[Message Deleted]
-
42 :rolleyes: Steve
-
That's hardly a surprising statement from someone (Berlinski) who is a proponent of intelligent design and a critic of evolutionary biology....oh, and who has no background in physics, looking at his biography. It might be more accurate if, instead of 'no one believes any longer that physics', he had written 'no one who holds the beliefs that I do believes any longer that physics'.
-
That's hardly a surprising statement from someone (Berlinski) who is a proponent of intelligent design and a critic of evolutionary biology....oh, and who has no background in physics, looking at his biography. It might be more accurate if, instead of 'no one believes any longer that physics', he had written 'no one who holds the beliefs that I do believes any longer that physics'.
-
I take it he believe that the physical "Theory of Everything" as nothing to do with "a coherent system of thought and feeling", hence the reasoning in this sentence could be metaphorically rewritten as: "I have no more milk in my fridge, hence I could easily deduce that my car don't need any petrol to drive!"
-
Stop posting flammable stuff in the lounge - THAT'S the opposing view.
-
That's hardly a surprising statement from someone (Berlinski) who is a proponent of intelligent design and a critic of evolutionary biology....oh, and who has no background in physics, looking at his biography. It might be more accurate if, instead of 'no one believes any longer that physics', he had written 'no one who holds the beliefs that I do believes any longer that physics'.
He has a poin though. The frontiers of physics are so detached from "common sense" it's virtually impossible to break things down for the layman. Some hundred years ago, imagination would help you a lot. Now, it's mostly math, and imagination can even be a hindrance. Which doesn't make Superstitious Design any mmore useful.
We are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
My first real C# project | Linkify!|FoldWithUs! | sighist -
He has a poin though. The frontiers of physics are so detached from "common sense" it's virtually impossible to break things down for the layman. Some hundred years ago, imagination would help you a lot. Now, it's mostly math, and imagination can even be a hindrance. Which doesn't make Superstitious Design any mmore useful.
We are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
My first real C# project | Linkify!|FoldWithUs! | sighistThe cutting edge, yes - however, Newtonian mechanics is still sufficient for most everyday use, with a smattering of quantum mechanics and special relativity. The nice thing about physics is that you don't necessarily have to buy into all of it - the more cutting edge layers of it are trying to explain the underlying 'why' of accepted physical behaviour, and may, of course, be theories that await empirical confirmation or rejection.
-
The Grand Negus wrote:
- David Berlinski, wrapping up "A Tour of the Calculus" [^]
I think this is a better quote: "Berlinski's prose has obviously been a sticking point for a lot of reviewers, so I'll address it first. It's terrible, no question--pretentious, and with a very low signal to noise ratio. It's just a never-ending series of digressions, few of which add any meaningful insight. In one episode, we're regaled with a tale of Cauchy stopping to use a public restroom. One has to surmise that the editor himself was unable to make it past the first chapter, or such drivel couldn't possibly have ever made it to press. On the mathematical front, the story is less dire (though still not good). If you were to wade through the verbiage, you could conceivably gain some intuition on limits or the mean value theorem. But I didn't find much to chew on in his treatment of integration or differentiation, unfortunate for a book about "the" calculus. Berlinski also has an unfortunate, if somewhat excusable, tendency to confuse math and physics. At one point, he claims that "speed is a fundamental concept of the calculus". Kinematics is certainly the most obvious source of example problems for elementary calculus, but the two really are distinct." or ... "I bought this book a while ago and, fortunately, seem to have lost it. The soporific verbiage, the self-aggrandizing tone, the useless tinsel that masquerades as prose, an incredible inability to obviate the obvious, "wit" that withers like a dehydrated plant...hey wait, am I droning on? Am I beginning to sound like Berlinski?" Personally... it sounds like to impress the masses he uses a lot of big words.... :)
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
-
139 used & new available from $0.10 - indicative of its worth :~ It costs more to ship than it does to buy. :rolleyes:
Simply Elegant Designs JimmyRopes Designs
Think inside the box! ProActive Secure Systems
I'm on-line therefore I am. JimmyRopes -
Take your creationist theory to the soapbox where it belongs! X|
Simply Elegant Designs JimmyRopes Designs
Think inside the box! ProActive Secure Systems
I'm on-line therefore I am. JimmyRopes -
The Grand Negus wrote:
"contemplative human beings" will have "a theoretical arch sustaining enough to provide a coherent system of thought and feeling"?
given the author's own confusion and constant mistaking of calculus and physics, I am sure that the common man will not have a good grasp of calculus. However the educated man has a decent grasp of calculus as long as he stays away from alcohol. Everyone knows alcohol and calculus do not mix. Never Drink and Derive. ;P
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
-
Without checking references I'm assuming the Theory of Everything you speak of is the Grand Unified Theory. This is a theory that unifies the basic forces of the universe. It's not a theory that explains why I like ice cream and why cows freak me out. It doesn't even try to, or want to, explain that. And I do disagree that physics is unable to provide a foundation of thought and feelings. Thoughts and feelings are caused by the neurons, transmitters, chemicals and electric signals in our brains. Saying physics can't explain this is like someone in 500AD saying a machine could never play chess.
cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
-
So what is his point? I hardly think that Berlinski's melancholy can be laid at the feet of modern physics. The idea that the known and unknown remain in balance is not new, each new answer brings more questions. And while modern physics has not arrived at a ToE, (nor is one necessarily possible)it has made possible the development of transistors, lasers, satellites, lcd screens and a great many other fun and useful items so, perhaps it hasn't been a total waste. Look, modern physics = more questions than answers + toys, it's an INTP's dream as far as I am concerned. Berlinski's demand that modern physics also provide him with the meaning of life and subsequent depression seems to be more of a personal choice. “We have normality. I repeat, we have normality. Anything you still can't cope with is therefore your own problem.” - Douglass Adams
-
The cutting edge, yes - however, Newtonian mechanics is still sufficient for most everyday use, with a smattering of quantum mechanics and special relativity. The nice thing about physics is that you don't necessarily have to buy into all of it - the more cutting edge layers of it are trying to explain the underlying 'why' of accepted physical behaviour, and may, of course, be theories that await empirical confirmation or rejection.
