| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"AbhiEJeet" |
| Date: |
03 Mar 2006 09:26:26 PM |
| Object: |
Physics and Philosophy |
Only advancements in physics is not enough to understand meaning of
life. If you develope physics theory and invent some device to reach
stars but you have no clue about meaning of life, purpose existence of
universe, supernatural then we are still living in darkness.
Advancement in physics and philosophy must be simultaneous from now.
One without other is not useful to find the truth.
.
|
|
| User: "Brian Fletcher" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics and Philosophy |
05 Mar 2006 04:26:46 PM |
|
|
"Michael Gray" <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in message
news:lmfl025evibc9k1klgoht3srj6cvrpth6q@4ax.com...
On 5 Mar 2006 02:02:24 -0800, "aran" <serbestabbas2002@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:
- Refer: <1141552944.846463.81750@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
ther are many relegions, philosophies,doctorines, and chrestian belives
( which are the churches belive , and they are not the real
cherstianity or what jesus himself belived ,the same way as that
buddhisim is not what buddha belived because buddha did not asked the
people to make statues for hime and to pray to him )
If I can plow through your turgid grammar, I get the impression that
you are now committing the egregious logical error of claiming that
religious belief must be correct, on the sole basis that it is
popular.
Is that right?
Or can you you state it more clearly?
What is the language that you prefer to converse in?
(It surely is not English.)
Simply put , today, Jesus wold not be a Christian, nor Gautama , a Buddhist.
Excellent insight from aran.
Use word egregious to someone who isnt fluid in this medium?
Very impressive !!!
BOfL
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics and Philosophy |
05 Mar 2006 01:45:39 PM |
|
|
egregious logical error of claiming that
religious belief must be correct, on the sole basis that it is
popular.
OnMark adds,
This is "truer" than most people think.
Scholars detect that Mark, the original of the 4 canonical
gospels, say straightup Jesus did no miracles, there was no physical
resurrection, had no Virgin birth, was no 2nd person of the Trinity (at
least gives no evidence for same Trinity), etc.
But to sell Jesus and his gospel the early Christian
leaders, such as authors of Matthew and Luke and John,
projected Jesus as walking on water, born of virgin,
loaded with divine authority to judge now and hereafter,
church founder (when he in fact died a happy, contented Jew)
and gave him such hatred for his compatriots who did not crucify him
(the Roman govenor did that trick) and gave
the world anti-semitism that matches the churches power to heal in
terms of outright hatred and power to destroy..
Many mainline Church thinkers today are cutting through
and bashing same imaginary Jesus created by the
giving the masses what they wanted rather than needed.
Of course, Jesus has much popularity in certain parts of
the country (US especially) and this popular following of conservative
persuasion is even as I write
fanatically geared to preserving the "Jesus for the masses."
Judas is the classical traitor to Jesus. Still, Jesus is grievously
betrayed by those who would point him out to the
powers that be with a KISS.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "rugged individuals" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics and Philosophy |
22 Mar 2006 10:41:36 PM |
|
|
"Chris H. Fleming" <chris_h_fleming@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1141443538.209972.257330@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
AbhiEJeet wrote:
Hmm... I'm working on quantum brownian motion right now. Solving for
the markovian dynamics of a ohmicly coupled oscillator at arbitrary
time and temperature.
What philosophy do you suggest I couple this to before I submit the
paper?
How's 'bout "elegant simplicity is better than ostentatious pomposity."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roger Johansson" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics and Philosophy |
22 Mar 2006 11:16:44 PM |
|
|
rugged individuals wrote:
What philosophy do you suggest I couple this to before I submit the
paper?
How's 'bout "elegant simplicity is better than ostentatious pomposity."
Some people are impressed by lots of academic words and complex theory
building.
It doesn't take much creativity to get create very complicated ideas,
just a lot of work. Speeded minds can build forever, but they cannot
simplify their work or see it from other perspectives.
What is really hard is to find the simple ways to see the world, find
the simple solutions, and to explain it in simple terms.
