mitchellmckain

As for your semi-silvered prisms, I have seen such things in scientific american articles but the principle is the same as Young's two slit experiment. You get the interference pattern because each photon goes through both holes at the same time. Yes the impact of the photon on a surface is presumed to destroy the superposition. To be more precise, what happens is the interaction of the photon with the electron of an atom in the photo-electric effect, and that interaction apparently occurs with only one electron of one atom. If you send the photons through a Young's two slit experiment one at a time they only hit one part of the screen at a time but over time they create the interference pattern. At least this is what I was told as a physics student, i have my doubts about whether any such experiment has or could be performed. Instead, I think this is what educators have presumed would happen if you could do such an experiment, in order to explain more clearly what is going on. Now here is where it gets crazy. If you put a detector at the slits to tell you which slit each proton went through before it hits the screen, the interference pattern disappears. This may actually have been done since you don't actually have to do it one proton at a time. I have to salute you because your confusion reveals deep understanding, no kidding. I have seen more than one presentation of quantum physics where the expert says that if you are not confused then you are missing point. In this case your question is probing a key point which many so called experts are confused about. Some of these idiots think that human awareness is involved. But that is just plain silly. Schrodinger's cat was a thought experiment designed to show this. The idea is that you hook up a box with cat in it to a quantum measureing device so that depending on the result a poison will be released and kill the cat, so the cat is both dead and alive at the same time until the box is opened. This is plainly absurd, the wave collapse must occur in the measuring device. Anyway back to the key question what does it really mean to be detected. This is a critical event because this is what causes the wave collapse and such events are the only part of quantum physics which is not deterministic. I think it is explored somewhat in something called measurement theory but I never saw an adequate explanation there. So the following explanation is all mine. First I should explain that the interaction with a quantum sized object does not seem to be the cause of wave collapse because such an object is perfectly able to be in a superposition of states itself. Superpostions involving such interactions do seem to be a routine part of calculations in quantum physics. In order to be detected there has to be some sort of display of the detection that a human being can read. This is only possible if there is movement of a very large number of electrons or atoms. So the measuring device must amplify the action of one elecron or photon to effect the action of billions of electrons or atoms. I think this amplification process is the key. Interestingly there is a connection here with chaos theory because amplification is a key part of what defines chaotic dynamics too. (I can explain more if you like but I will leave that alone for now) One way to think about amplification is to use the domino effect where one line of dominoes splits into two then two into four and so on until you have millions of lines of dominos. It all starts with that first interaction with the first domino. I think a key characteristic of a process like this is its irreversiblity. If a quantum sized domino fell down then it seems to be able to pick itself up again. But if it is that first domino in the chain reaction, picking itself back up will not change a thing; it is already too late. Quantum superpostion only applies to small things and the amplification process blows it up into a big thing causing the superposition to collapse and forcing them to choose one constistent state or another. Again something very similar happens in chaotic dynamics; it is called bifurcation. I hardly expect this description to satisfy someone who favors determinism, but this at least is a fair description of a detection event. By the way if you have a tough time accepting quantum physics you are in very good company. Einstein who made some of the key discoveries of quantum physics himself was a die hard determinist and could never accept what he helped to discover. He also hoped that unified field theory would make it go away. But this was before Bell's results and physics community no longer expects any such thing to happen. Yeah this is hype by some guys in Europe about the faster than like connection between particles that can be set up. But since the basic quantum event is random no information can be sent. To quote this website: http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=946324

I wouldn't go to a big store unless you have money to throw away, I would look for a small place that builds their own computers and focuses on selling all the parts at competitive prices as well as repairs. They may not build their own laptops but they probably sell them at more reasonable prices. If you have the right kind of store the total price should be under $1000 (in the US).The kind of battery you want could have a big impact on the price though.

I think vis has the right idea. I would add, seeing what books you can find in the local library system. Going through these first may give a better idea what to look for. Also what is your operating system and what compiler are you planning to use, these could have an impact on your choices as well. If you purchaced a programming platform these often have tutorials that come with them. Online tutorials for DirectX or OpenGL can be downloaded for free. Attempting these will also give you a better idea what it is that you are missing.

You know I read through these posts and those of the other thread and haven't found what the game idea is. My interest would definitely depend on what kind of game you are thinking about and of course what kind of code. I cannot understand starting a topic which invites code ideas without explaining this first.

