[Lostgallifreyan]

Art Unwin wrote in news:f919e118-400b-4b47-a710-
:

I suppose we can call it just being human and turf protection.


Or look to a simple physical aspect and call it inertia. Whatever it is, if
you agonise over it you won't do much about it. I sympathise over this, I
dislike the way patent and establishment turns technocracy into preisthood,
but it still boils down to what you acheive. We might live in a world where
current doctrine tells us that all is ruled by chance and that science cannot
look into all things as some things must be permantly uncertain. That's
fragmented not just science, but the whole of society because if no-one can
validly seek a single truth many will just go seeking their own, hence a
proliferantion of New Agey stuff, etc. But one thing doesn't change: Either a
thing works or it doesn't. And never mind the maths, if it tries to predict
too much, don't trust it. If it's descriptive of observations it might lead
to new predictions, otherwise it might as well be an abstract model that
can't predict anything. I don't know anything about what grounding you have,
but it doesn't matter because this applies to all thought. If you have really
found some new path, why try to force convergence with an old one? I'm
staying with the old one because what it describes matches what I know, and I
value its anchorage. Seems to me you either need to demonstrate an easy
convergence of a very different theory so that anyone can reality-check it
and still find it true, or build things based on it that verify predictions
so others can see that happen.

I said this because it felt more right than not saying it, but I'm getting
too old to go round in circles so if I find myself been drawn into any I
won't go there. I wanted to stay silent on this, but however strange your
ideas seem to me, there is something I can sympathise with about the trouble
they cause for you. Sometimes if the roads don't join, you just have to keep
driving on the one you're on.