Re: Science, Philosophy, Mysticism, Art, Mathematics, and Physics
From: Lester Zick (lesterDELzick_at_worldnet.att.net)
Date: 12/15/04
- Next message: J.E.: "Re: GCH vs. Axiom of Choice."
- Previous message: analytic_at_gmail.com: "Re: How to visualize limits in category theory?"
- Maybe in reply to: Lester Zick: "Science, Philosophy, Mysticism, Art, Mathematics, and Physics"
- Next in thread: Gregory L. Hansen: "Re: Science, Philosophy, Mysticism, Art, Mathematics, and Physics"
- Reply: Gregory L. Hansen: "Re: Science, Philosophy, Mysticism, Art, Mathematics, and Physics"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 16:19:26 GMT
On 14 Dec 2004 18:48:16 -0800, "stlbl" <wjgreen1@verizon.net> in
comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>This is all interesting stuff and I'll have to reread it during the
>day. As you know the word quanta refers to something discreet and
>"grainy", and the big deal in the 1920's and later was that energy and
>mass had a fundamental unit and only seemed to be measurable in integer
>multiples of some fundamental quantities---eigen values were invoked to
>help explain things. Particle spin should not be thought of as an
>observable rotation like a ball on a string or a phonograph. Electrons
>have their spin direction either up or down, or A and B or yes and no
>(to refer to some sort of symmetry)---its too late in the evening for
>me to make sense---I'll try to recall my book learnin' from 10-15 years
>ago tomorrow--to help us find common ground...oh, the poem is from
>Faust, Pt.1, in the witch's kitchen. The poem makes Faust angry, but
>Mephisto exclaims (to the witch that says it),"Well done..." The
>serpent was "the first friend to knowledge" as we know.
>Ideas that come into people's heads probably are not in integer
>form, but most likely when tried to come to expression through
>words---we can count them, as in I had an Idea, I had another idea. In
>truth they are each one multifaceted. We like to assign integer
>numbers to things so that we can be good accountants and keep track of
>things, use binary math, etc... All theoreticians must be good
>accountants. We experimentalists can let detectors, graphs etc do it
>for us. But we probably design them to measure that way.
I strongly suspect that I dis quantum theory primarily because it
morphed physics from "no stinkin reasons we can see" into just plain
ol' "no stinkin reasons".
Regards - Lester
- Next message: J.E.: "Re: GCH vs. Axiom of Choice."
- Previous message: analytic_at_gmail.com: "Re: How to visualize limits in category theory?"
- Maybe in reply to: Lester Zick: "Science, Philosophy, Mysticism, Art, Mathematics, and Physics"
- Next in thread: Gregory L. Hansen: "Re: Science, Philosophy, Mysticism, Art, Mathematics, and Physics"
- Reply: Gregory L. Hansen: "Re: Science, Philosophy, Mysticism, Art, Mathematics, and Physics"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|