Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Ward Trotter
Trad climber
|
|
|
Jul 16, 2015 - 04:08pm PT
|
So true... and in that thought is the ever deeper mystery.
Agreed.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jul 16, 2015 - 04:31pm PT
|
Why self-deprecate, Ward?
Because if he didn't, he too might post like...
(hold on...)
"like he's Sampson ,with a shaft the girth of a python."
.....
Back to the silly...
"Biologic reproduction and machine-tool building are two separate things, originating in very separate spheres of human life, and therefore can only be bridged as metaphors." -Ward
ANALYSIS: and therefore can ONLY be bridged as metaphors.
That's just silly. They are both processes of development ,for example ,so they have that in common at the very least. No allusion to metaphor even necessary .no bridging necessary. If your tone was less erudition-attempting , or suggestive of it ,your posts wouldn't sound so pedantic , maybe?
"Some people have the tendency to let metaphors overthrow clear distinctions, and clear thinking." -Ward
And some do not. And others still evoke them - , the concept of metaphor actually - , when it's not even necessary. Imo.
Also... what about "parallelisms?" They abound in nature, all across nature ,in fact. Must we use "metaphor" only in a linguistics / language capacity? Or could we also use it as a synonym for parallelism, a parallelism? any parallelism? After all, it derives from the greek meaning "over to bear" or to "carry over" (to something other ,eg . another field)?
Chaos (eg ,avalanche effect) in a volcanic eruption ;chaos (eg , avalanche effect) in an economy ;chaos (eg , avalanche effect) in any body homeostasis. Parallelisms? Metaphors? Carry overs?
...and therefore can only be bridged as parallelisms. (or not ,)
Another: correspondence. Example: Note the correspondence between alpha in X and beta in Y.
...and therefore can only be bridged as correspondences.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jul 16, 2015 - 05:15pm PT
|
Also I have a basic physics-biology question: Given F= ma would it be correct to assume that if one were lifting a barbell and more acceleration were involved (lifting a given amount of weight m faster rather than slower) would result in more force resulting in more muscle activity resulting in more anabolic muscle response?
If you benchpressed 225lb ten times in 10 seconds, then yes , (a)more acceleration would be involved ;and (b) more force would be involved ; (c) more muscle activity would be involved ,at least per unit time. Relative of course ,to a more normally executed set of 225 x 10 ,that is,, .
Seems to me though ,not really too much a practical concern ,however , owing to countless other factors involved in actual weightlifting , muscle-building ,keeping fit ,etc..,
Actin ,myosin , muscle filament theory , all interesting subjects for the inquiring mind ,btw , also Arnold S 's Pumping Iron ,1977.
|
|
Ward Trotter
Trad climber
|
|
|
Jul 16, 2015 - 05:44pm PT
|
HFCS: What a mildly tragic figure you are. You're like the Rodney Dangerfield of this thread.
But then again you're like a force of nature on these particular threads. A Python would not be my characterization however.
Something about your style brings out the ad hominem in all of us. And I mean that. Not an entirely bad thing too. I regard it as somewhat hormetic.
That's just silly. They are both processes of development ,for example ,so they have that in common at the very least. No allusion to metaphor even necessary .no bridging necessary. If your tone was less erudition-attempting , your posts wouldn't sound so pedantic , maybe?
I assumed it was self-explanatory within the context of the original assertion ,namely, that creating machines was a sort of sublimated need for procreation. I rejected this notion outright and emphasized that these two things, sexual reproduction and machine building, as not operating within the same category. When two things reside in entirely separate categories they should not normally be confused with one another ---it ultimately leads to muddled and confused thinking. In the comparative and referential sphere, if they must go there, then they are best left to the allegory or the metaphor, or some other literary device ,as the sole extent of their similarities. This was voiced as my own opinion-- as I am doing now.
Declaring that both are developmental processes is totally worthless as a serious way of understanding much about how these two things could be profoundly similar and/or arising from the same psychological motivations. A little like regarding pooping in the forest and firing employees as closely related examples of elimination.
If your tone was less erudition-attempting , your posts wouldn't sound so pedantic , maybe?
Maybe it's genetic?
Should I regard the unwieldy phrase "erudition-attempting" as the bidness end of that sentence?
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jul 16, 2015 - 06:48pm PT
|
"No physical extent" means it has no rest mass.
that's an interesting take, but that's not what physical extent is related too...
Largo will have to tell us what he means by "physical extent." From our "everyday" experience, it means an object "takes up" some region of space... The propositional statement that "Largo is over there" makes sense. The object that we identify with "Largo" has some three dimensional extent which can be defined in terms that we all understand.
Largo also has mass. And from our experience density, the ratio of mass-to-volume is an elemental constant. So it is easy to say that if Largo had no mass, he'd have no physical extent. But the idea of density is not easily carried over to the individual particles themselves. It's a property of the packing of the particles.
