Saturday, March 20, 2010

From Where Springs Hope?










I so love spring, as with it comes the promise and demonstration of renewal. That as it marking the time for us to leave our fortresses of safety and solitude, as to venture out once again in search of the joy found only in discovery. It has often been reminded that hope springs eternal, yet so often forgotten that spring itself is the harbinger of hope, with having us all as its harvesters to benefit.

16 comments:

Plato said...

Hi Phil,

Very nice words.

When I seen the chest I was a bit puzzled, and then looking again at the title, "Hope Chest" came to mind. As well as, a thought about colder days where blankets were stored and brought out for the winter time.

So I thought it fitting, that with Renewal it was time to put those blankets away.

Is the chest a family heirloom?

Best,

Phil Warnell said...

Hi Plato,

Thanks and if anything is responsible for me having these thoughts as to inspire such words, it is with the advent of season the itself. You are also correct that it’s time to put our blankets of comfort and security away as the joy of discovery can only be had if one is bold and hopefully brave enough to look even to notions that challenge our own. In such respect I have always found you to share this realization, if not always it be the same for our methods,

Happy Springtime and with it the hope it instills,

Phil

Plato said...

Hi Phil,

It's true, even Bears have to come out of hibernation:)

But yes for me, optimism over pessimism in Michael's message of "Adventures of an Incurable Optimist", as to the future. I struggle sometimes with the seemingly disparity of appearance, because it can't be all about gloomy and such. But rather, to find the truth of our endeavors, we can learn much about ourselves and where we want to go into the future, as well as, the message that we choose from that point onward.

The Mrs. and I have been planning to start traveling since we just purchased a newer fifth wheel and Truck to haul. So we will spending the next couple of years finding the history in towns and cities in our country as well in the United States.

Work has not finished yet for a few more years, but we are preparing.

Best,

Phil Warnell said...

Hi Plato,

Thanks for the article about the re-emergence of our own Michael J Fox, with this confirming my suspicion upon seeing him recently in the closing of the Olympics, he looked ready and able to come to be with us all again. It is also nice to hear of your plans born of hope and am reminded of our discussion regarding Pirsig. That is as he spoke of the days when the the promise of discovery took to the road, in search of those who had hope it finding them ; you in contrast now plan to embark on a journey of discovery where you will instead go to it in hope to better your chances of success. Perhaps if fortune has it to be we might theirin cross paths as to find some joy,also born of hope in us meeting.

Best,

Phil

Plato said...

Yes in the coming years for sure as to our meeting Phil.

You have done a great service for me by introducing Pirsig.

You know it's sort of always there but one did not recognize it for the "quality=truth and beauty," until you pointed it out. It seems I always knew it but never within the the realty of the "spoken word" as to confirmation about discovery of oneself.

Maybe even with those institutions and persons we have crossed path with, if they are willing.

I have what I think is an interesting puzzle for you over at Bee's.

Best,

Phil Warnell said...

Hi Plato,

:How many w/holes per square inch?”

With your query noted above it asks for an answer and such it calls on me to speculate. Now as being at best only a poor philosopher, I would not subject anyone there, which out of respect, could be confused with being science. However I will here using only philosophical and metaphysical tools, render what I consider not so much an answer, yet rather how I would frame the question.

Now if like Pirsig if I were to qualify, rather than quantify things, as to say that a circle is the boundary of least length, which contains the greatest area, and as to say the smallest area possible would also have to be round. This would suggest rather than a hole of no definable (point size)the limit would have it be a circle, as the size of its diameter is smaller in proportion to its circumference. That is it’s meaningless to suggest anything can exist that is the result of something being divided by zero, let alone to suggest it would if zero were divided by itself .

If we then extrapolate the minimum distance as being the Plank length, for each smallest minimum bit (without need of concerning ourselves with what that be), then it would be that distance times the number of them. Then of course we have to realize that a sphere is a circle rotated through a third dimension and thus it’s then a question of volume rather the area. This all seems quite straight forward until you consider time as being a dimension, where the sphere is being rotated through it to have all that is currently known taken into account.

So then it’s clear we simply can’t consider how many or large of a hole is resultant of ponderable bodies which can fit into a given space, yet also how much time can reside within. So then if time with having distance surrenders as being the same, as to be quantifiable, then we could indeed render it a magnitude. However, if time is truly a continuum, having no beginning, end or discreteness have it as necessarily devisable, we at best can only have a qualified answer, rather one that can be quantified. So we are left with only being able to define a black hole in terms of its character, relating to its quality(s), rather than able to have meaning assignable to its quantified magnitude. And so it is not strange that there is so much concern given to what is the nature of time, as whether it be a consequence of reality or a fundamental prerequisite for having one.

Best,

Phil

PS I apologize for all the previous attempts and only hope I need no more :-)

As it turns out it is lucky for me that hope springs eternal :-)

Plato said...

Hi Phil,

On your speculations. It is true that I could have surmised assumption myself in which I look at the Universe and ponder it's very existence, to have come to see different scientists thinking in different ways.

I'm not qualified as you were right to surmise as to place this question upon them, other then to share it, so as to exchange thought around, as a formality of ideas between people.

I'll continue in a moment.

Best,

Plato said...

