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
  #21  
Old December 25th 17, 11:36 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.d-i-y
Norman Wells[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 984
Default OT question

On 25/12/2017 11:44, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Mon, 25 Dec 2017 09:10:43 +0000, Norman Wells wrote:

But it's a philosophical question. And I thought from your name that
you might have an answer.


Natural Philosophy has nowt much to do with philosophy; it's simply the
archaic term for science.


Just how old are you then?
Ads
  #22  
Old December 25th 17, 11:49 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.d-i-y
Norman Wells[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 984
Default OT question

On 25/12/2017 11:51, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 25/12/17 09:10, Norman Wells wrote:
On 25/12/2017 08:21, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 24/12/17 22:53, Norman Wells wrote:
On 24/12/2017 22:01, Indy Jess John wrote:


Admittedly we have got nothing better to describe the speed of
light, but it does explain why that speed when calculated isn't a
conveniently memorable number.

I think what he's asking is why it's a constant, ie what makes it
so, and why it is what it is rather than something else?

Got any answer?

Because if it wasnt what it is, the world wouldn't be what it is, and
in all likelihood he wouldn't be wherever here is to ask such damn
fool questions.


But it's a philosophical question.* And I thought from your name that
you might have an answer.


I do, and that is it.

Anyway, aren't all philosophical questions damn fool questions?


No, often they are the most fundamental questions of all.


Even so, it doesn't stop them being damn fool questions.

You see, questions require answers that actually answer the questions.
If you have to employ a philosopher, especially on Christmas Day when
they charge triple time, to spend hours beating about the bush, that's
proof enough to me that they're damn fool questions that were pointless
to ask in the first place.

You are asking the basic question - why is the world the way it is?


I am? Oh, OK, you're the philosopher.

And seeking an answer based on a notion of causality - that is, because
something *caused* it to be that way.

Causality, however is a human notion and not necessarily ubiquitous.

If you insist that it is, you will arrive at notions of a Creator, be it
a Big Bang, or a weird supernatural Intelligence. Merely in order to
complete a chain of causality.


What you really mean then is 'God knows!'.

The answer is to not ask a question framed in terms of normal relative
reality about the nature of absolute reality.

It's as silly as asking what color B flat is.


Well, it's green. Any fool knows that.

At least the middle one is. I don't know about octaves up or down. I
never go there.

The neatest 'explanation' is Taoism. The Tao is that which exists
through itself. I.e. it perpetuates itself. The nature of the Tao is
whatever yiu consider the world to be made from.

In this case electromagnetic entities in a space time causality matrix.

well its different from God and his Angels, but not much.


I'm beginning to wish I hadn't asked. But thanks, and a happy Christmas
anyway.
  #23  
Old December 25th 17, 12:43 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.d-i-y
Cursitor Doom[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 36
Default OT question

On Mon, 25 Dec 2017 11:57:21 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 25/12/17 11:44, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Mon, 25 Dec 2017 09:10:43 +0000, Norman Wells wrote:

But it's a philosophical question. And I thought from your name that
you might have an answer.


Natural Philosophy has nowt much to do with philosophy; it's simply the
archaic term for science.


And you think that science has nowt to do with philosophy? How quaint!"



Natural philosophy was the term for science back in Newton's day. I'm
guessing you must surely know that, since it's your adopted moniker.




--
This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other
protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of
GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet
protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.
  #24  
Old December 25th 17, 12:44 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.d-i-y
Cursitor Doom[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 36
Default OT question

On Mon, 25 Dec 2017 12:36:49 +0000, Norman Wells wrote:

Just how old are you then?


I think you need to address that to NP.



--
This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other
protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of
GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet
protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.
  #25  
Old December 25th 17, 12:47 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.d-i-y
Cursitor Doom[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 36
Default OT question

On Mon, 25 Dec 2017 12:49:16 +0000, Norman Wells wrote:


You see, questions require answers that actually answer the questions.
If you have to employ a philosopher, especially on Christmas Day when
they charge triple time, to spend hours beating about the bush, that's
proof enough to me that they're damn fool questions that were pointless
to ask in the first place.


Who's your favourite philosopher? Mine's Arthur S. Brilliant bloke!



--
This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other
protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of
GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet
protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.
  #26  
Old December 25th 17, 01:09 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.d-i-y
Norman Wells[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 984
Default OT question

On 25/12/2017 13:44, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Mon, 25 Dec 2017 12:36:49 +0000, Norman Wells wrote:

Just how old are you then?


I think you need to address that to NP.


Yes. Can you pass it on?

  #27  
Old December 25th 17, 04:51 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
R. Mark Clayton[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 649
Default OT question

On Monday, 25 December 2017 11:50:28 UTC, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Mon, 25 Dec 2017 08:18:36 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:


"The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all
private property."

Marx was such a stupid ****. No one capable of critical thinking can
possibly take his daft ideas seriously. I wish I could have sneaked up
behind him in the British Library reading room and planted a stiletto in
the back of his thick skull.


Actually his analysis was quite good - socialisation of production etc. and you can use his theories to calculate how much rent to charge for shop and work spaces.

OTOH his predictions of communism working and especially that under it the state would wither away were complete fantasy, however sadly getting on for 100M have died demonstrating this.
  #28  
Old December 25th 17, 05:07 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.d-i-y
The Natural Philosopher[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 639
Default OT question

On 25/12/17 13:43, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Mon, 25 Dec 2017 11:57:21 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 25/12/17 11:44, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Mon, 25 Dec 2017 09:10:43 +0000, Norman Wells wrote:

But it's a philosophical question. And I thought from your name that
you might have an answer.

Natural Philosophy has nowt much to do with philosophy; it's simply the
archaic term for science.


And you think that science has nowt to do with philosophy? How quaint!"



Natural philosophy was the term for science back in Newton's day. I'm
guessing you must surely know that, since it's your adopted moniker.


Nope, science is the modern name for natural philosophy.

It ries to pretend it isnt a branch of philsophy. This leads to huge
mistakes - like 'climate change'




--
"When one man dies it's a tragedy. When thousands die it's statistics."

Josef Stalin

  #29  
Old December 25th 17, 05:09 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.d-i-y
The Natural Philosopher[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 639
Default OT question

On 25/12/17 13:54, Tim Streater wrote:
Which raises the interesting question of whether alternative universes
exist in which some or all of those constants have different values.


Indeed it does and now you're in the realm of metaphysics.

There are however some speculative hypotheses which imply they do.


Again yuputr are staring out with baseless assumptions.

The notion of a universe, and indeed an alternative one, is itself
anthropic.

What is, just is.

....We assume, irrespective of whether we have notions about it, or not...


--
In todays liberal progressive conflict-free education system, everyone
gets full Marx.
  #30  
Old December 25th 17, 05:30 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.d-i-y
GB
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17
Default OT question

On 25/12/2017 18:09, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 25/12/17 13:54, Tim Streater wrote:
Which raises the interesting question of whether alternative
universes exist in which some or all of those constants have
different values.


Indeed it does and now you're in the realm of metaphysics.

There are however some speculative hypotheses which imply they do.


Again yuputr are staring out with baseless assumptions.

The notion of a universe, and indeed an alternative one, is itself
anthropic.

What is, just is.

...We assume, irrespective of whether we have notions about it, or not...



I just don't see where any of this speculation gets you? It's possible
to hypothesise anything at all, but if it can't be measured or observed
you can't take it any further. Discussion about alternative universes is
rightly treated as (science) fiction and fantasy, rather than philosophy.
 




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 09:21 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.