Lisa Randall is fools genius
Published by admin April 6th, 2007 in Doctors of Philosophy, Genius, Shaman, FameHistorically, technology, or applied physics, has always existed.
Historically, scholasticism has always existed, as well.
These two branches of human activity are incompatible.
Scholasticism changed its name to theoretical physics in order to use and abuse the authority of technology.
Scholasticism is the art of definitions.
By defining themselves as physicists and technology as physics scholastic doctors of philosophy have been able to sell their cosmogonic speculations as science.
The cosmogonic speculations was once the realm of Doctors of Theology.
After Newton Doctors of Philosophy grabbed the cosmogonic speculation field from Doctors of Theology in the guise of scientific revolution.
What happened was that Newtonism became the new religion replacing the old Bible based religion.
Today’s Principia based religion serves the same purpose as the Bible based religion served for a long time.
The constituency of Newtonist religion is not aware that Newtonism is religion. They believe Newtonism is the source of true knowledge.
True knowledge is nowadays called scientific knowledge.
For the believers of Bible-based religions Bible is the source of true knowledge.
At the next stage of human advancement, when Newtonism will be revealed as the religious doctrine that it is, humans, including present believers in Newtonism, will finally perceive that Newtonism was a religion.
Both technology, and scholasticism, whatever their current names are, have always existed.
Therefore, the practitioners have always existed as well.
Scholasticism has been practiced for millennia by Doctors of Philosophy.
Today too scholasticism is being practiced by Doctors of Philosophy.
The authority symbols may change. In Newton’s time, peasants were awed by Newton’s genius not because they understood what he was talking about but because Newton prominently displayed his wig of authority and the peasants were convinced.
Today, Lisa Randall does not wear a wig of authority.
Today, consumers are much more sophisticated than European peasants controlled by Doctors of philosophy and Doctors of Theology in the Middle Ages.
Today, all is needed is fame.
Once Lisa Randall brand as the genius of theoretical physics who works on the most difficult subjects revealing to us the secret of the universe is established by the standard PR and marketing methods there is no need for any other authority symbols.
Consumers understand celebrity.
That’s why Lisa Randall and her ilk are professional shamans in the payroll of the Big Media.
What Lisa Randall is selling, extra dimensions, is a buzzword.
In string theory “dimension” means “epicycle.”
If you work out the equations you would see that string theorists dubbed analytical epicycles in their theory “dimensions.”
Lisa Randall is a con artist who is exploiting the standard scholastic method of double definitions.
She would not tell you her definition of what a dimension is. She keeps repeating extra dimensions as buzzword.
She is famous.
She is a celebrity.
She is a fools celebrity.
She is a fools genius with no achievement to show for her genius than the ability to repeat “extra dimensions” as her marketing slogan.double anal movielength xxx free full movies downloadporn download movies fulldragonball movies gtdumber movie script dumbhome movies eroticding farang movies dongmovies female ejaculation free Map
I tend to agree with you on this; but she is attractive, smart, and athletic. If I were rating her on the 1 to 10 scale, I would definitely (even as a hard grader) put her in the 8.5 category. Still, despite her advocacy of 11 dimensions, I’m not going into the superlative 10 ratings we sometimes see. Also, packaged science is several steps removed from ‘real science’, as far as I am concerned, too.
Lisa Randall at least deserves to be congratulated on her skillful stage-presence, her entrepreneurship, and her athleticism, if nothing else. Personally, I have been talking and writing about ‘infinite dimensions’ for twenty five years, and I haven’t ever seen anyone get the amount of credit she has gotten for her work, but it’s not entirely new. Linear Algebra and Markovian Statistics both use and incorporate ‘infinite dimensions’, but in a different sense than she uses. Her sister teaches Markovian Statistics at Georgia Tech, so it’s fairly obvious that she must have heard terms like ‘infinite dimensions’ get bandied about fairly often, before she started using them…
My own proclivity is to believe in infinite dimensions of infinite size, rather than a set number like 11 dimensions. Going back in the literature, we will find that John Wheeler asserted the existence of infinite dimensions fifty years ago, and Stephen Hawking wrote about it in 1987 (see “300 Years of Gravitation”). Having myself tried to make a case for infinite dimensions for quite a while, I am rather happy to hear her advocating it and receiving praise for her position, although I think that it might have been relatively obvious that the rejection of Kaluza-Klein “small dimensions” was intuitively obvious.
