James, your "No one […] would ever call physics (with all of its mathematical beauty), an unjust, unfair, unreasonable mystery cult" comment leaves out the bit to be justified: That physics is all there is…
You yourself don't believe it. Why are you so insistent that others do so? ——————————————————————————— @ersi, who said: "Otherwise your contribution looks like, well, something about a bridge and measurements of rationality... hmm, looks pretty moot."
It may be "a bridge too far"… But I believe Wm. S. Porter ("O. Henry") knew a Smoot in North Carolina. That was, of course, before his troubles, travels and travails. I, however, knew the day-glo green painted gradations on the pedestrian walks of the bridge itself, marking its length in Smoots, a curious thing. No?
Measurement is perforce the sine qua non of science! Unfortunately, it is also the refuge of the pseudo-scientist… Slap a number on it, and you've convinced half the hapless mendacities that it may be true! And, if so, why not them?
If rationality is to be discussed, shouldn't it be defined in agreed-upon terms and measured in agreed-upon units? Or can reasonableness wend its own way? ——————————————————— Back to James: Cook-book mathematics doesn't interest me much. Neither does metaphysics, much. But reductionist empiricism is vain — in both senses…
In 1973, the draft ended in favor of an all volunteer military. Welcome to the 21st century, where just because you're over the age of 18 doesn't mean you're part of the militia. That time is long over.
Indeed, since 2009 the sovereignty of the United States has -by the current executive administration- been doubted, denigrated, and -yes, friends, it's true: dhimmi-ized… (Although Mexicalification is rightly seen, in some environs, as the more immanent threat!) There is no "America," according to these 'true believers' in — whatever: There is only the eventual uprising of the oppressed! (Marx couldn't be wrong! Right? ) Well, such may find that there is indeed a militia… The Oops! moment of the intelligentsia will go down in history as another Cinco de Mayo, a PR event that -in the end- makes no difference. But the quiet preparedness of denizens acclimated to freedom in these United States will have their say, and keep their ancient rights. Sanguinemoon will benefit, however much he complains.
Sadly true, jax… As much as I tend to -nowadays- think great swaths (swathes? ) of academics (subjects and practitioners both!) are undeserving of perusal or even preservation, let alone praise, I'd like to keep the term's original meanings. (The ridiculing of Scholastics, arguing over "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin," often shows that the scoffer merely denigrates rational thought and critical reasoning: He must know, first, who is with him; second, what's in it for him; and, third, why he should have to think… Which perforce leads him back to the beginning!)
jseaton2311 said
People use all the convenient inventions of science, but when that exact same science with all its marvelous concepts describes how the universe came into being--they call it BS. The universe is all physics and since we are a by-product of the ingredients in the universe--we are all just physics as well. The fact that we are alive and top dog on this rock doesn't make us any less a slave to the laws of physics than the atom. There was no breath of life blown into us, we evolved from single cell organisms to what we are today and it was all physics. Thought, consciousness and even our 'perceived' free will are all simply a matter of physics as well...nothing special there.
Please, James, tell me -purely in terms of physics- how you came to such a conclusion? (I can parse partial differential equations, if need be; and might be willing to apply various modes of renormalization — if you get stuck in mathematical nonsense…) But know that I may have to let you go, if you prefer your rabbit hole…
Which is to say, since you seem not to know it, that your "just physics" is un-just, neither fair nor reasonable — merely scientism, yet another Mystery Cult.
One needn't know much of English — to appear to be conversing in it. I'll grant that. But denigrating a fine old word like 'moot' (see here) is beyond the pale!
However, I remember the bridge over the River Charles, between Cambridge and Boston, at Massachusetts Avenue being marked off in Smoots… The story I'd heard most often was that an MIT freshman named Smoot was laid end-to-end across its span; somewhat similar to the French meter he was, then. Except that the original Smoot wasn't encased and secured, should a dispute occur later. Hence my contribution to this topic:
Until and unless the original Smoot can be produced, such measurements are iffy. Even can he be such measurements will remain arguable, since Smoot may have grown or shrunk. Indeed, the bridge may have grown or shrunk.
