tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-54418101305994591162024-02-19T01:15:50.670-05:00Odds & SodsPhil Warnellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15671311338712852659noreply@blogger.comBlogger28125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5441810130599459116.post-65888454934403442222012-05-26T07:16:00.000-04:002012-05-28T05:38:44.047-04:00The Gender Wars & Reason<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjp8j4wzXtTkmBGqtaaaGtBAulbHKagFDuzD2GLJFiIe9BfTCumf3rd4fqMRLd06m9IBjEUdifpTSs9AJ_9o9hcK3VqM5R0hXlpAeIVNyqbONaOK8wQoXF5Tfsqw_yquJR2KyzOU4TSAD8B/s1600/Women+in+Combat.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjp8j4wzXtTkmBGqtaaaGtBAulbHKagFDuzD2GLJFiIe9BfTCumf3rd4fqMRLd06m9IBjEUdifpTSs9AJ_9o9hcK3VqM5R0hXlpAeIVNyqbONaOK8wQoXF5Tfsqw_yquJR2KyzOU4TSAD8B/s320/Women+in+Combat.jpg" width="300" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-women-combat-20120525,0,7119379.story">Find here a piece of news</a> that when I read it the other day it had me to stop and think about what many perceive so often as the gender wars. First let me state that in terms of general equality between men and women I’ve never had any difficulty with the concept, as in fact rather wondering what’s taking the world so long to get over itself in such regard. However that’s from the perspective of a rational person, thinking about a rational world and yet that just isn’t the way the world is; especially one that still finds it necessary for nations to war on nations when reason fails them. So here we find two women who are suing the US government to have the military to lift the restrictions on women being permitted to engage in full blown battlefield combat.
<br />
<br />
<br />
Now perhaps you might think that this is where I jump in to say that I don’t agree with such restrictions or alternately to say this is one place women just don’t belong. The fact is personally I don’t think this is a place any human being should belong, with me being no exception. Now I will get to the point, first as stated here war is not a rational enterprise, so unlike other occupations of the world it’s employees are not in the position to simply opt in or opt out and as such this change that's being asked for can’t just be had to stand for only those who wish to be so involved. So now this is the time I ask the women of the world, being does equality for each of them extend to how these two women define it as such? If yes, than are they prepared for the day when this choice might have themselves forced to serve in such a role rather than it being an option? Now you might wonder what I think, well I can honestly say that I don’t know what I think, which is what so often happens when what it is I’m forced to think about simply can’t be resolved with reason.Phil Warnellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15671311338712852659noreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5441810130599459116.post-64425458207925340602012-02-14T06:42:00.000-05:002012-02-14T06:42:21.992-05:00A Thought Added To ScienceI've borrowed Sabine Hossenfelder's of <a href="http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2012/02/updated-science-symbol.html">BackReaction</a> new suggested symbol for science to add a thought of my own:-)
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgGzKxQJtu2M3_shLoLz4uFpFBytQWv6yLg7YL8id45giTDrOtmbJQ5LqdWgMPSXJIxtqxNAjcINyneUSWlKVi7_Wnjm6-RxWWGtv7PWWjttm_C4ad75bFEswKGeQPO1xtQwAKxDJI7wOBa/s1600/science+thinker.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left:1em; margin-right:1em"><img border="0" height="400" width="370" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgGzKxQJtu2M3_shLoLz4uFpFBytQWv6yLg7YL8id45giTDrOtmbJQ5LqdWgMPSXJIxtqxNAjcINyneUSWlKVi7_Wnjm6-RxWWGtv7PWWjttm_C4ad75bFEswKGeQPO1xtQwAKxDJI7wOBa/s400/science+thinker.png" /></a></div>Phil Warnellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15671311338712852659noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5441810130599459116.post-10256780846235633752011-10-30T18:20:00.004-04:002011-10-30T18:38:04.323-04:00Is True Goodness A Reflection Of The Heart or Rather Of One's Mind?<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiD46N_fGQ2lVJ5KkZH91H06euSVyLSq7rVDku33-p3hOhcFfoA0P2mZmOLeM1BH3wuXpsUQKL5TAlLGW5UWo_3rC75qBAmRJXvGMEVlDbEssVlD2p1uafWNVhWv2bWfIcVoPTkDUH7XVag/s1600/motor-cortex.jpg" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 330px; height: 279px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiD46N_fGQ2lVJ5KkZH91H06euSVyLSq7rVDku33-p3hOhcFfoA0P2mZmOLeM1BH3wuXpsUQKL5TAlLGW5UWo_3rC75qBAmRJXvGMEVlDbEssVlD2p1uafWNVhWv2bWfIcVoPTkDUH7XVag/s400/motor-cortex.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5669416155103412994" /></a><div style="text-align: center;"><span class="Apple-style-span"><a href="http://thebrain.mcgill.ca/flash/d/d_06/d_06_cr/d_06_cr_mou/d_06_cr_mou.html">The Brain From Top To Bottom "Online Brain Encyclopedia"</a></span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span">I<span class="Apple-style-span">n a recent dialogue in which I was engaged I concluded by stating that in terms of the human condition I’ve long found it better when it comes to such matters to attempt to empathize rather than sympathize; that being as sympathy relates to the goodness of one’s heart while empathy stems from the goodness of one’s mind. This might sound as nothing more than a philosophically based preference and I would admit that for me it’s always been primarily that.<br /><br />However, it should be noted that such a hypothesis has been put forth in recent years which over the last decade to be grounded in a scientific discovery as to the nature of the brains found in humans, some primates and even birds in the study of what’s referred to as Mirror Neurons. This research appears to indicate how it is that we are able to know the mind of others. I thus offer <a href="http://www.adineu.com.ar/IMITATION%20EMPATHY%20AND%20MIRROR%20NEURONS%20IACOBONI.pdf">this linked paper</a> which synopsises the investigation of this. All this then has me to wonder, how what could be called that little voice which suggests what might be right and wrong can be better heard, or perhaps just better listened to.</span></span></p></div>Phil Warnellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15671311338712852659noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5441810130599459116.post-4902153725798454792011-10-21T07:03:00.003-04:002011-10-21T07:15:09.098-04:00Occupancy of Thought<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiDppwBsY__WxjDo0UABkcQNJ4kEYB_A635Ro0cSoTaMImZ8ytuCDPVc_66S9-MUjoroOlr9m-1f2yeAEmieEqkJcB5Bq9zKFeTQpun39X2k-XlWRkDgjG0q4DqODVx-tZydGF0Xicg4n8f/s1600/Occupy+Thought.jpg" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 300px; height: 288px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiDppwBsY__WxjDo0UABkcQNJ4kEYB_A635Ro0cSoTaMImZ8ytuCDPVc_66S9-MUjoroOlr9m-1f2yeAEmieEqkJcB5Bq9zKFeTQpun39X2k-XlWRkDgjG0q4DqODVx-tZydGF0Xicg4n8f/s400/Occupy+Thought.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5665900530501616050" /></a><div><a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228354.500-revealed--the-capitalist-network-that-runs-the-world.html"><span class="Apple-style-span" >Revealed – the capitalist network that runs the world - physics-math - 19 October 2011 - New Scientist</span></a></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div>New Scientist in this article announces that a group of researchers have identified the one percent so many talk about and although it is found indeed powerful and concentrated not a result of intent, yet rather one of natural complex ordering. The question of course is should we mess with the invisible hand or leave it be. The answer can only be found with science in studying models which propose changes and run simulations to indicate results; and yet first of all we need to decide what we would like our world to be; this is why the occupancy of thought is more important than one of place.</div><div> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div></div>Phil Warnellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15671311338712852659noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5441810130599459116.post-44832623663796095162011-10-16T09:24:00.006-04:002011-10-16T10:08:40.244-04:00What Should We Seek To Have Occupied?<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhHQWEe6u-vdBTgixOciApgjxYD12vQ18oVE5kYLMXf3yIktS8eEy9pSdYyIPfMpOe5NPKX62Gbk7IRghXO3Egh2k0sNnyd1JC3ncK7rijBL5LiLDpOAp-S_iDNUb_a06HQWhUuaui1uYPD/s1600/Occupy.jpg" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 360px; height: 240px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhHQWEe6u-vdBTgixOciApgjxYD12vQ18oVE5kYLMXf3yIktS8eEy9pSdYyIPfMpOe5NPKX62Gbk7IRghXO3Egh2k0sNnyd1JC3ncK7rijBL5LiLDpOAp-S_iDNUb_a06HQWhUuaui1uYPD/s400/Occupy.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5664081060947414274" /></a><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><span class="Apple-style-span">(Mladen Antonov/AFP/Getty Images)</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;"></p><p class="MsoNormal">In respect to these “Occupy” protests my greatest hope is they never become a movement as found to be formed out of some individual’s or factional group’s vision for the world, yet simply remain the unified final recognition that things are in need of change and to admit each is seeking what that is while not as yet knowing what that would end up to be. So if this is truly to be the counter to being an ideology such as the Tea Party or that of any other group which presents as the same, it must be first understood the need for a true and open dialogue is what’s required and not an ordinary discussion, as to have found created not what we simply feel and think as wanted and needed, yet rather what can work to have this to be.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><br /></p><p class="MsoNormal">Just as a final thought, as perhaps as to add to the dialogue, is simply to remind that a total solution never is found with considering only 99%, even if it be greater than 1%. </p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b></b></p><blockquote><b>"[Thought] seems to have some inertia, a tendency to continue. It seems to have a necessity that we keep on doing it. However ... we often find that we cannot easily give up the tendency to hold rigidly to patterns of thought built up over a long time. We are then caught up in what may be called absolute necessity. This kind of thought leaves no room at all intellectually for any other possibility, while emotionally and physically, it means we take a stance in our feelings, in our bodies, and indeed, in our whole culture, of holding back or resisting. This stance implies that under no circumstances whatsoever can we allow ourselves to give up certain things or change them."</b></blockquote><o:p></o:p><p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b></b></p><blockquote><b>-David Bohm & Mark Edwards, "Changing Consciousness"_, p. 15</b></blockquote><p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b></b></p><blockquote><p class="MsoNormal"><b>"A key difference between a dialogue and an ordinary discussion is that, within the latter people usually hold relatively fixed positions and argue in favor of their views as they try to convince others to change. At best this may produce agreement or compromise, but it does not give rise to anything creative."