[MD] Bo's weak versus strong interpretation of quantum physiks

[plattholden at gmail.com]

On 25 Jul 2010 at 18:07, Krimel wrote:

[Platt]
As if scientists and teachers aren't biased like everyone else and don't
seek to denigrate other points of view, mostly disproved behind closed 
doors but out there for all to see in the dispute about global warming. 
As for Fox News, liberals are deathly afraid of its fair and balanced 
approach.

[Krimel]
The fact the people of any persuasion argue in favor of what they believe is
hardly an indictment.  But FOX News? Please they don't even pretend to be
"fair and balanced."

[Platt]
No indictment. Just necessary balance to your implication that that academics 
are just a fine bunch of people whose supposed single-minded pursuit of 
knowledge overcomes all human foibles.  You'll find more debate on Fox News 
than on any other channel. That's why it beats the competition hands down.

[Platt]
Maybe they should instead of, let's say, the sacrifices needed to become a
military commander able to rescue countries like France from authoritarian
occupation.

[Krimel]
This comment makes no sense whatever. Not even in the context I snipped.
WTF?

[Platt]
You talked about the alleged sacrifice necessary to become a scholar. I offered 
balance by making a comparison to the sacrifices of military people  You said 
France was a wonderful "family values" place to live. I offered balance by 
pointing out it wouldn't be except for the sacrifices of our military who  
liberated France from Nazi occupation. TTF. 

> [Platt]
> You mean science is skeptical of and constantly questions their
assumptions
> of determinism, reductionism, materialism, and emergentism? I'd love to
see
> some evidence.
>
> [Krimel]
> Pick up a copy of "Science" or "Nature" or any such journal.

[Platt]
Can't produce any evidence, eh? OK, I understand.

[Krimel]
No Barnes and Noble or Borders near you. Got a library in your neighborhood.
I mean I get they you are comfortable ensconced in your fantasy world of
misconception but why are you even bothering with this?

[Platt]
Not one little bit of evidence, Krimel? How about something on the net you can 
cite as evidence? ? Nothing there we can all see together?    

> [Krimel]
> The ways that people characterize this process are legion. Subject/object
> is just one of them. Some in say the theology department might hold for
> example that thoughts are reflections of the mind of God.

[Platt]
The source of SOM is not the issue. I guess you would claim the source is
the brain.
Whatever the source, the process is the same -- subjects observing objects,
a.k.a., I think, therefore I am.

[Krimel]
That doesn't even make sense in Cartesian terms. The cogito does not produce
the mind body problem that is derived from Descartes elaborations on the one
toehold of certainty he could find. How you can equate a supernatural
theistic world view with SOM is entirely a mystery.

[Platt]
I think (subject), therefore I am (objective state of being). Get it? The real 
mystery is how you think I equated a supernatural theistic world view with SOM. 
  

[Platt]
An example of a corporation that pursues knowledge "for its own sake" is
Bell Labs whose "pursuit" has been rewarded with seven Nobel Prizes in 
Physics. I certainly don't knock the contributions of the academy in the 
physical sciences. But in the liberal arts they have little to contribute 
of value.

[Krimel]
Bell Labs and Xerox PARC are two good examples of research conducted in the
private sector but they were hardly pure research the work there was
targeted at specific problems. That's fine because just as pure research can
have practical consequences, practical research can contribute to higher
understandings. Shannon and Mandelbrot, working out of Bell and IBM labs
actually did produce ideas that have transformed the world beyond SOM in
ways that you are totally clueless about.

[Platt]
Well, why don't you clue us in to whatever they did "beyond SOM? I'm not 
familiar with Shannon but I know Mandelbrot funished us all with some pretty  
patterns. Is there a clue about a "world beyond SOM" there somewhere?   

> [Krimel]
> Actually I suspect that if the government insisted on retaining the right
> to income from the discoveries it has financed, taxation would be a thing
of
> the past. Satellite communication is an example, it is simply would not
> exist at all without government funding for research and development. I
> remember with the original Telstar satellite was launched and the money it
> was suppose to generate was to be put back into funding public
> broadcasting.
> But the technology was instead turned over to private enterprise for free.
> Like the discoveries of basic medical research this is nothing but
> corporate welfare.
>

[Platt]
Paid for by corporate and other taxpayer dollars. The government doesn't
finance anything. We do.

[Krimel]
I hate to have to continue to remind you of this but we ARE the government.

[Platt]
Without taxing the production of the private sector the government couldn't 
finance a lollipop much less waste billions of dollars on a super collider, for 
just one example. To offer balance I remind you that government is legalized 
force.

 [Platt]
That's a cold-blooded SOM scientist talking. The same logic applies when the
elderly are denied medical care because the money would be better used to
care for the more numerous young.

[Krimel]
You are the one who consistently measure political virtue in terms of body
counts. Your second sentence is simply inintelligible.

[Platt]
I constantly do what? Please cite example of my use of "body counts." The 
second sentence is all about the government treating individuals as faceless, 
nameless bodies, leaving the individual little choice.    

> [Krimel]
> I'm with Don Henley on this one:
> "They call it paradise. I don't know why.
> You call someplace paradise, kiss it goodbye."
>
> Paradise is right here right now. If you aren't happy right here right now
> it seem unlikely to me that you are going to be transformed into a happy
> person in some other time in some other place. It has nothing to do with
> technology or the lack of it.
>
> [Platt}
You disagree with Pirsig's observation? I assume you do.

[Krimel]
I am not talking to Pirsig. He doesn't take my calls. But I do disagree with
you.

[Platt]
He doesn't take my calls either. But, I assume you can read the passage I 
quoted from him. Do you agree with what he wrote or not? Easy question. 

[Platt]
You also disagree with with Pirsig's support of capitalism? I assume you
do.

[Krimel]
I do not agree that Pirsig is the brain dead conservative you paint his to
be. 

[Platt]
I'll ignore the false accusation. No question that he leans left. But, do you 
agree with him that the free enterprise system is superior to socialism by 
being more open to the influence of DQ? Or to go a bit further, what's your 
take on DQ?

[Platt]
Without profits there would be no technology. Humanity would still be in
caves.

[Krimel]
For the vast majority of its history mankind thrived without profits.
Profits and interest were considered immoral in the middle ages because they
disrupted the equilibrium of population to food supply.

[Platt]
If there wasn't any surplus from productive labor, how did all those knights 
and priests survive?

[Krimel]
 The Inca in the late
1400's commanded the third largest empire in human history and did so
without writing or money.

[Platt]
Ditto the above for those Inca elites.