That familiy situation sounds so familiar, so like I totally sympathize................................................... ...........with your dad. But like so many people you quickly start looking for a way around relativity somehow. So this makes it appear that the sci fi had more impact than your dad. You did not answer the questions and no one else has either. So until someone does I still have (the possibly false or hopefully false) impression that no one here understands it. Look I love science fiction just as much as I love fantasy. Its just that I don't see much difference between them. It all fun but its all fantasy. I even take it quite seriously. I think stories are very important. Whether the stories are fantasy, or history or the bible, it doesn't make much difference to me. Faster than light travel involves many logical contradictions in physics.Even traveling at the speed of light is impossible for any object with mass; it would take an infinite amout of energy. Faster than light travel would not cause time to flow backward. The problem is that the relativity of simultaneity makes faster than light travel logically equivalent to time travel. One of the main effects of accelerating to an appreciable fraction of the speed of light is that the percieved order of events, separated by large distances in the direction of your motion, changes. This does not violate causality because the spatial separation between these events must be great enough so than nothing can get from one event to the other without exceeding the speed of light. So if there was anything that could travel faster the speed, the order of events involving those things would be ambiguous and for someone passing by at high velocity those things could arrive before they leave. Two people traveling faster than the speed of light could create the same kind of paradox you have with time travel. For example, if you see an ftl traveler kill your friend, you use ftl to go kill that traveler before he left the place he came from and thus before he killed your friend.

I think KitKat has the right idea here. Considering the size of the universe it is unthinkable that there is not other intellegent life in the universe but this very argument that make their existence likely also makes encountering them just as unlikely. We now know that planets are common but all the ones we know about make the systems they exist in hostile to life because of their large size and wild orbits (try to imagine Jupiter in an orbit that crosses the orbits of earth, venus and mercury). Double stars, variable stars, and flare stars are also common making the suitable conditions for life even more rare. Of course Kit Kats argument (from the Discovery Channel) based on history would only work if advanced civilizations were usually shortlived or that none have achieved civilization much earlier than we have. But we can also add the enormous difficulties in the energy and time requirements of interstellar travel to the problem which makes encounters nearly impossible. Talk about laughable aliens has any seen the movie "Signs" with Mel Gibson in it. I thought that movie was one of the worst ever made. I couldn't stop laughing through the whole thing. Well holliwood aliens definitely disappointing, but there are books which have done considerable better. For different biology and psychology there is "Speaker for the Dead" by Orson Scott Card. For different psychology and sociology there is "Hunter of Worlds", "Cukoos Egg", and "The Faded Sun" by C J Cherryh. And for little bit of everything there is "Mote in God's Eye" by Niven and Pournelle.

I have been having a lot of fun in the Religion and philosophy forum talking about the implications of quantum physics and chaos theory for human consciousness. When I brought up another topic which I thought would be more appropriate for this forum. So I am going to quote myself from that other forum to start a discussion. I do wonder how many people talking here understand relativity and how many reject it?

I feel the need for a second response to your last post for a few more things I found in that post that deserve a response Boy if you are going to include infinite dimensions and alternate realities (which you are suggesting might interact with our own universe) you might as well call some of the more influential beings in these alternate realities spirits, angels and gods. And by your definition I don't see why these spirtis and such would be magical either. I don't have science on my side. Science is on no side of any philosophical discussion because the physical sciences are just about the mathematical relationship between measurable quantities. My point has never been that modern physics proves that I am right but that it pretty much throws the door wide open, and that the those who like mechanistic determinism or logical positivism cannot claim that science is on their side. Once science is put aside we really need to go back to primary data upon which philosophy must rely and that is the human experience. I was trying to point out aspects of the human experience that are inconsistent with us being a program on a computer or the imaginings of a super intellegent coma patient. Not a logical inconsistency or anything which would disprove it but a pragmatic inconsistency. The human experience includes this feeling or idea that we are the authors of our own actions. I don't see how sound philosophy could make this primary data a delusion. It is such a fundamental part of the human experience, that a philosophy which denies this experience seems a bit silly. The point was not so much to refute the possibility of the dreamer but to explore what our human experience implies about the dream and dreamer. For example if this dreamer is so superintelligent that he creates every detail of our universe in his dreams, what does this say about his state of unconsciousness? It seems to me that his unconsciousness is more conscious than our waking state. And if our self awareness means that he does not control us, what does this imply about our relationship to him?