<o:p></o:p></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p><b> </b></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b>-David Bohm & David Peat, "Science Order, and Creativity"_, p. 241</b></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p><b> </b></o:p></p></blockquote><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p><b></b></o:p></p><p></p>Phil Warnellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15671311338712852659noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5441810130599459116.post-53824406252538733462011-09-22T06:42:00.004-04:002011-09-22T06:55:28.886-04:00PI's Hawking Centre: Further Reflections<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj0DdAZ02hRyYFErj3vK0BSmgrQCwsXORF1xZhppUT_SVBjAGdSLzHPnq7f0q79eN3-34hXGfmm-hqxJve5T5W4kk92Kg5Yc-nGwKYZvHmsZmWVEiciLVmIGEplBo5ucTCii-XexeTEd-Zk/s1600/Reflection.JPG" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 376px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj0DdAZ02hRyYFErj3vK0BSmgrQCwsXORF1xZhppUT_SVBjAGdSLzHPnq7f0q79eN3-34hXGfmm-hqxJve5T5W4kk92Kg5Yc-nGwKYZvHmsZmWVEiciLVmIGEplBo5ucTCii-XexeTEd-Zk/s400/Reflection.JPG" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5655134786631004066" /></a><br /><div><b>Warning: Visiting this place can have you bent out of shape :-)</b></div>Phil Warnellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15671311338712852659noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5441810130599459116.post-86047618459957757442011-09-20T05:57:00.003-04:002011-09-20T06:03:52.238-04:00Perimeter Institute Imparts Some Wisdom<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjQlWKN_K5zyvDtt39o06WrKrVm5HFpnI7hvkU7lzSBzuIT1gV1rRuqTBi5nlbpN-mNIIjJjtwonaehteVSMboHz-UKI8Ff7eQ_kFlqmK6qcsWaJ8wgno7D33hwmz5UOvYvn25zFF_4jgpc/s1600/Lumps.JPG" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 300px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjQlWKN_K5zyvDtt39o06WrKrVm5HFpnI7hvkU7lzSBzuIT1gV1rRuqTBi5nlbpN-mNIIjJjtwonaehteVSMboHz-UKI8Ff7eQ_kFlqmK6qcsWaJ8wgno7D33hwmz5UOvYvn25zFF_4jgpc/s400/Lumps.JPG" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5654379840788745186" /></a><br /><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span class="Apple-style-span" ><b>This provokes the question:</b></span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span class="Apple-style-span" ><b><br /></b></span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span class="Apple-style-span" ><b>How many lumps does the universe want?</b></span></div>Phil Warnellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15671311338712852659noreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5441810130599459116.post-42956137591202757642011-09-04T21:57:00.002-04:002011-09-04T22:05:04.862-04:00Bell's Theorem and Quantum Realism<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhHdwNqTOwEG6u2QOgafQDLRvfbPHWzkpNr1bRKEu2p7CiG9sdv0ThoFNu_0JeTWRPet5xwJy3HRxhiiR0xAQk7wDxLVRGdRDXkHNtu3QuEqOPVPUkAckms6tIg6ILLJgKWshk2TYMH1c2c/s1600/Hemmick.jpg" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 400px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhHdwNqTOwEG6u2QOgafQDLRvfbPHWzkpNr1bRKEu2p7CiG9sdv0ThoFNu_0JeTWRPet5xwJy3HRxhiiR0xAQk7wDxLVRGdRDXkHNtu3QuEqOPVPUkAckms6tIg6ILLJgKWshk2TYMH1c2c/s400/Hemmick.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5648689141843349618" /></a>
<br /><div>
<br /></div><div>
<br /></div><div>
<br /></div><div>
<br /></div><div>
<br /></div><div>
<br /></div><div>
<br /></div><div>
<br /></div><div>
<br /></div><div>
<br /></div><div>
<br /></div><div>
<br /></div><div>
<br /></div><div>
<br /></div><div>
<br /></div><div>
<br /></div><div>
<br /></div><div>
<br /></div><div>
<br /></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">Just discovered this today and thus I am looking forward to getting a copy upon its release; scheduled for November 28<sup>th</sup>.<span> </span>In my humble opinion I find Dr. Hemmick as having one of the strongest understandings of the matters for which a synopsis is given by the publisher Springer as found below.<span> </span>I’m also confident that anyone in reading it will come to the same conclusion about the author’s understanding and insights regarding these foundational issues as I have. </p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b><i></i></b></p><blockquote><p class="MsoNormal"><b><i>"Quantum theory presents a strange picture of the world, offering no real account of physical properties apart from observation. Neils Bohr felt that this reflected a core truth of nature: "There is no quantum world. There is only an abstract mathematical description." Among the most significant developments since Bohr’s day has been the theorem of John S. Bell. It is important to consider whether Bell’s analysis supports such a denial of microrealism. In this book, we evaluate the situation in terms of an early work of Erwin Schrödinger. Doing so, we see how Bell’s theorem is conceptually related to the Conway and Kochen Free Will theorem and also to all the major anti-realism efforts. It is easy to show that none of these analyses imply the impossibility of objective realism. We find that Schrödinger’s work leads to the derivation of a new series of theoretical proofs and potential experiments, each involving “entanglement,” the link between particles in some quantum systems."</i></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">-Springer Briefs in Physics (Description), “<a href="http://www.springer.com/physics/quantum+physics/book/978-3-642-23467-5">Bell's Theorem and Quantum Realism</a>” </p></blockquote><p class="MsoNormal"></p></div><div>
<br /></div><div>
<br /></div><div>
<br /></div>Phil Warnellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15671311338712852659noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5441810130599459116.post-89396411626069959212011-08-16T05:33:00.007-04:002011-08-16T06:17:19.668-04:00What’s the Difference between the Genuine Article & the What-A-Teas ?<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgO93EXmHlCMz8_Y2MGarKFyT58WwVSchnqyD5Qtb4rz2l4tNW7LnErMcv6AQTk_GrTd_hxpdII-ccDuk_fDcwyZ0sW_YxhKXOfM65li3TO1UXCn1pJfBT12Zfx6eMINQHq173RuS47yS0C/s1600/Buffet.jpg" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 220px; height: 287px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgO93EXmHlCMz8_Y2MGarKFyT58WwVSchnqyD5Qtb4rz2l4tNW7LnErMcv6AQTk_GrTd_hxpdII-ccDuk_fDcwyZ0sW_YxhKXOfM65li3TO1UXCn1pJfBT12Zfx6eMINQHq173RuS47yS0C/s320/Buffet.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5641387006713977650" /></a>
<br /><p class="MsoNormal">
<br /></p><p class="MsoNormal">
<br /></p><p class="MsoNormal">
<br /></p><p class="MsoNormal">
<br /></p><p class="MsoNormal">
<br /></p><p class="MsoNormal">
<br /></p><p class="MsoNormal">
<br /></p><p class="MsoNormal">
<br /></p><p class="MsoNormal">
<br /></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span">
<br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span">Source: Fortune Magazine</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span">
<br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"></p><blockquote><p class="MsoNormal"><i><span class="Apple-style-span"><b>“I’m fearful when others are bold and bold when others are fearful.”</b></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span"><o:p> </o:p>-Warren Buffet (his personal motto)</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span">
<br /></span></p></blockquote><p class="MsoNormal"></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p><span class="Apple-style-span"> </span></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span">With <a href="http://www.charlierose.com/view/content/11845">recent events</a> this begs the question, in as Buffet is so rich he has personally nothing to fear for himself, than who is he fearful for?<span> </span>If you answer this correctly than you will have come to understand what distinguishes those like him from the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement">want-a teas</a>.</span></p>Phil Warnellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15671311338712852659noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5441810130599459116.post-41596426652886167142011-08-13T10:12:00.002-04:002011-08-13T10:16:17.279-04:00Nerd's For Hope: Join Today!<iframe width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/AV0fmNo7474" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe><div>
<br /></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">With all the pessimism projected in the press lately I thought it time for some nerd inspired confidence reflecting hope.</p></div>Phil Warnellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15671311338712852659noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5441810130599459116.post-1058376256839512712011-08-11T07:21:00.005-04:002011-08-11T07:51:06.221-04:00Just Desserts?<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiTHq2fHqzqDDxuGrTPRSBj5SP34JhL5BiK2zVKaVPXyhuadOBlfZiFh2shb2c8UNcvwwvIfTaz07AmgaiN9wSHpxfrw8zX4RONWQOHmayakWTT5rnT-cU8sUdk6xMiYkSU1TkgI1u2jcZ4/s1600/Double+Dip.jpg" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 238px; height: 300px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiTHq2fHqzqDDxuGrTPRSBj5SP34JhL5BiK2zVKaVPXyhuadOBlfZiFh2shb2c8UNcvwwvIfTaz07AmgaiN9wSHpxfrw8zX4RONWQOHmayakWTT5rnT-cU8sUdk6xMiYkSU1TkgI1u2jcZ4/s320/Double+Dip.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5639559584776485490" /></a>
<br /><div>
<br /></div><div>
<br /></div><div>
<br /></div><div>
<br /></div><div>
<br /></div><div>
<br /></div><div>
<br /></div><div>
<br /></div><div>
<br /></div><div>
<br /></div><div>
<br /></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span">
<br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span">
<br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span">Photo: <a href="http://delayedreactionlounge.blogspot.com/2011/06/double-dip-recession-is-it-coming.html">Delayed Reaction Lounge</a></span></div><div>
