A Sky, cable and digital tv forum. Digital TV Banter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » Digital TV Banter forum » Digital TV Newsgroups » uk.tech.digital-tv (Digital TV - General)
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

uk.tech.digital-tv (Digital TV - General) (uk.tech.digital-tv) Discussion of all matters technical in origin related to the reception of digital television transmissions, be they via satellite, terrestrial or cable. Advertising is forbidden, with no exceptions.

OT question



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old December 26th 17, 10:12 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.d-i-y
John Hall[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 254
Default OT question

In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes
On 25/12/17 09:51, John Hall wrote:
In message , Tim
Streater writes
AIUI, there are about 26 physical constants (such as speed of light)
for the values of which there is no theoretical explanation known
today. That is, it's as if God (I use the term for convenience) has 26
knobs to turn to set these values and launch the universe. They could
have any values, these constants, and life would not be possible in
most of the resulting universes.

Which raises the interesting question of whether alternative
universes exist in which some or all of those constants have
different values.


Since by definition we can't exist in them, how could we tell?



I suspect that there may be no way of doing so, which may make it a
question for philosophers rather than for scientists.
--
John Hall "George the Third
Ought never to have occurred.
One can only wonder
At so grotesque a blunder." E.C.Bentley (1875-1956)
  #42  
Old December 26th 17, 10:23 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.d-i-y
Harry Bloomfield[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16
Default OT question

The Natural Philosopher formulated on Tuesday :
*I have found that illiterate labourers, who are so humble in their own
ability to think in complex terms, tend to be immune from the 'bull****
baffles brains' syndrome that infects people who think they are intelligent,
right up to when you get to the serious geniuses, who have got to the
bleeding edge and realised that after all, we know **** all for sure
either...and I dont mean Hawkings or Dawkins either. Both second rate minds.


So who, in your opinion, demonstrates a first rate mind?
  #43  
Old December 26th 17, 11:03 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.d-i-y
The Natural Philosopher[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 639
Default OT question

On 26/12/17 10:23, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
The Natural Philosopher formulated on Tuesday :
*I have found that illiterate labourers, who are so humble in their
own ability to think in complex terms, tend to be immune from the
'bull**** baffles brains' syndrome that infects people who think they
are intelligent, right up to when you get to the serious geniuses, who
have got to the bleeding edge and realised that after all, we know
**** all for sure either...and I dont mean Hawkings or Dawkins either.
Both second rate minds.


So who, in your opinion, demonstrates a first rate mind?


Putnam was.


--
There’s a mighty big difference between good, sound reasons and reasons
that sound good.

Burton Hillis (William Vaughn, American columnist)
  #44  
Old December 26th 17, 11:19 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Roderick Stewart[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,209
Default OT question

On Mon, 25 Dec 2017 09:25:47 +0000, Tim Streater
wrote:

AIUI, there are about 26 physical constants (such as speed of light)
for the values of which there is no theoretical explanation known
today. That is, it's as if God (I use the term for convenience) has 26
knobs to turn to set these values and launch the universe. They could
have any values, these constants, and life would not be possible in
most of the resulting universes.


Unless those physical constants are interdependent in some way we
haven't discovered yet, and there is only one possible arrangement of
them that can result in anything. Maybe they're not arbitrary at all.

Some of the physical properties of matter we know to be dependent on
geometry. Negative charges that are attracted to a positive charge but
simultaneously repel each other will result in stronger arrangements
for certain preferred numbers, simply because of the geomertry of how
it's possible for them to be arranged. Geometry doesn't depend on any
physical reality, but on immutable mathematical relationships between
theoretical concepts, and so all its theorems would have to hold true
for any universe, because mathematical truth is universal.

What if it turned out that *all* the properties of matter depend on
immutable mathematical relationships (and we just haven't discovered
them all yet)? What would that say about reality?

Rod.
  #45  
Old December 26th 17, 11:32 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Roderick Stewart[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,209
Default OT question

On Mon, 25 Dec 2017 02:56:59 -0800 (PST), "R. Mark Clayton"
wrote:

What are the parameters that set the speed of electromagnetic
transmission in a vacuum? I've googled everywhere but I can't find the
answer. It's easy enough to find the figure but WHY? Why not
29,979,245.8 metres per second or 2,997,924,580 metres per second?

