On May 5, 9:52 am, Baldin Lee Pramer wrote:
> On May 4, 11:01 am, Jerry Kraus wrote:

>
> Let me give you an example of a problem of roughly the same difficulty
> that has recently been solved. The Poincare conjecture... ah, hell, if
> you don't know the history, read thishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poincar%C3%A9_conjecture
>
> Many different ideas and false starts by some of the smartest people
> in the world *evenetually* led to the solution of this seemingly
> simple problem. There were always detractors who claimed the solution
> was easy and people weren't trying hard enough, just as with the
> Fermat theorem.
>
> The Poincare conjecture and Fremat's theorem were difficult to solve
> because they *are* difficult! It is the same way with nuclear fusion.
> Those like you who think it is easy and people aren't trying hard
> enough are just wanking. If it really is easy, write an article about
> how it can be done.
>
> Put up or shut up, Jerry.
>
> Baldin Lee Pramer

Excellent, Mr. Pramer, we get to the heart of the problem. The metaphysics of science. You are, undoubtedly, aware that the mediaeval scholastics explored some very obscure problems indeed -- how many angels can stand on the head of a pin, etc. -- but, nevertheless, their efforts through luminaries such as Thomas Aquinas are largely credited with the development of the modern scientific method.

The problem you describe -- The Poincaré Conjecture -- deals with the nature of space, the structure of space, and how they can be precisely analyzed and understood. This is useful and interesting work, rather along the lines of the mediaeval scholastics, I would suggest, but is it practical invention? Is a problem of this type directly analogous to the problems related to developing controlled nuclear fusion?

There is, I would suggest, a fundamental difference between a precise mathematical formulation, and a practical invention. Specifically, our mathematical formulations may have NOTHING to do with what is actually occuring in the world, and we can develop practical invention simply and solely on the basis of empirical study and non-mathematized intuition. How does the latter process occur? WE DON'T KNOW!!! The problem with a conservative, self-contained, rigorous, systematic approach to new problems is that we can never know, for sure, that our conventional systems will be effective with these new problems. So, we must vault into the unknown. Wild, dangerous, unpredictable experimentation. Is such a process really consistent with the personality and training of professional scientists? I suspect not. We need private inventor-entrepreneurs working on the problem of controlled nuclear fusion.