🚀 go-pugleaf

Richard Perry <rper@cswnet.com> wrote in message
news:<3BFB0FAF.3ABF619C@cswnet.com>...

> That's one hell of a concoction of groups
> up there in the header. 

You are an observant little fellow indeed!

> And
> where the hell did this come from? 

And a curious little fellow to boot! (Perhaps
this is only a dream you are having--Relax. Settle
back and enjoy it: Perhaps you might even get to
ride an orange elephant just as you've always wanted.)

> It's standing all alone in
> sci.physics.electromag, and gives every appearance of being a
> conversation with oneself.

Ah, a little fellow who likes to study matters which
pass in front of him and... possibly even reach some
sort of conclusion. Study on, little fellow, study on!

> Are you prone to talk to yourself Rodrian?

Yes I am: I have found, over the years, that
I tend to agree with myself lots more than
I tend to agree with others. Ergo!

> But I do agree completely with your arguments, 

Well, truth be told... I did have a frightful
disagreement with myself the other day... concerning
whether the Thanksgiving turkey should be baked or
deep fried a la Cajun. The thing almost made me
come to blows with myself, but in the end I simply
ran out of air and that settled it (we are having ham 
for Thanksgiving... all thirty of us).

> and would like to add
> that the very predictability of the half-lives
> of isotopes is a proof in
> itself of precisely the opposite of "their" stance. 

No I wouldn't, smarty-pants: I already mentioned
that in any given bunch of same-element atoms
the "unpredictability" of their decay is due to
the fact that we do not know 1) their date of birth
and, 2) what sort of life each atom's led (you know:
whether it was happily married, or whether it was
some sort of profligate).

Besides, we here on this particular universe can predict 
that a certain percentage of the bunch will turn 
in a given time; but, to my knowledge... we've never 
actually managed to be staring at a particular individual 
fellow when he predictably "turned" into one of those 
(you know: one of those "decayed" fellows, if you know 
what I mean Biblically not but scientifically speaking).

> But, and needless to
> say, 

Why do they ALWAYS say this?! Really!

> if this is not readily apparent to them, 
> then it is simply because
> they, for whatever questionable reasons, 
> just don't "want" to believe
> the truth. It's a coping thing you know;-)
 
I'm glad to see you publicly confessing it!
Now, if you can "get with the program" (your
analyst suggested), I am sure you'll be a
right & proper little gentleman in no time 
at all... and fit at last to take your place 
in human society.

Good luck, old boy!
 
SDR

re:

> S D Rodrian wrote:
>> 
>> FDA <armingaud@noos.fr> wrote in message news:<3BFA94DE.F764559D@noos.fr>...
>>> SDR a �crit :
>>>
>>>> Yes it is! EVERYTHING in a "deterministic universe"
>>>> has been DETERMINED from its beginning, and its beginnings
>>>> PRE-determine() its EVERYTHING. Simple as that.
>>>
>>> Simple as a definition, in fact, because this is just the definition of
>>> what can be called a deterministic universe. However, this does not
>>> answer the question "do we live in such a universe ?".
>> 
>> If "you" didn't it wouldn't be possible for "you" to go from
>> wherever the Hell you're coming from... to your conclusion
>> however inane! [But, hey: Have fun! No ties can bind to reality
>> those who are determined to disconnect with reality.]
>> 
>> In fact, such a non sequitur universe could NEVER go ANYWHERE
>> for the simple reason that "going" needs travel a deterministic
>> path "from here to there" (or, no progress, just a jumping
>> here & there, helter skelter all about, back & forth... with
>> no possibility of there ever being a record of its course, of
>> course): Indeterminism = non sequitur
>> 
>>> Quantic indetermination suggests that no.
>> 
>> But sanity demands that yes: The assumption of indeterminism
>> under ANY and ALL guises excludes sanity itself in the absolute:
>> 
>> To repeat myself (which I love to do)... There "are" indeed many
>> "experiments" which "suggest" uncaused effects. The problem with
>> ALL these "experiments" is that the "experimenters" NEVER quite
>> can know HOW unpredictability was produced! [Do you see the problem:
>> IF they know HOW it was produced... that, by definition, would
>> remove any notion that there was any "change" at all involved with
>> their work!] Therefore the assumption of indeterminism MUST forever
>> remain a mere assumption, or it itself becomes the proof positive
>> of determinism!
>> 
>> Ignorance always makes the indeterminism claimants propose a "little
>> kingdom" where indeterminism rules... invisible and impossible to test
>> (and prove, of course). Quantum mechanics is probability theory, NOT
>> the vindication of indeterminism you believe it to be (the sucesses
>> of quantum theory's predictions come from sound preparation coupled
>> with relentless work, or... a reduction of the "chance component" down
>> to its barest minimum). You need to realize that quantum theory is a
>> method for producing knowledge (reducing the haystack to the point). [sic]
>> Increasing ignorance (increasing the "chance component") NEVER makes
>> quantum mechanics work better! What more is there to say about this?!
>> 
>> And so I stand by my old mantra: KNOWLEDGE ALWAYS PROVES DETERMINISM
>> ... ALWAYS! [This means that "they" will always assume indeterminism
>> from imperfect knowledge... or, as it's more commonly called in the
>> vernacular: IGNORANCE.]
>> 
>> ALWAYS USE YOUR BRAIN. Or, if you know your limitations:
>> ALWAYS USE THE BRAINS OF SOMEBODY WHO'S GOT SOME.
>> 
>>> Except of course if we accept
>>> Everett's theory that all possible futures do occur whenever any
>>> question is asked about the universe. In such a case, what is determined
>>> is the set of all possible outcomes of a given event. What does not seem
>>> to be determined in which branch of it "we" (whatever that may mean)
>>> will be present after the event. You will certainly agree that it does
>>> not change much of the problem.
>> 
>> I highly recommend that you devote your time to reading Dr. Seuss
>> (The Cat In The Hat: You'll love it. And it won't mess up your mind
>> any more than it's already been messed up by the reading you've been
>> doing up to now. Who knows, maybe it'll even allow you to clear away
>> the cobwebs and come up with a clear, concrete thought one day.)
>> 
>> Good luck, sincerely,
>> 
>> S D Rodrian
>> poems.sdrodrian.com
>> physics.sdrodrian.com