IT WILL HAPPEN AGAIN!

ARXIV WILL SET UP AN INQUISITION TRIAL TO CENSORE A NEW PAPER ALREADY ACCEPTED FOR PUBLICATION IN A HIGH-IMPACT ACADEMIC JOURNAL, PROBABLY VERY SOON.

If possible I will report here all the correspondence with the arXiv moderators so that you can follow the story in real time.

It is a paper that has received positive feedback and appreciation, besides the confirmation of absolute mathematical correctness in the proof of its thesis, from three reviewers in a Q1 journal. It is now in the revision stage and hopefully the editor will decide on publication in the next few days. The author has been systematically censured by arXiv for his previous 20 papers for his challenging idea. The paper is manifestly about theoretical physics (hep-th). All the past 20 papers are published in scientific journals. Many have been peer-reviewed in leading scientific journals. Many, like the upcoming one, were already published upon submission to arXiv. As with the previous 20 times, it is to be expected that arXiv will censor the idea once again.

It is very important that the story is followed up and debated in this forum.

Your support is very important.

Thank you!

Donatello Dolce
I think we are not too different in our thinking. I consider AI a tool to assist humans - not something that replaces humans. In a few AI/ML applications I have seen, the application provides a measure or rating of confidence in its results (e.g., 75% or 90% accuracy) Then humans review the results - filtering out the extreme values either to remove them or to focus in on them. Having AI consider "beauty" in a paper would first require defining characteristics of "beauty" in a paper - or allowing the system to learn what a human finds as beauty in a paper (with a human filtering in what s/he finds beautiful or filtering out what is not beautiful).

      Donald Palmer

      Ok, in all of this we must always bear in mind that there is an element of unpredictability that characterizes the form in which scientific revolutions materialize (sometimes also, I would say, of healthy "anarchy" and "contest") which could hardly pass the AI filter.

        I counted 114 reclassified papers on the physics:gen-ph junk list since the beginning of the year.

        At least 30 of these are published in peer-reviewed journals, many in q1 journals (excluding conference papers or similar).

        EVERY DAY THE HARD WORK OF A SCIENTIST IS TRAMPLED WITHOUT EXPLANATION.

        How many good ideas, surely stimulating for the scientific debate, are thrown in the bin?

        How could science be different?

        400 years after Galileo my question is: is this science?

        I gave this Essay a 10 because I find it complementary to mine. In my essay I discuss the dependence of science on "politics" and economic interests. In this Essay the Author focuses the same problem by denouncing the shameful conduct of arXiv and its censorship on new ideas which, despite being rigorously defined, developed via rigorous mathematics and often consistent with experiments and observations, are against the "sacred protocols" of the dominant orthodoxy. I am well aware of this problem because I too am on the arXiv "blacklist" because in my work I often try to go beyond the "sacred protocols"
        The Author shows a lot of courage, as if his Essay were to be awarded in this Essay Contest, he would risk having serious problems from the very powerful defenders of mainstream physics, who will tend to defend their power, their fame and their money often based on lies, of which arXiv is a faithful servant.

          Christian Corda

          My deepest gratitude to you, especially for your words of encouragement in this difficult exposé of arXiv's anti-scientific policies. Sincere thanks.

            A couple of citations from Nobel Prize Laureate Brian Josephson:

            “It is just an ordinary day at the headquarters of the physics preprint archive. The operators
            are going through their daily routine and are discussing what to do about recent emails:
            arXiv moderator: Some 'reader complaints' have come in regarding preprints posted to the
            archive by Drs. Einstein and Yang. Dr. Einstein, who is not even an academic, claims to have
            shown in his preprint that mass and energy are equivalent, while Professor Yang is
            suggesting, on the basis of an argument I find completely unconvincing, that parity is not
            conserved in weak interactions. What action shall I take?
            arXiv advisory board: Abject nonsense! Just call up their records and set their 'barred'
            flags to TRUE.
            arXiv moderator: And here's a letter from one 'Hans Bethe' supporting an author whose
            paper we deleted from the archive as being 'inappropriate'.
            arXiv advisory board: Please don't bother me with all these day to day matters! Prof. Bethe
            is not in the relevant 'field of expertise', so by rule 23(ii) we simply ignore anything he says.
            Just delete his email and send him rejection letter #5.
            The first portion of the above exchange is fictional of course, but might well have happened
            had Einstein and Yang had dealings with the physics preprint archive arXiv.org, administered
            by Cornell University, today. The second part is not fictional.”
            Brian Josephson (Nobel Prize Laureate), [archivefreedom.org]

            and, just for fun, ....

