[MD] Doug Renselle & Language

[Magnus Berg]

Hi

> [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.

I wouldn't call it ambiguity since it implies unintentional 
disagreement. It's more of a disagreement on what the terms should mean. 
But since we don't specify each time what every one of us mean with the 
term when used, it gets complicated.

And I of course don't suggest we invent a completely new language like 
Sanskrit to discuss the MoQ. But since we do use some words that do not 
have the same meaning as in most dictionaries, then I claim we do use a 
new language, whether we like it or not.

>> [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.

Ok, ok. I just thought you were implying something else by mentioning it 
right after "absolutely discrete boundary". Were you?

	Magnus