--
Roger J.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics and Philosophy |
23 Mar 2006 07:27:24 AM |
|
|
On 22 Mar 2006 21:16:44 -0800, "Roger Johansson" <roger4911@gmail.com>
wrote:
What philosophy do you suggest I couple this to before I submit the
paper?
How's 'bout "elegant simplicity is better than ostentatious pomposity."
Some people are impressed by lots of academic words and complex theory
building.
It doesn't take much creativity to get create very complicated ideas,
just a lot of work. Speeded minds can build forever, but they cannot
simplify their work or see it from other perspectives.
What is really hard is to find the simple ways to see the world, find
the simple solutions, and to explain it in simple terms.
Yeah, like Quantum Field Theory.
--
"How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads
Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-communist?
It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin."
--Ronald Reagan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roger Johansson" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics and Philosophy |
23 Mar 2006 01:23:28 PM |
|
|
Bob wrote:
Some people are impressed by lots of academic words and complex theory
building.
It doesn't take much creativity to get create very complicated ideas,
just a lot of work. Speeded minds can build forever, but they cannot
simplify their work or see it from other perspectives.
What is really hard is to find the simple ways to see the world, find
the simple solutions, and to explain it in simple terms.
Yeah, like Quantum Field Theory.
As far as I know the equations of quantum mechanics are not more
complex than for example the theory of relativity, here are the basic
equations:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/quantum/qm.html
But anyhow, you should simplify as much as possible without losing any
significant parts.
Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.
(Albert Einstein)
--
Roger J.
.
|
|
|
| User: "AE" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics and Philosophy |
24 Mar 2006 12:12:40 PM |
|
|
Roger Johansson wrote:
...
As far as I know the equations of quantum mechanics are not more
complex than for example the theory of relativity, here are the basic
equations:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/quantum/qm.html
Maybe the most interesting difference is, that QM is not based on the
four-dimensional space-time we know from classic mechanics, but on an
uncountable-infinite-dimensional function-space ...
...
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "NeoJeet" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics and Philosophy |
24 Mar 2006 01:49:40 PM |
|
|
Roger Johansson wrote:
Bob wrote:
Some people are impressed by lots of academic words and complex theory
building.
It doesn't take much creativity to get create very complicated ideas,
just a lot of work. Speeded minds can build forever, but they cannot
simplify their work or see it from other perspectives.
What is really hard is to find the simple ways to see the world, find
the simple solutions, and to explain it in simple terms.
Yeah, like Quantum Field Theory.
As far as I know the equations of quantum mechanics are not more
complex than for example the theory of relativity, here are the basic
equations:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/quantum/qm.html
But anyhow, you should simplify as much as possible without losing any
significant parts.
Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.
(Albert Einstein)
..
People do not understand simple things anymore. Their minds are
conditioned like religious people. Fundamentally there is no difference
between religious fundamentalist and scientists.
I asked simple questions in sci.physics.research few days ago.
Moderator didn't liked it.
Questions:
(1) If we keep running the fan in vacuum *on earth*, does *all*
electrical energy will convert in heat energy? Where does KE of blades
of fan goes?
(2) What *ultimately* happens to energy released during earthquake?
May be moderator thought i am crackpot. They expect me to ask questions
based on their religious QM, SR, newtonian theory.
But he/she is unaware that still we don't know nature of energy. No
microscope can *see* energy.
Neither any telescope can *see* what was before singularity. Without
light you can't see. All theories crash at singularity.
But even if we figure out creation of universe, how does it explain
meaning of life?
Any advancement in physics must answer spiritual quest.
.
|
|
|
| User: "AE" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics and Philosophy |
26 Mar 2006 12:43:12 PM |
|
|
NeoJeet wrote:
...
Questions:
(1) If we keep running the fan in vacuum *on earth*, does all
electrical energy will convert in heat energy? Where does KE of blades
of fan goes?
It gets converted to heat and leaves the fan in form of electromagnetic
waves.
(2) What ultimately happens to energy released during earthquake?
Ultimately right the same happens: It leaves our planet in form of
electromagnetic waves.
...
Any advancement in physics must answer spiritual quest.
No. That's not the purpose of physics.
