whatever applicable population is highlighted by the topic (which intellects are supposedly frowning upon) would usually refer to their own personal views as "ignorance", anyway. The statement would not be the original remarks, but a reflection of how a purported scholarly authority has already subjectively evaluated or framed the discourse later (i.e., "You are of an unlearned group. Your claimed knowing or feeling about _X_ is wrong or equivalent to ignorance"). The statement is not a fragment of a non-mediated account of what might transpire in such cases or encounters. A filter and judgment has already been descriptively implemented.

- - -

I agree, it is doubtful that the sentence would actually catch a ride on someone's breath in the first place.

 

[wegs]

I don't think it's uncommon for people to think that their ''knowledge'' is as good as anyone else's, thus the meaning of Asimov's quote? Ignorance and knowledge are close cousins, in that many people think they have knowledge of a particular topic, but they are really quite ignorant. I guess this is Asimov being flip about it. lol

 

[kx000]

In my religon we believe that Lucifer is the living emodiement of knowledge and was sent here by YHWH in order for the heavens to not be ignorant of human suffering resulting in the creation of science on earth.

 

[Neddy Bate]

In my religon we believe that Lucifer is the living emodiement of knowledge and was sent here by YHWH in order for the heavens to not be ignorant of human suffering resulting in the creation of science on earth.

Is this a "tree of knowledge" thing? Or a Lucifer = "morning star" thing?

 

[Michael 345]

Is this a "tree of knowledge" thing? Or a Lucifer = "morning star" thing?

Think it is more a - making up brown stuff - thing so - we are different - from the others who make up brown stuff

 

[kx000]

Is this a "tree of knowledge" thing? Or a Lucifer = "morning star" thing?

That light is the element of knowledge, and morality, and that Lucifer is already called the light bearer caused me to rebecome enlightened.

It's a forbidden fruit thing, and that forbidden fruit must be war.

 

[James R]

I don't think it's uncommon for people to think that their ''knowledge'' is as good as anyone else's, thus the meaning of Asimov's quote? Ignorance and knowledge are close cousins, in that many people think they have knowledge of a particular topic, but they are really quite ignorant. I guess this is Asimov being flip about it. lol

Here's the full quote, posted two years ago:

There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.​

It's not so much about thinking that you have knowledge when you don't (although that's probably part of it). It's more about thinking your opinion should "count" for just as much as the opinion of an expert, even if you know essentially nothing.

These days we see this kind of attitude on display everywhere. In relation to science, we see it from parents who refuse to vaccinate their children, and we see it from the people who continue to deny that global heating is happening. There's a general distrust of experts of all kinds. If you need a good example of the kind of attitude being discussed by Asimov, look no further than your current Commander in Chief.

 

[river]

wegs said: ↑
I don't think it's uncommon for people to think that their ''knowledge'' is as good as anyone else's, thus the meaning of Asimov's quote? Ignorance and knowledge are close cousins, in that many people think they have knowledge of a particular topic, but they are really quite ignorant.
this is Asimov being flip about it. lol

Indeed

I don't think it's uncommon for people to think that their ''knowledge'' is as good as anyone else's, thus the meaning of Asimov's quote? Ignorance and knowledge are close cousins, in that many people think they have knowledge of a particular topic, but they are really quite ignorant. I guess this is Asimov being flip about it. lol

Here's the full quote, posted two years ago:

There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.​

It's not so much about thinking that you have knowledge when you don't (although that's probably part of it). It's more about thinking your opinion should "count" for just as much as the opinion of an expert, even if you know essentially nothing.

These days we see this kind of attitude on display everywhere. In relation to science, we see it from parents who refuse to vaccinate their children, and we see it from the people who continue to deny that global heating is happening. There's a general distrust of experts of all kinds. If you need a good example of the kind of attitude being discussed by Asimov, look no further than your current Commander in Chief.

Trust .

 

[danshawen]

He's gone, and so is the swirling flushing fountain of the covid pandemic. We're all friends again. Even Palestinians and Israelis, Ukrainians and Russia are getting along.

During the plague years, I've worked out more than just a few things. Asimov was right again. My ignorance is as good as your knowledge. Let me demonstrate a manifesto all my own. This is as good a place as any to do it. Physics Stack Exchange won't let me, so this will work.

1. Difference between c and c^2:

If there is a difference between a vector velocity and the speed of light because the latter cannot be added to, then there is also a difference between an ordinary acceleration and the very special acceleration known as c^2, even though there isn't a name for it. Wondering why Newton's dimensional analysis doesn't fit c^2? It's because Newton didn't know the first thing about the speed of light, nor relativity, nor the nature of time itself. Time is proportional to 1/acceleration, not c.

