Wednesday, September 10, 2008

"Behold, What a wonder is man!"

LHC__top Stuff mediocrity worship, just look at the power of the human mind.

As Emerson put it, "Instead of being a mere machine of organic matter, we are the thoughtful, the intelligent beings; we are with all the possibilities and privileges of an immortal existence."

Animals at best build rudimentary contraptions. Beavers build dams. Termites build nests. Hookworms build homes in the human body, where they suck parasitically for a lifetime. Meanwhile, man builds skyscrapers, and cyclotrons -- and then with what he's learned goes on to build large hadron colliders.

"Behold, what a wonder is man."

Labels: ,

15 Comments:

Blogger KG said...

YES!
Isn't it wonderful? And very bloody exciting.

9/10/2008 07:05:00 am  
Blogger libertyscott said...

It's truly magnificent, and more magnificent than religion.

9/10/2008 09:36:00 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Behold what a wonder is socialism


because ever cent of the LHC's budget is stolen.


the LHC is a temple to socialism
just as much as the people's congress in Pyongyang.

9/10/2008 10:56:00 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

heh not only hookworms...

9/10/2008 11:52:00 am  
Blogger Luke H said...

Yes it is stolen money. But that doesn't diminish the importance of the science.

The state was involved with the development of the nuclear bomb; that does not make it any less important a development for the human race.

9/10/2008 10:11:00 pm  
Anonymous LGM said...

LHC is a temple. It's a very impressive one. It's still a temple though and it comes complete with all the trappings of a silly religion. Recommend you guys get a copy of Harrimans "Philosphic corruption of Physics."

BTW anonymous is right about where the money came from. Most of it has already been wasted. So we have here a temple to theft... What a taint.

LGM

9/11/2008 06:26:00 am  
Anonymous hanso said...

Lgm: Explain?

9/11/2008 08:21:00 am  
Anonymous LGM said...

Hanso

Modern physics is repleat with mumbo jumbo about discovering the theory of everything and seeing the beginning of the universe etc. In reality the knowledge of reality actually possessed is nowhere near as impressive as that. There is a great deal of blind faith and belief in ideas and theories that have little or no direct evidence of reality to support them. In some cases the evidence points towards alternative views and explanations. An example is the big bang theory. Hence my reference to silly religion. Check out E Learner or L Little and others. Who is right?

I cited Harriman as he has presentled a devastating apraisal of the philosophic approaches presently underlying physics (and science in general). It is well worth checking him out for a thorough discussion of the subject.

LGM

9/11/2008 10:24:00 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There is a great deal of blind faith and belief in ideas and theories that have little or no direct evidence of reality to support them. In some cases the evidence points towards alternative views and explanations.

Y'mean, like, evolution and all that rubbish?

9/11/2008 05:18:00 pm  
Anonymous hanso said...

You mean like quantum physics and such? I do see where you're coming from.

9/11/2008 05:29:00 pm  
Anonymous hanso said...

Ps: I was talking to LGM, not anon.

9/11/2008 05:31:00 pm  
Anonymous LGM said...

Hanso

Yes. The quantum physics community is full of it. A good example would be the Copenhagen Interpretation- an outstanding example really. That has been taught as the standard in universities for decades. Is there any solid evidence in reality that directly supports it?

As an aside: Poor Einstein could never come to terms with it (to his credit). There is an interesting body of correspondence between he and Nils Bohr. In the end Einstein lost the day, likely due to his acceptance of faulty premise at the outset (he once wrote that his approach was based on that of the philosopher Kant- not ideal!).

BTW the global warming IPCC scheme is another example of blind faith dressed as "science."

Anyway, if you can get hold of a copy of Harriman you'd likely find it most interesting. He explains the situation and the ideas very clearly.

Cheers

LGM

9/12/2008 07:00:00 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes. The quantum physics community is full of it. A good example would be the Copenhagen Interpretation- an outstanding example really. That has been taught as the standard in universities for decades. Is there any solid evidence in reality that directly supports it?

Supports what? It's just an aid to understanding. Like the way children are taught fractions by slicing up a pie. Do you need "evidence that supports pie-ness" to support fractions of non-pies?

9/12/2008 07:37:00 pm  
Anonymous LGM said...

Anon

An aside: Why not use a tag line? It makes it easier to discuss issues and write to you (I'm not sure whether you are the same anonymous that posted on above or a different one- that makes it difficult to work out where you are coming from; what your line of reasoning is). You could use intials or some other lable that you value. Choose something you like.

Re Pies and fractions
The analogy does not hold. The premise relies on the Law or Axiom of Identity (that is, the pie is real and has certain attributes, as do other entities you intend to apply the idea of fractions to). Copenhagen Interpretation violates that. It violates the Axiom of Existence as well. Can't have it both ways!

Re Copenhagen Interpretation.
The CI is not an aid to understanding. It was never intended to be. The leading proponent and author of that ideology, Bohr, asserted it is not possible to understand reality. Hence CI abandons the attempt to so do as a premise, right from outset. Now, he was the guy that formulated the CI in the first place and his line of thought is reflected by the result and attempts to apply that result. Of what use is an interpretation that assumes fundamentally that no understanding is possible? Instead all one can hope to possess is a series of floating mathematical abstractions. What has been achieved by this, in practice is, ultimately, an assertion that science is a futile pursuit. Amusingly there is a self-contradiction right at the heart of the CI, one that supposedly clever people have failed to realise. Ah, but blind faith is like that! Blinding!

Have you read what Bohr wrote on this subject? It is very illuminating and most interesting.

In conclusion, CI is not supported by direct evidence. Indeed it violates much evidence and experience of reality already available to scientists (to anyone really).

LGM

9/13/2008 07:17:00 am  
Anonymous B. Hallward said...

The analogy does not hold. The premise relies on the Law or Axiom of Identity (that is, the pie is real and has certain attributes, as do other entities you intend to apply the idea of fractions to).

But you can also use fractions in a "pure math" sense, without any real object, and as a basis from which to understand irrational (and even transcendental) numbers.

The CI is not an aid to understanding. It was never intended to be. The leading proponent and author of that ideology, Bohr, asserted it is not possible to understand reality. [...]
In conclusion, CI is not supported by direct evidence. Indeed it violates much evidence and experience of reality already available to scientists (to anyone really).


I meant to understanding quantum phenomena, not to understanding reality necessarily: that's why it's an aid to understanding, and not a model of reality. It's not "not supported by direct evidence" any more or less than any other attempt at explanation (many-worlds, Bohm hidden variables, etc. - the latter of which seems to me to be really an attempt to describe reality); I don't know what you mean by "violates much evidence and experience of reality already available to scientists" - it doesn't; it certainly violates expectations of non-scientists, but that's it's entire purpose: to provide a way of thinking that allows for expectations more in line with reality.

9/15/2008 08:33:00 pm  

Post a Comment

Respond with a polite and intelligent comment. (Both will be applauded.)

Say what you mean, and mean what you say. (Do others the courtesy of being honest.)

Please put a name to your comments. (If you're prepared to give voice, then back it up with a name.)

And don't troll. Please. (Contemplate doing something more productive with your time, and ours.)

<< Home