You do not seem to understand the consequences of Bell's disproof of hidden variables so here are some web sites to look at. By proposing quantors you are proposing a hidden variable theory. A cherished hope of many a mechanistic determinist. http://www.answers.com/topic/bell-s-theorem http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/ http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/ From these you may notice that there is a way to rescue hidden variables. You can explain the correlation found in these experiment with hidden variables if they are non-local. So you defininitely cannot find answers in mysterious smaller particles unless they travel faster than light. Your quantors would have to instaneously connect separated events. But it is well known that such a connection exceeding the speed of light would would violate traditional causality where cause preceeds effect because of the relativity of simultaneity. In other words all the precious assumptions made by the mechanistic determism of traditional causality (or reality) and reductionism (or locality) are not compatable with the result's of Bell's experiments. One of the assumptions must be sacrificed, but the result is the same. Mechanistic determinism comes tumbling down. So you have to swallow one of these. There are physical events with no physical cause. There is a nonlocal aspect of reality connecting separated events. I think these two possibilities are equivalent, because I don't think the techniques of science will ever be able to evaluate a non-local aspect of reality. You can believe such things exist but I don't think you will ever be able to put them on any sounder basis than the Christian soul. I do believe they exist because I do believe there is an aspect of reality which is non local and not accessible to the sciences. You can call it quantors and I can call it spirit but both of us are reaching for meaning and cause behind the random events of quantum physics. We understand quantum math just fine, that is why people are working on making computers based on quantum principles. String theory and its unifier M theory (the theory of p branes) are quantum field theories. They accept the results of quantum physics and Bell's experiments, so if they succeed, the last hope for hidden variable theory will completely fail. You hope for an advance in science that will reveal quantors and the there are christians hoping for an advance in science that will reveal the mysterious soul. I believe you both hope in vain. Ahh... well... Science has developed so much in the last century and the over confident logical positivists (who thought that mathematics could describe everything) and mechanist determinists who held such a self-righteous sway over the last two centuries just cannot accept the upset of their cherished beliefs. It is so much like the Christians since of the renaissance who refuse to take any of the sciences seriously since it started upsetting their apple cart. Human beings are so stubborn. Why not open your minds to new possiblities and try to understand what modern physics is telling us about reality, instead of hoping it will go away. It only seem like science keeps changing its mind to the philosophers, because the only thing overturned is theories of the philosphers. It is one reason for the poor state of metaphysics today. No one wants to do metaphysics for fear that science will prove them wrong again. But the science itself is not overturned, otherwise ask yourself why we still teach the physics of Newton in high school and college? There is no need to worry about science, for scientists will jealously guard the techniques that have brought them their successes in the past regardless of whatever people with an agenda may want to use it to prove. It will find whatever it can find. But I think you are going to have to accept that there are no hidden variables to be found by science. I think "random" is copout too. I think we have to find meaning wherever we can get it. Ultimately science doesn't deal in meaning anyway. It is up to us to find meaning by interpreting its results, and that is a job for philosophy. We have almost the same situation in regards to relativity. So many people cannot except the failure of thier dreams of the human race traveling the the stars like in Star Trek that they refuse to accept the basic facts of relativity. They even refuse to understand those basic facts to see what relativity is actually saying about what is possible and what is not. For example, the nearest star is about 4 light years away, so assuming we can surpass any current technological limitations how fast do think it would take a traveler to get there? How about the Ring Nebula 2300 light years away? What are the limits of relativity and what are the technological limitations? What does relativity really say about traveling to these places?