Generalizations of this concept and implications of the concept are the stuff we're all familiar with.
When we talk about the "physical extent of a particle" when the particle size happens to be at the atomic scale, things get a bit more difficult...
We can "measure" Largo, get out a tape measure and do our thing to characterize his 3-dimensional attributes. This is formally an "operation" which is subject to a large number or "rules," but we don't have to invoke them to get a reasonable value for those measurements.
In the quantum world we'd say that something has "physical extent" if the wave-function has a finite variance with respect to the space operator... which suddenly seems so abstract as to not be very interesting... but Largo is talking about photons, so we have to go there.
If we describe the photon as a wave function, ψ(x) which depends on it's position in space, x, then we can find the probability of that the photon is somewhere in space by calculating, from the state vector
|〈ψ(x)|x|ψ(x)〉|²
which is the quantum mechanical way of saying what the likelihood that the photon would be someplace in space... if that quantity were zero then the photon isn't anywhere... however let's assume our result gives us an average space position x₀, then we say "the photon is there! (at x₀).
If we're interested in the physical extent of the photon, we'd calculate the variance of the spatial operator...
|〈ψ(x)|x²|ψ(x)〉|² - [|〈ψ(x)|x|ψ(x)〉|²]²
now if that is zero, we say the photon has no physical extent.
This is a long way around asking: "where does the mass come in?"
If we are interested in the mass of an object, then we calculate the probability:
m²|〈ψ(x)|ψ(x)〉|²
which is non-zero if both m is not zero and 〈ψ(x)|ψ(x)〉is not zero, but the first one with m=0 is trivial (a massless particle is massless) but the second condition says that the particle has to be there (it is the probability over all space...) and if it is not there, there is no mass related to it, which is also trivial.
The point?
Mass doesn't come into the definition of physical extent for particles described by quantum mechanics...
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jul 16, 2015 - 06:57pm PT
|
The object that we identify with "Largo" has some three dimensional extent which can be defined in terms that we all understand.
Yes .... but "Largo is not the body he is in.
Largo also has mass.
Completely wrong.
Largo is not the Body but the driver of the body.
The gross materialists always fail .......
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jul 16, 2015 - 06:59pm PT
|
that may be true, Werner, but it still makes sense to say "Largo is over there!"
It is a statement that would be understood by everyone, metaphysical interpretations not withstanding.
|
|
Bushman
Social climber
Elk Grove, California
|
|
|
Jul 16, 2015 - 07:01pm PT
|
'Human Hubris'
The evidence that humans were created by nature (evolution) has been the best theory about our origins put forth by scientists, but that theory might also include the possibility that life evolved on earth from extraterrestrial seeds. Amino acids and other building blocks for life have been found in ancient asteroids which originated from other parts of our solar system. Our desire to send probes out into our solar system and beyond would best be accompanied by the music of Bach, Beethoven, and humble cries for our celestial mama.
Contrastingly, the arrogance at the heart of the idea that humanity is somehow sacred and superior to all other life on earth has been fostered in part by religious doctrine or the interpretation thereof which teaches that we were created and chosen by our creator to take dominion over the earth and its creatures. This ideology is in fact contradictory to the survival of our species. The evidence of this fact to scientist and to those of us are who actually aware of the changes happening to our environment is overwhelming.
In the words of Klatu;
"This planet is dying.
The human race is killing it.
I came to save the earth.
We can't risk the survival of this planet for the sake of one species.
If the earth dies, you die.
If you die, the earth survives.
There are only a handful of planets in the cosmos capable of supporting complex life.
This one can't be allowed to perish."
(The Day the Earth Stood Still/2008)
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jul 16, 2015 - 07:03pm PT
|
Yes Largo is over there driving his Porsche.
But largo is not the Porsche.
When Largo totals the Porsche the gross materialist say Largo is dead.
They are sitting there staring at the Porsche still thinking that's Largo.
Meanwhile largo is getting new vehicle according to the means he's acquired in his previous incarnation all while DMT is losing it.
Thus Ultimately Largo has no physical mass and no physical extent.
The illusionary energy of God fools the gross materialist every time .....
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jul 16, 2015 - 07:41pm PT
|
hormetic...
Haha ,Ward ,that's way toooo erudite!
Oh and tragic figure? I pale on that one. Here you go ,tho , a couple tragic figures ,also forces of nature...
[Click to View YouTube Video]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?t=12&v=R8OWNspU_yE
You have to admit ,they keep the pot stirred ;I believe ,just
as Mother Nature requires... for robust life.
PS Ringo, I mean Ward, thanks, you inspired me...
hormetic, designating or of hormesis. Today, because of you,
I learned a new word!
hormetics - the term proposed for the study and science of hormesis.
