how does a person get a hold of the original text..?? Allan On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 3:10 PM, Molly <[email protected]> wrote:
> The Einstein "The World As I See It," originally began as his ponderance > of something greater than science, and acknowledgement of spirit in action. > The original edition is the best, as his editors put together texts with > lectures for him under the same name, and those books have an entirely > different flavor. > > From my view, "knowing" is not the end of it, but the beginning. > > > On Saturday, October 20, 2012 8:09:19 AM UTC-4, gabbydott wrote: > >> Honestly, Vam, I don't think that it was Einstein's lack of knowledge >> that made him pose such a daft (in the sense of limited) question. I read >> this as a description of the state of occidental science at his time - the >> conflict between the ontological and the constructivist explanatory models >> of the nature of knowledge. >> >> On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 8:41 AM, Vam <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> You spoke of Einstein, about his ” only ” interest being whether >>> God<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God> had >>> any choice in manifesting the universe and this observed creation. >>> >>> My own suggestion is that if we do not know enough we will always think >>> along those lines. >>> >>> To the uninitiate, the desktops of today would seem to be thinking >>> entities ... >>> >>> *So, do we know enough ?* >>> >>> >>> >>> <https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-EBJSz8MhWQU/UIJGzwpvR3I/AAAAAAAAB0A/cJjwxDRH4Q0/s1600/All+You+Did+Not+Know+About+Yourself.jpg> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Saturday, October 20, 2012 6:36:45 AM UTC+5:30, rigsy03 wrote: >>>> >>>> I took a course on the Snow-Leavis(1959-1962) controversy in the >>>> mid-'70's. Perhaps we should then conclude scientists do not >>>> understand humanism? Other works involved included various essays and >>>> books by Aldous Huxley ("Literature and Science") and Bronowski >>>> ("Science and Human Values"). Not sure that "incomprehension and >>>> dislike"(Snow) between the two groups has changed at all when >>>> considering the gap between rich and poor nations, smart weapons, etc. >>>> as science and militarism promote the self-interest of various nations/ >>>> political theories and practices. Should we quibble that Nazi >>>> scientists propelled the USA moon landing? At least the moon survived. >>>> >>>> On Oct 19, 1:37 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> > The below is rather long, but physics is returning to some of the >>>> > ideas of James Maxwell. My dog is named after him. Years ago, we >>>> > were told their were two cultures ( CP Snow) - one knew the 2nd law >>>> of >>>> > thermodynamics and the other did not (literary types). The 2nd law >>>> > involved was a straw man. The following, as Max needs his walk, is >>>> > paraphrased from last week's New Scientist. >>>> > >>>> > A few decades after Carnot, the German physicist Rudolph Clausius >>>> > explained such phenomena in terms of a quantity characterising >>>> > disorder that he called entropy. In this picture, the universe works >>>> > on the back of processes that increase entropy - for example >>>> > dissipating heat from places where it is concentrated, and therefore >>>> > more ordered, to cooler areas, where it is not. That predicts a grim >>>> > fate for the universe itself. Once all heat is maximally dissipated, >>>> > no useful process can happen in it any more: it dies a "heat death". >>>> A >>>> > perplexing question is raised at the other end of cosmic history, >>>> too. >>>> > If nature always favours states of high entropy, how and why did the >>>> > universe start in a state that seems to have been of comparatively >>>> low >>>> > entropy? At present we have no answer, and there is an intriguing >>>> > alternative view. >>>> > >>>> > Perhaps because of such undesirable consequences, the legitimacy of >>>> > the second law was for a long time questioned. The charge was >>>> > formulated with the most striking clarity by the Scottish physicist >>>> > James Clerk Maxwell in 1867. He was satisfied that inanimate matter >>>> > presented no difficulty for the second law. In an isolated system, >>>> > heat always passes from the hotter to the cooler, and a neat clump of >>>> > dye molecules readily dissolves in water and disperses randomly, >>>> never >>>> > the other way round. Disorder as embodied by entropy does always >>>> > increase. Maxwell's problem was with life. Living things have >>>> > "intentionality": they deliberately do things to other things to make >>>> > life easier for themselves. Conceivably, they might try to reduce the >>>> > entropy of their surroundings and thereby violate the second law. >>>> > Such a possibility is highly disturbing to physicists. Either >>>> > something is a universal law or it is merely a cover for something >>>> > deeper. Yet it was only in the late 1970s that Maxwell's entropy- >>>> > fiddling "demon" was laid to rest. Its slayer was the US physicist >>>> > Charles Bennett, who built on work by his colleague at IBM, Rolf >>>> > Landauer, using the theory of information developed a few decades >>>> > earlier by Claude Shannon. An intelligent being can certainly >>>> > rearrange things to lower the entropy of its environment. But to do >>>> > this, it must first fill up its memory, gaining information as to how >>>> > things are arranged in the first place. >>>> > >>>> > This acquired information must be encoded somewhere, presumably in >>>> the >>>> > demon's memory. When this memory is finally full, or the being dies >>>> or >>>> > otherwise expires, it must be reset. Dumping all this stored, ordered >>>> > information back into the environment increases entropy - and this >>>> > entropy increase, Bennett showed, will ultimately always be at least >>>> > as large as the entropy reduction the demon originally achieved. Thus >>>> > the status of the second law was assured, albeit anchored in a mantra >>>> > of Landauer's that would have been unintelligible to the 19th-century >>>> > progenitors of thermodynamics: that "information is physical". >>>> > James Joule's 19th century experiments with beer can be used to >>>> > illustrate this idea. The English brewer, whose name lives on in the >>>> > standard unit of energy, sealed beer in a thermally isolated tub >>>> > containing a paddle wheel that was connected to weights falling under >>>> > gravity outside. The wheel's rotation warmed the beer, increasing the >>>> > disorder of its molecules and therefore its entropy. But hard as we >>>> > might try, we simply cannot use Joule's set-up to decrease the beer's >>>> > temperature, even by a fraction of a millikelvin. Cooler beer is, in >>>> > this instance, a state regrettably beyond the reach of physics. >>>> > >>>> > The question is whether we can express the whole of physics simply by >>>> > enumerating possible and impossible processes in a given situation. >>>> > This is very different from how physics is usually phrased, in both >>>> > the classical and quantum regimes, in terms of states of systems and >>>> > equations that describe how those states change in time. The blind >>>> > alleys down which the standard approach can lead are easiest to >>>> > understand in classical physics, where the dynamical equations we >>>> > derive allow a whole host of processes that patently do not occur - >>>> > the ones we have to conjure up the laws of thermodynamics expressly >>>> to >>>> > forbid, such as dye molecules reclumping spontaneously in water. >>>> > >>>> > By reversing the logic, our observations of the natural world can >>>> > again take the lead in deriving our theories. We observe the >>>> > prohibitions that nature puts in place, be it on decreasing entropy, >>>> > getting energy from nothing, travelling faster than light or >>>> whatever. >>>> > The ultimately "correct" theory of physics - the logically tightest - >>>> > is the one from which the smallest deviation gives us something that >>>> > breaks those taboos. >>>> > >>>> > There are other advantages in recasting physics in such terms. Time >>>> is >>>> > a perennially problematic concept in physical theories. In quantum >>>> > theory, for example, it enters as an extraneous parameter of unclear >>>> > origin that cannot itself be quantised. In thermodynamics, meanwhile, >>>> > the passage of time is entropy increase by any other name. A process >>>> > such as dissolved dye molecules forming themselves into a clump >>>> > offends our sensibilities because it appears to amount to running >>>> time >>>> > backwards as much as anything else, although the real objection is >>>> > that it decreases entropy. >>>> > >>>> > Apply this logic more generally, and time ceases to exist as an >>>> > independent, fundamental entity, but one whose flow is determined >>>> > purely in terms of allowed and disallowed processes. With it go >>>> > problems such as why the universe started in a state of low entropy. >>>> > If states and their dynamical evolution over time cease to be the >>>> > question, then anything that does not break any transformational >>>> rules >>>> > becomes a