Wednesday, July 22, 2009

Michio Kaku's Absurdity

I normally do not watch or read some physics populist's comments on his/her own view of the universe. But I happened to listen to Dr. Michio Kaku's video commenting in analogy of human society as ants compared to his, so called, level 3 civilization building a high way next to the mound of these "human" ants. This remark somehow irritated my conscience as being a human being. Humans have soul but ants don't. How could he sell off the whole human beings as ants? So, I sent him the following email message because I believe he owes us some explanation.
Dear Dr. Kaku,

I had a chance to listening to the video of your comparison of the ants to the humans in regard to some advanced civilization. I think it is a disgusting parable.

Humans are not ants in relation to some advanced space beings.

Humans have soul and probably the intelligence comparable to the advanced beings. We just have short history of science.

You are putting down humans in the level of the ants. You sound like having a great fun or feeling of superiority by making such a statement. You haven't made any solid contributions to the advancement of the human science. You need to grow up or shut up.

You need to learn the real physics I presented in my blog which is exactly the physics of the level 3 civilization you are talking about. And it is here now. Not millions of years away. I hate people hiding their ignorance behind the hyper dimensional multi verse nonsense which they know nothing about.

Dr. Eugene Jeong

In physics, if you want to propose a theory, you also have to provide an experimental method that can falsify your "theory". Otherwise, it can not even be categorized as "theory" per se. I think it is possible that the universe may be multi-dimensional. But for such a proposal to become a theory, you have to be able to propose an experiment that can disprove it. The problem is that this populists make such a conjecture as if it is the sure thing which is very far from the truth.

The time travel idea is the same. Where is the experimental method to falsify such a claim? None.

On the other hand, the local energy conservation law has been violated by numerous experiments. You can find inexhaustible number of examples for this in the Internet just by Googling "weird science", which are not really weird in any practical sense. But the principle of causality has never been shown to be violated in nature. The time machine idea is disproved every day in our daily lives.

If you selectively pick the scientific evidence that exists out there, the future of our science will be bleak.

We should be able to solve our energy problem before we even dream about going back and forth to/from the future.

I have no idea how the scientific world has come to the point where the time travel idea is regarded as a legitimate main stream scientific theory yet the idea of extracting energy from the space is considered a ridiculous non-sense. The situation should have been the other way around.

Second thought, the popular "Back to the Future" sci-fi movie might have sparked such trend of conjectures. Gee, think about the effect of the popular movies onto the mind sets of the main stream physicists.

I wonder why there is no movie on Thomas Henry Moray's or Nikola Tesla's experiments for their life long quest for the energy problem in the popular sci-fi style movie setting.

But then, in the entertainment business, you can not and should not inspire people's especially, the young ones mind with the serious quest for the secret of the universe ???? !!!!!!. The impact of this kind of movie in the minds of the young generation would be unimaginable. We could have been out of the energy crisis in the 1950s !!!!

What subsequently happened, because of this time travel non-sense, is that these populists basically helped creating this John Titor hoax. If he is a real time traveler, he should be able to bring back some electronic gadgets we can foresee sometime in the 10 years future. Obviously he can't and he will never be able to do that, not anytime in the remote future.

Imagine a life situation where a tree becomes smaller and smaller and eventually becomes a seed and then goes back to the parent's tree inside a fruit. This is what it means to go back in time. There are tremenous volumes of known physical principles that needs to be overcome for this to happen.

I don't want to discourage the future scientists on the possibility of time travel, but there are order of things you should accomplish. You learn arithmetic before you learn calculus. You have to graduate high school first before dreaming about getting a PhD. These are the order of things in life as well as for the human society.

Talking about time travel without solving the fundamental cosmic energy and the reactionless propulsion problem is like a kid giving a presentation on calculus even before learning arithmetic, which means, at most, such a discussion at this moment of human civilization is vastly premature and can deter the real progress of the practical science as it probably has already.

It is time for the main stream scientists to stop petting each other's back and straighten up the physics that has been going astray for a long time.


Anonymous said...

Hello. And Bye.

Eue Jin Jeong said...

I was reading the story of the Andromedan contactee Alex Collier and noticed that his story makes a lot more sense than that of Michio Kaku.

Anonymous said...

@Eue Jin Jeong
Could you make plausible by argument that humans have souls? And ants don' t? Could you even define soul?
These are just hypotheses put forward without any investigation.
The comparison with ants, humans and evolved aliens is not about downgrading humans but about perspective.

Tiger Lily said...

And on what exactly do you base your apparently sacrosanct assumption of a human soul? Yes ... very objective indeed to hold such obvious bias. What's truly absurd is passing egocentric offense-taking as valid argument. You have escalated to fact your presumptions of a soul without so much as a theory. You lost credibility at " I am special cos I have a soul and ants don't" .

Tiger Lily said...

...and what exactly do you base the assumption that you have a soul and ants do not? What is this unique "soul" you claim to have? Yes ... very objective indeed to hold an unfounded, biased view that defies all your own definitions of what is a plausible theory. You lost credibility at "I'm special. I have a soul" . Absurdity is egocentric umbrage masquerading as the premise of valid argument. It's hello and goodbye from me too.

Anonymous said...

I agree. Lost the plot at "... but I have a soul and you hurt my feelings comparing me to an ant".