<br /></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" >In wondering about the concerns regarding a double-dip recession, as being so worried it could have us to miss our scoop of expansion in between, thinking perhaps it might be best to consider giving up deserts altogether and rather ask our political leaders, <span> </span>captains of industry and financiers:</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-large; ">“where’s the beef” !<span> </span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" >Incidentally, I did mean deserts and not desserts; that is at least for all practical purposes ;-)</span></p></div>Phil Warnellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15671311338712852659noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5441810130599459116.post-47803938830049255502011-06-19T06:41:00.002-04:002011-06-19T06:46:02.541-04:00There are also Fathers of Invention<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhEyAEGfnCAunJilzrsnBknJco3kfLrLUUqetCQ-KQt0qNlOykLjg_wQVMbnLJvhnB4nfqlmXlAHQBiIf9k87dv0WFlalfFUHHJHwuADaif2UK-ZO_byDnZqoN8vvoLbm5T2fn-7R7Gvgll/s1600/Albert_Einstein_Head.jpg" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 154px; height: 200px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhEyAEGfnCAunJilzrsnBknJco3kfLrLUUqetCQ-KQt0qNlOykLjg_wQVMbnLJvhnB4nfqlmXlAHQBiIf9k87dv0WFlalfFUHHJHwuADaif2UK-ZO_byDnZqoN8vvoLbm5T2fn-7R7Gvgll/s200/Albert_Einstein_Head.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5619879752439458770" /></a><p class="MsoNormal"><br /></p><p class="MsoNormal"><br /></p><p class="MsoNormal"><br /></p><p class="MsoNormal">I’m reminded as today being Father’s day that true motivation is not simply based on personal satisfaction or curiosity alone, yet upon things greater than one’s self.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><br /></p><p class="MsoNormal"><br /></p><p class="MsoNormal"></p><p class="MsoNormal"></p><blockquote><p class="MsoNormal">“<b>How strange is the lot of us mortals! Each of us is here for a brief sojourn; for what purpose he knows not, though he sometimes thinks he senses it. But without deeper reflection one knows from daily life that one exists for other people — first of all for those upon whose smiles and well-being our own happiness is wholly dependent, and then for the many, unknown to us, to whose destinies we are bound by the ties of sympathy. A hundred times every day I remind myself that my inner and outer life are based on the labors of other men, living and dead, and that I must exert myself in order to give in the same measure as I have received and am still receiving...”</b></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p><b> </b></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b>-Albert Einstein, "Mein Weltbild"(My World View),-1931</b></p></blockquote><p class="MsoNormal"></p><p></p>Phil Warnellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15671311338712852659noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5441810130599459116.post-80463175235867735532011-06-04T16:48:00.017-04:002011-06-05T09:29:38.472-04:00When is a Duck to be Found as to being a Duck?<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUVkYmf4pWB_vzxZW295Qytq20811scmhV8kpOyy0VQGBRT3icnG3AsJXAvuxlBt9DFoyXGgNBH82pnlhUcmz1GUT2MaOUiKDZE2IyBPYt7btmk40HSLidduRh6xd1zpvNF5m6K14veYWT/s1600/photon_trajectories.png" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}"><blockquote></blockquote><blockquote></blockquote><blockquote></blockquote><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 200px; height: 160px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUVkYmf4pWB_vzxZW295Qytq20811scmhV8kpOyy0VQGBRT3icnG3AsJXAvuxlBt9DFoyXGgNBH82pnlhUcmz1GUT2MaOUiKDZE2IyBPYt7btmk40HSLidduRh6xd1zpvNF5m6K14veYWT/s200/photon_trajectories.png" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5614473722044684034" /></a><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjWnwgcUKklBChjntP6GMwLwn9TnpcgyyZKzpVoU-K5m2HvHyLSrDjoeFg11-t00P0uY_aXoFyIQ6u1NrfHmjaQmB-GeTeKqIpRSiv_OUEo7HE82Mi4bRJxdtosMUpts87lQZhFtn0QvKEO/s1600/Pilot+Wave.jpg" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 200px; height: 200px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjWnwgcUKklBChjntP6GMwLwn9TnpcgyyZKzpVoU-K5m2HvHyLSrDjoeFg11-t00P0uY_aXoFyIQ6u1NrfHmjaQmB-GeTeKqIpRSiv_OUEo7HE82Mi4bRJxdtosMUpts87lQZhFtn0QvKEO/s200/Pilot+Wave.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5614473309233804114" /></a><br /><br /><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-line-height-alt: 8.6pt;vertical-align:baseline"></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-line-height-alt: 8.6pt;vertical-align:baseline"><span style="mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-CA; mso-bidi-font-weight:bold"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-line-height-alt: 8.6pt;vertical-align:baseline"><span style="mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-CA; mso-bidi-font-weight:bold"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-line-height-alt: 8.6pt;vertical-align:baseline"><span style="mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-CA; mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">Since yesterday’s release of a paper entitled<b> “</b></span><span style="mso-bidi-font-family:Arial;color:#333333"><a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/1170.abstract">Observing the Average Trajectories of Single Photons in a Two-Slit Interferometer</a>”, authored by Aephraim Steinberg</span><span style="mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-family:Arial;color:#222222;mso-fareast-language:EN-CA"> et al, <span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>in the journal Science, there has been quite a stir.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>However the stir was not the normal one, where the Web picks up on a science story to have it sensationalized and misinterpreted; which is normally the case.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>No this time it was the self appointed experts who rushed in to fend off the consequences of what they anticipated as such an occurrence.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-line-height-alt: 8.6pt;vertical-align:baseline"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34); ">The only problem being is that many such experts agreed in only one thing, and that’s what the experiment revealed simply could not be what it appeared to have revealed. <span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>For instance Prof. Chad Orzel at “<a href="http://scienceblogs.com/principles/2011/06/watching_photons_interfere_obs.php">Uncertain principles</a>” remarked "<i>T</i></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34); "><i>his is an extremely cool example of the art of experimental physics, and a spectacular demonstration of the power of weak measurements, but it's not that revolutionary. Though, as I said above, I confidently predict that there will be no shortage of crazy people trying to claim this as conclusive proof for their particular favourite interpretation of quantum theory.”</i><span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-line-height-alt: 8.6pt;vertical-align:baseline"><span style="mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-family:Arial;color:#222222;mso-fareast-language:EN-CA"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-line-height-alt: 8.6pt;vertical-align:baseline"><span style="mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-family:Arial;color:#222222;mso-fareast-language:EN-CA"><span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>In the journal <a href="http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110602/full/news.2011.344.html">Nature</a>, <span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Prof. David Deutsch echoed pretty much the same in saying <i>"it's quite cool to see strange predictions verified", the results could have been obtained simply by "calculating them using a computer and the equations of quantum mechanics...Experiments are only relevant in science when they are crucial tests between at least two good explanatory theories, Here, there was only one, namely that the equations of quantum mechanics really do describe reality."</i><span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-line-height-alt: 8.6pt;vertical-align:baseline"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34); ">The most definitive and critical of these was published by <a href="http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/06/an-experiment-that-just-keeps-on-giving.ars?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=rss">Ars Technica,</a> a technical news provider. where physicist Chis Lee remarks <i>“It's important to realize that these are not the trajectories of individual photons—instead they are more like probability clouds that tell you where photons are most likely to be found. And what do you know? Half the photons appear to have gone through one slit and half go through the other. <span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>But, in fact, this is a lie. That photon still has to have gone through both slits. It is important to realize that a measurement has to produce a result. It is always going to find that the photon is somewhere, and that tells us very little about where it came from or where it is going to.”</i><span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> He</span> finishes by saying <i>“With that knowledge, it is hard to say what this experiment tells us that we didn't know before. The only difference is that now we have both data and theory saying the same thing, which is important.”</i></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-line-height-alt: 8.6pt;vertical-align:baseline"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34); ">However to be fair, I did find among them all ‘<a href="http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/46193">Physics World</a>’ a publication of the Institute of Physics to be a notable exception with at least quoting the principle physicist associated with the paper with the following:</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-line-height-alt: 8.6pt;vertical-align:baseline"><span style="mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-family:Arial;color:#222222;mso-fareast-language:EN-CA"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-line-height-alt: 8.6pt;vertical-align:baseline"><span style="mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-family:Arial;color:#222222;mso-fareast-language:EN-CA"><i></i></span></p><blockquote><span style="mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-family:Arial;color:#222222;mso-fareast-language:EN-CA"><i>“This weak momentum measurement does not appreciably disturb the system, and interference is still observed. Both measurements had to be repeated on a large ensemble of particles in order to gain enough information for the whole system, but we did not disturb the outcome at all.” explains Steinberg. "Our measured trajectories are consistent, as Wiseman had predicted, with the realistic but unconventional interpretation of quantum mechanics of such influential thinkers as David Bohm and Louis de Broglie,"</i></span></blockquote><p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-line-height-alt: 8.6pt;vertical-align:baseline"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34); "><span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Now on the other hand , the great unwashed, known as the general press, didn’t come to such a conclusion, yet rather choose to report it factually even to the point of not expressing what the experimentalist’s views had been.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>One typical example being the <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13626587">BBC</a>, who quoted Marlan Scully of Texas A&M University as saying, <span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span><i>“This paper is probably the first that has really put this weak measurement idea into a real experimental realisation, and it also gave us the trajectories."</i> He said that the work would - inevitably - raise philosophical issues as well. <i>"The exact way to think about what they're doing will be researched for some time, and the weak measurement concept itself will be a matter of controversy - but now we have a very pretty experiment with these weak measurements."</i></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-line-height-alt: 8.6pt;vertical-align:baseline"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34); "></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34); ">For me this all serves to drive home a point first made by the late physicist John Stewart Bell, when he expressed similar misgivings as follows:</span></p><p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><i><b><o:p> </o:p><span class="bodybold"><span style="color:black;mso-bidi-font-weight: bold"></span></span></b></i></p><blockquote><i><b><span class="bodybold"><span style="color:black;mso-bidi-font-weight: bold">“But in 1952<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>I saw the impossible done. It was in a paper by David Bohm (5). .......