            "The revolution will not be brought to you by arXiv
            ’cos arXiv deems revolutionary ideas ‘inappropriate’.
            As obstructive as any censor
            Cross readers veto cross listing
            ‘Reader complaints’ win the day.

            The revolution won’t find you through arXiv
            So go tune in another way."
            Brian Josephson (Nobel Prize Laureate)
            [

            23 days later

            My new paper has been finally published in a Highly Ranked physics journal (Q1), after three out of three positive referee reports.

            Now the really difficult task will begin, that is the fight against arXiv to get my paper announced on the hep-th list as it rightfully deserves, according to the journal classification.

            Due to its revolutionary content, this is the kind of paper that will not pass arXiv censorship, despite the journal publication.

            As proposed in my essay, arXiv MUST RESPECT the classification given by well-regarded academic journals. arXiv moderators cannot pretend to be more effective and accurate than journal peer-reviewers. This way, blacklisted authors have the option to wait until journal publication if they want to avoid censorship. Also, arXiv moderators can avoid wasting their precious time on something done with more scientific rigor by academic journals.

            With arXiv moderator it is not possible to enter into the scientific merits of the paper, contrary to peer review and to any good scientific practice. This concerns me a lot because. Despite being absolutely sure of my findings, I cannot use any scientific argument to defend them against the often superficial arXiv moderators.

            As soon as the anonymous part of this contest will be ended I WILL REPORT HERE THE CORRESPONDENCE WITH ARXIV SO THAT EVERYONE HERE CAN EXPERIENCE THE ARXIV UNSCIENTIFIC POLICIES.

            Your support will be very important.

            Thank you,

            MauvePanther

            5 days later

            multimodal sensory experience , what is a desired goal?
            the brain might store the same structure /(idea /concept) in various modes (maybe qualia),

            doing arithmetics akin to a rithm of a song or completely silent only by moving some shapes with hands
            Where do Mathematical Symbols Come From?
            this video states that math notations have an influence in what math is being done

            if lets say for example there is a voice recording of the abstract of a paper,
            i'm interested in to how an equations spoken out loud would sound like

            or other way expressed,lets say supposedly the way math is being done is overusing certain brain areas that deal with remembering handling the content , because of a historical traditional standard . that are not really specific to math , instead to the literacy language in general , for example an other question: do you speak when you typewrite ?.

            still this standard does not guarantee a good transmission, experience reproduction, as mentioned in a previous comment i could imagine the reading experience with various voices.

            so why not embrace fully a multimodal sensory iq like deciphering and encoding of scientific articles , this potentially could help in the abstraction and for the fluid intelligence , i haven't seen examples of this idea to point, and i've tried to come create samples by myself.
            to an extreme imagine naming variables with only specific smels dispensed over movable tiles
            and i have some kind of experience solving degree2 polynomials only with smells
            and after that i must teach/explain using letters and clasical numbers

            i'm not complete sure that can be done
            this is a translation/traduction that could be helpful in the overal multidomain intelligence /a creative good practice

            7 days later

            Consolidation has occurred in nearly every aspect of the modern world leading to inferior product.

            The massive abundance rots on the vine not because it is useless, but because there is simply too much.

            Our food, our homes, our transport systems, and our science, all suffer from this. It is a direct result of abundance.
            The expeditious pursuit of more, more, more, faster , faster , faster.

            The comparison of science to religion has at least one root of evidence, and that is the constant presence of religion throughout the history of it. They are in it, around it, and on top of it.

            The other day I gasped at something a well known scientist (Neil D Tyson) said. He loudly exclaimed that the gregorian calendar is the most accurate calendar we have had. This is utterly false, yet I am quite sure the priests stood and clapped. How ironic.

