Interesting book
Submitted by Wayne on Tue, 2008-07-22 14:38.
I found an interesting book by William James Sidis. Though Sidis was supposedly a super-genius (so far, I'm not seeing it), the flaws in his logic show through. To be fair, he was more up front about his assumptions than most "scientists" but not as much as he should have been. I'm only a third of the way through yet, but it's proving to be a very interesting read, flaws notwithstanding.
The book starts off with an exploration of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, specifically attempting to find reason for its existence and, therefore, perhaps the biggest reason for unidirectional time (although this may actually be circular reasoning). Sidis then supposes this law may be reversible and proposes how this might be. As a thought-experiment, it's a fun trip. The part I'm just finishing up is his hypothesis that life itself may be an expression of the reversal of the Second Law. I think this last point is on shakier ground, logically speaking, but it's fascinating nevertheless. I look forward to reading the rest of the book.
Trackback URL for this post:
http://tuscanycircle.net/trackback/1167
William Sidis
Submitted by Rich Sagall (not verified) on Thu, 2008-07-24 17:16.
I assume you are talking to his book The Animate and the Inanimate. Many scientists have said that he predicted black holes many years before anyone else. He did attend Harvard at a young age and then lectured there. You can learn a lot more about him at www.sidis.net.
Did you actually find a copy of the book or are you reading a copy?
Rich
Sidis' cosmology
Submitted by Wayne on Wed, 2008-07-23 06:40.
Sidis' cosmology suffers from badly outdated observations and theories, not to mention a flawed worldview.
An interesting implication of Sidis' worldview, though, is a necessary amendment to my own theory of (or hope for) intelligence. I had previously hypothesized that sufficient intelligence would inevitably lead to the correct worldview, given a greater propensity to accurately and more deeply parse reality. Evidently, man's neurotic preference for fantasy can overpower even a five- or six-sigma intellect, perverting his perceptions to support his preferred fantasy. On the other hand, perhaps Sidis corrected his worldview later in life. (I suspect not.)
Fun thought-experiment
Submitted by Wayne on Wed, 2008-07-23 15:37.
It was indeed a fun thought-experiment with some interesting implications. Sidis does a fair job tearing his own hypothesis apart at the end of his book, though--to his credit--but he still missed, as so many do, noting the potential flaws in his foundational assumptions that stemmed from his worldview. This lack of self-awareness would seem to say something about his hyped IQ, in my opinion.
His hypothesis, as applied to cosmological phenomena, tended get built upon a house of cards. A single misstep, flawed assumption, incorrect or missing datum, and it would fall apart rather completely. He noted a little of this in his own rebuttal, but I don't think he gave its fragility due consideration.
Overall, it's worth a read. It'll challenge you a bit in your perceptions of the universe and the nature of life. It is also a good exercise in matching wits against a supposed super-genius; try to find where he makes unstated (or even merely understated) assumptions and where his incorrect worldview affects his hypothesis. (Admittedly, his unbiblical worldview does not inherently condemn his hypothesis. In some ways, his hypothesis might even support a Biblical worldview if properly applied.)
Sidis' IQ
Zietsman claimed Sidis' IQ was assuredly 6σ. Just from my admittedly limited exposure to his few written works, I'm not so easily convinced. I think I can comfortably grant him 5σ status, but I'll need better evidence of 6σ. The anecdote of lecturing to Harvard may be true, too (and impressive enough), but the actual content may not have been 6σ quality. Perhaps the press went nuts over the incident just to sell papers (as the press usually does).
On the other hand, perhaps my understanding of the differences between 5σ and 6σ is flawed, giving too much credit to fives and not enough to sixes.