</span></span> <span class="bodybold"><span style="color:black;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">But why then had Born not told me of this ‘pilot wave’? If only to point out what was wrong with it? Why did von Neumann not consider it? More extraordinarily, why did people go on producing ‘‘impossibility’’ proofs, after 1952, and as recently as 1978? . When Pauli, Rosenberg and Heinsenberg, could produce no more devastating criticism of Bohm’s version than to brand it as “metaphysical” and “idealogical”. <span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Why is the pilot wave picture ignored in text books? Should it not be taught, not as the only way, but as an antidote to the prevailing complacency? To show us that vagueness, subjectivity, and indeterminism, are not forced on us by experimental facts, but by deliberate theoretical choice?</span></span></b></i></blockquote><span class="bodybold"><span style="color:black;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold"></span></span><p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span class="bodybold"><span style="color:black;mso-bidi-font-weight: bold"><o:p> </o:p></span></span></i></b></p><blockquote><b><i>-John Stewart Bell, “<a href="http://prac.us.edu.pl/~ztpce/QM/Bell_pilot_wave.pdf">On The Impossibility of The Pilot Wave</a>”, CERN, Geneva, Ref.Th.3315-CERN (1982)</i></b></blockquote><p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="bodybold"><span style="color:black;mso-bidi-font-weight: bold"><o:p>S</o:p></span></span>o I will simply finish in asking the same as Bell, that is when are the majority of the physicists going to stop insisting that the vagueness, subjectivity, and indeterminism, are forced upon us by experimental facts, but rather by deliberate theoretical choice? Perhaps it is only when they themselves are taken through one of two definitive slits to then be carried along by an unseen yet irresistible potential to be slammed up against a screen.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Then again perhaps David Deutsch may not, as in insisting that such an occurrence happened to only a particular version of himself among the infinite multitude of many worlds :-)</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="bodybold"><b><span style="color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></b></span></p><blockquote><p class="MsoNormal"><i><b>"when I see a bird that walks like a duck and swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, I call that bird a duck.”</b></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><i><b>-James Whitcomb Riley</b></i></p></blockquote><p class="MsoNormal"></p><p></p>Phil Warnellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15671311338712852659noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5441810130599459116.post-16414909895385740052011-05-18T03:51:00.013-04:002011-05-18T04:49:01.525-04:00Fate or Destiny?<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhFFypOeXK2aRxc2F0iTFavoN8TE9_k6tqSBGH5AGQ-RcJiMs9mPfioPnC52vPLK3nG_A9mRFxDhWlVuXneQttwcSk7Cdf1M1lTk_yKBSsv1GuGoh0pd8KWvt0Spsm22gE06JJ_UiwAPBMV/s1600/CCC+image.jpg" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 200px; height: 182px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhFFypOeXK2aRxc2F0iTFavoN8TE9_k6tqSBGH5AGQ-RcJiMs9mPfioPnC52vPLK3nG_A9mRFxDhWlVuXneQttwcSk7Cdf1M1lTk_yKBSsv1GuGoh0pd8KWvt0Spsm22gE06JJ_UiwAPBMV/s200/CCC+image.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5607974738242562402" /></a><div style="text-align: center;"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" >Some say the Universe will end in a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Crunch">crunch</a></span></b></div><div><div> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" >While others claim it will die being <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Rip">torn</a><o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" >Most fear it will fade with a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe">whimper</a><o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" >But the wise know potential has it <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conformal_Cyclic_Cosmology">reborn</a></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><br /></p><p class="MsoNormal"><br /></p></div></div>Phil Warnellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15671311338712852659noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5441810130599459116.post-21030772792906179412011-05-04T05:44:00.018-04:002011-05-07T05:19:32.717-04:00A Leader’s Actions; Thoughts & Perspectives<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgyTEQjOw_5HSEoKIEoGl96b9Vg6z4Ax0IukcEImr6EM9owWZstZY9mGDbgIGtMljUUOsXUHsy2E1YzDCKEZ8qrkbPwUflNazykuXP2sBv7ZVhvvZlVUb2X7SPzJOK9o0i9JlmVV_28TWD8/s1600/watching-raid-0502.jpg" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 214px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgyTEQjOw_5HSEoKIEoGl96b9Vg6z4Ax0IukcEImr6EM9owWZstZY9mGDbgIGtMljUUOsXUHsy2E1YzDCKEZ8qrkbPwUflNazykuXP2sBv7ZVhvvZlVUb2X7SPzJOK9o0i9JlmVV_28TWD8/s320/watching-raid-0502.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5602821444875462082" /></a><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhcTuuaMl_dBI8Ad6VwByeHBU6FAfL7_OLpC5oa2SqBnsOMcySVIL3R6lRLBimuT5r-Bv4wuASP9Gznag-eiQm6UA0gJOuh-M-wx8P87FWXYbXwGXivVi2IWek1JfACrT-0SMKsr8CZutFF/s1600/Decision.jpg" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}"><br /></a><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 15px; line-height: 17px;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 15px; line-height: 17px;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 15px; line-height: 17px;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 15px; line-height: 17px;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 15px; line-height: 17px;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 17px; "><span class="Apple-style-span"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 17px; "><span class="Apple-style-span"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 17px; "><span class="Apple-style-span"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 17px; "><span class="Apple-style-span">-<a href="http://www.baynews9.com/osama-bin-laden">Bay News 9</a></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 17px; "><br /></span></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 17px;">In as Barack Obama is an admitted student of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, I then can only suppose he has come to the conclusion that the people he leads, although self proclaimed and oft times demonstrated as being brave, are not yet ready to explore its greatest depths. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 17px;">However, I am most heartened and hopeful, prompted by his decided action, in placing himself and his own at greater risk than other options presented as being available and therein minimizing the risk to those in a land of which it was carried out. This then should have it known to the world, that is at least for those who consider things more deeply than a headline, to then perhaps find him and many of his people as still being brave; even if not as yet able and quite prepared to being the bravest.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 17px; "><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 17px; "><b></b></p><blockquote style="line-height: 17px; "><p class="MsoNormal"><b>" If the people are not ready for the exercise of the non-violence of the brave, they must be ready for the use of force in self-defense. There should be no camouflage... It must never be secret. "</b></p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p>-Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi</p></blockquote><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 17px; "></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 17px; "><o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 17px; "><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 17px; "><b></b></p><blockquote style="line-height: 17px; "><p class="MsoNormal"><b>“Cowardice is wholly inconsistent with non-violence.....non-violence presuppose the ability to strike.”</b><o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p>-Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi</p></blockquote><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 17px; "></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 17px; "><o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 17px; "><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 17px; "><b></b></p><blockquote style="line-height: 17px; "><p class="MsoNormal"><b>“ A non-violent man or woman will and should die without retaliation,anger or malice, in self-defense or in defending the honour of their womenfolk. This is the highest form of bravery. If an individual or group of people are unable or unwilling to follow this great law of life, retaliation or resistance unto death is the second best, though a long way off from the first. Cowardice is impotence worse than violence. The coward desire revenge but being afraid to die, he looks to others, maybe to the government of the day, to do the work of defence for him. A coward is less than a man. He does not deserve to be a member of a society of men and women.” </b><o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p>-Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi</p></blockquote><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 17px; "></p></div>Phil Warnellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15671311338712852659noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5441810130599459116.post-90847109261230236672011-04-30T16:40:00.009-04:002011-05-07T05:10:22.427-04:00Deciding with Metrics :-)<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgDijPQqdnn6LuZZVpa1qSaX7j15kaCHzaPcBrhzwpE9r2iJhMkrzQBlQjolAxUXkif_qqh3EBR2aRB4uTKjPqhR453grh1BXUquHCuPppBZG08v_arJmI4F6wCJ-c6p5fXqiwCyRvNQ1QP/s1600/Canadian_Idol_logo.jpg" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 200px; height: 133px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgDijPQqdnn6LuZZVpa1qSaX7j15kaCHzaPcBrhzwpE9r2iJhMkrzQBlQjolAxUXkif_qqh3EBR2aRB4uTKjPqhR453grh1BXUquHCuPppBZG08v_arJmI4F6wCJ-c6p5fXqiwCyRvNQ1QP/s200/Canadian_Idol_logo.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5601491430072145442" /></a><br /><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black"><br /></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="line-height: 115%; color: black; ">With Canadian’s going to the polls this coming Monday, many are still confused about for whom to vote. In as all the leaders will say whatever it is you wish to hear, or rather say nothing at all , <span> </span>I thought we be more scientific as to have this decided on something they can’t change to your liking; that being their own innate talent.<span> </span>So based solely on musical aptitude which leader would you prefer (a) <a href="http://youtu.be/oCbVw03zEyU">Stephen Harper</a> (Conservative),(b) <a href="http://youtu.be/7eCKAQ0iooE">Jack Layton</a> (NDP), (c) <a href="http://youtu.be/xAcWk8rI8TQ">Michael Ignatieff</a> (Liberal) or (d)</span></span><span class="apple-style-span"><span style="line-height: 115%; color: black; "> <a href="http://youtu.be/1dqQzz5j1ho">Elizabeth May</a> (Green Party)</span></span></span><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black">. <o:p></o:p></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="line-height: 115%; color: black; ">I must admit that at first I wasn’t going to have </span></span><span class="apple-style-span"><span style="line-height: 115%; color: black; ">Elizabeth May given as an option. That is not as the network did in leaving her out of the televised national debate without giving proper reason.