> Traveler wrote:
> 
> >
> > We will always have mysteries and things to learn. What I meant by
> > explicating the mysteries of nature is figuring out the fundamental
> > principles of nature. IMO, there aren't that many.
> 
>   Do you think our inability to figure out the fundamental principles
> of nature so far is proof of a lack of interest? Are we not simply
> working with what we've got ?
> 
> > Besides, the
> > fundamental is simple by virtue of being fundamental.
> 
>   In chemistry, simple is "single". A smallest fundamental particle,
> made of nothing but itself, is ruled out *without consideration* by
> your theory of size. A theory which I still do not understand, because
> it's not simple.
>   I have authority here, because I'm simple.
>   I still do not understand how the fact that infinite regress is a
> no-no in  human logic, makes it *unallowable* in the physical universe.
> >
> > > I think science should explicate those mysteries whose explication is
> > > beneficial to us. Hard to tell beforehand, it's true. But our best
> > > guide so far, IMO, has been to study nature as it appears to us most
> > > immediately.
> >
> > This is what I call the ostrich way of doing science: Pretend that
> > there is nothing behind observed phenomena;
> 
>   Who's pretending that? Check out # 12 in the list below. BTW, this a
> list of open questions in physics - these questions *are* being asked.
> 
>   http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/open_questions.html#big
> 
>   "Why" is an emotional question, a complaint.
>   "Why am I here?" assumes the possibility of "I am not here." So I am
> here because I am not "not here". A flower "is" because a flower is
> possible. The universe is that which is possible. This requires the
> impossible. I have no problem with the impossible. Do you like my
> philosophy?
> 
> > just describe them and
> > quantify them. It's not really physics, IMO.
> 
>   What does Wittgenstein say about private languages? Describing and
> quantifying are *precisely* physics, YO notwithstanding.
> 
> >  It's engineering.
> 
>   Engineers were instrumental in giving us computers, and paper.
> >
> > > This does not rule out other lines of investigation.
> > > Now different folks will be drawn to different areas of inquiry -
> > > that's life. So the question arises - how many physicists are
> > > haranguing dualists on the philosophy newsgroups?
> >
> > Not many that I know of. But who cares?
> 
>   I wondered if you thought it indicative of anything which might be of
> import. I do. I'm willing to bet that not a single physicist has ever
> engaged in the act. This can be easily verified. Should we check?
> 
> > Look at it this way. The days
> > when physics used to belong to a select few high priests are gone
> > forever.
> 
>   The only high priest is empirical observation - public opinion,
> personal agendas, and human intrigue notwithstanding. As you say,
> foul play or not, in the end it doesn't matter. Do not look to the
> worshippers...
> 
> > In the age of information and the internet, anybody can do
> > physics any way they see fit.
> 
>   Paperbacks and home movie cameras provided a "democratization of
> access" to storytelling technology. I saw no subsequent democratization
> of "having a knack for storytelling", nor "having something to say".
> Did you?
> 
> > Science is being liberated and a new
> > breed of scientists are coming out who don't give a rat's ass about
> > peer-reviewed journals and such.
> 
>   You mean like the girl who invented the wheel?
> 
> > Their motto is simply: build a better
> > mouse trap and the world will beat a path to your door.
> 
>   This is old. And it's business, not science. BTW, take a piece of
> card and wall up the non-business end of mouse trap. Now attach a card
> commensurate in size with the other side of the trap to the trigger.
> Add the blue and red markings for good measure. Now the mouse cannot
> enter the back way, and anything he touches in front sets off the
> trigger. Voila! You are free to patent this, as I don't want to make my
> fortune offing mice.
> >
> > >> >do you think it's worthwhile taking a look at the movement itself,
> > >> >as it presents itself to us most palpably? Sorry for the wording,
> > >> >communication is aproximate...!
> > >>
> > >> Certainly it's worthwhile but it's not good enough.
> 
>   If it's worthwhile, why do you insult those engaged in the process?
> 
> > >
> > > Okay, but don't you think that taking a look at the movement itself
> > > is a full-time job? One which requires, *for the time being*, to assume
> > > an external reality? You do this, I'll check out that - I don't see the
> > > problem, unless there were a doable experiment to test a wowee demo
> > > machine you couldn't get funding for due to a dishonest mainstream
> > > science agenda...but herein lies my problem with the *practicality* of
> > > your stuff - I just can't get my head around what we would *do* with
> > > your picture of reality. Can you help?
> >
> > Well, I can only speak from my own perspective.
> 
>   Britney Spears' would be better. ~:?)
> 
> > It does not matter
> > whether or not my stuff gets funding from the powers that be,
> > although I would not mind some funding.
> 
>   ???
> 
> > 99% of my research happens in my head,
> > in my computer or on paper.
> 
>   The last two locations are both products of physics and engineering,
> done with the assumption that there exists an external realty. So you
> are building on the work of those you disparage. Can you deny this?
> 
> > The kind of stuff that I'm after won't
> > require zillions of dollars of funding. I can tell you this. Once one