--
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Roger Johansson" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics and Philosophy |
24 Mar 2006 03:53:00 PM |
|
|
NeoJeet wrote:
Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.
(Albert Einstein)
People do not understand simple things anymore. Their minds are
conditioned like religious people.
Yes, that is exactly how it is today in the western world.
When people's minds are filled with created passion and a million
irrelevant ideas you cannot explain the simplest idea to them, because
they will mix it with all the other stuff that already occupies their
minds, and they will understand mumble, jumble, whooosh, ka-pow, wow,
as usual.
They prefer to read comics instead of books, because those book have
long sentences and they forget the beginning of the sentence before
they reach the end.
Comic books have drawings which help such minds a lot, they have
something simple to look at.
(1) If we keep running the fan in vacuum *on earth*, does *all*
electrical energy will convert in heat energy? Where does KE of blades
of fan goes?
The fan is made for working against the friction of the air, so it will
run a lot faster than usual and get very hot. It will not be cooled by
convection of air, so it will overheat and melt.
(2) What *ultimately* happens to energy released during earthquake?
It becomes heat, after having been mechanical energy.
Ultimately all matter in the universe will be transformed into heat,
which will spread out more and more in an expanding universe, until the
whole universe is cold, empty and dead.
We humans are only a curl in a waterfall of energy when it falls from a
higher level to a lower level. When the dam above is empty the curls in
the waterfall die out.
But even if we figure out creation of universe, how does it explain
meaning of life?
It doesn't. To explain the meaning of life you need to investigate the
creation of the spiritual universe, the initiation rites in the
society, the creation of men out of boys, and how that makes their
minds chronically excited and searching for a meaning.
Study initiation rites in the stone age society and in our own society,
study creation myths from all over the world, study the modern
equivalents like bullying, marriage, the practical consequences of
religion, etc..
--
Roger J.
.
|
|
|
| User: "NeoJeet" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics and Philosophy |
25 Mar 2006 02:07:47 PM |
|
|
(2) What *ultimately* happens to energy released during earthquake?
It becomes heat, after having been mechanical energy.
How exactly KE of tsunami waves is converted in heat when the waves ran
over sand on shore?
How KE of flowing water in river is converted in heat?
And if we drop a stone from empire state building and it falls on
spunge(something like stuff in pillow) on ground, does KE of stone is
converted in heat?
Especially last experiment can be done with heat sensing cameras. Why
not show us how KE of falling stone is converted in heat
Without experimental proof, I will not accept that all energy is
converted in heat.
Physicists mix fantasies with truth about energy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics and Philosophy |
25 Mar 2006 06:26:24 PM |
|
|
On 25 Mar 2006 12:07:47 -0800, "NeoJeet" <NeoJeet@gmail.com> wrote:
- Refer: <1143317267.370495.112580@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
(2) What *ultimately* happens to energy released during earthquake?
It becomes heat, after having been mechanical energy.
How exactly KE of tsunami waves is converted in heat when the waves ran
over sand on shore?
How KE of flowing water in river is converted in heat?
And if we drop a stone from empire state building and it falls on
spunge(something like stuff in pillow) on ground, does KE of stone is
converted in heat?
Especially last experiment can be done with heat sensing cameras. Why
not show us how KE of falling stone is converted in heat
Movement and falling IS heat.
Without experimental proof, I will not accept that all energy is
converted in heat.
Without experimental proof, you do do not know that if you stand in
front of a speeding locomotive, whilst eating a blancmange, that you
will be killed.
No one has performed that experiment before.
Physicists mix fantasies with truth about energy.
I'm surprised that you have the mental stamina to get up in the
morning.
--
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics and Philosophy |
26 Mar 2006 09:21:55 AM |
|
|
On 25 Mar 2006 12:07:47 -0800, "NeoJeet" <NeoJeet@gmail.com> wrote:
Physicists mix fantasies with truth about energy.
That's because it's obvious you do not understand physics.
--
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant:
It's just that they know so much that isn't so."