<span> </span>No rather it was in this case not being able to find something where her voice could be distinguished from the others.<span> </span>Here she is found being the second person from the left.<span> </span>However, upon giving it further thought, that as to how much the Greens believe in the value of harmony I have included</span></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 20px; "> her here as well.</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 20px; ">Of course the true metric which will have this decided are the eligible voters themselves as George Bernard Shaw reminded:</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 20px; "><b></b></span></p><blockquote><b>"Democracy is a device which assures we shall be governed no better than we deserve" :-)</b></blockquote><p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 18px; line-height: 20px; "><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-style-span"><span style="font-size:13.5pt;line-height:115%; color:black;mso-bidi-font-style:italic"><br /></span></span></p>Phil Warnellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15671311338712852659noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5441810130599459116.post-28338127222007487992010-12-31T09:02:00.013-05:002010-12-31T15:13:10.112-05:00Quantum Corrections<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjFQD41b78rKBl8IDouhJFKBrzVM8TxyD_BNTb6xCP5aka-Cj3F4alffWO2nsPX0-iFhCbCaa2VdsdwiMVp40Mkn00nGmI5keApORbTWkTx_0eBuaX-lfSkwjpVCwMF6Dh1V0ptkwMuIugL/s1600/catsensor2.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 200px; height: 172px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjFQD41b78rKBl8IDouhJFKBrzVM8TxyD_BNTb6xCP5aka-Cj3F4alffWO2nsPX0-iFhCbCaa2VdsdwiMVp40Mkn00nGmI5keApORbTWkTx_0eBuaX-lfSkwjpVCwMF6Dh1V0ptkwMuIugL/s200/catsensor2.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5556856381513577746" /></a><div><span class="Apple-style-span"><u><br /></u></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span"><u><br /></u></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjFQD41b78rKBl8IDouhJFKBrzVM8TxyD_BNTb6xCP5aka-Cj3F4alffWO2nsPX0-iFhCbCaa2VdsdwiMVp40Mkn00nGmI5keApORbTWkTx_0eBuaX-lfSkwjpVCwMF6Dh1V0ptkwMuIugL/s1600/catsensor2.jpg"></a><span class="Apple-style-span"><u><br /></u></span></span><div><span class="Apple-style-span"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-small; "><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-small; "><a href="http://qsd.physics.ox.ac.uk/metrology">http://qsd.physics.ox.ac.uk/metrology</a></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span"><br /></span></div><span><span><div><span><span><br /></span></span></div><div><span><span><br /></span></span></div><span class="Apple-style-span">When making a comment on a <a href="http://tetrahedral.blogspot.com/2010/12/happy-new-decade.html">blog I follow regularly</a>, where Schrödinger's Cat was brought to my attention, it had me to wonder, how the quantum reality has changed our view of the world? For instance the old saying is <b>“Curiosity killed the cat”</b> which was to mean that the cat’s curiosity can be its undoing. Now of course with the revelations of Quantum Theory it is the observer's curiosity which can kill the cat, rather than its own. This had me to imagine what other famous quotes could be so altered by this new reality with the one found below coming to mind.</span></span></span></div><div><span><span><span class="Apple-style-span"><br /></span></span></span></div><div><span><span><span class="Apple-style-span"><br /><span class="Apple-style-span"><b> ”Oh what a tangled web we weave,</b></span></span></span></span></div><div><span><span><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><b>When first we practice to deceive!” </b></span></span></span></span></div><div><span><span><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"> <span><span>-Sir Walter Scott, Marmion, Canto vi. Stanza 17.</span></span></span><br /></span><br /><br />Now today this would have to be changed to read:</span></span></div><div><span><span><br /></span></span></div><div><span><span><br /></span></span></div><div><span><span><span class="Apple-style-span"> <b>”<span class="Apple-style-span">Oh what an entangled web we unweave,</span></b></span></span></span></div><div><span><span><span class="Apple-style-span"><b>When first we practice to perceive!”</b></span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial; "><span class="Apple-style-span">-Phil Warnell, Quantum Quote Corrections (2010)- all rights conserved </span></span></div><div><span><span><br /></span></span></div><div><span><span><br /></span></span></div><div><span>I wish all a Happy New Year and Paradigm Shift! :-)</span><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-CA"><span class="Apple-style-span"></span><o:p></o:p></span></p><p></p></div></div>Phil Warnellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15671311338712852659noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5441810130599459116.post-28035317242258836582010-11-29T07:38:00.004-05:002010-11-29T07:50:32.642-05:00Is There Trouble in The Forest?<div><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" ><span class="apple-style-span"><span style="line-height: 18px; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; color: black; ">There is unrest in the forest,</span></span><span style="line-height: 18px; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; color: black; "><br /><span class="apple-style-span">There is trouble with the trees,</span><br /><span class="apple-style-span">For the maples want more sunlight</span><br /><span class="apple-style-span">And the oaks ignore their please.</span><br /><br /><span class="apple-style-span">The trouble with the maples,</span><br /><span class="apple-style-span">(And they're quite convinced they're right)</span><br /><span class="apple-style-span">They say the oaks are just too lofty</span><br /><span class="apple-style-span">And they grab up all the light.</span><br /><span class="apple-style-span">But the oaks can't help their feelings</span><br /><span class="apple-style-span">If they like the way they're made.</span><br /><span class="apple-style-span">And they wonder why the maples</span><br /><span class="apple-style-span">Can't be happy in their shade.</span><br /><br /><span class="apple-style-span">There is trouble in the forest,</span><br /><span class="apple-style-span">And the creatures all have fled,</span><br /><span class="apple-style-span">As the maples scream "Oppression!"</span><br /><span class="apple-style-span">And the oaks just shake their heads</span><br /><br /><span class="apple-style-span">So the maples formed a union</span><br /><span class="apple-style-span">And demanded equal rights.</span><br /><span class="apple-style-span">"The oaks are just too greedy;</span><br /><span class="apple-style-span">We will make them give us light.</span><br /><span class="apple-style-span">Now there's no more oak oppression,</span><br /><span class="apple-style-span">For they passed a noble law,</span><br /><span class="apple-style-span">And the trees are all kept equal</span><br /><span class="apple-style-span">By hatchet, axe, and saw.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-style-span"><span style="line-height: 18px; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; color: black; "><o:p><span class="Apple-style-span" > </span></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-style-span"><span style="line-height: 18px; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; color: black; "><span class="Apple-style-span" >-The Trees, by <a href="http://www.rush.com/v4.html">Rush</a> (</span></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 19px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 13px; "> </span><span class="Apple-style-span" >Hemispheres) 1987</span></span></p></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 19px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" ><br /></span></span></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><iframe width="425" height="344" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Fyq7WRr_GPg?fs=1" frameborder="0"></iframe>Phil Warnellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15671311338712852659noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5441810130599459116.post-16001552579663049182010-09-26T14:04:00.008-04:002010-09-26T14:55:23.562-04:00Will Artificial Intelligence Ever be Able to Discern the Truth?<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjHgv-OBSWmI2oMSC1wbgxnzNlQrguYx3-i3H82vXHOzAkx9lHki6P0MF4xC8nfVn3lEceLqlg2su4QoRxfo_0-VC07Mq23g_fYc9h2i-KpdMULFNGX-mkag99YFDbEuugvlwiPexAWpbeO/s1600/AI.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 300px; height: 297px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjHgv-OBSWmI2oMSC1wbgxnzNlQrguYx3-i3H82vXHOzAkx9lHki6P0MF4xC8nfVn3lEceLqlg2su4QoRxfo_0-VC07Mq23g_fYc9h2i-KpdMULFNGX-mkag99YFDbEuugvlwiPexAWpbeO/s320/AI.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5521285919435511842" /></a><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-small;">as per </span><a href="http://www.cs.umb.edu/~marc/cs271/"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-small;">http://www.cs.umb.edu/~marc/cs271/</span></a></div><div><br /></div>The following is simply a comment I first attempted to post in response <a href="http://eskesthai.blogspot.com/2010/09/what-is-noble-lie.html">to a piece</a> written in the blog <a href="http://eskesthai.blogspot.com/">Dialogos of Eide</a>. However it appears that as has happened one time before with another blog the comment was automatically rejected by the anti-spam filter which is now a standard component of Blogger. Although this leaves me somewhat frustrated it indicates to me that the dream of creating artificial intelligence is of yet to be realized if not impossible. <div><br /></div><blockquote><div><b><i>Hi Plato,</i></b></div><div><b><i><br />As you say in Plato’s conception the guardians would be deemed being so solely on the basis of ‘</i></b><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merit"><b><i>merit</i></b></a><b><i>’, which would have this employment of </i></b><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy"><b><i>meritocracy</i></b></a><b><i> to form the bases of both governance and general guidance. However it has always been a question for me what Plato thought ‘merit’ to be, that is as it is now mostly </i></b><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merit_(Catholicism)"><b><i>considered in the west</i></b></a><b><i> or rather as it is thought of </i></b><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merit_(Buddhism)"><b><i>in the eastern conception</i></b></a><b><i>.<br /><br />I consider this important as I find if the former be the case, than ultimately the lie if revealed would be to find that the components of society have no compassion at all, yet strictly having all as self serving; although indiscernible with only <a href="http://decartes-einstein.blogspot.com/2010/04/what-is-quality-how-is-it-quality-and.html">the use of metrics</a>. However if merit is held to be as in the eastern conception, then the lines between self and others blur to the point of having no meaning, in which case compassion born of empathy need not be an act dependant on a lie, yet one necessitated by truth.