On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 10:29:58 -0500, Andy Resnick
wrote:

wrote:

The more we think we understand, the more we find out we do not
understand, and not only do we not understand, we do not even know how
much it is we don't understand.

This is basically true.

Its not just physics either, just look at biochemistry and genetics.
They thought sequencing the genome would help solve all our questions,
but all it has done is not only not answer the questions we had, but
increased the number of questions for which we don't have answers and
do not look like having any answers to any time soon.

Absolutely- that's what great science is all about; finding new
questions to ask. Then we get to work and find answers to the
questions.

According to relativists, there is one question one is not allowed to
ask in physics: 'Why?' I think they should all be hung by their
****ing gonads as an example to the younger generation. ahahaha...
AHAHAHA... Why? Because 'why?' is the most important question of them
all. Ask any child. If you don't know the why of a phenomenon, you are
ignorant and have no real understanding. ahahaha...

Louis Savain

Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm

Andy Resnick wrote:
wrote:

The more we think we understand, the more we find out we do not
understand, and not only do we not understand, we do not even know how
much it is we don't understand.

This is basically true.


A tautology.

Its not just physics either, just look at biochemistry and genetics.
They thought sequencing the genome would help solve all our questions,
but all it has done is not only not answer the questions we had, but
increased the number of questions for which we don't have answers and
do not look like having any answers to any time soon.

Absolutely- that's what great science is all about; finding new
questions to ask. Then we get to work and find answers to the
questions. Hopefully, the answers point the way to more questions. And
I disagree that sequencing the genome has given us no answers. We have
learned all kinds of things: most of our DNA is non-coding, for example.
Some genes are spliced in different ways to make different proteins. We
know for sure that a defect in the CFTR protein causes cystic fibrosis,
and have identified the specific mutations in the gene that result in a
defective protein. We know lots of new things, but it is still true that
we don't know even more.


One of the biggest advances from genome sequencing I've seen has been
in learning history.. though many are afraid to use this powerful tool
and results are censored when they disagree with popular histories.

But yes again, as the sphere of knowledge increases so does the surface
area of unknown.



Sure we can make high level inferences that enable us to cure some
diseases, build bridges, construct computer cpu of immense complexity,
and engineer aircraft that can carry hundreds of people thousand of
kilometres in a single journey, but when it all comes down to it, we
still cannot point to that one thing that says this is what makes it
all work.

You are assuming that there is "one thing... that makes it all work".
What is your reasoning or justification for making this assumption?
Macroscopic laws do not apply to microscopic phenomena, for example.
And I would argue that going from microstructure to macrostructure is
not so simple, either. Let's just put in the column of "things not
currently understood" for now.


I think you've hit the nail on the head by identifying macroscopic and
microscopic phenomena. Once you move to looking at the microscopic
phenomena, they become macroscopic (the system you are observing) and
there is another set of even smaller details that you are throwing out
which becomes the new microscopic phenomena (too small to be observed,
or assumptions made / collision term used).

Democritus proposed that this cycle had an end, a final microscopic
physics of "atoms".. but there's no evidence that such a thing exists.



It seems everything from physics, chemistry and biology, the whole
universe in fact, is like some giant Mandelbrot set, with no end.

I hope so, how dull otherwise.



I don't know, an end to a "universe" doesn't sound entirely dull to
me..
But what is a "whole universe"? Such an object cannot be defined
consistently.. just as in set theory there is no universal set. Sets,
physical systems, and universes, are subsets of other sets.. there is
no "whole shebang".

Cheers - shevek

Traveler wrote:
On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 10:29:58 -0500, Andy Resnick
wrote:

wrote:

According to relativists, there is one question one is not allowed to
ask in physics: 'Why?'

Which relativists have you been talking too? Watch out for relativists
that have straw sticking out of their clothing.

I think they should all be hung by their
[expletive] gonads as an example to the younger generation.

Why?

Why? Because 'why?' is the most important question of them
all.

That is unrelated to your suggestion of torture; a worse example for
the younger generation is hard to think of.

Ask any child. If you don't know the why of a phenomenon, you are
ignorant and have no real understanding. ahahaha...


Then we are all ignorant and have no real understanding. Why? Because
there is always a further "why" question that can be asked after every
answer. Why? Because that is the nature of comprehension. Why?
Because no logical statement or thought can stand on its own without
some pre-existing context in which to understand it. Why? Because
otherwise there is no criteria of understanding or not understanding.
Why? [etc.]

yours in ignorance - shevek

"shevek" wrote in message
ups.com...

Andy Resnick wrote:
wrote:

The more we think we understand, the more we find out we do not
understand, and not only do we not understand, we do not even know how
much it is we don't understand.