Bill


Not everything has a cause. Some things Just Are.

God was the traditional explanation of course.


Child: - Who made the universe?
RE teacher - God.
Child: - Who made God?


Superman: "Don't worry, I've got you"
Lois Lane: "You've got me? - who's got you?"

This brief exchange you may recall takes place when he's carrying her
for the first time while flying. I've often thought it would be a good
starting point for a useful philosophical discussion, but it's
probably as far as a movie intended for a godfearing American public
would ever dare take it.

Rod.
  #46  
Old December 26th 17, 02:34 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.d-i-y
tony sayer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,988
Default OT question

..

Mind you, that idea could be scrapped at any time. Remember phlogiston
and the luminiferous ether. Both though to exist to explain observed
phenomena, both ideas scrapped as sharper minds thought up other
explanations.





phlogiston



Now theres summatt that Russ Andrews could make things out of treated
cables in this mysterious substance could make a fortune from the
gullible;!

--
Tony Sayer




  #47  
Old December 26th 17, 03:17 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.d-i-y
Norman Wells[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 965
Default OT question

On 26/12/2017 06:14, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 25/12/17 19:28, Norman Wells wrote:


The business of philosophers is the contruction and maintenance of
metaphysical world-views.

For the rest of the populations, such as yourself, this is largely a
meaningless exercise, because you labour under the delusions that your
view of the world is actually reality itself. You consider that space,
time, causality, matter, and energy *actually exist*.


Yes, but I'm really quite happy with that. It seems to work somehow.

Rather than being the metaphsyical axes and axioms on which we
*construct* the physical world (view), that people now tell us is *all
there is*.

To be a philosopher, is to stand outside the constructions of humanity,
as far as possible and see them for what they are - constructions.


But does it help?

To be a sheeple, is to live inside them and to take them for real.

Look at Brexit/Remoaner arguments. Two fundamentally different
metaphsyical positions based on opposed views of a certain political
structure - the European Union. One view holds that it is however
flawed, a fundamentally benevolent institution that embodies lots of
nice cuddly ideas about peace and social justice and so on, and is
synonymous with 'Europe'.

The other view holds that it is a pernicious self seeking lying
anti-democratic and thoroughly dangerous organisation that has sought -
and succeededÂ* - in usurping democractic power from the nation states
that comprise it, and it is thoroughly incompetent in its exercise of
such power as it has usurped.

To people who are bound to think that their world-view *is* reality,
these are massively emotive issues. One side must be right, and the
other side must be wrong, and the angst of possibly being on the *wrong*
side drives the emotional battle that there is.

And I personally consider that it is the remoaner side that is more
convinced it *is* the custodian of the 'real view' - the class of
individuals comprising the brexiteers is of necessaity somewhat
anti-orthodoxy, and therefore not so cemented into a a particular
world-view.

Brexiteers for example, have a much more sophisticated view of Europe,.
being able to distinguish between 'Europe, the geographical continent'
'Europe, the peoples that comprise it' 'Europe, the nation states that
exist within it' and 'Europe, the European Union that purports to
represent and rule all of the above'.


Brexiteers say we are leaving the EU, butÂ* by conflating all of the
above into one nursery level entity, remoaners moan that we are 'leaving
Europe'.

Because there is no distinction in their simplistic worldview, they are
aghast.

Whereas Brexiteers regard it as simply a political disconnection. We are
not leaving Europe. We simply choose not to be ruled by the EU.

Our politicians may be sons of bitches too, but they are our sons of
bitches, we lnow where they live, and we can in theory sack the ****s.

I mention this to show how a *model* of reality, pushed by marketing and
propaganda, becomes *reality itself* to the lesser minded sheeple.


The more sophisticated you are, or in some cases the less sophisticated
you are*, the more you realise that *the map is not the territory*. The
entity 'Europe' is an intellectual construct and has no clearly defined
real meaning that is common to all people.