--Ronald Reagan
.
|
|
|
| User: "NeoJeet" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics and Philosophy |
26 Mar 2006 11:22:08 AM |
|
|
Bob wrote:
On 25 Mar 2006 12:07:47 -0800, "NeoJeet" <NeoJeet@gmail.com> wrote:
Physicists mix fantasies with truth about energy.
That's because it's obvious you do not understand physics.
Tell me how KE of falling stone on spunge is converted in heat. I will
publicly apologise.
.
|
|
|
| User: "AE" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics and Philosophy |
26 Mar 2006 12:52:16 PM |
|
|
NeoJeet wrote:
Bob wrote:
On 25 Mar 2006 12:07:47 -0800, "NeoJeet" <NeoJeet@gmail.com> wrote:
Physicists mix fantasies with truth about energy.
That's because it's obvious you do not understand physics.
Tell me how KE of falling stone on spunge is converted in heat. I will
publicly apologise.
A stone falls on some material.
The following things can happen:
1) The material is heavy and hard and doesn't change it's chape. The
stone bounces off the material and we are back to a moving stone (this
doesn't absorb the energy of the stone, so we can ignore this
possibility).
2) The material is hard but not heavy enough - it takes some of the
energy of the stone and both are moving - now we've got two objects
carrying the energy that was originally kinetic energy of the stone -
no transformation of kinetic energy to something else.
3) The material is not hard enough and changes it's shape. This change
of shape is basically movement of atoms or molecules within the
material - heat.
In real world every interaction of the stone with something else is a
mixture of these components:
Even an extremely hard and heavy object like our planet will slightly
change it's movement when it gets hit by a stone, and even when hitting
some very hard material, the stone will slightly change the shape of
the material and that way produce some heat.
For example when falling in sand many particles in the sand will
slightly change their shape and that way cause the friction that stops
the stone.
--
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics and Philosophy |
26 Mar 2006 07:00:13 PM |
|
|
On 26 Mar 2006 09:22:08 -0800, "NeoJeet" <NeoJeet@gmail.com> wrote:
- Refer: <1143393728.394743.185890@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
Bob wrote:
On 25 Mar 2006 12:07:47 -0800, "NeoJeet" <NeoJeet@gmail.com> wrote:
Physicists mix fantasies with truth about energy.
That's because it's obvious you do not understand physics.
Tell me how KE of falling stone on spunge is converted in heat. I will
publicly apologise.
Read a basic high school physics text, and then apologise.
Why should we do both your learning and your thinking for you?
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics and Philosophy |
27 Mar 2006 09:21:24 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 10:30:13 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote:
Tell me how KE of falling stone on spunge is converted in heat. I will
publicly apologise.
Read a basic high school physics text, and then apologise.
Why should we do both your learning and your thinking for you?
We should tell him because he asked.
--
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant:
It's just that they know so much that isn't so."
--Ronald Reagan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics and Philosophy |
27 Mar 2006 06:56:37 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 15:21:24 GMT, (Bob) wrote:
- Refer: <442802e4.73317078@news-server.houston.rr.com>
On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 10:30:13 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote:
Tell me how KE of falling stone on spunge is converted in heat. I will
publicly apologise.
Read a basic high school physics text, and then apologise.
Why should we do both your learning and your thinking for you?
We should tell him because he asked.
Next he'll be demanding outright that we wipe his backside for him.
--
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Buck" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics and Philosophy |
27 Mar 2006 06:28:51 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 10:30:13 +0930, Michael Gray <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com>
wrote:
On 26 Mar 2006 09:22:08 -0800, "NeoJeet" <NeoJeet@gmail.com> wrote:
- Refer: <1143393728.394743.185890@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
Bob wrote:
On 25 Mar 2006 12:07:47 -0800, "NeoJeet" <NeoJeet@gmail.com> wrote:
Physicists mix fantasies with truth about energy.
That's because it's obvious you do not understand physics.
Tell me how KE of falling stone on spunge is converted in heat. I will
publicly apologise.
Read a basic high school physics text, and then apologise.
Why should we do both your learning and your thinking for you?
On the other hand, if you want to let us do your -voting- for you, we'll do it.
;-)
--
L8r,
Uncle Buck
************************************************
The true mark of a civilized society is when its
citizens know how to hate each other peacefully.
