[MD] Doug Renselle & Language

[Krimel]

> [Krimel]
> My personal preference is to rely on common usages for common terms. In
the
> spirit of being able to explain complex ideas to children. Furthermore I
> thing the use of specialized language just tends to obscure rather than
> highlight our meanings. Further furthermore I don't think the MoQ is
> complicated enough to warrant a specialized vocabulary.

[Magnus]
Ok, we simply disagree here. I don't think the terms, as we use them in 
the MoQ, *are* common. And I don't think the main purpose is to be able 
to explain it to children. And I think specialized language make things 
much easier to discuss and make progress within the field at hand. And I 
*do* think the MoQ is quite complex enough to make it worth while to 
keep discussing it for 13 years.

[Krimel]
I am shocked that we disagree. But I don't see these 13 years of discussion
as evidence that "special" words have made discussions here easier or even
coherent. I'd say just the opposite. If you said the lack of progress here
and the ambiguity of the MoQ's terms have resulted in 13 years of lack of
consensus; well that would be a great argument against my own position.

> [Krimel]
> Actually I meant that as a pun on Doug's creation of quantum speak. But I
> think it also means a jump from one electron shell to the next without
> passing through the intervening space. These seems an odd sort of "atoms
and
> void" effect that contributes to quantum weirdness. For your purposes that
> jump is a kind of absolutely discrete boundary line but even there what
you
> have is an electron "cloud".

[Magnus}
What do you mean by electron "cloud"?

[Krimel]
Cloud, shell, orbit... Those set distances from the nucleus of an atom
wherein one, with some measurable degree of probability, might find an
electron.