<br /><br />The thing being that Plato as revealed in his writings never referenced to anything being known as the “noble lie” and therefore I find it interesting to wonder if he was simply the first ‘’ </i></b><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand)"><b><i>objectivist</i></b></a><b><i> or rather did consider quality as being inseparable from good. With all I’ve read of him I’m almost certain it be the last to be true, as otherwise the rest of his teachings would become illogical and if nothing else I find him certainly to be logical.<br /><br />Best,<br /><br />Phil</i></b></div></blockquote><div><br /><br /></div>Phil Warnellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15671311338712852659noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5441810130599459116.post-43985602482003709172010-05-09T10:30:00.009-04:002010-05-09T10:52:44.136-04:00Mothers<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjSfJiQd6vlt_T8nqtq78Qr3LthB87wqH2UsUWl24bLQxwu-4Md_7SaLUGmI-DBS33KZjB9Q5HANzZ-2H-uLUi45AqkMLHlFmPqzCQ6jcgNWaDnNWK9lQekqL8Vc5f23hsbiuwYzv7jDFll/s1600/Mother-of-Invention.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 182px; height: 200px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjSfJiQd6vlt_T8nqtq78Qr3LthB87wqH2UsUWl24bLQxwu-4Md_7SaLUGmI-DBS33KZjB9Q5HANzZ-2H-uLUi45AqkMLHlFmPqzCQ6jcgNWaDnNWK9lQekqL8Vc5f23hsbiuwYzv7jDFll/s200/Mother-of-Invention.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5469281481384828914" /></a><span style="line-height: 115%; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><b>On this day thoughts of our mothers come to mind, which lends a sense of gratitude for those who are responsible for each of us finding ourselves in the world; that in it holding so much meaning as to what is born out of a hopeful continuance of existence and purpose. So I would like to thank all the mothers of the world today, along with</b></span></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" line-height: 17px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><b> the one who has them best represented of all; being the Mother of Invention.</b></span></span></span><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" line-height: 17px; font-family:Calibri, sans-serif;font-size:15px;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" line-height: 17px; font-family:Calibri, sans-serif;font-size:15px;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" line-height: 17px; font-family:Calibri, sans-serif;font-size:15px;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 17px; "><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 17px; "><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 17px; "><a href="http://www.imaginenationstudios.com/index.php?Ice-Sculpture"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-small;">http://www.imaginenationstudios.com/index.php?Ice-Sculpture</span></a></span></div>Phil Warnellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15671311338712852659noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5441810130599459116.post-42459606164068500472010-03-20T06:57:00.003-04:002010-03-20T09:51:47.090-04:00From Where Springs Hope?<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi0UfICbptvNBJgzGqiYRm-dx1VlSrxsDX8Hk-stjNuHmaDHJ1Nd53mWbm-HJ8gi1OU2y0lmEPmxjVGZpmvjq4tc07GD4t80bhyphenhyphenHRc8D28MZrIcYcElRUZANHyXVqAZpoU_fBfVYYjpIcX7/s1600-h/hope_chest_open.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 285px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi0UfICbptvNBJgzGqiYRm-dx1VlSrxsDX8Hk-stjNuHmaDHJ1Nd53mWbm-HJ8gi1OU2y0lmEPmxjVGZpmvjq4tc07GD4t80bhyphenhyphenHRc8D28MZrIcYcElRUZANHyXVqAZpoU_fBfVYYjpIcX7/s320/hope_chest_open.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5450670633996895906" /></a><br /><p class="MsoNormal"><br /></p><p class="MsoNormal"><br /></p><p class="MsoNormal"><br /></p><p class="MsoNormal"><br /></p><p class="MsoNormal"><br /></p><p class="MsoNormal"><br /></p><p class="MsoNormal"><br /></p><p class="MsoNormal"><br /></p><p class="MsoNormal">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.</p>Phil Warnellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15671311338712852659noreply@blogger.com16tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5441810130599459116.post-624267769497347572009-07-04T16:12:00.032-04:002009-07-05T15:42:13.723-04:00Taking a Swing at How to Improve Science<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjacglV837ezbgjGP9SA6ITLLxre27lyj-o4QnT_foWaYSDhx4Du05pQ6eiIXAC8WYXzgnlQqDAH_CdiMFr83YJB5hCb4uSIc_BAh7JZlXjA_KiZOdFx2lXKgPVGHJYjFIm_uNeVggiNFZF/s1600-h/golf+swing.png"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 220px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjacglV837ezbgjGP9SA6ITLLxre27lyj-o4QnT_foWaYSDhx4Du05pQ6eiIXAC8WYXzgnlQqDAH_CdiMFr83YJB5hCb4uSIc_BAh7JZlXjA_KiZOdFx2lXKgPVGHJYjFIm_uNeVggiNFZF/s320/golf+swing.png" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5354715095521550066" /></a><br /><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><b><i><br /></i></b></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><b><i><br /></i></b></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><b><i><br /></i></b></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><b><i><br /></i></b></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" font-style: italic; font-weight: bold; font-family:arial;">The following is in response to a post made by a <a href="http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2009/07/why-are-modern-scientists-so-dull-and.html#c4513866086414885781">commenter</a> on the blog <a href="http://backreaction.blogspot.com/">Backreaction</a>. It was inspired by a proposal made by <a href="http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2009/07/why-are-modern-scientists-so-dull-and.html#c813627695180732222">another of its commenters</a>. I post this as being somewhat of an experiment, but mostly as to not clog up the aforementioned blog with my spontaneous and arguably simply whimsical thoughts:-)</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"> </span></span></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"></span></p><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;font-size:85%;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:10px;"><br /></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:x-small;"><a href="http://www.londonergolfclub-bkk.com/">h</a><a href="http://www.londonergolfclub-bkk.com/">ttp://www.londonergolfclub-bkk.com/</a></span></span></p></span><p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 18px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: normal;"></span></span></span></p><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height: normal"><span style="color:black;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Hi Andrei, </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height: normal"><span style="color:black;"><o:p><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"> </span></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height: normal"><span style="color:black;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">This may seem as to be a silly response for one such as you, yet it is resultant of finding I had a little time on my hands, which allowed me to read more carefully the exchange you had with Bee and some others. What confuses me in all this, is that you haven’t actually addressed the central tenet and concern expressed by Dr.Charlton. That was of course how we might identify those few individuals he considers being the ones more likely to make ground breaking discoveries, when nurtured properly and afforded a more suitable environment. What you seemed to have actually addressed is what constitutes to being good scientific direction and citing our current one not representing as being such</span></span><span style="color:black;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">.</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="color:black;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">There was some reference made to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Samuel_Kuhn">Kuhn </a>and alike, who addressed the historical aspects of discovery in science, yet not so much the characteristics of those who are the most successful at it. In the end however I see both concerns having simply little relevance, as long as what’s defined as being science hasn’t changed too drastically since the time when <a href="http://decartes-einstein.blogspot.com/2006/08/dawn-of-reason.html">Bacon</a> and <a href="http://decartes-einstein.blogspot.com/2006/08/reason-denied.html">Descartes </a> first outlined as to what this actually is. I myself have not found anything particularly different in modern times, from those of its beginnings, where of the theories proposed, the only ones accepted as true extensions of our understanding of the physical world, would be those supported by experiment, which corresponds to prediction. . For instance I’m not aware of any theory of quantum gravity developed having been accepted in such a context.</span></span><span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="color:black;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Instead of you addressing the question at hand, you changed the focus to raising your own contention, being that sciences suffers due to the researchers being pampered and cared for too much, with this in turn lowering their ambition and quality; leaving most content as being comfortably sustained, while only achieving mediocrity at best. I however find more reason to agree with Bee's perspective on this and yet would go further still . So, what's found in following being what that might entail. This I will attempt to explain with the aid of an analogy, which I find to be appropriate. This analogy is to compare how golf was improved by way of its golfers, through changes in it structure and organization, with how to improve science by way of its scientists with the same. I know it may sound unrelated, yet bare with me.</span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="color:black;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">So to begin, if we look at the history of golf we find it had its beginning as simply a game, created to be enjoyed in the context of improving one’s own ability, in the background of competition. Later their where prizes offered for the winners of some of the games, first individual matches and then tournaments, for which the rule then was only to the victors go the spoils. However, as time progressed it was realized there was interest growing in this by a increasing sector of the populous and as such money to be made. Therefore, to optimize this potential it would be necessary to increase the number of skilled golfers and raise the level of competition. To accomplish this, a more effective method needed to found, which today in North America is the one created and administered by what became the <a href="http://www.pga.com/pgaofamerica/history/">PGA</a>.</span></span><span style="color:black;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="color:black;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Subsequently, this body created a predefined number of assured tournament eligible spots, for which to be awarded one it is required to learn the basic skills, followed by both improving and proving yourself through some layers of advancement confirmed by test and competition.. These spots however are not made permanent and require one to maintain and improve ones level of skill, measured in terms of how successful one is from year to year that would entitle one to maintain being eligible.