> > figures out the true composition of the vacuum and can come up with a
> > simple way to navigate it, physics will have made a thousand year
> > leap in one day.
> 
>   Computers and paper took 14 billion years. Are you certain you have
> the right perspective?
> 
> > The discovery will not happen in any physics lab or
> > research institution.
> 
>   This is possible. How do you know it is certain, given the history of
> past discoveries?
> 
> > Certainly, more heads would be better than one
> > but, so far, I am quite content in going at it alone. But lately, I
> > am finding out that I am not so alone after all.
> 
>   Reminds me of the funding...
> 
> > You talk about practicality
> 
>   You mentioned the demo machine, without which one has nothing. I
> agree.
> 
> > but consider that understanding the true
> > causal principles behind phenomena like motion, gravity or the why of
> > an electron's charge should be the holy grail of physics.
> 
>   "Open questions in physics."
> 
> > Not just
> > because we will get a glimpse of the mind of God at that point.
> 
>   Go outside and look at a flower.
> 
> > Sure,
> > we will be like God in a sense but our newly found knowledge will make
> > us look like sheer magicians to folks who grew up in the last century.
> 
>   Is impressing old folks your agenda? You make it sound more important
> than being like god (your term).
> 
> 
> > It's what will separate the sandbox from the cockpit, or the little
> > kids from the grown-ups, so to speak. Everything up to that point
> > will look like chicken shit.
> 
>   Is making stuff/people look like chicken shit your agenda? As I
> pointed out, everything up to that point is what you are building
> *your* theory on.
> 
> > >> To bury one's head in one's ass and claim we'll never
> > >> understand is either a copout or a subterfuge to prevent others
> > >> from gaining an understanding.
> 
>   How about working with what we *do* know in the mean time? People
> drank water for a long time before knowing precisely the chemical
> processes which benefit us.
> > >
> > >  I'll admit sadly the history of science is filled with examples of
> > > foul-play. My honest take on that is: I guess that's who we are,
> > > good bad and indifferent...
> >
> > Foul play is probably the right word. But it does not matter in the
> > end.
> >
> > >> We must formulate as many causal models as
> > >> we can until we find one that makes sense and explains everything.
> > >
> > >  Maybe not everything...see above.
> >
> > Just the fundamental principles. That's all. Everything after that is
> > engineering and puzzle solving.
> 
>   Will your stuff require a totally new brand of engineering?
> >
> > [cut]
> >
> > >> Same with the
> > >> universe. Absolute does not mean unchanging if that's what you are
> > >> implying. It means independent, i.e., it needs no reference.
> > >
> > >  How does something change without a reference?
> >
> > You talk like a brainwashed relativist. It used to infuriate me but
> > now I'm just amused. Put yourself in the place of a moving particle
> > for a moment. How does the particle "know" about its motion relative
> > to anything external to itself so as to move relative to it?
> 
>   Why does it need to?
> 
> > Is the
> > particle psychic? I don't think so. Yet that's what the relativist
> > would want you to believe.
> 
>   This has not been my impression at all.
> 
> > Motion is a change in a positional
> > property, an absolute intrinsic property. It is not unlike the
> > positional property used by a programmer to locate an object in a
> > video game. Every object in the game has a collection of properties,
> > position being one of them.
> 
>   What is the evidence that restrictions which apply to developing
> video games must  apply to that which is allowable in the physical
> universe?
> >
> > > It *doesn't need*, but
> > > *can have* a reference?
> >
> > Reference and relative are abstract concepts in the minds of
> > conscious beings. Particles have no access to such things.
> 
>   What is the evidence that they reqiure such access?
> 
> > Everything is
> > absolute. The observer-centric approach to doing physics has reached
> > the top of its usefulness. Now it's time for a particle-centric
> > physics. It requires the use of thought experiments and what-if
> > causal models.
> 
>   How is the observer removed from these exercises?
> >
> > >I'm an artist/filmmaker/drummer - these talents
> > >do not help me in answering this question. Plus "intrinsic" is under
> > >"absolute" in the dictionary. ~:?)
> >
> > If it is intrinsic, and everything is, it is absolute by definition.
> > Certainly we only measure the relative but we do so indirectly since
> > we must use instruments.
> 
>   What is the definition of a direct measurement? In the mind only?
> 
> > This limitation is not a limitation of nature
> > but of the necessary nature of our instruments.
> 
>   What makes the nature of our instruments necessarily limited?
> 
> > A particle, though,
> > only experiences its absolute interaction with another particle whose
> > position is equal to its own. It experiences nothing else.
> 
>   Private language? Please define experience, and what is required to
> have it. You might want to check out decoherence. Y'know, just google
> it.
> 
>   Sorry if my questions irk you, but I'm sticking to an honest agenda
> of finding out just what the heck you're talking about - it seems
> bonkers to me.
> 
> Mitch P.

You fucking bore me Perkins. And you are wasting my time. Eat shit.

Louis Savain

The Silver Bullet: Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix it
http://users.adelphia.net/~lilavois/Cosas/Reliability.htm