Allowing such bait and switch techniques as 'we are leaving the EU = we
are leaving Europe = we are turning out backs on European culture, and
European nations and pursuing a policy of idiotic isolationism'

This is all done by simply reniforcing the nursery level concept that
the EU IS 'Europe' and is a synonym for any other use of the word 'Europe'

Simlarly a 'no [trade deal]' is empahasised as a [no trade] deal - yes
there are people who think that without a magical 'trade deal' we wont
be able to trade with Europe AT ALL. And I have met with and spoken to
them. They were very young.

This is all political metaphysics.

And that is why you need philosophy. To point that out. That these
concepts and notions are not reality itself, they are a narrative, a
story, about whatever reality is. And like all stories, they are
selective, limited,and fictionalÂ* and whilst handy to bend peoples
wills, not really that handy when it comes to dealing with the reality
of whether we are going to let Mohammed Ahmed and his 'refugee' brothers
into Britain next thursday.

The class of reality modelÂ* that *is* handy when dealing with such
mundane issues was identified by Nigel Farage as 'common sense'.

Other handy models are e.g. 'physics'Â* and 'chemistry'. Mostly these
work, too.

Models that dont work, but *make stupid people feel good* are
'socialism' 'emotional intelligence' 'religion' and so on. All designed
to make people feel that they are fundamentally excellent and valuable
members of society, when they are in fact just parasitic ****s.

*I have found that illiterate labourers, who are so humble in their own
ability to think in complex terms, tend to be immune from the 'bull****
baffles brains' syndrome that infects people who think they are
intelligent, right up to when you get to the serious geniuses, who have
got to the bleeding edge and realised that after all, we know **** all
for sure either...and I dont mean Hawkings or Dawkins either. Both
second rate minds.


Ah, well, there ya go, squire. Same time tomorrah?
  #48  
Old December 26th 17, 04:20 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.d-i-y
The Natural Philosopher[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 639
Default OT question

On 26/12/17 15:17, Norman Wells wrote:
On 26/12/2017 06:14, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 25/12/17 19:28, Norman Wells wrote:


The business of philosophers is the contruction and maintenance of
metaphysical world-views.

For the rest of the populations, such as yourself, this is largely a
meaningless exercise, because you labour under the delusions that your
view of the world is actually reality itself. You consider that space,
time, causality, matter, and energy *actually exist*.


Yes, but I'm really quite happy with that.Â* It seems to work somehow.


Except when it doesn't. I.e. quantum physics


Rather than being the metaphsyical axes and axioms on which we
*construct* the physical world (view), that people now tell us is *all
there is*.

To be a philosopher, is to stand outside the constructions of
humanity, as far as possible and see them for what they are -
constructions.


But does it help?


In the limit at the bleeding edge of real knowldege, yes it does.

And at a very much more normal level as I outlined below, it makes sense
of why people get politically conned and why they attach so much emotion
to it.





To be a sheeple, is to live inside them and to take them for real.

Look at Brexit/Remoaner arguments. Two fundamentally different
metaphsyical positions based on opposed views of a certain political
structure - the European Union. One view holds that it is however
flawed, a fundamentally benevolent institution that embodies lots of
nice cuddly ideas about peace and social justice and so on, and is
synonymous with 'Europe'.

The other view holds that it is a pernicious self seeking lying
anti-democratic and thoroughly dangerous organisation that has sought
- and succeededÂ* - in usurping democractic power from the nation
states that comprise it, and it is thoroughly incompetent in its
exercise of such power as it has usurped.

To people who are bound to think that their world-view *is* reality,
these are massively emotive issues. One side must be right, and the
other side must be wrong, and the angst of possibly being on the
*wrong* side drives the emotional battle that there is.

And I personally consider that it is the remoaner side that is more
convinced it *is* the custodian of the 'real view' - the class of
individuals comprising the brexiteers is of necessaity somewhat
anti-orthodoxy, and therefore not so cemented into a a particular
world-view.

Brexiteers for example, have a much more sophisticated view of
Europe,. being able to distinguish between 'Europe, the geographical
continent' 'Europe, the peoples that comprise it' 'Europe, the nation
states that exist within it' and 'Europe, the European Union that
purports to represent and rule all of the above'.


Brexiteers say we are leaving the EU, butÂ* by conflating all of the
above into one nursery level entity, remoaners moan that we are
'leaving Europe'.