2. c^2 IS MOST DEFINITELY an acceleration in all directions at once, of zero magnitude (compare that idea to its counterpart; a speed that is not a vector!)

c^2 is the acceleration that enables the inverse square law in time=space (distinct from 'spacetime'). There is only time and energy. Understand what c^2 means with nothing more exotic than a laser pointer. Point an infinitely long coherence length laser in EVERY direction in the universe, the way light would expand normally. How long will that take? Forever. c^2 is that. Moving the laser pointer cannot be done at a speed greater than c. See the difference? c^2, not c, is the fundamental basis of time itself. It is also the fundamental basis of inertia. NOW you can see the Anderson-Higgs mechanism for the pseudoscience it is. IT BREAKS BOTH THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUIVALENCE AND NEWTON'S THIRD LAW. Inertia can normally not be given by something like a boson which has no inertia of its own. You know what can provide inertia to quarks and electrons? The inertialess, charge-less and quantum spin-less one dimensional fermions that comprise time=space itself.

Ever wonder why it was even possible to derive the Lorentz transformations of length and time using only ONE dimension to do it in? Ever wonder why it is when anything that has inertia is accelerated, the INERTIAL mass increases IN ONE DIMENSION ONLY? 'Relativity squared' is why.

Sound interesting? Because some people's ignorance really is better than everyone else's knowledge. Mine. Every scientist since Aristotle missed this. Asimov missed this. Too bad. I think he would have enjoyed it.

Three of us (Chuck Keyser, Jr, Stephen S. Upson, and I) put our heads together and came up with this new model of a fermion. It just works. Einstein, Nordström, and Ehrenfest tried to do the same thing, and it totally flopped, because it included a hard fermion "shell" that was not explained by c^2; Relativity^2, (the 'force' that binds fermions into spheres). General Relativity was created because their model of a fermion flopped.

New theories of dark matter and dark energy are still not there because the model of a fermion flopped. Ours didn't. Both dark matter and dark energy are explained by our model. Angular momentum, quantum spin, etc is energy that produces the excess gravitational force. The entire universe (not just spiral galaxies) is spinning. It also has a moment of inertia, but over its 10 billion year lifetime, our sun will radiate 10^44 J-s of energy away. All of the rotational and spin energies of the planetary system we have already discovered amounts to about 10^44 J-s. Take that Asimov, DM and DE deniers.

You're all very welcome indeed. Special thanks to Aristotle, Newton, Einstein, Stephen Weinberg, and Kip Thorne. Couldn't possibly have done it without all of them. Don't care a whit about the guy who created dynamite.

 

[origin]

2. c^2 IS MOST DEFINITELY an acceleration in all directions at once

Acceleration does not have the units of distance^2/time^2.

 

[James R]

danshawen:

During the plague years, I've worked out more than just a few things. Asimov was right again. My ignorance is as good as your knowledge. Let me demonstrate a manifesto all my own. This is as good a place as any to do it. Physics Stack Exchange won't let me, so this will work.

Thanks for providing an example for this thread.

1. Difference between c and c^2:

If there is a difference between a vector velocity and the speed of light because the latter cannot be added to, then there is also a difference between an ordinary acceleration and the very special acceleration known as c^2, even though there isn't a name for it. Wondering why Newton's dimensional analysis doesn't fit c^2? It's because Newton didn't know the first thing about the speed of light, nor relativity, nor the nature of time itself. Time is proportional to 1/acceleration, not c.

$c^2$ isn't an acceleration. Acceleration has units of length divided by squared time, whereas $c^2$ has units of squared length divided by squared time.

2. c^2 IS MOST DEFINITELY an acceleration in all directions at once, of zero magnitude (compare that idea to its counterpart; a speed that is not a vector!)

No. See above.

Understand what c^2 means with nothing more exotic than a laser pointer. Point an infinitely long coherence length laser in EVERY direction in the universe, the way light would expand normally. How long will that take? Forever. c^2 is that.

$c^2$ isn't a time. It doesn't have units of time.

Moving the laser pointer cannot be done at a speed greater than c. See the difference? c^2, not c, is the fundamental basis of time itself.

You haven't actually explained why you think that.

It is also the fundamental basis of inertia.

Or that.

NOW you can see the Anderson-Higgs mechanism for the pseudoscience it is.

That's the first time you have mentioned that. You haven't explained anything, yet.

IT BREAKS BOTH THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUIVALENCE AND NEWTON'S THIRD LAW.

Does it? Can you explain?

Inertia can normally not be given by something like a boson which has no inertia of its own.

The Higgs boson does not give things inertia.

You know what can provide inertia to quarks and electrons? The inertialess, charge-less and quantum spin-less one dimensional fermions that comprise time=space itself.

