Robert Uhl <eadmund42@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
| Cor <email@example.com> writes:
| > I understand that, but it really bugs me that 'packaging seems more
| > important that the contents, hence my reaction.
| It's not that packaging is more important than contents; it's that we
| all have limited time to spend on things and this we need to filter.
| The guy on the street corner shouting about quantum physics and aliens
| _might_ have a point. But that's not the way to bet.
| Had I infinite time, then naturally I'd listen to and evaluate everyone,
| including the crazy guy on the street corner. Not having that luxury,
| I have to filter.
MIT prof Scott Aaronson's blog had a recent article which is directly
related to this:
Ten Signs a Claimed Mathematical Breakthrough is Wrong
Instead I want to explore the following metaquestion: suppose
someone sends you a complicated solution to a famous decades-old
math problem, like P vs. NP. How can you decide, in ten minutes
or less, whether the solution is worth reading?
And Sabine Hossenfelder's latest blog entry explores even more
outrageous possible consequences of information overload:
The Spirits that We Called
`Information overload' isn't just an error message my brain
produces when I check the arXiv, and an expression that I've
made up for fun, but a rather unsurprising and well known side
effect of a tightly connected world. The human brain's capacity
to process input is limited. Today you are confronted with more
information than you a) need and b) can deal with. The challenge
today is not to collect all information you can possibly get,
but to filter it and extract the relevant bits.
 <http://arxiv.org/>. Sabine is a theoretical physicist, and
the arXiv is *the* hot place these days to get the very latest
preprints, especially the "hep-th" subsection.
 <http://arxiv.org/list/hep-th/new> == "High Energy Physics - Theory (new)"
Rob Warnock <firstname.lastname@example.org>
627 26th Avenue <URL:http://rpw3.org/>
San Mateo, CA 94403 (650)572-2607