************************************************
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics and Philosophy |
27 Mar 2006 09:14:51 AM |
|
|
On 26 Mar 2006 09:22:08 -0800, "NeoJeet" <NeoJeet@gmail.com> wrote:
Tell me how KE of falling stone on spunge
"sponge".
is converted in heat.
You would have to study the dynamics of elastic/inelastic collisions
to understand that.
You have to specify what kind of collision it is. Does the sponge
restore completely or does it deform slightly each time the stone
bounces off of it?
Is the collision between the rock and the sponge completely elastic or
not?
If it is completely elastic, then in the absense of any other energy
loss mechanism like air friction, the stone will bounce off the sponge
indefinitely. That's because there is no net exchange of energy after
each collision cycle.
If, on the other hand, the collision is inelastic, then for each
collision cycle the rock loses a small amount of its kinetic energy to
the deformation of the sponge. That means the rock will eventually
come to rest on the sponge.
What happens to the deformation energy is not relevant, but if you
must know, some of it is used to re-arrange the structure of the
sponge and some is used to heat the sponge internally.
Collision dynamics is used to reconstruct auto accidents. The forensic
engineer measures the skid marks and deformation of the two vehicles
and from that can come up with an reasonably accurate reconstruction -
including the speed of the vehicles at the moment of the collision -
suitable for presentation in a court of law. I know, because I used to
do it many years ago,
I will publicly apologise.
No need.
--
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant:
It's just that they know so much that isn't so."
--Ronald Reagan
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics and Philosophy |
25 Mar 2006 11:23:53 AM |
|
|
On 24 Mar 2006 11:49:40 -0800, "NeoJeet" <NeoJeet@gmail.com> wrote:
Fundamentally there is no difference
between religious fundamentalist and scientists.
ROTF
--
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant:
It's just that they know so much that isn't so."
--Ronald Reagan
.
|
|
|
| User: "NeoJeet" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics and Philosophy |
26 Mar 2006 08:26:20 AM |
|
|
Bob wrote:
On 24 Mar 2006 11:49:40 -0800, "NeoJeet" <NeoJeet@gmail.com> wrote:
Fundamentally there is no difference
between religious fundamentalist and scientists.
Jingle of fundamentalists and scientists:.
What I know is sheer knowledge. If I don't know, then it is not
knowledge at all!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics and Philosophy |
26 Mar 2006 09:20:52 AM |
|
|
On 26 Mar 2006 06:26:20 -0800, "NeoJeet" <NeoJeet@gmail.com> wrote:
Bob wrote:
On 24 Mar 2006 11:49:40 -0800, "NeoJeet" <NeoJeet@gmail.com> wrote:
Fundamentally there is no difference
between religious fundamentalist and scientists.
Jingle of fundamentalists and scientists:.
I did not write that. Please keep the attributions straight.
What I know is sheer knowledge. If I don't know, then it is not
knowledge at all!
The only certain knowledge you possess is that you exist. All the rest
is based on some kind of Worldview, which is the set of assumptions
you employ as the foundation for your system of knowledge, whether
rational or irrational.
--
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant:
It's just that they know so much that isn't so."
--Ronald Reagan
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Buck" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics and Philosophy |
25 Mar 2006 10:11:12 PM |
|
|
On 22 Mar 2006 21:16:44 -0800, "Roger Johansson" <roger4911@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
Speeded minds can build forever, but they cannot
simplify their work or see it from other perspectives.
What is really hard is to find the simple ways to see the world, find
the simple solutions, and to explain it in simple terms.
The way I see the world -is- pretty simple. It's in trying to explain it to
anyone else that I run into snags.
Explaining things in "more simple" terms isn't such a bad idea, but these days,
it's just gone too far. I work paying health insurance claims, and I used to
write policies & procedures for the department I worked in at the time. They
eventually asked me to "dumb down" the policies & procedures - to write them at
a 7th grade level, because anything else is over most people's heads. Why, in
corporate America, is more precise language so difficult to grasp for so many
people? I found I literally could -NOT- write policies and procedures for
paying health insurance claims at a 7th grade level of grammar. I can write at
even less than a 7th grade level if given free reign, but we're talking about
health insurance claims. I mean wouldn't you -hope- that the process of paying
your health insurance claims is taken a -little- more seriously than *that*?