Far be it from me to ever try proving anything. The point is that I am taking an interest in things you have said because there are parts where your philosophical interests intersect mine. My interest is in the nature of existence, the nature of living things, of consciousness and the implications of modern physics, and I believe that your statements have bearing on these topics. Thus an opportunity for dialog exists. An in this dialog we both have the chance to futher elaborate upon our ideas.I don't know what you mean by magical, but let me guess. I suppose you are saying that there are no non-physical factors. Well besides showing that there are events which have no physical cause, I do not believe that there can ever be any scientific proof for or against non-physical involvement. I think this is a tautology because the limits of what is physical and the the limits of science are the same thing. I also believe, in agreement many famous physicist, like Eddington, that the idea that, what science describes is the sum total of reality, is absurd. There is no reason to believe that mathmatics should necessarily be able to describe everything and every reason to believe that it cannot.An impartial approach should consider what is the most consistent with the totality of human experience, instead of refusing to consider any human experience that does not support a given belief. Your image of the world as a calculator or a game of snooker is appropriate to nineteenth century physics and the antiquated insistence that everthing must have a "logical" explanation.Your supposition that chaotic systems in identical states would have identical result fails to take into account quantum mechanics. Because this assumption absolutely does not work for quantum states. Systems in identical quantums states do not have identical results. This is precisely the consequence of the proof that hidden variables do not exist. Chaotic systems are important because of the result proven by Ilya Prigogine that a such systems will only have the same results if they are identical to an infinite degree of precision, which means that quantum fluctuations are significant in these systems. The consequence is that identical chaotic systems do not have the same result. Because of quantum physics I am afraid the inadequacy of today's computers has nothing to do with computing power but with the fact that unlike reality everything in today's computers are determined by previously existing variables. And even if we had computers that overcame this limitation, they could only simulate a brain with the same basic nature (for I do agree that the medium is irrelevent and only process matters) but that they still could not predict a brain because the results would be completely unique and different in every case.Now just in case christians would like to use this for their claims, the fact is that these basic facts apply to all chaotic systems including neurons and hurricanes. In fact I seriously doubt that you or anyone can define the term "self aware" in a non-anthropomorphic fashion as a concrete physical/mathematical process that would include humans and yet exclude neurons or hurricanes. Nose, blood and water content are not organisms but only parts, and they do not have the basic self organizing principles that living things do. However a skin cell in the nose and a blood cell are organisms, and they do absorb energy and materials from their environment to maintain their own dynamic structure. I think that the diffence between them and a human being is quantitative not qualitative. In other words, I think they are self aware but millions of times less so so than the human being, by concrete physical measurements of the speed and volume of information involved.These are (theoretical) scientific results. The philosophical question that remains is whether the events in chaotic systems like the human brain, which have no physical cause, have some kind of non-physical involvement. Look, you can believe that we are all the imaginations of a coma patient (or whatever) if you desire, just as chritians can believe in their judgemental God and/or souls or whatever. You can also try using science like a hammer to prove that your point of view is the better one, just as they do. Maybe you are right. Maybe they are. I cannot prove a thing, but I think both are wrong.

hast-webben has apparently started this discussion of the meaning of life in order to introduce the New Humanism of Silo. Ok so I looked into it a little and found what is apparently a humanist sect that aims at world unification or at least world peace based on humanism. I found some descriptions of their beliefs and some criticisms of their practices. The one thing I did not find was a history. Having spent some time in a similar organization, I know how difficult it is to evaluate such an organization from the outside. often the message they tell the public and what they tell members can be quite different. In fact their can be more than one circle of membership and thus more than one such discrepancy in doctrine. Here is a quote of their doctrine from one website: http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/ hast-webben has connected this introduction to Siloism to his starting topic by transmitting the content of a talk apparently by this person named Silo in Argentina. Well this is appears to be a talk to the inner circle, to members of the sect, calling upon them to subjugate their purpose in life to the purpose of the sect. If these members choose this for their purpose, the more power to them. I hope they have a good experience, though I can guarantee that not all of them will since that is the reality in human endeavors. If there is anything I am not completely comfortable with, it is "the central postion of the human being as a value and concern" and the idea of "humanizing the earth". Although I think much of the analysis of the difference between humans and animals has a great deal of truth to it, I think the status of man is not entirely decided. I think that the difference is more of a goal to aim for rather than an accomplishment to boast of. Besides the differences are only one side of the story. The commonalities are also important. I am not completely sure that I understand what is meant by "The development of knowledge beyond that accepted as absolute truth". It sounds a little bit like a recognition of the importance of science in addition to religion, but who knows. One of the greatest flaws of Christianity is the failure to give any regard or respect to the natural world. Of course this does not mean that most christians do not have such respect, but the absence of that regard in their central teachings is troubling. Well I see the same flaw in Siloism. In addition I am troubled by the careful avoidance of the term religion.

