Re: [OT] Re: [gentoo-user] Question of quantum computer
On Sun, 5 Apr 2015 00:52:30 -0400, Boricua Siempre wrote: Geentoo power first quantum super computer in 2101 and power all galactic cofederation computers. It was first supercomputer to crack secret of time travel in 2307 and become self conchious in 2402. Add this to /usr/portage/profile/packahe.mask now! # Masked due to megalomaniacal bugs app-misc/skynet -- Neil Bothwick Favorite Windoze game: Guess what this icon does? pgpZniiVnmyKn.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [OT] Re: [gentoo-user] Question of quantum computer
150404 waben...@gmail.com wrote: Mathematics is our basic tool to build these theories. A fundamental question is whether the mathematical axioms exist for real and we just discovered them or are they grounded by the functionality of our mind/brain ? In the latter case, it would probably be impossible for us to find the answer (42!;) Kant tried to investigate this in his Critique of Pure Reason. Aristotle also had some scattered observations on the subject. What a revelation about at least a minority of Gentoo users ! -- philosophers of science + math, besides well-trained physicists. -- ,, SUPPORT ___//___, Philip Webb ELECTRIC /] [] [] [] [] []| Cities Centre, University of Toronto TRANSIT`-O--O---' purslowatchassdotutorontodotca
Re: [OT] Re: [gentoo-user] Question of quantum computer
On Sat, Apr 4, 2015 at 7:23 AM, Philip Webb purs...@ca.inter.net wrote: What a revelation about at least a minority of Gentoo users ! -- philosophers of science + math, besides well-trained physicists. I think at least half of us on the Council have degrees in the physical sciences. I work mostly with scientists and I have to say that in the last 10 years the embrace of FOSS by scientists has been considerable. Who wants to beg the boss for money and with IT for support of SAS when you can just download R and install it yourself, and so on? Of course, it tends to also lead to a bit of a mess when that little tool that was thrown together ends up being depended upon by an entire department and isn't up to it. -- Rich
Re: [OT] Re: [gentoo-user] Question of quantum computer
On 04/04/2015 13:35, Rich Freeman wrote: On Sat, Apr 4, 2015 at 7:23 AM, Philip Webb purs...@ca.inter.net wrote: What a revelation about at least a minority of Gentoo users ! -- philosophers of science + math, besides well-trained physicists. I think at least half of us on the Council have degrees in the physical sciences. I work mostly with scientists and I have to say that in the last 10 years the embrace of FOSS by scientists has been considerable. Who wants to beg the boss for money and with IT for support of SAS when you can just download R and install it yourself, and so on? Of course, it tends to also lead to a bit of a mess when that little tool that was thrown together ends up being depended upon by an entire department and isn't up to it. So it's not any different to how enterprise works then? Like the cobbled-together mush of perl and bash (that does emerge over ssh in a for loop) becomes the one critical app in all of IT that the ISO-9000 and something cert totally depends on? I've written such perl and bash myself... I recently had the pleasure of converting a small version of that to Ansible. That was fun. -- Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
Re: [OT] Re: [gentoo-user] Question of quantum computer
Thank for de replies My english so bad because I from the future when english death languaje. Geentoo power first quantum super computer in 2101 and power all galactic cofederation computers. It was first supercomputer to crack secret of time travel in 2307 and become self conchious in 2402. I am send back to give Gentoo Linux tecnical advance. Found you not ready jet. Will revissit in 365 days. On Sat, Apr 4, 2015 at 11:41 AM, Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote: On 04/04/2015 13:35, Rich Freeman wrote: On Sat, Apr 4, 2015 at 7:23 AM, Philip Webb purs...@ca.inter.net wrote: What a revelation about at least a minority of Gentoo users ! -- philosophers of science + math, besides well-trained physicists. I think at least half of us on the Council have degrees in the physical sciences. I work mostly with scientists and I have to say that in the last 10 years the embrace of FOSS by scientists has been considerable. Who wants to beg the boss for money and with IT for support of SAS when you can just download R and install it yourself, and so on? Of course, it tends to also lead to a bit of a mess when that little tool that was thrown together ends up being depended upon by an entire department and isn't up to it. So it's not any different to how enterprise works then? Like the cobbled-together mush of perl and bash (that does emerge over ssh in a for loop) becomes the one critical app in all of IT that the ISO-9000 and something cert totally depends on? I've written such perl and bash myself... I recently had the pleasure of converting a small version of that to Ansible. That was fun. -- Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
Re: [OT] Re: [gentoo-user] Question of quantum computer
On Saturday 04 April 2015 00:02:02 Peter Humphrey wrote: Its job is to explain show this is how the world works. s/show// -- Rgds Peter.