Shouldn't the people responsible for your medical well-being be a -little- more
intelligent than your average 7th grader?
It just dumbfounds me how - in the U.S., at least - we've been forced to adjust
to a workforce whose comprehension and intellect are steadily shrinking. A
little brevity is a good thing, but too much of it is simply assinine.
--
L8r,
Uncle Buck
************************************************
The true mark of a civilized society is when its
citizens know how to hate each other peacefully.
************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "J notanymore" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics and Philosophy |
26 Mar 2006 10:44:17 AM |
|
|
"Uncle Buck" <UncleBuck@SpamMeNot.com> wrote in message
news:6h4c22lde7dhnf9aak1siqe6hq5k533ha3@4ax.com...
On 22 Mar 2006 21:16:44 -0800, "Roger Johansson" <roger4911@gmail.com>
wrote:
<snip>
Speeded minds can build forever, but they cannot
simplify their work or see it from other perspectives.
What is really hard is to find the simple ways to see the world, find
the simple solutions, and to explain it in simple terms.
The way I see the world -is- pretty simple. It's in trying to explain it
to
anyone else that I run into snags.
Explaining things in "more simple" terms isn't such a bad idea, but these
days,
it's just gone too far. I work paying health insurance claims, and I used
to
write policies & procedures for the department I worked in at the time.
They
eventually asked me to "dumb down" the policies & procedures - to write
them at
a 7th grade level, because anything else is over most people's heads.
Why, in
corporate America, is more precise language so difficult to grasp for so
many
people? I found I literally could -NOT- write policies and procedures for
paying health insurance claims at a 7th grade level of grammar. I can
write at
even less than a 7th grade level if given free reign, but we're talking
about
health insurance claims. I mean wouldn't you -hope- that the process of
paying
your health insurance claims is taken a -little- more seriously than
*that*?
Shouldn't the people responsible for your medical well-being be a -little-
more
intelligent than your average 7th grader?
I agree that it would be nice if everyone had some semblance of a
vocabulary. However, let me ask you if this is parallel.
What about various service contracts such as telephone or internet. I think
they should be forced to dumb down their contracts, use a uniform typeset,
etc because too often people buy a service and aren't aware that the rate
will go up in 3 months, or a year. It's not enough for verizon to say
14.95/mo for a 12 month contract for dsl and not give the customer any idea
how much it could increase. If they can't tell you how much after 12
months, (I understand that kind of planning goes against the market) then
they before they make changes they should send you a letter. Agreed, they
do send a letter, packed with little slips of advertising and other garbage
which can distract from the facts. Just a thought to ameliorate the honesty
level within 'capitalism' and decrease the lies, half-truths and diversions.
-JB
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Buck" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics and Philosophy |
26 Mar 2006 12:32:35 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 11:44:17 -0500, "J" <notanymore> wrote:
"Uncle Buck" <UncleBuck@SpamMeNot.com> wrote in message
news:6h4c22lde7dhnf9aak1siqe6hq5k533ha3@4ax.com...
On 22 Mar 2006 21:16:44 -0800, "Roger Johansson" <roger4911@gmail.com>
wrote:
<snip>
Speeded minds can build forever, but they cannot
simplify their work or see it from other perspectives.
What is really hard is to find the simple ways to see the world, find
the simple solutions, and to explain it in simple terms.
The way I see the world -is- pretty simple. It's in trying to explain it
to
anyone else that I run into snags.
Explaining things in "more simple" terms isn't such a bad idea, but these
days,
it's just gone too far. I work paying health insurance claims, and I used
to
write policies & procedures for the department I worked in at the time.
They
eventually asked me to "dumb down" the policies & procedures - to write
them at
a 7th grade level, because anything else is over most people's heads.