Gee this seems to be turning into bettors anonymous. Well I certainly have no "fix it" advice to offer.I tried it once until I found the trick. You only stop when you lose. Which is another reason that the house always wins. Now I enjoy the cheap accomodations on my way to Los Angeles and I even enjoy the spectacle of Las Vegas, but I don't like feeling like a chump, so I don't gamble.I don't get the "losing it makes you want to win it back" Money is money and your way to get it is your career choice. I suppose if you enjoy gambling you might make such a career choice.

One of my favorites and will be for a long time to come since I don't overplay computer games. I just don't put in enough time playing them to ever finish them. I get just as much fun doing my own programing on them as playing them. I just finished my own 4 MB two module campaign called gauntlet which I use to have a little fun while quickly raising up and equipping new characters. I have downloaded quite of few modules for this game too. And I reccomend people taking a look a Demon Cards which I thing is a wonderful demonstration of just how flexible the system is.

I am surprised that no one here has mentioned the best feature of Starcraft of all, and that is its extremely easy to use, stable, and wonderfly flexible Campaign editor. I have played a campaign where someoned used starcraft to set up a fantasy RPG, where you choose a class for your character: fighter, magic user, archer, shapechanger or mechanic, and then you advance through levels as you gain experience points.It is wonderful for me an my young boys because they never want to play against me but on the same side against the computer. So I can developed challenging campaigns that compensate for their weaknesses while keeping things interesting.

Here is another post where I found the title interesting but the direction of the discussion a bit disappointing. Let me quote this website: http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/ The direction of this discussion really follows none of these but the commonly employed one would have been just as disappointing to me. The introductory post seems strongly pointed in the direction of ethics. This is a branch of philosophy which I could never summon much interesting in except on personal level because I find it the least susceptible to logic but primarily a matter of choice. As a reference to the writing of Aristotle, I find metaphysics very interesting, since he is my favorite of the Greek philosophers and his work "Metaphysics" the most intersting of his writings. But it is the traditional branch of philosophy that holds the most interest for me. I am fascinated by its historical development and especially the impact of modern physics. This is tragic. I agree that science can't explain everything. I believe that the main reason for the spectacular success of the physical sciences is its very narrow topic area. Science has a sort of tunnel vision seeing the world through the filter of mathematics. The non-physical sciences have adopted the same kind of tunnel vision and blindness by emulating the physical sciences. BUT, God does not explain anything. I absolutely love the TV series "Joan of Arcadia", where Joan is constantly fustrated by God's unwillingness to explain a single thing. Well as an explanation for things, God is pathetic. We would do better to say that things just are the way they are and require no explanation. From this perspective of explaining things I find myself in agreement with majestictreefrogs essay in the thread "The nature and purpose of religion" But whether it is by participants or by observers I think this idea of God as an explanation is a gross misunderstanding of religion. It is not about explanation at all. It is much more about coping with life and the responsibilities we have in living it. Parenting is one of life's most difficult tasks, and for the mainpart I say whatever works and the observers can mostly butt out. I personally like finding punishments appropriate to the infraction. I found my boys and some new friends accross the street throwing rocks at each other. I have forbid them playing with these kids for a week. I have also taught my children that, "Your boss is and always will be someone who has something you want." When other members of the household (mother and wife) have requested that I punish the boys I have sometimes (especially when it is for something I don't feel strongly about) told them that it is up to them to find their own arsenal in the favors they do for the boys themselves.

I could really care less about whether a film is a cult film or not. But I really love films which break mold and my boredom as well.Ive seen a few on your list. Loved Donnie Darko, watched it three times. Last was directors cut and it was ok. Don't much care for gore for its own sake so a lot of these don't appeal. Pi was interesting. I want to see Metropolis but haven't had the chance yet. Intrigued by the relationship with one of my favorites "Dark City" and I wonder about a relationship with the anime "Metropolis".I am really in to Japanese Anime. I love all of Miyazaki's films and I am absolutely crazy about Hikaru no Go. There are some really cool foreign films like "Run Lola Run".