</span></span><span style="color:black;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="color:black;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Next, it was decided that through the course of the season it’s no longer the rule that the winner of each tournament is the only one to receive a reward, yet it is divided such that the winner receives the largest and most significant share, followed by a progressively diminishing portions, decided according to torunament placement, some going to all players who had made the cut for each tournament. What it amounts to is that although the best of all the players make the most money, nearly all who maintain their status as a player make what many would consider as being a very good living. The end result is the skill and performance of the players today is at an extremely high level. Also, the game over time has improved and continues to improve rapidly, which in turn has increased public interest allowing for further growth.</span></span><span style="color:black;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="color:black;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">So you might ask, what does this all have to do with the success of science, by way of its scientists, in regards to its own corresponding structure and control? I think it can be already recognized there are many parallels between golf and science, starting from its beginning as something that was first only pursued from a personal gratification/growth perspective, progressing to where it is now a professional endeavour. The recruitment, training and placement also have much in common, as is the number of positions available and what’s required to assure and maintain one. The only exception to this is the practice and awarding of tenure, which has been argued is something to be perhaps only reserved for those who teach as well as add to the discipline..</span></span><span style="color:black;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="color:black;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">The question to ask then is, why it that while golf and science appear as having so much in common, relating to its beginning and development, golf has enjoyed so much more relative success? Some might suggest as reason, that there are only certain heights one can reach and perhaps these are already being approached in science. However, the same could be said for golf yet it continues to grow. I would further contend if science has neared the limit, it certainly hasn’t yet delivered what we all thought it capable of or expect, so that’ can’t be it.</span></span><span style="color:black;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="color:black;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">No, rather I find it rests with three subtle, yet distinct differences. First being the money that scientists can make by those that contribute (discover) the most, is nothing compared with what one receives via the victories of golf and more so those that are the backbone of it all make far less than the average tour player.. Second, when you compare the general interest in golf, with that of science, again golf is far ahead in this regard , which in turn results in increasing the number of golfers, swelling the pool from which to select for the professional ranks; as well as generating additional revenues for the ones that do become professionals. Finally, the public recognition of a professional golfer to that of a scientist is again not even comparable and as such this has the scientist’s true value downplayed from what it should be in the greater view.</span></span><span style="color:black;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="color:black;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">So it is clear to me several things are required to change this for the better. The first being we need to substantially raise the general awareness and interest in science, as to have it seen as a valuable, challenging and rewarding (monetarily and or personally) human endeavour. Next, we must strengthen the ranks of the professionals by greatly increasing their remuneration and program funding, with more for those that prove successful, reaching levels that would seem almost unimaginable when compared to the current ones (books and personal appearances not included) :-) . This would include as in golf having the average professional financially sustained at a level that properly defines their place and necessity in the whole scheme of things; with it consequently being something seen as to encourage them to work hard to maintain, while in turn having greater room for improvement.</span></span><span style="color:black;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="color:black;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">In addition, the time periods would have to be adjusted to afford a reasonable period in which to achieve result(s).. Considering that a PGA player gets another year if they only stays within his current predefined range and further given two years for winning one single tournament. Therefore, with all things considered, I don’t see why a researcher's initial contract shouldn’t be three years, with any significant result fetching an immediate five year extension. When it comes to heads of faculties, if required at all, I think this concept should be diminished or altered as to emphasise the importance of result, over that of seniority or long past achievement This would serve to have things remain dynamic, instead of becoming static. In the end however, it is the change in perception all this brings that is the central difference maker and therein somewhat ironic in it being something most scientists otherwise would dismiss out of hand, being considered as merely subjective:-)</span></span><span style="color:black;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="color:black;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">To conclude you might say why didn’t I use a team sport as an analogy or corporate structure? The reason being I still would contend that even today, true significant advances and breakthroughs are the product of a final push by individuals or sometimes perhaps small groups. Yes, they are dependent on their peers, for direction, new concepts and inspiration, yet it’s that push, composite of their own intelligence, effort and fortitude(and yes at times a little luck) that in the end has them succeed .</span></span><span style="color:black;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="color:black;"><o:p><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"> </span></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="color:black;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Best,</span></span><span style="color:black;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="color:black;"><o:p><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"> </span></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="color:black;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Phil</span></span><span style="mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-Times New Roman";mso-fareast-language:EN-CAfont-family:";font-size:12.0pt;color:black;"><o:p></o:p></span></p></span><p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"> </span></span></o:p></p>Phil Warnellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15671311338712852659noreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5441810130599459116.post-48533563074824259972008-07-11T05:48:00.009-04:002008-07-11T06:17:08.840-04:00Quantum Mechanics for Beginners<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiFKnxTn04O345qWjGPBcS7v6BATjFDy5PHKvaPrMnmUTs2FI4VVBLsCfxleIl7rddaZ3EYslgDOTINLsq0hHOsFPjkblWKG0BccqIRWp7Z7Z-5dl_j456XnOjPMFxbFjKpD1eqtfHhbV_g/s1600-h/550px-Solvay_conference_1927.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 441px; height: 315px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiFKnxTn04O345qWjGPBcS7v6BATjFDy5PHKvaPrMnmUTs2FI4VVBLsCfxleIl7rddaZ3EYslgDOTINLsq0hHOsFPjkblWKG0BccqIRWp7Z7Z-5dl_j456XnOjPMFxbFjKpD1eqtfHhbV_g/s400/550px-Solvay_conference_1927.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5221693258378967938" border="0" /></a><br /><p class="MsoNormal"><br /></p><p class="MsoNormal"><br /></p><p class="MsoNormal"><br /></p><p class="MsoNormal"><br /></p><p class="MsoNormal"><br /></p><p class="MsoNormal"><br /></p><p style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);" class="MsoNormal"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solvay_Conference#Fifth_conference"><span style="font-size:78%;"><br /></span></a></p><p style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);" class="MsoNormal"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solvay_Conference#Fifth_conference"><span style="font-size:78%;"><br /></span></a></p><p style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);" class="MsoNormal"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solvay_Conference#Fifth_conference"><span style="font-size:78%;"><br /></span></a></p><p style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);" class="MsoNormal"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solvay_Conference#Fifth_conference"><span style="font-size:78%;"><br /></span></a></p><p style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);" class="MsoNormal"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solvay_Conference#Fifth_conference"><span style="font-size:78%;">(image as posted in Wikipedia)<br /></span></a></p><p class="MsoNormal"><br /></p><p class="MsoNormal">This is a response to a query a fellow made on <a href="http://backreaction.blogspot.com/">BackReaction</a> which I’ve taken the liberty to address here rather then clog up the space as it is in regards to an unrelated matter to the mentioned post.<span style=""> </span>However, in as my i<a href="http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2008/07/research-and-teaching.html?showComment=1215747000000#c8811663796449830248">nterest in the question </a>supersedes what I perceive as the true motivation for the query I offer the following.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Dany asks:</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"></p><blockquote style="font-weight: bold;"><p class="MsoNormal">“Please suggest sequence of three books (time ordered) best suitable for the beginner to grasp QM (independent or tutored learning)”</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p></blockquote><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">For basic (non relativistic) QM, disregarding the math prerequisites, I would say perhaps the following:</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <ul style="font-weight: bold;"><li><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style=""><span style="">(1)<span style=""> </span></span></span><span style=""></span>The Feynman Lectures on Physics-Volume III (Feynman-Leighton-Sands)</li></ul> <ul style="font-weight: bold;"><li><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style=""><span style="">(2)<span style=""> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Quantum Mechanics and Experience (David Z. Albert)</li></ul> <ul style="font-weight: bold;"><li><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style=""><span style="">(3)<span style=""> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->The Undivided Universe (David Bohm and Basil Hiley)</li></ul> <p style="font-weight: bold;" class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">If on the other hand one only wants the whole thing as just the facts and nothing but the facts, you can simply read Bohm’s initial primer on the whole subject - Quantum Theory.