Also, I am from a ‘higher dimension’ so I actually know… I’m just ’slumming’ it here in the 4th dimension for a while.
Nice. I like the point you make. The one about the distinction between allowing infinite dimensions rather than putting a numerical limit to the number of dimensions.
As not a so sophisticated mathematical thinker as you (judging from what you wrote) to me it would be easy to argue that infinite dimensions can also mean no dimensions. Intuitively that makes sense to me. If infinite dimensions is possible zero dimension is also possible.
But also note that study of dimensions is not a question that can be answered within physics or by using standard methods of physics. Like time, the concept of dimension is a philosophical concept. Philosophy comes before polemical physics practiced by Lisa Randall.
When Lisa Randall claims that she is doing physics to predict the number of dimensions she doesn’t know what she is talking about. The concept of dimension is one of the oldest scholastic concepts. And this makes sense because what is called physics today is scholasticism incarnate.
What used to be called polemical scholastic philosophy is now called physics. “Polemical” because physics allows multiple definitions of symbols. Then, you may be right, since any symbol in physics can be defined infinity of times there must be an infinite number of dimensions allowed in physics.
Physicists also corrupted mathematics by fusing it with physics. The kind of mathematics used by physicists also allows multiple definitions. The equal sign in physics has at least five meanings.
In the kind of philosophy I like every symbol can only have one meaning. Only with this requirement we may be able to investigate concepts such as dimensions and time.
Also, can you comment on my claim that what Lisa Randall calls “dimension” as used in String Theory lingo is really analytical epicycles used by physicists to save the phenomena? I once did this calculation but I cannot find it anymore. Any clues where to look for similar arguments?
Also thanks for the concept of “packaged science.” I didn’t think about what she is doing as packaged science. Which it is.
But I would disagree with you if you mean to say that her “real science” is several steps removed from her packaged science in the right direction.
If we start from her packaged science and trace our steps back to her real science we would be moving from one notation to another or from natural language of her book to the cabalistic symbolism of her papers. I think there is no meaning lost when she translates from her cabalistic language to natural language.
As a speculation I would say that both Lisa Randall and Brian Greene actually think in simple analogies (nothing wrong with that) and they think in natural language. Then they translate ants walking on hoses as seen from distance back into the language of topology and write a paper and then translate it back to ants and hoses and publish a book and now they claim that their paper as the authority backing up their simple analogies in their popular book. I think the whole think is fraud. Or if fraud is too strong a word, it is shamanism.
Thanks for your comments.
Should we say “Shaman her”?
I am not sure I understand what your comment means and I am not sure that she is aware that she fulfills a shamanistic role in the society.
It appears that Shamans have always served a good purpose. To their constituency Shamans supplied entertainment and gave authoritative answers to cosmogonic questions in the language their constituency could understand. It’s up to her constituency to question her declarations.
Traditionally, society forbid and punished vigilently any citizen who dared to think about scientific or cosmogonic questions and Shaman’s authority was protected as a monopoly.
Today, citizens are free to think for themselves because Shamans and their employer, the Big Org, know that citizens will not think for themselves, there is no need to punish. Citizens are too drugged by the drug sold to them by the Org through Shamans of various kinds.
Lisa Randall is a 45 year old (i.e., middle-aged) Jewish woman from Queens whose father changed his last name to help him navigate the world of employment without a Jewish tag after attending the Stevens Institute of Technology in Hoboken, New Jersey. The parents devoted enormous time on her after her older sister turned out to unfortunately be autistic. Lisa is known in the neighborhood as an “Uncle Tom Jew.” The Jewish community at Harvard isn’t too proud of her either. I don’t know why people buy her agent’s (John Brockman–dubbed the “P.T Barnum of popular science” by an English columnist in the London Observer) schtick that she is “beautiful,” with her very large probiscus dimensioned over-sized Barbra Streisand nose that is “photo-shopped” out of her publicity photos, such as the one on her web page, along with the bags under her eyes and her wrinkles–and dyes the gray streaked hair blonde; growing up she was never blonde. The joke around the neighborhood is, “at least she supports the Jewish cosmetic companies owned by the Lauder family, like Clinique,” as she desperately cosmetically camouflages herself. Her mother, (a substitute teacher at Ryan Junior High School in Fresh Meadows, Queens) now in her mid-seventies, was incredibly beautiful. I suppose it’s difficult for a girl to grow up in the shadow of a extraordinarily beautiful mother.