"Whether hormesis is common or important is controversial." -Wiki
Thank atheist God for wiki.
|
|
Ward Trotter
Trad climber
|
|
|
Jul 16, 2015 - 08:08pm PT
|
Yes I have more than once declared that assuming reincarnation is real and If I had a choice as to what animal would I like to come back as my answer has always been: Ringo Starr
Alright.
Go on ...get outta here.
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
|
Jul 16, 2015 - 08:16pm PT
|
I conclude that once again JL is a tad off in his physics, so I will continue to be very skeptical of his metaphysical premise that all things reduce to no-thing.
He needs to investigate Category Theory, with which it may be possible to prove anything.
Ward + Sycorax = Strange
Hormesis (from Greek hórmēsis "rapid motion, eagerness," from ancient Greek hormáein "to set in motion, impel, urge on") is the term for generally favorable biological responses to low exposures to toxins and other stressors (Wiki)
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 16, 2015 - 08:34pm PT
|
When Ed says that mass doesn't come into the description of physical extent, then what is a materialist to do?
There is another quip per photons that some of my friends love to say, that is - there is no such "thing" as a photon that has the phenomenon of luminosity/radiation. There is only the light/radiation.
People imagine that a photon has some physical extent, some mass, some stuff that shines. But verily there is no such "thing."
JL
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
|
Jul 16, 2015 - 08:44pm PT
|
But verily there is no such "thing." (JL)
And there we have it, straight out of the King James Version of the Good Book. Sullly is correct. John can make metaphysics sing.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 16, 2015 - 08:48pm PT
|
You give me too much credit. I didn't make "metaphysics sing." A friend of mind at JPL made science sing. He doesn 't do metaphysics. And my comments were his.
I asked him: Does a photon have physical volume or geometrical size?
He said the short answer is "no." The wave function does mean there is a finite (though not rigidly bounded) region where the wave's magnitude is non-negligible. So in a certain sense it does have a volume, but not in the way we're used to thinking about it - that Largo is over there, occupying space.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jul 16, 2015 - 08:51pm PT
|
ask him about a neutrino..
does it have size?
the short answer is "yes"
even if it had no mass...
but then, I find it uninteresting to have a conversation with your car pool through you... as I have no idea what you are asking, in my name...
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
|
Jul 16, 2015 - 08:56pm PT
|
DMT: Speaking of hive minds.... the era of Big Data . . . .
I wouldn’t place too much stock in that. Sure, it will help locate correlations, but those are not the same as causality. Were it, however, simply a case simple associations, or complicated at worst, that would be fine. Big data will be a true holy grail. But then there are nonlinear or what are referred to as “complexity systems” which are just too complex to figure out. They are highly interactive (interdependent), super dimensional, and influenced by unique starting conditions and path dependent (meaning that they susceptible to very small influences). Look up complexity theory. All the interesting systems are highly complex (biological, weather, social structures, . . . .)
Ed: The propositional statement that "Largo is over there" makes sense. The object that we identify with "Largo" has some three dimensional extent which can be defined in terms that we all understand. It is a statement that would be understood by everyone, metaphysical interpretations not withstanding [emphasis noted].
Many people understood that the sun in the sky was a god that travelled from horizon to horizon on a winged chariot. Consensus at any time in history seems foolish and impossible to argue with. If you want to have the discussion about what’s what, you should not hold out other conversations about what “what” is.
Jgill: . . . is a tad off in his physics, so I will continue to be very skeptical . . . .
Is this your guiding principle, your Sword of Damocles, when you use your mind? Is this how you do your kind of science? Is this how you determine what is true and not true? Is this how you live?
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jul 16, 2015 - 09:21pm PT
|
hey MikeL, if you want to discuss where dimension comes from, we can...
but if you want to discuss the proposition that Largo has no physical extent... because long ago people thought the Sun was a god... well, maybe you should "just eat the steak"
Of course, I've seen Largo's physical extent before, perhaps you haven't, so it is a part of my experience.
|
|
Ward Trotter
Trad climber
|
|
|
Jul 16, 2015 - 09:39pm PT
|
Ward + Sycorax = Strange
Do I detect a note of jealousy there?
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
|
Jul 16, 2015 - 10:31pm PT
|
Of course, I've seen Largo's physical extent before, perhaps you haven't, so it is a part of my experience (Ed)
You should have seen JL back in the 1970s. He displayed a truly robust physical extent.
Is this your guiding principle? (ML)
It is for this thread.
Do I detect a note of jealousy there? (Ward)
I'm still processing her transformation from sullly to sycorax. And, yes, you should be flattered she spoke in support of you. I know from a daily fact that English teachers can be very picky!
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!