Re: [Patents] "Betrayal of physics"

[Hartmut Pilch <phm@a2e.de>]

> > Is your reluctance to defend the forces of nature doctrine somehow
> > founded in your physics expertise?
> 
> No it's simple retorics. If something is complicated to explain, then
> it's 90% wrong from a retorical POV. The patent office can just
> claim "we know what we are doing, don't worry, we've been doing
> it for hundreds of years" if asked. We are fighting an uphill battle.

The question here was not about tactics but about truth, not how "we"  
should win some dreaded rhetorical battle, but what is right/wrong about
Greg's "betrayal of physics" assertion.

> Regarding the "forces of nature" criterion anybody knows what
> friction is and how it works, and you can make inventions getting
> rid of it (lubricants), or increasing it (glue/tape). Try to explain
> friction on the basis of the four fundamental forces! Basically
> you are in deep trouble.

What is so troublesome?

> > Are you backing down on this crucial point, where your input is most
> > needed, because you believe that Greg is somehow right?
> 
> No. He's clearly wrong. However, i don't find philosophical
> Mind/Matter arguments very convincing. 

Who is not convinced?

You or the audience in the dreaded rhetorical battle?

Regardless of your other great inputs, since this discussion is about the
role of information in modern physics, there are certain elements in it
which you are bound to be better able to clarify than most people here.

-- 
Hartmut Pilch, FFII & Eurolinux Alliance              tel. +49-89-18979927
Protecting Innovation against Patent Inflation       http://swpat.ffii.org/
330,000 votes 3000 firms against software patents    http://noepatents.org/