I sympathize with you about the environment in which you have been raised. The south is the only part of the united states which I have never visited and cannot say that I understand it. I find the expressions of christianity which come from that region (not to mention the cult known as Bob Jones University) to fill me with no little discomfort. If you think it is bad with religion. You cannot imagine how bad it would be without it. No matter how intolerant a religious group may seem, the religion is not the source of the intolerance. Intolerance is natural state of man without religion which views all human beings outside its own tribe as prey. The primary role of religion in human history has been to extend the idea of brotherhood to much larger groups. One of the most extreme examples is Islam. It may seem very intolerant to us today but its essential teaching was a whole new kind of tolerance and unity that did not exist before, and it united in brotherhood some of the most warlike areas of the world. The crusades may seem like a blot on the history of christianity. But if you blame it on christianity you are missing the real context. The crusades took place in the dark ages, which means that they were composed of people derived from the barbaric tribes who invaded from the north and who adopted christianity after feasting upon the wealth of the western part of the Roman empire. The only real criticism that you can make of christianity is its failure to completely modify the aggressive and xenophobic nature of its believers. It really had very little to do with religious difference since they plundered and slaughtered chritians and muslim alike. It is the same story with the imperialistic behavior of the Roman empire itself which began its campaign of world conquest long before it adopted christianity. I guess I just don't believe in the kind of truth you are talking about. I am a pragmatist and so for me the only real truth is that which helps us live our lives in a better way and so it is not about whether you have it or not, but about how well the product does its job. The christianity you are talking about really isn't about a pretense to truth (although I am sure the people themselves are ripe with all kinds of pretense) but about conservative reactionism. It is about preserving the life transforming gem of truth they have against an assault of ideas which threaten to destroy it. The real question is whether religion, considering the conflicts in the world that seem to be related to religious difference, has any positive role in future history. And I am afraid that the answer is that it must. It is the nature of developing organism. You cannot rebuild from scratch. Revolutons do not work. The American revolution is misnomer because it wasn't fighting for change but against interference. Religion is a part of the process that is bringing mankind into common undertanding, and so it must be a part of the completion of that process. Besides, we are looking at the role of religion in conflict from the wrong end of the stick anyway. The question is why people continue to fight inspite of tremendous commonality that their religions give them. For example Judaism and Islam are practically branches of the same religion. Islamic tradition calls Judaism and Christianity "religions of the book" acknowleging their validity. Hmmm... Yes. I do believe that the ultimate search for answers lie in finding the right questions. I don't know whether you can change the questions that these religions ask. But I hope I have pointed out how important it is to be asking the right questions about religion in order to understand it.