Maybe her theories are right; probably not. But isn’t there something drastically pathetic in the very character itself of such an individual.
Pioneer,
Explanation: “Shaman her” = [pr.] “Shame on her”… a pun.
******
Jessica,
Thank you for your insights, but I ought to point out that I am 47, myself, and I like Lisa’s ideas on higher dimensions, which I agree with, and thought of myself in the early 1980’s, having advocated them ever since. Lisa is able to do much more mathematical physics than I am, so she can flesh out these concepts, which I think is a contribution/achievement. Whether or not her mother was more attractive is really irrelevant to her scientific accomplishments, but Lisa still looks good in videos and photos. Also, since I like climbing, I share a hobby with her.
Her Jewishness is inappropriate to comment on, in my mind, since it has nothing to do with her science. Having a large nose can also contribute to a highly refined olfactory sense, so it is far from unattractive to people like myself, who enjoy wine and food. Lisa Randall may not be the ’sharpest tool in the shed’, but she isn’t exactly ‘two tacos short of a combo plate’, either. If she is ‘pathetic’, then so are 99% of all people…
Aside from that, she does seem a little bit pretentious and aloof, but she is only human (we think).
Jessica, thanks for your comments.
But I must disagree with you. For me, her appearance has no relevance. I strongly believe that these characteristics are irrelevant to her science. I am only interested in the fact that she is letting herself be used by the Big Media to corrupt science.
But thanks for the information about her agent. I didn’t know that she was marketed by the “P.T. Barnum of popular science.” This is funny. I think this shows that the agenda of her science is decided by the Big Publishers.
I would like to see Harvard, such an old institution, to stop lending their institutional authority to her.
Nicholas,
Thanks I got it now. It is funny.
What I think would be nice, and I believe would be very profitable for the publishers as well, is to hype another female physicist who would thrash the 11 dimensions marketed by Lisa Randall.
I think they should just get an actor who would play a physicist. This is not unthinkable. Imagine a group of physicists like Bourbaki and the speaker of this group will be an actor playing a physicist. Since she will be so attractive media will not be able to resist her and she will just go to talk shows and conferences and repeat the speech prepared for her by Physics Bourbaki.
This would be good for physics. And probably even for science.
Well, “Jessica” outed Lisa, to the latter’s eternal disgrace, to be surey! Now that we know Lisa’s Jewish, all pieces finally fell into place: she is a “Yid”, she has a big nose, we can just dismiss her, er?
Jess: what sewer did you crawl out of???
alphaf, thanks for your comment. I believe that Lisa Randall’s physical attributes, anatomical specifications and her affiliations with organized religion have no relevance in her work. Remember, all humans are human.
On the other hand, I may make a legitimate connection, for instance, with Newton’s appearance and his science, namely, the elaborate wig Newton wears and the kind of book he writes. The wig is an authority symbol symbolizing Newton’s grand master status in the scholastic hierarchy.
But today there are no such visible authority symbols. We are living in a more sophisticated society. In our society there is only one authority symbol: fame.
Why? Because the only unit the Big Media understands is fame. The only criteria the Big Media uses to judge and to evaluate human beings is fame. Consequently, the only unit the audience of the Big Media uses to judge other human beings is also fame. Most people who buy Lisa Randall’s book buy it because she is famous.
So someone with manufactured fame such as Lisa Randall, gets all the attention, while a physicist working in the trenches, or teaching and doing useful scientific work gets no credit at all. A previous commenter mentioned that he has been writing about extra dimensions without getting the recognition enjoyed by Lisa Randall.
And when you look at history, you would see that it was Newton who created the scientist as a deity institution. Before Newton only tyrants and rulers were allowed to deify themselves. Fame is deification for the people. Newton invented the category of the modern shaman to which both Lisa Randall and Brian Greene belongs. That’s why Newton is buried in Westminster Abbey in the most elaborately baroque tomb ever for a scholastic doctor to be buried in.