valid answer. >>>> > >>>> > Such an approach would probably please Einstein, who once said: "What >>>> > really interests me is whether God had any choice in the creation of >>>> > the world." A thermodynamically inspired formulation of physics might >>>> > not answer that question directly, but leaves God with no choice but >>>> > to be a thermodynamicist. That would be a singular accolade for those >>>> > 19th-century masters of steam: that they stumbled upon the essence of >>>> > the universe, entirely by accident. The triumph of thermodynamics >>>> > would then be a revolution by stealth, 200 years in the making. >>>> > >>>> > While thermodynamics seems to float above the precise content of the >>>> > physical world it describes, whether classical, quantum or post- >>>> > quantum, its connection with the other pillar of modern physics, >>>> > general relativity, might be more direct. General relativity >>>> describes >>>> > the force of gravity. In 1995, Ted Jacobson of the University of >>>> > Maryland in College Park claimed that gravity could be a consequence >>>> > of disorder as quantified by entropy. His mathematical argument is >>>> > surprisingly simple, but rests on two disputed theoretical >>>> > relationships. The first was argued by Jacob Bekenstein in the early >>>> > 1970s, who was examining the fate of the information in a body gulped >>>> > by a black hole. This is a naked challenge to the universal validity >>>> > of thermodynamics: any increase in disorder in the cosmos could be >>>> > reversed by throwing the affected system into a black hole. >>>> > >>>> > Bekenstein showed that this would be countered if the black hole >>>> > simply grew in area in proportion to the entropy of the body it was >>>> > swallowing. Then each tiny part of its surface would correspond to >>>> one >>>> > bit of information that still counts in the universe's ledger. This >>>> > relationship has since been elevated to the status of a principle, >>>> the >>>> > holographic principle, that is supported by a host of other >>>> > theoretical ideas – but not as yet by any experiment. >>>> > >>>> > The second relationship is a suggestion by Paul Davies and William >>>> > Unruh, also first made in the 1970s, that an accelerating body >>>> > radiates tiny amounts of heat. A thermometer waved around in a >>>> perfect >>>> > vacuum, where there are no moving atoms that can provide us with a >>>> > normal conception of temperature, will record a non-zero temperature. >>>> > This is an attractive yet counter-intuitive idea, but accelerations >>>> > far beyond what can presently be achieved are required to generate >>>> > enough radiation to test it experimentally. >>>> > >>>> > Put these two speculative relations together with standard, >>>> undisputed >>>> > connections between entropy, temperature, kinetic energy and >>>> velocity, >>>> > and it is possible to construct a quantity that mathematically looks >>>> > like gravity, but is defined in terms of entropy. Others have since >>>> > been tempted down the same route, most recently Erik Verlinde of the >>>> > University of Amsterdam in the Netherlands. Such theories, which are >>>> > by no means universally accepted, suggest that when bodies fall >>>> > together it is not the effect of a separate fundamental force called >>>> > gravity, but because the heating that results best fulfils the >>>> > thermodynamic diktat that entropy in the universe must always >>>> > increase. >>>> > >>>> > A possible religious implication of this is that laife after death is >>>> > already with us - information does not 'die'. >>>> > >>>> > On 19 Oct, 19:08, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > > I've seen the landscape change too Allan - East Anglia is a prime >>>> > > example - one could almost think the soil blows away into the North >>>> > > Sea. I'm with rigsy on the male domination aspect, though >>>> increasing >>>> > > 'feminisation' has changed little other than making the rooms we >>>> > > inhabit look better. I also agree on the benefits of 'robot >>>> heaven' >>>> > > on chores and plumbing - we should be extending this into a wider >>>> > > quality of work life world-wide too. >>>> > > I think science and reasonably scrupulous history has exposed our >>>> > > religious texts and national pride ideologies as myth. >>>> > >>>> > ... >>>> > >>>> > read more »- Hide quoted text - >>>> > >>>> > - Show quoted text - >>>> >>> -- >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> -- > > > > -- ( ) |_D Allan Life is for moral, ethical and truthful living. I am a Natural Airgunner - Full of Hot Air & Ready To Expel It Quickly. --