Hmmph... When I read the title I thought this was really about faith, not just a restatement of the all the other posts asking about religion. Well I will respond by saying what I find so interesting about the word "faith." But in order to be true to the original post I will also tie it in to whether I believe in God and answer some of the questions in that first post. Well the use of the word "faith" that interests me most is the role that it plays in epistemology (the theory of knowledge). When we ask how it is that we know things, faith is one of the answers and despite the silliness of scoffers it is an important one. Speaking as a physicist, for example, I will firmly say that faith plays a vital role in the process of discovery in physics. Before I go on I wish to quote a favorite science fiction book of mine called "Tactics of Mistake", by Gordon R. Dickson. "by and large, philosophers are ruthless people. ...The immediate teachings of philosophers may be gentle, but the theory behind their teaching is without compunction" I quote this because I wish to make the point that people who think in terms of rationality and ideals and are obsessed with impartial judgement without sentimentality often railroad the perception of life in a ruthless manner without giving due notice to the perfectly valid experiences of human beings as they live their lives. I do not wish to say that in doing philosophy my way that I can avoid being just as ruthless as the character in Dickson's book accuses all philosphers, but I do say that in being aware of our ruthless tendencies we can try to compensate by giving due notice to data which is often exlcuded in order to improve upon our impartiality. Now getting on with the topic of faith, consider an everyday use of the word faith in the following dialog. "He will come back." says the first voice. "How do you know it?" asks the second voice. "I have faith in him." the first voice replies. In this dialog, faith is put forward as a source of knowledge. Now the scoffer will say that this person has no knowledge at all but only wishful thinking. But I think we all live our lives with the same kind of faith everyday, and without it we cannot live. We drive our cars, with faith that we will arrive without dying the way. We work at our jobs with faith that we will be paid. This is pretty much a neverending list. The scoffers think faith is self delustion and a crutch that is needed only by the weak of mind, for the only real knowledge requires proof. I say it is scoffers who are handicapped by their need for proof. I say that their need for certainty is a worse crutch. I say that the expectation of proof is the greatest delusion of them all. Proof is the bread and butter of mathematics, but you cannot get anywhere without axioms which you accept on faith, without any proof at all. In physics we take a theory on faith until we find contrary evidence, so that we can revise our theory and raise up a new object of faith. And then there is the most important of human concerns, love, which cannot exist without faith. There is no proof that will ever reveal the contents of another person's mind or feelings. The only possible knowldege of love must be given by faith. And there is no proof of your own love for someone else that will distinguish it from infatuation or desire. Love is a leap of faith. Necessity of faith derives quite directly from the inaccessibility of proof and the fact that if we chase the illusion of proof our life and endeavors come to a standstill. Faith is indispensible because it conditions our responses to the events of our lives. It is part of the filter of our perceptions, for as any good psychologist knows, our seeing and hearing happens in our mind not our senses. And a good faith helps us to find the reactions to life that are the most helpful in living our lives in a fruitful manner. Of course what is fruitful or helpful to our own lives is something that we can only judge for ourselves. Of course some may say that this is only an excuse to continue in ignorance happy with our delusions, for it is often the case with children especially, that what they want and what they need are often at odds. Christians might say that this is why salvation requires an act of God. Well I find another philosophy which fits quite neatly into place here called pragmatism or "pragmaticism" by Charles Sanders Pierce, which suggest that the ultimate source of knowledge is to make a trial of it and see if it works. In this theory of epistemology, the effect of believing in something is part of its truth value. In this way our life is our own personal experiment to run as best we can and so to find our own best answer to the question of truth. One common problem with the word faith as with many words including science and God, is that there are people who try to take private ownership of them, delegating to the themselves the ultimate authority on what these words mean. It is nothing more than an infantile attempt to squash troubling questions and challenges to their beliefs, as part of their own addiction to certainty. Now to keep my promise, in answering some of the questions of the starting post. My own deepest faith is this, "that life is worth living." An elaboration of that faith that I often give is in the statement that "every experience in life is a gift." The inspiration for this faith may surprise you, for it came to me from a book by the so called existentialist Albert Camus, called "The Stranger." Now for me this faith leads directly to God as the author of these gifts. In fact I often say that the statement "that life is worth living" is equalent in my mind and personality to the statement "I believe in God." For this equivalence is my ultimate source for a definition of the word God, that is meaninful to me. I personaly find any question of whether a thing exists or not to be a meaningless one. To ask a question about something you must have the object at hand or a word for it, and in either case the relevant question is not whether it exists but what is it. Questions about whether God exist are silly. We would be much more to the point if we simply explained what the word means to us. And if it doesn't mean anything to you, then talking about it is more about poking into other peoples business than any thing else. As for my family influence. I asked my father once if he believed in God and he replied that he was an agnostic, and I took from his explanation that this meant he did not know. As a result, I dedicated myself to finding out the answer on my own.

Of all the greek philosophers Aristotle was the most productive, the most influential and, I believe, now the most misunderstood of the greek philosphers. The worst thing about Aristotle was the effect of his unrivaled genius, that he overshadowed human thought for such a long time. He was so knowlegable and right about so many things that it was difficult to doubt him where he was wrong. He is misunderstood largely because, medieval writers who were overawed by him, twisted his teachings to support christian doctrine. For a description of some of his more astounding observational contributions to science see the websight: http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/aristotle.html, which ends with, "It is one of the ironies of the history of science that Aristotle's writings, which in many cases were based on first-hand observation, were used to impede observational science." It is another irony the Aristotle has been equated with the rigid mechanical view of the world encouraged by the science and philosophy of the 19th century when nothing could be farther from the truth. Unlike other Greek philosophers particularly plato, Aristotle was a philospher of living things, which he studied extensively. For him the living was not a blot of imperfection upon the world as it was for plato. I think when you read him carefully you see a radical view which strives against the reductionist methods (explanation of thing by breaking them down into constituent parts) of nineteenth century which is better represented in Greek philosophy by the Atomists and Democritus. His ideas about causality are completely alien to the science of the nineteenth century. And the only the discovery of quantum physics and chaotic dynamics provides a light in which Aristotles ideas about causality start to ring with small germs of truth. His ideas about existence constisting of matter and form sounds a great deal like modern thought about all things being different forms of energy.