This is basically true.


A tautology.

Do you have some objection to tautologies?


Its not just physics either, just look at biochemistry and genetics.
They thought sequencing the genome would help solve all our questions,
but all it has done is not only not answer the questions we had, but
increased the number of questions for which we don't have answers and
do not look like having any answers to any time soon.

Absolutely- that's what great science is all about; finding new
questions to ask. Then we get to work and find answers to the
questions. Hopefully, the answers point the way to more questions. And
I disagree that sequencing the genome has given us no answers. We have
learned all kinds of things: most of our DNA is non-coding, for example.
Some genes are spliced in different ways to make different proteins. We
know for sure that a defect in the CFTR protein causes cystic fibrosis,
and have identified the specific mutations in the gene that result in a
defective protein. We know lots of new things, but it is still true that
we don't know even more.


One of the biggest advances from genome sequencing I've seen has been
in learning history.. though many are afraid to use this powerful tool
and results are censored when they disagree with popular histories.

But yes again, as the sphere of knowledge increases so does the surface
area of unknown.

A tautology.



Sure we can make high level inferences that enable us to cure some
diseases, build bridges, construct computer cpu of immense complexity,
and engineer aircraft that can carry hundreds of people thousand of
kilometres in a single journey, but when it all comes down to it, we
still cannot point to that one thing that says this is what makes it
all work.

You are assuming that there is "one thing... that makes it all work".
What is your reasoning or justification for making this assumption?
Macroscopic laws do not apply to microscopic phenomena, for example.
And I would argue that going from microstructure to macrostructure is
not so simple, either. Let's just put in the column of "things not
currently understood" for now.


I think you've hit the nail on the head by identifying macroscopic and
microscopic phenomena. Once you move to looking at the microscopic
phenomena, they become macroscopic (the system you are observing) and
there is another set of even smaller details that you are throwing out
which becomes the new microscopic phenomena (too small to be observed,
or assumptions made / collision term used).

Democritus proposed that this cycle had an end, a final microscopic
physics of "atoms".. but there's no evidence that such a thing exists.

Like some giant Mandelbrot set, perhaps?



It seems everything from physics, chemistry and biology, the whole
universe in fact, is like some giant Mandelbrot set, with no end.

I hope so, how dull otherwise.



I don't know, an end to a "universe" doesn't sound entirely dull to
me..
But what is a "whole universe"?

A Mandelbrot set and an infinite number of similar sets and an infinite
number of copies of Mandelbot sets with different colours to make them
unique, together with a host of monkeys trying to write the complete works
of Shakespeare without a single spelling mistake and without a spelling
checker, on typewriters, by hand, with and without computers. But as you
correctly say, you don't know.


Such an object cannot be defined
consistently.. just as in set theory there is no universal set. Sets,
physical systems, and universes, are subsets of other sets.. there is
no "whole shebang".

Cheers - shevek

Right. (Or wrong, you don't know. I don't either, so let's find out :-)

Androcles.

On 15 Dec 2005 09:57:30 -0800, "
wrote:


Traveler wrote:
On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 10:29:58 -0500, Andy Resnick
wrote:

wrote:

According to relativists, there is one question one is not allowed to
ask in physics: 'Why?'

Which relativists have you been talking too? Watch out for relativists
that have straw sticking out of their clothing.

Most of them on the sci.physics groups claim that science (not just
physics) is about the how of things, not the why. This is common
knowledge.

I think they should all be hung by their
[expletive] gonads as an example to the younger generation.

Why?

Why? Because 'why?' is the most important question of them
all.

That is unrelated to your suggestion of torture; a worse example for
the younger generation is hard to think of.

What are you, autistic?

Ask any child. If you don't know the why of a phenomenon, you are
ignorant and have no real understanding. ahahaha...


Then we are all ignorant and have no real understanding. Why? Because
there is always a further "why" question that can be asked after every
answer. Why? Because that is the nature of comprehension. Why?
Because no logical statement or thought can stand on its own without
some pre-existing context in which to understand it. Why? Because
otherwise there is no criteria of understanding or not understanding.
Why? [etc.]

This is the same brain-dead response given by ****-for-brains
relativists like Mati Meron, Same Wormley, Bill Hobba, Dick van de
merde and the other stinking ass kissers on sci.physics. ahahaha... It
fails to take into account that not every cause is necessarily an
effect in need of a further cause. It also fails to realize that even
a shalow causal understanding is infinitely better than a mere
non-causal description. For example, it is much more useful for
medical science to know the immediate cause (a given pathogen) of a
disease than not to know. One does not need to have an answer for
every causal mechanism in the causal chain for progress to be made.
What is unnerving is for some ass kisser in the physics community to
sit on his/her stupid ass and refuse to ask why. Worse, they do it for
no other reason than to avoid showing their ****ing ignorance. It is
elistist and narcissistic to an absurd ****ing degree.