A rationalist -measured by what standard? For some reason (?), nobody mentioned any…
Forgive me, for I have read the previous posts… My sins are likely irredeemable.
For those who struggle with the concept of "immateriality," please provide me with an idea… So that I can know what it is that you refer to. (Yes, I know you can't.)
If you have even one, no one will ever know… (Think hard: What are the reasons that numbers –e.g., 1,2, etc.— are presumed to "exist"?)
For those who despair of convincing atheists of God's existence, let God do the heavy lifting! If He won't, there must be a reason… No?
"Abolition of blasphemy is what the EU Guidelines on Freedom of Religion or Belief are pushing for, it's what the UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief wants: a global repeal of blasphemy to protect everyone's right to convert." But they can't say so. Too many immigrates… (Is it just my English-only sensibility that hears "in-grates"?) "If these six countries can't do it (Iceland, Denmark, New Zealand, Poland, Germany and Greece) what hope is there for countries that punish insults to religion with death?"
They don't believe in hope. We shouldn't, either.
We should take to heart the ancient maxim: Might makes right!
(If there was ever a short-list of countries that would be expected to evidence the results of the Enlightenment, wouldn't those be included? )
"Firstly, how is that first item specifically describing a concept of a beginning coupled with an end, & secondly how in the world do you derive anthropomorphism from it?"
Give me an example of someone else who can make sense of it?
I, too, like the strip. But I've only just noticed that "DnD" is often used to refer to "Drag and Drop"… (see here) Had I merely forgotten? Was it a Freudian Slip?
I'll attempt a xkcd-type cartoon, when I wake up; if I'm sober.
Okay. Now I'm just feeling old! Captain Kangaroo and The Three Stooges, in the morning. Peter Gunn (original theme) and Alfred Hitchcock Presents, in the evening — when I was allowed to stay up that late. And then there was The Outer Limits! (The Twilight Zone having led the way…) when I was older…
to mothers their children are always the sweetest little creatures in the world... true angels... no way such adorable creatures can be the uneducated intolerable savages they obviously are...
Forgive my presumption, but that's not true! I've known many mothers. (Even myself made a few…) They're not all simple, smug and shrill. Most know quite well what they've got and what strength of will it takes to structure the day-to-day environment of their charges. Convincing them that you are not one of them is the hardest task. It's easy enough. But finding one who'd accept the conviction is very hard…
most children's literature must be made by dangerous maniacs that only have people's approval because the books helps to put children sleeping and no one question too much the book's content...
I'd agree — if I didn't know better. Children bring one back to one's "original" state: Sure and confused! As a rock singer (Seager?) said, long ago, "I wish I didn't know now what I didn't know then…"
Quote from: Belfrager
However, I doubt very much that mothers will agree...
They will, when they have no other choice…
I'm on my fourth go-round dealing with little ones! And I'm still learning, from them!
We have -as yet- no Whisper facility. So: I followed your earlier links (…at MyOpera? I don't remember…) and read some of your "stuff" on your site. Please keep writing! I've enjoyed what I've seen so far. (I don't think you need a collaborator, another writer to share the work or credit; but a good editor [human reader whose job it is to make an author's work salable - palatable to a particular audience/market] could do you a world of good.) Have you tried to sell you fiction? I think you should!
p.s., Dawg would surely take the machine's final advice…
I just saw this: DnD Central Discuss political madness, orchestrate grand religious debates, explore urban development potential, you name it.
Frans' sense of humor and his obvious intellect (…yeah, I'm sucking up! But I've read some of his writings — including code…) don't explain "urban development"… Is jax on-board?
Why do poems or stories to/regarding children have so often a touch of cruelty?
The simple answer is that they are true savages and can, only step by step, be civilized… We'd (most parents) prefer to teach the necessary lessons without resorting to physical violence. So, we speak to them on their (primal) level —to amuse and, may-haps, bemuse, hoping that our continued show of interest eventually leads them to wonder why our civility persists.
