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
  #31  
Old December 25th 17, 05:49 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.d-i-y
mechanic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3
Default OT question

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

I'm beginning to wish I hadn't asked.


So why did you? There must be more appropriate groups.
Ads
  #32  
Old December 25th 17, 06:28 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 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.


If only philosophers through the ages had appreciated that universal
wisdom, they'd have saved so much time, and perhaps been able to do
something useful instead.

  #33  
Old December 25th 17, 07:07 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.d-i-y
Mike[_19_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 115
Default OT question

In article ,
Norman Wells wrote:

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


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


And synaesthetes ...
--
--------------------------------------+------------------------------------
Mike Brown: mjb[-at-]signal11.org.uk | http://www.signal11.org.uk
  #34  
Old December 25th 17, 07:12 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.d-i-y
Indy Jess John
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,307
Default OT question

On 25/12/2017 11:51, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

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


I was assured it is octoroon.
In the absence of a better answer, I will stick with that.

Jim
  #35  
Old December 25th 17, 07:41 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 18:46:32 +0000, Tim Streater wrote:

unable to detect. This is called dark matter.

Mind you, that idea could be scrapped at any time.


They're on about "dark energy" now, to account for the *acceleration* in
the expansion of the universe!
Must be a nightmare being in theoretical physics nowadays.



--
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.
  #36  
Old December 25th 17, 07:43 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 18:07:11 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

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'



I think you've had quite enough to drink now, NP. You're just re-
arranging what I said earlier.



--
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.
  #37  
Old December 26th 17, 03:32 AM 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 20:43, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Mon, 25 Dec 2017 18:07:11 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

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'



I think you've had quite enough to drink now, NP. You're just re-
arranging what I said earlier.



You think that because you can't do critical thinking. Probably down to
a State Education.

Science was not 'called natural philosophy'

Science did not exist. Natural philosophy did, and still does.








--
"Corbyn talks about equality, justice, opportunity, health care, peace,
community, compassion, investment, security, housing...."
"What kind of person is not interested in those things?"

"Jeremy Corbyn?"

  #38  
Old December 26th 17, 04:08 AM 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 18:30, GB wrote:
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?


In teh end all speculation as you put it, is the hypotheising of models
that may or may not fit experiece and may or may not be amenable to
disproof a la Popper and therefore become (in te context of science)
theories.

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.


Things that cannot be measured or observed do in fact take you further.

That is the point of metaphysics. Cna you observe Causality? Gravity? -
no, you mesasure and observe what you assume are their effects.


They turn out to be useful *notions* that form a framework on which you
hang your expereience that helps sort it out and make sense of it.

Neither exists, except as a notion, however.

That is the mistake that people who *think* they understand science all
make.

The point of philosophy is to point that out. To ensure that what people
think are 'scientific facts' are in fact no more than *models that seem
to work*, mostly.

'Alternate universes' is a model, that may or may not be useful. Its a
way of trying to grapple with the inconsistencies of some of the models
we currently have. A way of saying that our current relaity seems to be
one solution to a set of equations that may have infinite solutions.

We wouldnt be proposing it if there wasn't some evidence to suggest it
might be meaningful.

Knowledge is the classification of experience according to metaphysicial
principles. Physics, for example, operates on a world that has already
been classified by metaphysics, into a materaility, in which time and
space are the axes, and mass and energy are the quantities, and in which
causailty is arrived at as the link between experiences at different
'times' and 'places'.

You learn this metaphysic as a child without being aware that it is only
a model.

Mostly you treat it as 'real' But that leads to huge problems. Take
Plow****. Hid metaphysical reality is the metaphysics of Marx, which
must interpret everything into a framework of class opressions and
exploitation... If it doesnt fit that matrix, it doesnt actually EXIST
for him. So going out and being nice to some randonm child is not for
him an expression of human compassion - Marx's model doesnt have that
category - but by its very nature has to be an adult exploiting a child
for some oppressive purpose. I.e. we are all *predatory* paedophiles if
we just happen to like children etc.

And that is how the mind-****s work. Marxism isnt about this or that,
its about getting you to use Marxist metaphysics to look at the world,
so you see it *only* in terms of oppression, inequality and exploitation.

Then you can be lead by the nose.

It's just another metaphysic however, and one that has been ripped apart
as totally illogical by the likes of Roger Scruton.

So yes, things that cannot be measured or observed are in fact the
funadmental axes we construct our views of the world upon. WE
hypothesise 'imaginary' entities like 'gravity' or 'social justice' and
use them to *construct* a world view that works, or is useful, or in the
case of 'social justice' one that doesn't work and whose only use is the
influencing of many stupid people into thinking they are smarter than
they are, so that a few slightly smarter people can manipulate them.


Once, this process of using metaphysics to bend peoples minds was known
as magic, before state religion took over.

Post religion, its now called 'marketing' or 'propaganda'

The black magicians of 500 years ago are alive and well, and working in
Saatchi and Saatchi...


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

Burton Hillis (William Vaughn, American columnist)
  #39  
Old December 26th 17, 04:10 AM 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 18:46, Tim Streater wrote:
Remember phlogiston
and the luminiferous ether. Both though to exist to explain observed
phenomena, both ideas scrapped as sharper minds thought up other
explanations.


Good notions in their day, but didnt stand up to scrutiny.

Frankly more comprehensible than relativity too.

The divergence between compreshensibility and accuracy is now vast

Nobody understands quantum theory. It just works....

--
Labour - a bunch of rich people convincing poor people to vote for rich
people
by telling poor people that "other" rich people are the reason they are
poor.

Peter Thompson
  #40  
Old December 26th 17, 05:14 AM 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 19:28, Norman Wells wrote:
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.


If only philosophers through the ages had appreciated that universal
wisdom, they'd have saved so much time, and perhaps been able to do
something useful instead.

They have and they did.

What you don't understand is just what that is.

If you go back to Occam, for example, (13th century) it is patently
obvious that he took as his *starting point* the notion that theories
are not true. Which is why he could point out that arguing over which
one *was* true was pointless. We should, he said, simply select the one
that was only just complicated enough to explain what needed to be
explained.

It's all very well to say - as Wittgenstein did - 'concerning what
cannot be talked about, we might as well shut up' - but humans do a lot
of talking about things that they know little or nothing about, using
notions that dont hold water, and the proper business of philosophers is
often to point that out.

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*.

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.

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 succeeded - 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, but 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 fictional 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 model that *is* handy when dealing with such
mundane issues was identified by Nigel Farage as 'common sense'.

Other handy models are e.g. 'physics' 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.




--
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as
foolish, and by the rulers as useful.

(Seneca the Younger, 65 AD)

 




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 05:50 AM.


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.