Which fermions are you referring to, specifically? Have they been detected?

Ever wonder why it was even possible to derive the Lorentz transformations of length and time using only ONE dimension to do it in?

As far as I'm aware, you need at least two dimensions for that.

Ever wonder why it is when anything that has inertia is accelerated, the INERTIAL mass increases IN ONE DIMENSION ONLY? 'Relativity squared' is why.

What's "relativity squared"? Can you explain?

Sound interesting? Because some people's ignorance really is better than everyone else's knowledge. Mine. Every scientist since Aristotle missed this. Asimov missed this. Too bad. I think he would have enjoyed it.

I think you're making a good case for what Asimov said. Please continue.

Three of us (Chuck Keyser, Jr, Stephen S. Upson, and I) put our heads together and came up with this new model of a fermion. It just works.

What do you mean? What does your new model help with? What does it work for? Can you give an example?

Einstein, Nordström, and Ehrenfest tried to do the same thing, and it totally flopped, because it included a hard fermion "shell" that was not explained by c^2; Relativity^2, (the 'force' that binds fermions into spheres). General Relativity was created because their model of a fermion flopped.

Did Einstein say somewhere that this is why he created General Relativity? Interesting. I was not previously aware of this. Got a quote?

New theories of dark matter and dark energy are still not there because the model of a fermion flopped. Ours didn't. Both dark matter and dark energy are explained by our model. Angular momentum, quantum spin, etc is energy that produces the excess gravitational force.

Where can I see the details of this model?

The entire universe (not just spiral galaxies) is spinning.

How is that detected? Or is that a prediction of your model? Is there a measurement we could make to confirm this? What do you propose?

It also has a moment of inertia, but over its 10 billion year lifetime, our sun will radiate 10^44 J-s of energy away.

J-s is not a unit of energy. Is your model full of incorrect units? If so, why do you think it is correct? Or do you only make basic mistakes with units here on sciforums?

All of the rotational and spin energies of the planetary system we have already discovered amounts to about 10^44 J-s.

How did you discover this? Please explain.

You're all very welcome indeed. Special thanks to Aristotle, Newton, Einstein, Stephen Weinberg, and Kip Thorne. Couldn't possibly have done it without all of them. Don't care a whit about the guy who created dynamite.

And thank you for a valuable contribution to this discussion.

 

[foghorn]

And thank you for a valuable contribution to this discussion.

There maybe two clues as to where Dan’s coming from in his avatar.
A crank.
A wind-up merchant.
Then again someone might be pulling an old sock out of the draw because they are not getting attention.

 

[James R]

danshawen pops in here periodically. This was most likely some drive-by nonsense and we won't hear from him again for another few months or a year.

 

[DaveC426913]

There maybe two clues as to where Dan’s coming from in his avatar.

 

[foghorn]

danshawen pops in here periodically. This was most likely some drive-by nonsense and we won't hear from him again for another few months or a year.

When the sock need airing again.

 

[Janus58]

danshawen:



$c^2$ isn't an acceleration. Acceleration has units of length divided by squared time, whereas $c^2$ has units of squared length divided by squared time.



$c^2$ isn't a time. It doesn't have units of time.

Isn't funny how some people ptry to make so much out c^2, while completely ignoring the v^2 in mv^2/2 or the t^2 in at^2/2?

 

[Halc]

Since this thread has been regurgitated from the dead, it seems I might be able to reply to some of the OP.

No one here or elsewhere, in science, politics, or elsewhere seems willing to discuss this quote head-on.

I don't actually see Asimov's quote being discussed at all, head-on or otherwise. It just seems to occupy space in the title. Perhaps I missed where you think you do it. I didn't read anything beyond the OP, which mentions Asimov twice, but doesn't mention or otherwise discuss his quote even once. So, sans reading the whole thing, the point of the topic wasn't made clear.

Well, of course, it is knowledge that helps us to survive.

Sometimes. It helps to know where the food is, a good argument for evolving senses, but not such a good argument for other things, especially high-functioning brains.

Our brains, crafted by evolution, ignore billions of bits of irrelevant facts and data each and every second we live, gleaning from a torrent of information only those facts "truths" that are important to our continued survival.

I can agree that the brains of, well, things with brains (not just humans) are evolved to filter out irrelevancies and process what is often the most relevant data. Calling any of it 'facts and truths' is an unsubstantiated claim. If lies and falsehoods make us more fit, then the lies are reinforced and truth abandoned. This is evidenced by so much of 20th century science going against most people's intuition. Most of that 'closer to the truth' findings goes against all those 'facts' (as you put it) that are more immediately important to our continued survival. What's useful and what's true are often very different things, and your statement seems to presume that they're more or less the same thing.