A truly HORRIFIC tsunami picture

In article ,
All Things Mopar wrote:

Inaccessible commented courteously ...


"Typical engineer" = moron.

Yes, just like the ones that built everything you use in
your pathetic everyday life!

Let me ask you this if you had never been born,

I was never born, I was adopted...

FYI, Usually engineers don't build anything. They design the
construction. Besides who said designers are Typical engineers?
There are a lot of classifications of engineers with varying levels of
knowledge.

More like hatched.

In article ,
Mxsmanic wrote:

Roland Karlsson writes:

OK -. so we are back in religion now - are we?

One cannot be anywhere else when speaking of consciousness, since
consciousness is not a physical phenomenon and thus is outside
conventional science (i.e., it is metaphysical--religious).

If only Roland could realize,...your either conscious or your not...
it would be nice if he could spell it too :-)

I don't know however if I would classify metaphysics as religion.
"Religion" connotes dogma and that's something I tend to shy
away from or at least strive to.

Inaccessible wrote:
In article ,
Mxsmanic wrote:

Roland Karlsson writes:

OK -. so we are back in religion now - are we?

One cannot be anywhere else when speaking of consciousness, since
consciousness is not a physical phenomenon and thus is outside
conventional science (i.e., it is metaphysical--religious).

If only Roland could realize,...your either conscious or your not...
it would be nice if he could spell it too :-)


Let me put a grammar lame on your spelling lame: You're either write or
you're yours are wrong.

I don't know however if I would classify metaphysics as religion.
"Religion" connotes dogma and that's something I tend to shy
away from or at least strive to.

In article ,
"Frank ess" wrote:

Inaccessible wrote:
In article ,
Mxsmanic wrote:

Roland Karlsson writes:

OK -. so we are back in religion now - are we?

One cannot be anywhere else when speaking of consciousness, since
consciousness is not a physical phenomenon and thus is outside
conventional science (i.e., it is metaphysical--religious).

If only Roland could realize,...your either conscious or your not...
it would be nice if he could spell it too :-)


Let me put a grammar lame on your spelling lame: You're either write or
you're yours are wrong.

Yes, you "are" correct :-)

Roland Karlsson writes:

wrote in :

This question only persists because the word "sound" does not have a
single, precise meaning.

Yes, it causes rarifactions and compressions in the air.

No, no human hears a sound, but the rarefactions and compressions of the
air may reach someone too far away to distinguish the sound.

This is acually not true

The reason for the question has nothing to do with semantics
of the word hear. The reason is that one interpretation of
Quantum Theory is that conciousness is needed to collapse
the wave functions.

I'm not sure that Quantum Theory really has much to say about
macroscopic phenomena.


So - no one concious listening/looking/sensing
- nothing happens, and there can be no sound.

Hmmmm, an updated version of Bishop Berkley's "Esse est Percepti"
(perception is essence)


Personally - I don't think this interpretation is reasonable.
The main reason for this is the simple question - what happened
before there were any concious beings?

Berkeley, when asked some form of 'if a tree falls in the forest and
no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?" answered with
some version of 'God is in the forest'

whd
--
ANOINT, v.t. To grease a king or other great functionary already
sufficiently slippery.
As sovereigns are anointed by the priesthood,
So pigs to lead the populace are greased good.
Judibras
-- Ambrose Bierce: _The Devil's Dictionary_

William Daffer writes:

I'm not sure that Quantum Theory really has much to say about
macroscopic phenomena.

Quantum theory makes no distinction between microscopic and macroscopic.
Scientists usually assume it applies only to microscopic phenomena, even
though there's no reason for such an assumption, and conveniently ignore
its implications for macroscopic phenomena (which are primarily
metaphysical).

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Mxsmanic wrote:

William Daffer writes:

I'm not sure that Quantum Theory really has much to say about
macroscopic phenomena.

Quantum theory makes no distinction between microscopic and
macroscopic.

You are woefully ignorant and you don't even know it.

Scientists usually assume it applies only to microscopic phenomena,

No, they don't "assume" anything of the sort.

even though there's no reason for such an assumption,

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/strawman.html

and conveniently ignore its implications for macroscopic
phenomena (which are primarily metaphysical).

www.google.com: "ehrenfest theorem"
"If physical reality says you are an ass, you are an ass." (Uncle Al)

writes:

You are woefully ignorant and you don't even know it.

Show the error.

No, they don't "assume" anything of the sort.

Explain the reasoning behind this assertion.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Mxsmanic wrote:

No, they don't "assume" anything of the sort.

Explain the reasoning behind this assertion.

Simple: you claim they assume something, Ehrenfest's Theorem shows
otherwise.

You need to read a real text on QM, not the pop-psych babble crap
"Dancing Wu Li Masters" drivel from the Crystal Rubbing Section of the
bookstore.

Mxsmanic writes:

William Daffer writes:

I'm not sure that Quantum Theory really has much to say about
macroscopic phenomena.

Quantum theory makes no distinction between microscopic and macroscopic.

Sure it does, in the sense that it deals primarily with phenomena on
very small scales. The de Boglie wavelength of particles is
inversely proportional to its momentum. Compared to sub-atomic
particles macroscopic phenomena have hugue momenta, maybe millions
of orders of magnitudes larger, which makes their indetermancy very,
very small.

Scientists usually assume it applies only to microscopic phenomena, even
though there's no reason for such an assumption, and conveniently ignore
its implications for macroscopic phenomena (which are primarily
metaphysical).

If quantum physicists 'usually assume it applies only to microscopic
phenomena,' then there's a good reason for the assumption.

whd
--
INTERREGNUM, n. The period during which a monarchical country is
governed by a warm spot on the cushion of the throne. The experiment
of letting the spot grow cold has commonly been attended by most
unhappy results from the zeal of many worthy persons to make it warm
again.
-- Ambrose Bierce: _The Devil's Dictionary_