Why, in
corporate America, is more precise language so difficult to grasp for so
many
people? I found I literally could -NOT- write policies and procedures for
paying health insurance claims at a 7th grade level of grammar. I can
write at
even less than a 7th grade level if given free reign, but we're talking
about
health insurance claims. I mean wouldn't you -hope- that the process of
paying
your health insurance claims is taken a -little- more seriously than
*that*?
Shouldn't the people responsible for your medical well-being be a -little-
more
intelligent than your average 7th grader?
I agree that it would be nice if everyone had some semblance of a
vocabulary. However, let me ask you if this is parallel.
What about various service contracts such as telephone or internet. I think
they should be forced to dumb down their contracts, use a uniform typeset,
etc because too often people buy a service and aren't aware that the rate
will go up in 3 months, or a year. It's not enough for verizon to say
14.95/mo for a 12 month contract for dsl and not give the customer any idea
how much it could increase. If they can't tell you how much after 12
months, (I understand that kind of planning goes against the market) then
they before they make changes they should send you a letter. Agreed, they
do send a letter, packed with little slips of advertising and other garbage
which can distract from the facts. Just a thought to ameliorate the honesty
level within 'capitalism' and decrease the lies, half-truths and diversions.
-JB
A valid concern in its own right, worthy of further discussion. It's pretty
easy to see the need for simplification in documents intended for consumption by
the general public, or even by an open market of private consumers. But I'm not
sure I see a parallel to my grievance.
Having to dumb down documents intended for public consumption is one thing -
even in a private market, the consuming public can represent a vast range of
mental skills and deficits as well as a age groups and English comprehension
abilities. You expect that sort of dynamic to be in place in a more generalized
populace. One should think that any smart business would plan to accommodate
for such things.
In more tightly-knit circles, the language may become increasingly technical,
adjusted according to audience. Such as journals intended for reading by
doctors or psychiatrists. Granted, it should be loose enough that the broadest
range of doctors can utilize it, but the technical jargon of the medical
profession nonetheless should not be verboten. "Dumb doctorspeak", you might
call it, though it would be way over the heads of the general public.
Now it almost sounds like I'm ready to say that "dumbing down" for professionals
is a good thing. To an extent, I guess I'd have to say that it is. After all,
the more simplified a document is the less room there is for vastly divergent
interpretations to be made - something quite conducive to smooth workflows. But
perhaps I didn't make it very clear - I wasn't just asked to write our policies
at a 7th grade level, but so that if we were to drag a 7th grader off the
streets, they would be able to do the job.
I'm sorry, but I will never consider that a positive thing. I've met some
pretty smart 7th graders in my time - was one, in fact ;-) - but I can't seem to
escape the notion that the professionals paying my health insurance claims
should be expected to be at least a -tad- more educated than your average 7th
grader.
Then again... Hmmmnn.... I suppose linguistic finesse isn't an indispensable
hallmark of intelligence. Some people are wonderful with procedural workflows
and number-crunching but totally suck at grammar, and they would make great
claims payers. So perhaps there's a parallel after all.
Hmmnn... Got something to think about on that one. Thanks! :-)
--
L8r,
Uncle Buck
************************************************
The true mark of a civilized society is when its
citizens know how to hate each other peacefully.
************************************************
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Roger Johansson" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics and Philosophy |
26 Mar 2006 02:32:42 AM |
|
|
Uncle Buck wrote:
The way I see the world -is- pretty simple. It's in trying to explain it to
anyone else that I run into snags.
Explaining things in "more simple" terms isn't such a bad idea, but these days,
I write for 6 billion people, many of them can read and write simple
english.
Maybe it will be easier for them to read an english written by somebody
like me, who has also learned english in school.
It is natural that a finely tuned literary mind of a native english
speaker revolts at this treatment of his language. Your language was
just taken over by 6 billion invaders. Sorry, but we needed a world
language. You caused this yourselves actually, when you took world
power during the last centuries. The British empire and USA the cold
war superpower.
The true mark of a civilized society is when its
citizens know how to hate each other peacefully.
But why hate at all?
Because it is a cultural tradition from the stone age?
Because violence and fear are stronger powers over the human mind than
any idea or ideal?
