google books had a copy up online, it may still be there. Used book outlets like Alibris will allow you to put in the book you are searching for and notify you when a copy becomes available for sale by a store that uses their service. Other than that, you may find some good articles about it with excerpts online. for Einstein fans, it is a favorite.
On Saturday, October 20, 2012 10:14:03 AM UTC-4, Allan Heretic wrote: > > how does a person get a hold of the original text..?? > Allan > > On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 3:10 PM, Molly <[email protected] <javascript:>>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. > > > > > --