<span style=""> </span>However, since just after writing this book Bohm was prompted to come up with a clearer explanation I view this book more from of a historical perspective rather than an explanative one.</p>Phil Warnellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15671311338712852659noreply@blogger.com22tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5441810130599459116.post-74448880090802235412008-01-02T00:06:00.001-05:002008-01-05T11:48:32.626-05:00Time, Mind, Body & Soul<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiuAiz8X_z9j_IFSGG-UdDunmqU-Z4xyh7tMNQbtNI5yuhOjpQlKVahGhCHr4GdNm7f6ndH1B1_GGpOwntGgDYIbNfbnoSuHb3l4lWiWL6m1Nt90qNnaprOdX8A4ZWrA3aw8qPUoEJuziom/s1600-h/Mind+%26+Soul.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiuAiz8X_z9j_IFSGG-UdDunmqU-Z4xyh7tMNQbtNI5yuhOjpQlKVahGhCHr4GdNm7f6ndH1B1_GGpOwntGgDYIbNfbnoSuHb3l4lWiWL6m1Nt90qNnaprOdX8A4ZWrA3aw8qPUoEJuziom/s320/Mind+%26+Soul.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5150745618274877634" border="0" /></a><br /><p class="MsoNormal"><br /></p><p class="MsoNormal"><br /></p><p class="MsoNormal">As a consequence of recently being exposed to a <a href="http://backreaction.blogspot.com/">wonderful blog</a>, written by couple of married (to each other) physicists, I was lead to an <a href="http://www.edge.org/q2008/q08_index.html">interesting group of discussions</a> pointing out changes of mind that certain contemporary intellectuals have had recently.<span style=""> </span>In reading them I came across two, that not only interested me, yet also seemed to correlate as to my present way of thinking, from both my own scientific and philosophical perspectives.<span style=""> </span>What you find here is as it is to be found as a comment I left on this blog and continues as follows (I take the liberty here to clean up a few mistakes I originally made):</p> <p class="MsoNormal">The articles you point to on the changes of mind, truly are both interesting and indeed thought provoking.<span style=""> </span>Two in particular now will have me go into one of my own protracted wonder modes.<span style=""> </span>The first is a quote taken from that of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Smolin">Lee Smolin</a>, who of course is one of <a href="http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/">Perimeters Institute</a>'s leading and founding researchers.<span style=""> </span>He is referring here to his change of mind as to time being merely an illusion.<span style=""> </span>He sums up his thoughts as follows:</p> <p style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;" class="MsoNormal"><span style=""></span></p><blockquote><span style=""> </span><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">“It is becoming clear to me that the mystery of the nature of time is connected with other fundamental questions such as the nature of truth in mathematics and whether there must be timeless laws of nature. Rather than being an illusion, time may be the only aspect of our present understanding of nature that is not temporary and emergent.”</span></blockquote><p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">I must admit that I share Smolin’s thoughts in regards to this.<span style=""> </span>That is not that I should be compared as to fully having his depth of understanding on the matter.<span style=""> </span>Einstein himself wrestled with this and once when asked if he thought that it could be simply as Smolin first thought said (I have paraphrased): </p> <p style="font-style: italic;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-weight: bold;"><blockquote> “It all could be an illusion, yet if so, it is a stubbornly persistent one.”</blockquote></span> </p> <p class="MsoNormal">The second one is that of the change of mind of <a href="http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/bios/feinberg.html">Todd Feinberg </a>(Professor of Psychiatry and Neurology, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein_College_of_Medicine">Albert Einstein College of Medicine</a> in the US).<span style=""> </span>Here is expressing his change of mind as to whether a human being possessed a soul.<span style=""> </span>As taken from the article, he previously believed that the notion of a soul was a fanciful religious invention. However, he has had a change of heart in saying:</p> <p style="font-style: italic;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-weight: bold;"><blockquote>“I have come to believe that an individual consciousness represents an entity that is so personal and ontologically unique that it qualifies as something that we might as well call ‘a soul’.”</blockquote></span> </p> <p class="MsoNormal">Although he has come to this new way of thinking, he qualifies this in adding, that although convinced that the brain and the mind could be regarded as separate, though dependent, entities. He reminds that the soul dies with the body. This also is something that from a scientific and philosophical perspective I have also struggled with for years. My current line of thinking, although not exactly the same as his, runs pretty close.<br /></p><p class="MsoNormal">The interesting thing for me is that Dr. Feinsberg’s position could be slightly modified by that of Dr. Smolin’s.<span style=""> </span>That modification would be that time, if truly one aspect of nature proven not to lose its status as being a true aspect of reality and that reality is that of Einstein’s, insisting that time being a dimension.<span style=""> </span>Then any one part of this dimension would also have permanence of sorts (as any part of a dimension would have).<span style=""> </span>In this way, Dr. Feinsberg’s soul, although not immortal in the usual sense, could be at least permanent in the context in which Dr. Smolin suggests.<span style=""> </span>I know all this is mere conjecture and a conjecture as science considers is nothing until empirically supported.<span style=""> </span>It is however interesting to imagine that this too one day may also be decided.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>Phil Warnellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15671311338712852659noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5441810130599459116.post-52395722901090566562007-12-26T13:18:00.001-05:002007-12-26T15:28:56.889-05:00Christmas Bohmian Style<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi1Nekj9EhWXz9QGecwG-m1EDANtGxW2zMBM6z8tV9sPx4lk9YohNHeJdYCJOprdNQzfXgzxXudcbNL3o2lD7wa22D1f8WRbal1zMkTKmqr1Vwiv9bO5LhEKuO5n4ynVrYpmGfOaWVnYFxG/s1600-h/SantaSurfing.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 166px; height: 166px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi1Nekj9EhWXz9QGecwG-m1EDANtGxW2zMBM6z8tV9sPx4lk9YohNHeJdYCJOprdNQzfXgzxXudcbNL3o2lD7wa22D1f8WRbal1zMkTKmqr1Vwiv9bO5LhEKuO5n4ynVrYpmGfOaWVnYFxG/s320/SantaSurfing.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5148351251316768946" border="0" /></a><br /><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-size:12;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-size:12;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-size:12;">In the spirit of the season I have recently come across a “conventional quantum” explanation of Santa’s delivery of presents to children on Christmas morning and how this in a quantum sense could all be done in the space of one night.<span style=""> </span>Below find this explanation written by Sean</span><span style=""> </span><span style="font-size:12;">Smeltzer, Croydon, Surrey; published in the journal New Scientist, January 16, 1999:</span><span style="font-size:12;"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: center;"><b><i style=""><span style="font-size:16;">"QUANTUM CHRISTMAS"<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><b style=""><i style=""><span style="font-size:12;"></span></i></b></p><blockquote><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><b style=""><i style=""><span style="font-size:12;">I have recently received a number of distinctly unfestive emails pointing out the impossibility of Santa Claus delivering presents to all the children in the world in just one night.<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><b style=""><i style=""><span style="font-size:12;">We are all aware of the flaws in the conventional Santa Claus theory, but seem to accept it quite readily. Children are not quite so gullible and require a more rigorous proof of his existence. The answer to this problem lies in quantum theor</span></i></b><i style=""><span style="">y.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><b style=""><i style=""><span style="font-size:12;">Consider this: On Christmas night, Santa is in a superposition of quantum states, smeared out all the way around the planet, and each quantum state delivers presents to a single child. This explains why is is so important that children are asleep, because if just one child sees Santa, he immediately collapses into a single state, in accordance with Heisenberg. This would mean that no other children would receive presents that Christmas. This theory elegantly avoids all the flaws in the conventional theory. The only problem is that you will have to explain quantum theory to your children before you tell them about Santa.</span></i></b></p></blockquote><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><b style=""><i style=""><span style="font-size:12;"><o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 115%;font-size:12;" >After reading the above, I thought to myself; how could this all be looked at from a Bohmian’s perspective? I therfore offer the following:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p style="text-align: center;" class="MsoNormal"><b style=""><span style="line-height: 115%;font-size:16;" >A Bohmian’s Quantum Christmas<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b style=""><span style="line-height: 115%;font-size:12;" ></span></b></p><blockquote><p class="MsoNormal"><b style=""><span style="line-height: 115%;font-size:12;" >Santa delivering presents is a “quantum potential”, not merely just a possibility.<span style=""> </span>A quantum potential is not realized, yet rather actualized without the need for observation.<span style=""> </span>Many children accept this aspect of potential and thus it is actualized for them. I also would wager that children and others could more readily understand how all this works, as opposed to the quantum algorithm (lest I say fairytale)<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b style=""><span style="line-height: 115%;font-size:12;" >As one can see this is by far a more straight forward and consistent explanation as opposed to the first and as I maintained could be actually understood.<span style=""> </span>It also has the advantage that observation plays no role in the actualization of the event at all and better explains why, no single, or any child’s observation of Santa has ever spoiled Christmas:-)<br /></span></b></p></blockquote><p class="MsoNormal"><b style=""><span style="line-height: 115%;font-family:Wingdings;font-size:12;" ><span style=""></span></span></b><b style=""><span style="line-height: 115%;font-size:12;" ><o:p></o:p></span></b></p>Phil Warnellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15671311338712852659noreply@blogger.com0