(a first draft) What haunts the nightly dreams of children seems a trifle, easy quelled: Back to sleep they drift; we're clever! Never did they see us belled…
They, as we are wont to know them, 'habit climes that we've forgot: Places where the very weather makes us shiver, rakes our lot;
withers, all, our proud and prudent ploys and gambits, each one fraught with insincere and half-intended consequence — the measure taught
by our — shall we say? — our love? 'Tis the rule they're meant to prove.
This is a rude concept; and, whether by lack or luck, I've used some old, very old techniques to achieve my aim… Since everyone knows how the rhymes should go, "breaking them" means something, all by itself. Still, the intent is only important if the poem succeeds.
Thanks much, Belfrager! Yes, it sounds quite different from what I expected… But scanning the lines as you read them helped. (Many elisions confuse my ears… The phonemic values of Portuguese are foreign, to me.)
Quote from: Belfrager
Regarding the last alterations you proposed, forget it. Don't touch what's already good.
But that's not my way! I've been known to return to even short pieces, after decades, to make minor changes; or even start anew.
The mp3 format plays directly from my desktop, since an iTunes helper dœmon is always running.
@Frenzie: Pretty good, for an impromptu translation! (The poem itself is good, too.)
However, I'm afraid there's a small problem with rhyme... [...]while your original was thought in your language and then translated by a machine that you had no idea what would come out... (luck with an outcome not too bad.)
Oh, not entirely luck: Composition took place simultaneously in English and Portuguese... Google's machine provided (computer) speech as well as text. (But that has its own pitfalls aggravations! The cadences are -- well, machine-like…) So, as best I could, I kept both in view, for sense and sound. And -as I'd surmised- the sound was harder.
Quote from: Belfrager
This small experiment tells me that's not possible to create poetry in a different language without being able to think fluently at that language. We can't just translate it.
I certainly agree that a mere translation (of poetry) doesn't suffice. But study, experiment and diligence should -before full fluency- yield satisfactory results, no?
Quote from: Belfrager
In my case, can't create not even in my own language... he he
Too much modesty! I'm told, Rome wasn't built in a day...
Quote from: Belfrager
A possible (small) correction:
quando o fórum do Opera, já não mais nossa casa, finalmente nos libertará
(será and libertará rhymes very well, opera and casa don't, because Opera has a strong accentuation in O and casa in ca. (See? to know the language it's fundamental for rhyming.))
Yes, libertará is certainly better! But I'd rather not have anything so near a rhyme — with Opera and casa… The English version has fo´-rum and home. Is there some locution that allows the reversal of the possessive phrase's elements? (E.g., in English: the forum of Opera/Opera's forum…)
Or: sendo a nossa casa já não, (?) Does that sound better to you?
Este mês feliz afirma com a tristeza que será ... quando fórum do Opera, já não nossa casa, finalmente nos liberta.
[My original, composed with its machine-translation in real-time…] This happy month contends with the sadness that will be… when Opera's forum, no longer our home, finally sets us free.
Indeed, the metrical aspect of each language is key! But -I ask, with all due respect- how did we (Google Translate and me) do?
An alternate translation:
[ ... ] quando fórum da Opera - não mais a nossa casa - [ ... ]
"não mais a nossa casa" seems wrong, to me… But it has the rhythm I expect — from ignorance. And, no, I'd take that back: the first works as well, and better; it captures the "meaning"…whereas the latter lets it loose. (The sense of time, passing, is lost. Or is it?) Yet I'd prefer "quando fórum da Opera" — and wouldn't you? (Else how we say "the Bitch…"? )
(Or this: Hoc mense felix contendit in tristitia erit ... Opera, cum est forum - non domum - denique libertatem debemus. So help me! I can hear a sort of rhyme that works, there! And I'm still only on my second glass of beer!)
Translated back into English, it is (by the same machine):
This month, he contends happy will be misery ... Works with the market - not a house - Finally, sets us free.
) of academics (subjects and practitioners both!) are undeserving of perusal or even preservation, let alone praise, I'd like to keep the term's original meanings.