 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>
>> "Any sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology"
>> -- Larry Niven's corollary to Clarke's Third Law.
>
> How true it is... ;-)
>
> [...for example, I am speakin to a person I've never met, who is
> currently in a country I've never visited. Cavemen would be astounded!]
I think that one is covered by the original Third Law of Arthur C Clarke
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Invisible <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
>> "Real-world problems are simply degenerate cases of pure mathematical
>> problems."
>
> Not related, but saw this today:
>
> "Any sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology"
> -- Larry Niven's corollary to Clarke's Third Law.
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
-- some other corollary to the 3rd Law.
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.digitalartsuk.com
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GFA dpu- s: a?-- C++(++++) U P? L E--- W++(+++)>$
N++ o? K- w(+) O? M-(--) V? PS+(+++) PE(--) Y(--)
PGP-(--) t* 5++>+++++ X+ R* tv+ b++(+++) DI
D++(---) G(++) e*>++ h+ !r--- !y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 30 May 2008 16:16:48 -0400, Tim Cook <z99### [at] gmailcom>
wrote:
>
>Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
> -- some other corollary to the 3rd Law.
Cook's corollary to the 3rd Law? :)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> Cook's corollary to the 3rd Law? :)
Nah, I found it somewhere on the web.
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.digitalartsuk.com
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GFA dpu- s: a?-- C++(++++) U P? L E--- W++(+++)>$
N++ o? K- w(+) O? M-(--) V? PS+(+++) PE(--) Y(--)
PGP-(--) t* 5++>+++++ X+ R* tv+ b++(+++) DI
D++(---) G(++) e*>++ h+ !r--- !y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> "Our government has kept us in a perpetual state of fear -- kept us in
> a continuous stampede of patriotic fervor -- with the cry of grave
> national emergency... Always there has been some terrible evil to
> gobble us up if we did not blindly rally behind it by furnishing the
> exorbitant sums demanded. Yet, in retrospect, these disasters seem
> never to have happened, seem never to have been quite real."
> -- General Douglas MacArthur, 1957
>
> (Possibly one of the offensive cookies)
I've got a great book on Harry S Truman. You should see what he said
about MacArthur.
Unfortunately, I'm too lazy to dig it out :( Suffice it to say, he
called the guy an idiot.
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 31 May 2008 15:36:22 -0700, Chambers wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> "Our government has kept us in a perpetual state of fear -- kept us in
>> a continuous stampede of patriotic fervor -- with the cry of grave
>> national emergency... Always there has been some terrible evil to
>> gobble us up if we did not blindly rally behind it by furnishing the
>> exorbitant sums demanded. Yet, in retrospect, these disasters seem
>> never to have happened, seem never to have been quite real."
>> -- General Douglas MacArthur, 1957
>>
>> (Possibly one of the offensive cookies)
>
> I've got a great book on Harry S Truman. You should see what he said
> about MacArthur.
Is the book "The Fifties" by David Halberstam? The quote that's listed
on wikiquote from there is about MacArthur's "Old soldiers never die"
speech - "Nothing but a d*mn bunch of BS" (paraphrased).
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>> "Real-world problems are simply degenerate cases of pure mathematical
>> problems."
>
> I recently attended a talk given by Arthur Jaffe, a (co)founder of
> the Clay institute and professor at Harvard (forgot if he's in the math
> or physics dept). His work is mathematical physics.
>
> I don't know his stance, but he knows many top physicists and
> perhaps mathematicians as well who'd disagree. Essentially, the (very
> boring) talk was about this very issue: Are mathematics and physics
> consistent with each other?
>
> A lot of the calculations in physics as currently performed are
> actually mathematically invalid. He gave this startling example. You see
> the g_s in the equation on this page?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_moment#Magnetic_moment_of_electrons
>
> It has now been measured to around 12 significant figures - perhaps
> the most precise measurement ever made. Those 12 figures agree with theory.
>
> And that theory is simply mathematically invalid (at least with the
> current state of mathematics).
I'm not sure that "mathematically invalid" means anything here. It
would be more precise to say that the model described by the mathematics
in question does not apply to the phenomena described.
Is .5c + .5c = 1c mathematically valid? Well, yes. If two observers,
moving at .5c relative to one observer, in opposing directions, observe
each other, do their observations of each others' motion equal 1.0c? We
now know that they will observe a lesser value (.75c, IIRC). .5c + .5c
=1.0c is still mathematically valid, but the math describes a model of
motion that does not apply to real-world motion (although the error is
important only at velocities that are significant fractions of c).
So it isn't a case of the math being wrong, it's a case of the math
being irrelevant, which is the reason for this famous physics quote by
Wolfgang Pauli: "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong."
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
John VanSickle <evi### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> Is .5c + .5c = 1c mathematically valid? Well, yes.
The problem with that equation is that it lacks the proper context,
more precisely the topology used.
In a linear cartesian space that equation is correct. However, the
context of the equation is not a linear cartesian space. Thus, in context,
it makes it invalid.
I would say that mathematics can always be used to represent reality
when put in the proper context.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> "Our government has kept us in a perpetual state of fear -- kept us in
>> a continuous stampede of patriotic fervor -- with the cry of grave
>> national emergency... Always there has been some terrible evil to
>> gobble us up if we did not blindly rally behind it by furnishing the
>> exorbitant sums demanded. Yet, in retrospect, these disasters seem
>> never to have happened, seem never to have been quite real."
>> -- General Douglas MacArthur, 1957
>>
>> (Possibly one of the offensive cookies)
>
> I've got a great book on Harry S Truman. You should see what he said
> about MacArthur.
>
> Unfortunately, I'm too lazy to dig it out :( Suffice it to say, he
> called the guy an idiot.
>
A couple of remarks:
- According to that most reliable source of wikipedia, it was Truman
that fired MacArthur for disagreeing with him. So I would be surprised
if he did not try to portrait him as an idiot. That is irrespective of
whether he was right or wrong. Simply the case that a president fires a
famous general dictates that the president should convince the public
that he was much better equipped than the general.
- The reason I found this quote interesting is that when you start
reading it you expect some left wing attack on president Bush for his
Iraq invasion. An then it isn't. Even if it had been a 50 year old quote
from a true idiot it would still be interesting.
- He is not the only general to show insights into the political process
after their active duty in a way that makes you wonder why they did not
resign themselves earlier. In fact that seems to hold also for
presidential spokesmen and the like.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> I would say that mathematics can always be used to represent reality
> when put in the proper context.
The fascinating thing to wonder about is ... why is this so?
Most people are so used to it that it's hard to even imagine a world
where this isn't true. Even the religious types try to come up with
"laws" that would govern the supernatural.
Of course, maybe that's just anthropogenic. If the universe didn't work
consistently, I'd (wild-ass) guess that it's likely that life capable of
wondering about it wouldn't have evolved.
And the thing about QED is there doesn't seem to be math at the bottom
level - it's random on an event-by-event basis. (Maybe there's a math
for that? I don't know of any. Statistics only deals with multiple events.)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