Re: [OT] Re: [gentoo-user] Question of quantum computer
On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 7:02 PM, Peter Humphrey pe...@prh.myzen.co.uk wrote: On Friday 03 April 2015 17:11:11 Fernando Rodriguez wrote: That's the problem with science in general. The one thing it may never be able to answer is why?. I think that's the crux of the problem with some current approaches to physics. Science does not answer the question why?. That isn't its job. Its job is to explain show this is how the world works. I think the ultimate goal though is to get down to root cause. I can have a model that does a great job explaining the behavior of a magnet without ever mentioning what a photon or electron is. However, compared to our current understanding of electromagnetism such a model is rather poor. This is how science has worked for hundreds of years. It has really only become a fashion in the last few decades to lower the bar and say well, we'll probably never understand how this works - that isn't science's job - my theory predicts the results of most of the experiments we can do within some realm of precision and that is good enough. As I said, I think this is hubris. We think that the fact that we haven't figured out the answer means that nobody can figure out the answer. It seems to me that prodigious amounts of time, energy and money are being squandered on trying to find a graviton when no such beast is required to exist. Gravity, as Einstein taught us, is an emergent effect of mass in space-time. It isn't a force; it's an effect. Yet how many theorists and experimenters are thrashing themselves trying to find this imaginary particle which is supposed to moderate this imaginary force? It might have something to do with the fact that gravity as described by relativity doesn't account for the behavior of matter at small scales and high densities, or for the overall structure of the universe. Clearly SOMETHING is missing. Maybe that something is something other than gravity, but you can't rule out gravity not working the way we think it works. Plus, warping of space is a great concept, but what is it about massive objects that causes space to warp? Is there some underlying mechanism at work? No mechanism is required because no process is operating. You have no proof of this assertion at all. Certainly there is no proof to the contrary either, but we know that our understanding of gravity is incomplete at best, so it seems a bit odd to stop investigating on the basis that we have it all figured out already. -- Rich
Re: [OT] Re: [gentoo-user] Question of quantum computer
Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote: On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 7:02 PM, Peter Humphrey pe...@prh.myzen.co.uk wrote: On Friday 03 April 2015 17:11:11 Fernando Rodriguez wrote: That's the problem with science in general. The one thing it may never be able to answer is why?. I think that's the crux of the problem with some current approaches to physics. Science does not answer the question why?. That isn't its job. Its job is to explain show this is how the world works. I think the ultimate goal though is to get down to root cause. I can have a model that does a great job explaining the behavior of a magnet without ever mentioning what a photon or electron is. However, compared to our current understanding of electromagnetism such a model is rather poor. This is how science has worked for hundreds of years. It has really only become a fashion in the last few decades to lower the bar and say well, we'll probably never understand how this works - that isn't science's job - my theory predicts the results of most of the experiments we can do within some realm of precision and that is good enough. As I said, I think this is hubris. We think that the fact that we haven't figured out the answer means that nobody can figure out the answer. Maybe I'm wrong but I'm tending to assume that we can't figure out what's really behind the scene as a matter of principle. I think that all we can do is making theories which are able to predict the processes that we are detect. Mathematics is our basic tool to build these theories. A fundamental question is, whether the mathematical axioms are existing for real and we just discovered them or are they grounded by the functionality of our mind/brain. In the latter case it would probably be impossible for us to find the answer. (42!;) Nevertheless we always should try to get a deeper understanding of the underlaying mechanisms. But I really have my doubts that we ever will reaching the ground, if there is one at all. And even if there is something like a absolute reality or a reason for everything, we maybe are not able to really understand it. -- Regards wabe
Re: [OT] Re: [gentoo-user] Question of quantum computer
On Saturday, April 04, 2015 12:02:02 AM Peter Humphrey wrote: On Friday 03 April 2015 17:11:11 Fernando Rodriguez wrote: No, it's stronger than that. Einstein showed us how it works. The consequence of having a certain concentration of mass /here/ is to distort space-time just /so/ in the region of /here/. No mechanism is required because no process is operating. Einstein probably heard something very similar. No, Newton showed us how it works. The idea of matter bending space was considered so ridiculous that it made him a laughing stock. Even later when when experimental data showed that his equations worked so well the general idea was still not accepted and he didn't get a Nobel Prize for it. The math also had to be revised several times to succeed where Newton's failed most obviously, to plot the orbit of Mercury and it still breaks down at the quantum level and inside black holes as Rich mentioned. The point being that science is always a work in progress. -- Fernando Rodriguez
