Back-reactions to Hawkings Supertranslation Paper

Back-reactions to Hawkings Supertranslation Paper

What do you think? I find it certainly disappointing and pretty much agree with Sabine's evaluation and frustrations. Rather impatience with the only two games in town, loopy and stringy. The smart phone market share like these camps seem fixed. Return to ideas of superdeterminism and minimum distance by her was a legitimate third opinion in an era where the utility of premises is at frontiers electic. (The simple shift from a 2D to 3D minimum quantized loop is continuous as well discrete 4 6 8 as to abstract intervals if classically Euclidean as a unitary foundation compromise.) What an entangled web we weave! As for me I have evolved beyond caring for things like publication. (From WTF to who gives a F. There is a limit to defining ourselves by debates with others including on the blogs) A pox then on both their houses! But climbing out of the gray goo of speculation there is a freedom found and new clarity where so many future optimistic things in day to day useful applications and yet not imagined future technologies are seen clearly. If civilized communication is possible it is only slowed down if thought to be useful as an instrument of resentment and revenge.. we finite lives should not be rendered empty by imperfect soft gravitron earthly forgiveness either. Are we scientists or social engineers? Sometimes, unfortunately, good fences make good neighbors.



PS  seeing the paper on the PC (with  perhaps there is something to be said for the internet as a medium to fade in its usefulness of the ever hopeful role of new media as well as say the state of Academia) I see nothing really new. It is not very translatable as straightforward, that is find its hidden agendas or assumptions once we translate the method of formulas or the sainted names. In fact it should be obvious that many have put forward these things on a foundational level even within those named in concepts and formulas.  Either as a formal abstract structure or or vague field concept (they did not touch upon symmetric neutrality of the gauge itself... that is an entirely new area of inquiry).  For example Nilpotent hypotheses of Dirac as reviewed by some modern authors excluded from the usual forms of publication but published elsewhere.  What is their plus and minus J infinity but my consideration of spacious singularity?   I note that in his usual way even Lubos has a strong if  vague uneasiness or reaction to this paper. Is it the darling topic of the day? Is it true that new blood in the mix of invaders to a new place taking over a discipline or country and extending their own sense of universal laws must  be coming from the dregs of groups fleeing tyranny?  We either accept all people can so rise or we do not.  But when they do the first thing seems historically the do not pass on their power to others and usually take their turn suppressing them in turn.  Not that we do not need competent people to teach, raise up others - even the first Russian armies could not get along without officers effectively.  We for some reason finally acknowledge there may be more than 4 dimensions but debate in the continuity of things as dualities if ideally or of a cruel thermodynamic indifference the value 2 means as in the paper we can insulate ourselves against the cold night by dividing space like a shirt without given in sacrifice the shirt to another off our backs.  Some truths out there somewhere is all around us but we have not learned to see them in front of our face. It is not that there are alternative voices, nor a matter of intelligence, but a few people in our time try to speak with us in common sense genius once seen a little higher light- and bless them, bless the peace makers who hope they can bring us a better world where all may so hear them as they try to speak while dealing with their down-going to the hungry people of our small village. Such work is that of the gods and their struggle also. If Love finds us worthy.