Yup - Even "revolutions" in physics don't throw away everything that has been accomplished. Quite neat :)
We are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
My first real C# project | Linkify!|FoldWithUs! | sighist -
Without checking references I'm assuming the Theory of Everything you speak of is the Grand Unified Theory. This is a theory that unifies the basic forces of the universe. It's not a theory that explains why I like ice cream and why cows freak me out. It doesn't even try to, or want to, explain that. And I do disagree that physics is unable to provide a foundation of thought and feelings. Thoughts and feelings are caused by the neurons, transmitters, chemicals and electric signals in our brains. Saying physics can't explain this is like someone in 500AD saying a machine could never play chess.
cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
Chris Maunder wrote:
I'm assuming the Theory of Everything you speak of is the Grand Unified Theory. This is a theory that unifies the basic forces of the universe. It's not a theory that explains why I like ice cream and why cows freak me out. It doesn't even try to, or want to, explain that.
Correct. The Theory of Everything is a misnomer and consequently does tend to cause people (such as Berlinski) to draw unwarranted inferences.
Chris Maunder wrote:
And I do disagree that physics is unable to provide a foundation of thought and feelings. Thoughts and feelings are caused by the neurons, transmitters, chemicals and electric signals in our brains. Saying physics can't explain this is like someone in 500AD saying a machine could never play chess.
Well, it could be true that it is not explainable by physics in the sense that it is explained (eventually) by biology rather than physics. This is another way of saying that reductionism doesn't hold even in the basic sciences (a philosophical discussion point among scientists and philosophers of science).
Kevin
-
How do you define "a theoretical arch sustaining enough to provide a coherent system of thought and feeling"? Depending on your answer, I'd probably agree with you. But that said, I would be of the opinion that going into theoretical physics (and speaking as someone who almost became a theoretical physicist) is the wrong place if you want theoretical arches that sustain enough to provide a coherent system of thought and feeling (I'd suggest philosophy). Only a very foolish person would say that a knowledge of physics hasn't been critically important to our way of life, but if you don't feel that current physics, with its small handful of equations describing the universe, provides that theoretical arch, why would you feel that combining that handful of equations into one bigger, more complicated equation would do it? Science, and physics particularly, is merely descriptive -- it just says what is. You want something prescriptive, something to tell you how to live your life, go to an ethics class (or church). They are working very hard on theoretical arches which provide coherent systems of thought and feeling (my impression is that they aren't doing a terrible job of it either.)
-
Chris Maunder wrote:
I'm assuming the Theory of Everything you speak of is the Grand Unified Theory. This is a theory that unifies the basic forces of the universe. It's not a theory that explains why I like ice cream and why cows freak me out. It doesn't even try to, or want to, explain that.
Correct. The Theory of Everything is a misnomer and consequently does tend to cause people (such as Berlinski) to draw unwarranted inferences.
Chris Maunder wrote:
And I do disagree that physics is unable to provide a foundation of thought and feelings. Thoughts and feelings are caused by the neurons, transmitters, chemicals and electric signals in our brains. Saying physics can't explain this is like someone in 500AD saying a machine could never play chess.
Well, it could be true that it is not explainable by physics in the sense that it is explained (eventually) by biology rather than physics. This is another way of saying that reductionism doesn't hold even in the basic sciences (a philosophical discussion point among scientists and philosophers of science).
Kevin
Kevin McFarlane wrote:
Well, it could be true that it is not explainable by physics in the sense that it is explained (eventually) by biology rather than physics. This is another way of saying that reductionism doesn't hold even in the basic sciences (a philosophical discussion point among scientists and philosophers of science).
Ultimately, all biology is nothing more than extremely complex organic chemistry and the rules behind chemical bonding and reactions are all nuclear physics. Ultimately you can't get away from it without invoking the great pumpkin. :rolleyes:
-- CleaKO The sad part about this instance is that none of the users ever said anything [about the problem]. Pete O`Hanlon Doesn't that just tell you everything you need to know about users?
-
How do you define "a theoretical arch sustaining enough to provide a coherent system of thought and feeling"? Depending on your answer, I'd probably agree with you. But that said, I would be of the opinion that going into theoretical physics (and speaking as someone who almost became a theoretical physicist) is the wrong place if you want theoretical arches that sustain enough to provide a coherent system of thought and feeling (I'd suggest philosophy). Only a very foolish person would say that a knowledge of physics hasn't been critically important to our way of life, but if you don't feel that current physics, with its small handful of equations describing the universe, provides that theoretical arch, why would you feel that combining that handful of equations into one bigger, more complicated equation would do it? Science, and physics particularly, is merely descriptive -- it just says what is. You want something prescriptive, something to tell you how to live your life, go to an ethics class (or church). They are working very hard on theoretical arches which provide coherent systems of thought and feeling (my impression is that they aren't doing a terrible job of it either.)