Hi Phil, thank you for helping to frame it to properly


Now if like Pirsig if I were to qualify, rather than quantify things, as to say that a circle is the boundary of least length, which contains the greatest area, and as to say the smallest area possible would also have to be round. This would suggest rather than a hole of no definable (point size)the limit would have it be a circle, as the size of its diameter is smaller in proportion to its circumference. That is it’s meaningless to suggest anything can exist that is the result of something being divided by zero, let alone to suggest it would if zero were divided by itself .

Yes of course.

In no way is the following complete but it helps to link perspective around this question as well as to link quotes so as to show you how the question might look.

You might identify thoughts that you are having in the way you approached your answer, in correlation, with perspectives in some of those quotes?

I'll wait till you respond then I will move on with the rest of your answer.

Best,

Steven Colyer said...

C'mon, Phil, be honest and admit that you love spring because that means a new season of Golf! :-)

(I had the golf bug myself for 3 years, age 30-33. I stopped because I knew I'd be fanatically addicted to it. Some things are more fun than any human has a right to, and "a good walk spoil'd" is definitely up there.)

What's your handicap? Also, here's to the Masters tournament! My favorite. Although, THIS year it will be uncomfortable thanks to the Zoo surrounding Tiger Woods.

Phil Warnell said...

Hi Steven,

Yes it’s true that with spring means there will soon come the opportunity to play golf once again or more correctly to have it play me. I also noticed you are a fan of Mark Twain and yet I have the opposite sentiment for the game, as I could never enjoy it unless able to laugh at myself. As for how long I’ve played I only took it up about six years ago and yet not as being inspired to it by that Tiger Fellow.

You might be interested to learn I have a Einstein driver cover, which rather better expresses my reason for playing as it is rather a good excuse to walk quite a distance on a lovely day and to realize the potential of warped space-time:-) As for my handicap I have a different method of scoring then most where if I lose a ball in a round that would have me at one under par, lose two and thats two under and so on. So then without giving anything away and yet still express it scientifically, let me just say that the cost of buying balls remains as non trivial :-)

Best,

Phil

Phil Warnell said...

Hi Steven,

Sorry I forgot to address who I will be cheering for at the Masters, That would of course have to be my fellow countryman Mike Weir, who has already one green jacket in his closet. We do share another thing in common being he’s a right hander that shots left. Apparently this is more common for Canadian’s then most as we grow up with hockey with the left handed shot more the usual.

Best,

Phil

Steven Colyer said...

Go Weir!

I don't care who wins, but I very much doubt it will be Tiger. If he does, replace his Superman's cape with angel's wings. Or maybe the bat-variety, dunno. :-)

Einstein on your driver sox?! Well, be both love the guy, but he doesn't intrigue me lately as much as Dirac. Maybe say, Einstein on your driver, Dirac on your 2-wood, and Pauli on your 3-wood?

Phil Warnell said...

Hi Steven,

I would admit Dirac and Pauli are good choices, yet for me if I could get them my two wood would be Bohm and the three would be deBroglie. For my three rescue clubs i take Aristotle, Descartes and Bell. Now for my six, seven, eight and nine irons I’d have Schrodinger , Heisenberg, Faraday and Maxwell. My two pitching wedges would be Galileo and Newton ; the sand wedge Archimedes (as he worked so well in the media). Now we are left only with the putter being the most important of all and I would have that be Plato, since he has proven to me time and time again to steer the true course when it counts the most. What do you think, could this be marketed as the thinking golfer’s club set or perhaps Nike for Nerds :-)

Best,

Phil

P.S, I was trying to think of what face to put on the ball as being something one would like to hit; then in a flash it came to me, Lubos of course, as although he may be clever he’s still annoying:-)

Steven Colyer said...

Hmm, interesting. Well, I have 4 woods in my (Laser X-2) bag, the perquisite 1-wood, 2-wood, and 3-wood, and get this ... a 7-wood? Huh, why? Heck, I dunno. I thought it was crazy at the time, so I bought it. I even have a 7-iron-angle putter for the skirt around the green. I guess I like the number "7".

1-wood - Einstein
2-wood - Neils Bohr. He kept the discussion going.
3 wood - Heisenberg
7-wood - Schrodinger, because his personal life was unconventional :-)

Irons don't have cozies, but if they did:

1-iron - Jordan - the club is little used, as Jordan is rarely mentioned, and he screwed up (twice). First screwup, he joined The Third Reich. Second, he chose the brownshirts over the Gestapo, and Hitler chose the Gestapo as his primary police thug force. Still, Jordan was important enough in QM to make my bag.
2-iron - De Broglie
3-iron - Weyl
4-iron - Max Born
5-iron - Bose
6-iron - Pauli
7-iron - Dirac
8-iron - Bohm
9-iron - Feynman

Who did I leave out?

Pitching wedge - Rutherford
Sand Wedge - Maxwell
Putter - Newton

I'm sure I left someone out.

Hey, The Masters begins today!

Steven Colyer said...

Mike Weir did OK day 1 at -1. Tiger should have been at -5 but missed his last putt. Fred Couples leads at -6. What a day for the old guys!

I left out Planck, d'oh! OK, My pitching wedge is now Planck. Sorry, Rutherford. You still discovered the atomic nucleus 101 years ago, and that's grand.

Plato said...
This comment has been removed by the author.