--
Roger J.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Buck" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics and Philosophy |
26 Mar 2006 05:05:11 AM |
|
|
On 26 Mar 2006 00:32:42 -0800, "Roger Johansson" <roger4911@gmail.com> wrote:
Uncle Buck wrote:
The way I see the world -is- pretty simple. It's in trying to explain it to
anyone else that I run into snags.
Explaining things in "more simple" terms isn't such a bad idea, but these days,
I write for 6 billion people, many of them can read and write simple
english.
Maybe it will be easier for them to read an english written by somebody
like me, who has also learned english in school.
Probably.
It is natural that a finely tuned literary mind of a native english
speaker revolts at this treatment of his language.
LOL! No, no, by all means, have at it. That isn't what I'm complaining about,
not at all. :-)
Your language was
just taken over by 6 billion invaders. Sorry, but we needed a world
language. You caused this yourselves actually, when you took world
power during the last centuries. The British empire and USA the cold
war superpower.
LOL! :-) That's not even remotely annoying to me. A simplified world language
isn't a bad idea.
My complaint is against the U.S. educational system. "We" aren't educating our
children very well. I have to write in a simplified fashion for people who are
-native- English speakers. Both high school and college U.S. graduates come to
our company, and many of them don't know good English. In fact, the girl that
sits across the isle from me comes from a French speaking family. She spoke
French all her life, it's her native tongue, but when she moved here she learned
English, and you know what? She knows the English language better than most
natural-born U.S. citizens! That's wonderful for her, but it reflects very
badly on our education system. I tend to use big words and complex grammar when
I talk, and this native-French speaking woman who hasn't known English but maybe
8 years has no problem at all in keeping up with me. Not so for some of my
native-English speaking co-workers, however, and that's just pathetic.
The true mark of a civilized society is when its
citizens know how to hate each other peacefully.
But why hate at all?
Because it is a cultural tradition from the stone age?
Because violence and fear are stronger powers over the human mind than
any idea or ideal?
If we could erradicate hate, that would be best. But I don't believe that's
ever going to happen. Humans are just too animalistic. So the best we can hope
for, I suspect, is that those who do hate each other may hate each other in a
peaceful fashion, rather than with guns and knives and things of that nature.
--
L8r,
Uncle Buck
************************************************
The true mark of a civilized society is when its
citizens know how to hate each other peacefully.
************************************************
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "dee" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics and Philosophy |
03 Mar 2006 11:23:57 PM |
|
|
Chris H. Fleming wrote:
AbhiEJeet wrote:
Only advancements in physics is not enough to understand meaning of
life. If you develope physics theory and invent some device to reach
stars but you have no clue about meaning of life, purpose existence of
universe, supernatural then we are still living in darkness.
Advancement in physics and philosophy must be simultaneous from now.
One without other is not useful to find the truth.
Hmm... I'm working on quantum brownian motion right now. Solving for
the markovian dynamics of a ohmicly coupled oscillator at arbitrary
time and temperature.
What philosophy do you suggest I couple this to before I submit the
paper?
Hey what about investigation into the claim that random as we define it
does not exist - first thing that comes to mind, just a suggestion.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics and Philosophy |
04 Mar 2006 03:52:23 AM |
|
|
On 3 Mar 2006 21:23:57 -0800, "dee" <szewma@hotmail.com> wrote:
- Refer: <1141449837.340508.195620@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>
Chris H. Fleming wrote:
AbhiEJeet wrote:
Only advancements in physics is not enough to understand meaning of
life. If you develope physics theory and invent some device to reach
stars but you have no clue about meaning of life, purpose existence of
universe, supernatural then we are still living in darkness.
Advancement in physics and philosophy must be simultaneous from now.
One without other is not useful to find the truth.
Hmm... I'm working on quantum brownian motion right now. Solving for
the markovian dynamics of a ohmicly coupled oscillator at arbitrary
time and temperature.
What philosophy do you suggest I couple this to before I submit the
paper?
Hey what about investigation into the claim that random as we define it
does not exist - first thing that comes to mind, just a suggestion.
Who are the mysterious "we" who define "random"?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