OK I think this post clears things up a bit. What you mean by a neuron is simply its function in a neural net. If one assume that it does its job properly you can treat it as a set of rules. Kind of like reducing a telephone operator to the rules of his/her job description. Yeah ignore the details and you get Sim City. Once you characterize something as a chaotic system you can start to quantify this characteristic in terms of complexity, speed and more importantly hierarchy. Really complex chaotic systems are hierarchical and looking closely at such a chaotic system you see that it is composed of the interactions between smaller chaotic systems. This hierarchal development enhances the system's ability organize it own structure with greater independence from the environment simultaneous with greater sensitivity to the environment. The greater independence and sensitivity allows more adaptability and better survival. Compared to the speed of neural interaction, the interactions in the chaotic system which is the neuron itself is quite slow. Yet the neuron is way beyond the complexity of the weather. Earth weather, in fact, is too unstable and self organizing systems like hurricanes are much shorter lived. The red spot on jupiter is a different story. They all redirect energy and materials to reinforce their own structure, and eventually they die.

My wife is Japanese and we (including the two boys) are going to Japan this summer to visit family this July. I have to work online so I will still be connected daily while I am there. Natually I am also interested in most things Japanese. Even before I met my wife I became an avid Go player. I like Japanese animation, especial those by Miyazaki. American animation is too noisy and obsessed with comedy. I am really crazy about the new Japanese TV show called Hikaru no Go, about a boy who meets the spirit of an ancient go player.The closest I ever got to Poland is Latvia, spent a summer there in 91.

Someone sent me a message to ask me my major, so after I replied I decided to copy that text here as part of an introduction."I was a physics major as an undergraduate who was taking a lot of extra math classes including three years of numerical analysis when I wanted to leave right away so I switched my major to math so I could get my BS in a hurry. Then I got an MDIV (a three year graduate degree) from a seminary, before I went back to physics as graduate student. I did my first PHD project in the General Relativity department contributing to a publication on Barbour Bertotti theory. Then I switched to High Energy Physics (particles) and worked on a PHD project doing Monte Carlo simulations on supercomputers for a few years when I lost interest in physics research altogther, so I abandoned my PHD asperations and graduated with a masters degree. In retrospect, I might done better in a more experimental field of physics. On the other hand I found my real interest which is in eduactional physics software. So I spent the next three years part time teaching while working on Relspace (relspace.astahost.com).All this means is that I am really nuts about physics and philosophy."From other posts people may already concluded that in addition to physics and philosophy, I am also very into science fiction and fantasy, board and card games (Go and Magic the Gathering being my favorites, but I have a large collection of other games), computer games (favorites are starcraft, diablo 2 and NeverWinter nights which I play with my 2 boys on a home network), movies (sci fi and oriental), and computer programming. I now teach physics for ITT online so I am practically married to this thing, or so my Japanese wife implies. I used to talk on the usenets a bit and now have to teach using this medium so I am no stranger to the online community. While looking for a free web site to offer my simulator "relspace" I was so intrigued by the idea of earning my webspace in Xisto, that I could not resist joining in.

Ah yes an approximation simulation and a pretty good estimation at low resolution.At a height of a few thousand feet the people in a city look like ants. Oh, have you played those sim city games.I think weather is much simpler than a neuron and we have pretty good models that we can stick on a computer to predict the weather. ha ha.

You know with out any protons in the mix the electron doesn't make much sense. I mean how can their be any attraction to the electron if there is nothing positive in the govermentium at all. There seems to be plenty of charm and strangeness, but I dont's see why that would hold an electron.It makes me wonder if it really is an electron at all, maybe we deluding ourselves. If it doesn't obey basic rules that electrons are supposed to follow, then something else is going on. I suspect tampering with the results.Have you noticed how the governing principles (if they have principles) of the most populated states seem to be in the same atomic family, there has to be a correlation between this and the bizzare behavior of the electron.

I am an American and America does not make sense to me either. I think country is insane, hypocritical and ruled by gun manufacturers. The reason for gun control is not complicated it is quite simple. Do we really want any people who wants it, including children, to readily be able to aquire the power to kill lots of people very quickly? Does this really require a great deal of thought?The same people who are against gun control also get all excited about other countries developing weapons of mass destruction. hypocrits!Are they completely insane or totally blinded by their own greed?