Because there is no distinction in their simplistic worldview, they
are aghast.

Whereas Brexiteers regard it as simply a political disconnection. We
are not leaving Europe. We simply choose not to be ruled by the EU.

Our politicians may be sons of bitches too, but they are our sons of
bitches, we lnow where they live, and we can in theory sack the ****s.

I mention this to show how a *model* of reality, pushed by marketing
and propaganda, becomes *reality itself* to the lesser minded sheeple.


The more sophisticated you are, or in some cases the less
sophisticated you are*, the more you realise that *the map is not the
territory*. The entity 'Europe' is an intellectual construct and has
no clearly defined real meaning that is common to all people.

Allowing such bait and switch techniques as 'we are leaving the EU =
we are leaving Europe = we are turning out backs on European culture,
and European nations and pursuing a policy of idiotic isolationism'

This is all done by simply reniforcing the nursery level concept that
the EU IS 'Europe' and is a synonym for any other use of the word
'Europe'

Simlarly a 'no [trade deal]' is empahasised as a [no trade] deal - yes
there are people who think that without a magical 'trade deal' we wont
be able to trade with Europe AT ALL. And I have met with and spoken to
them. They were very young.

This is all political metaphysics.

And that is why you need philosophy. To point that out. That these
concepts and notions are not reality itself, they are a narrative, a
story, about whatever reality is. And like all stories, they are
selective, limited,and fictionalÂ* and whilst handy to bend peoples
wills, not really that handy when it comes to dealing with the reality
of whether we are going to let Mohammed Ahmed and his 'refugee'
brothers into Britain next thursday.

The class of reality modelÂ* that *is* handy when dealing with such
mundane issues was identified by Nigel Farage as 'common sense'.

Other handy models are e.g. 'physics'Â* and 'chemistry'. Mostly these
work, too.

Models that dont work, but *make stupid people feel good* are
'socialism' 'emotional intelligence' 'religion' and so on. All
designed to make people feel that they are fundamentally excellent and
valuable members of society, when they are in fact just parasitic ****s.

*I have found that illiterate labourers, who are so humble in their
own ability to think in complex terms, tend to be immune from the
'bull**** baffles brains' syndrome that infects people who think they
are intelligent, right up to when you get to the serious geniuses, who
have got to the bleeding edge and realised that after all, we know
**** all for sure either...and I dont mean Hawkings or Dawkins either.
Both second rate minds.


Ah, well, there ya go, squire.Â* Same time tomorrah?



--
Any fool can believe in principles - and most of them do!


  #49  
Old December 26th 17, 06:43 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.d-i-y
Rod Speed
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 412
Default OT question



"Harry Bloomfield" wrote in message
news
The Natural Philosopher formulated on Tuesday :
*I have found that illiterate labourers, who are so humble in their own
ability to think in complex terms, tend to be immune from the 'bull****
baffles brains' syndrome that infects people who think they are
intelligent, right up to when you get to the serious geniuses, who have
got to the bleeding edge and realised that after all, we know **** all
for sure either...
and I dont mean Hawkings or Dawkins either. Both second rate minds.


So who, in your opinion, demonstrates a first rate mind?


He already said that today. Can't even remember his name now tho.

Hilarious how bitter and twisted the turnip is becoming.

  #50  
Old December 27th 17, 12:52 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.d-i-y
Bill Wright[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,203
Default OT question

On 25/12/2017 08:18, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 24/12/17 20:43, Bill Wright wrote:
What are the parameters that set the speed of electromagnetic
transmission in a vacuum? I've googled everywhere but I can't find the
answer. It's easy enough to find the figure but WHY? Why not
29,979,245.8 metres per second or 2,997,924,580 metres per second?

Bill


Not everything has a cause. Some things Just Are.

God was the traditional explanation of course.


I don't mean 'why' in the sense of there being a sentient being that
decided it (my personal philosophy is long past that); I mean 'why' in
the sense of wondering what the parameters are. Others have answered it.

Bill
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:19 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.SEO by vBSEO 2.4.0
Copyright ©2004-2018 Digital TV Banter.
The comments are property of their posters.