            Modern science through complicity to societal fantasies, has reached its abundance overload.
            The old saying, "when in Rome do as the romans", does not apply to Rome, if we notice.
            But, the push continues unabated, headlong into the world of "things". An entire generation knows no different flow of societal importance than to produce more things.

            The stated goal of the Templeton Foundation is the reconciliation of religion and science. I propose they know not what they ask, as the very answering of the question, exposes a very real and dangerous inquisition that is wrongly thought to have happened in the past and is no longer something to be concerned with in the present.

            What is the rush, and where are we going ? The two top areas of concern, are the high energy physics and quantitative biology. Sounds like power and control to me. The same areas that create a well controlled army, and the weapons to arm it with. Same as it ever was.

            A drastic degradation of any product is assured by the injection of unqualified workers in assembly, and the appointment of gatekeepers biased by their own constricted pathways to success, and even worse, the maintenance of tradition.

            My understanding of science though limited, seems to suggest this very presence, is antithetical to the pursuit.

            Please do not find me in a court of judgement, where the prosecutor is the cousin of the judge, and the jury all attended a school founded by the judges father, and his father before him. In this court, if my crime is found to offend that tradition, I will surely be found guilty without evidence.

            It is time to rest the clocks, and re-establish our knowledge of time, because it is painfully obvious, that it is desired, yet inexplicably disallowed. It is uncomfortable, cringy, fringy and all manner of , Oh God not that . But for whom, is this reaction ?

            Let the proponents of humility experience it, as it can only truly be learned to any high degree, when the powerful tumble, and tradition washes away in the flood.

            De-centralize.

            2 years later

            I am writing: 4-Sphere-Cosmology, a scientific speculation in Alternative Cosmology—something I never imagined could find its way to arXiv. However, I have come to realize that challenges in scientific research are not confined to journals; they are also emerging in some science forums.

            In one such forum, I provided a response that was entirely non-speculative and, in fact, self-evident. However, because I cited the above-mentioned OSF project as a source (open-source licensing mandates it), my post was deleted on the grounds that it referenced a document without peer review. The likely intent was to prevent students from being distracted from their coursework, but the actual outcome was the censorship of a statement as elementary as saying 2 + 2 = 4.

            In my research, I have used artificial intelligence in the same way that, in the 1970s, no one would take a physics exam without a pocket calculator, and today, no one would analyze data without a computer; with the intent of offering a resolution to the undue constraint on the sharing of innovative scientific theories, I wrote this:

            I envision a future where all research findings, regardless of their speculative nature, can continue to be readily published. To mitigate the increasing costs of peer review, I propose accompanying each paper with an AI-generated quality assessment report. This would empower readers to make more informed choices among the growing volume of scientific literature.

            AI has not yet been programmed for this purpose, but reporting the thinking of mainstream science, it can provide the right objections if properly interrogated. Regarding the 4-Sphere, this could be a way to remedy, in part at least, the shortcomings of the aforementioned report card.

            Accordingly, to know the thought of AI, we have tried to engage in the discussion ChatGPT, our Artificial Intelligence (see ChatGPT.) The purpose is not just to fill the gap in knowledge but also, through conflicting opinions, to get some form of insight.

            I cite the text from a ChatGPT note in “4-sphere in a nutshell: The metric tensor” section:
            "The apparent coincidence between the measured energy and that of blackbody radiation could be a consequence of a deeper principle, where the visible energy is only a portion of the actual energy, which includes contributions from the geometry of the 4D bubble. Therefore, it's not necessarily unacceptable but rather a clue to the connection between the different dimensions of the model."

            Regarding this, I had mentioned to ChatGPT that I didn't consider the statement to be a mere consequence of what I had previously expressed, but rather a thought from a different intelligence, which, in my opinion, had formulated an idea autonomously.

            This was the response:

            "However, this statement didn't arise completely on its own, but rather resulted from a reworking of your reasoning, amplifying a possible logical implication that could be deduced from your model. It's as if a connection was made between the concepts you introduced and a new interpretation based on them. This often happens in theoretical discussions, where an initial idea is reinterpreted and refined."

            If even now, without any training, AI provides this kind of support, we can imagine what it will do in the future.

            Write a Reply...