Yeah, I say hang them publically by their ****ing gonads. ahahaha...
AHAHAHA... ahahaha...

Louis Savain

Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm

I am glad I could liven things up around here a little

I don't think we should not ask why, or that the quest for knowledge is
not good for its own sake, I sincerely hope I haven't given that
impression.

But it does certainly seem from what I read lately, is that quite often
people thought they are (for arguments sake) 50% of the way to fully
understanding a phenomenon, only to find out later on, we haven't
barely begun to scratch the first 0.1%

That is to say, people looking for the grand theory of everything are
more than likely going to be very disappointed once they get there.
That is if our wisdom ever manages to catch up with our knowledge.

Dear whisper555:

wrote in message
oups.com...
The more we think we understand, the more we find out
we do not understand,

Not realy true. We don't seek knowledge because we will "get it
all" when we do. We seek knowledge because it is a trip than can
never end.

and not only do we not understand, we do not even
know how much it is we don't understand.

Its not just physics either, just look at biochemistry
and genetics. They thought sequencing the genome
would help solve all our questions,

No. They hoped that sequencing the genome would allow us to
match symptoms/diseases to possible genetic causes. It was only
supposed to be the beginning of another journey.

but all it has done is not only not answer the
questions we had, but increased the number of
questions for which we don't have answers and
do not look like having any answers to any time
soon.

Excellent! It was money well spent. We *need* frontiers.

....
It seems everything from physics, chemistry and
biology, the whole universe in fact, is like some
giant Mandelbrot set, with no end.

As good an analogy as I can imagine... only we cannot stand far
enough back to see the smaller pattern is like the larger.

David A. Smith

The more we think we understand, the more we find out
we do not understand,

Not realy true. We don't seek knowledge because we will "get it
all" when we do. We seek knowledge because it is a trip than can never
end.

We seek knowledge to obtain comfortable survival.

but all it has done is not only not answer the
questions we had, but increased the number of
questions for which we don't have answers and
do not look like having any answers to any time
soon.

Excellent! It was money well spent. We *need* frontiers.

As systems group to form metasystems, unanswered questions proliferate.

It seems everything from physics, chemistry and
biology, the whole universe in fact, is like some
giant Mandelbrot set, with no end.

As good an analogy as I can imagine... only we cannot stand far
enough back to see the smaller pattern is like the larger.

You're merely seeing the repetition of cybernetic form at different
levels.

Dear donstockbauer:

wrote in message
ups.com...
The more we think we understand, the more we find out
we do not understand,

Not realy true. We don't seek knowledge because we
will "get it all" when we do. We seek knowledge
because it is a trip than can never end.

We seek knowledge to obtain comfortable survival.

Which serves to increase population, which creates new
"uncomfortable", which requires more knowledge. A trip that can
never end.

but all it has done is not only not answer the
questions we had, but increased the number of
questions for which we don't have answers and
do not look like having any answers to any time
soon.

Excellent! It was money well spent. We *need*
frontiers.

As systems group to form metasystems,
unanswered questions proliferate.

In this case, answered questions create new, related unanswered
ones.

It seems everything from physics, chemistry and
biology, the whole universe in fact, is like some
giant Mandelbrot set, with no end.

As good an analogy as I can imagine... only we
cannot stand far enough back to see the smaller
pattern is like the larger.

You're merely seeing the repetition of cybernetic
form at different levels.

Not yet...

David A. Smith

wrote in message
oups.com...
I am glad I could liven things up around here a little

I don't think we should not ask why, or that the quest for knowledge is
not good for its own sake, I sincerely hope I haven't given that
impression.

Curiousity killed the cat. It has eight more lives, though.

If not intelligent, watch a ball being thrown around on TV,
drink lots of beer, copulate.
If intelligent, watch planets being being thrown around through
a telescope or atoms being thrown around under a microscope,
drink a little beer, copulate.
That's what life is all about.



But it does certainly seem from what I read lately, is that quite often
people thought they are (for arguments sake) 50% of the way to fully
understanding a phenomenon, only to find out later on, we haven't
barely begun to scratch the first 0.1%

Yep.


That is to say, people looking for the grand theory of everything are
more than likely going to be very disappointed once they get there.
That is if our wisdom ever manages to catch up with our knowledge.

Try this on for size.

Observation:
http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifc/00918-ck.gif
Explanation:
http://www.ebicom.net/~rsf1/sekerin.htm (fig 3)

(Or stars explode twice in three months).

Androcles.