Driver to drive?

[UltimatePatriot]

On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 13:59:46 +0100, warm'n'flat
<warm'n'flat@rabbit.com.au> wrote:

On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 18:20:51 -0700, UltimatePatriot
UltimatePatriot@thebestcountry.org> wrote:

On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 23:34:03 GMT, Richard The Dreaded Libertarian
null@example.net> wrote:

On Fri, 17 Oct 2008 23:51:42 -0700, Robert Monsen wrote:
On Fri, 17 Oct 2008 07:30:59 -0700 (PDT), Richard Henry

I think he was set up by the Obama campaign to make McCain look
stupid.

It worked!

The republicans knew they would lose this one, and figured they could
spare McCain. They even protected their cannon fodder for next time by
forcing McCain into chosing a loser like Palin for vp. Didn't want to
him to take down somebody who might actually win in 2012.

By 2012, America herself will be unrecognizable as a Sovereign State.

Hell, even the NEOCONS have gone socialist.

Thanks,
Rich


The Mayans were right. December 21 2012. It all ends. None of this
bickering around horseshit means a damned thing. We all meet our maker
on that day. Palin will win the election, but never take office.

You gotz yer asteroid belt... no problem...
You gotz yer Oort Cloud... no problem...

Then, you gotz us passing through the Galactic equator... who is to
say there isn't some huge piece of space debris that we'll hit (or be hit
by) from raw, deep space? Why does everyone think that it has to be from
a local source?
Nurse, come here quick! He's gone mad again. You'd better bring his
strait jacket as well!

It's twooo! It's twooo! We'll all die as we pass through...

 

[UltimatePatriot]

On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 08:23:10 -0700, Jim Thompson
<To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 00:58:56 -0700, JosephKK <quiettechblue@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 09:44:13 -0700 (PDT), mpm <mpmillard@aol.com
wrote:

On Oct 21, 10:21?am, Richard Henry <pomer...@hotmail.com> wrote:

You don't get arrested for plumbing without a license

Agreed. I was just responding to Terrell's terminology, as he lived
there.
Substitute "citation" or "get a fine" for arrest if you like.
But I don't live or work there, so I really don't know.

-mpm

Perhaps i can clear the air a bit. I have not researched Ohio laws
but there is such a thing as "uniform state laws" mostly. An
organization called "National Committee on Uniform State Laws" formed
under the Constitutional "full faith and credence" law issue between
the states, caused the creation early on. See:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uniform/uniform.html

Pro-life vs Pro-choice and the alternative marriage issues are driven
by this issue. Thus efforts to decide it nationally. The national
issue effort only trades local variation for global variation, but
adds input from many more cultural points of view.

Here in the US, perhaps we should just kill the extremists and walk
away from fighting about it for a while.

8=(


In trades (and engineering) it is _uniformly_ the rule/regulation/law
that only the "responsible" person needs the license... think P.E. for
example.

I can think of only a few instances where all workers need
(industry-specific) licenses, at least here in AZ... beauticians,
heavy truck drivers, securities salesmen, and certain real estate
agents.

For other jobs I am sure it varies substantially by state.

I Cali, you even need a license to fart.

 

[John Fields]

On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 23:40:14 GMT, Rich Grise <rich@example.net> wrote:

On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 15:03:11 -0500, John Fields wrote:
On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 19:48:33 GMT, Rich Grise <rich@example.net> wrote:
On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 19:23:43 +0100, Eeyore wrote:

Well, I'm in high demand in the audio sector (amongst others).

There must be SOME reaon for that whether it it be my intellect,
hearing or both.

Audiophoolery?

Damn, Rich, good one!!!

Thanks. ;-) I guess I just couldn't control myself.

---
Sometimes, casting your fate to the winds might be a good thing.

For a while, anyway.



JF

 

[UltimatePatriot]

On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 09:31:09 -0700, JosephKK <quiettechblue@yahoo.com>
wrote:

On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 08:23:10 -0700, Jim Thompson
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:


On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 00:58:56 -0700, JosephKK <quiettechblue@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 09:44:13 -0700 (PDT), mpm <mpmillard@aol.com
wrote:

On Oct 21, 10:21?am, Richard Henry <pomer...@hotmail.com> wrote:

You don't get arrested for plumbing without a license

Agreed. I was just responding to Terrell's terminology, as he lived
there.
Substitute "citation" or "get a fine" for arrest if you like.
But I don't live or work there, so I really don't know.

-mpm

Perhaps i can clear the air a bit. I have not researched Ohio laws
but there is such a thing as "uniform state laws" mostly. An
organization called "National Committee on Uniform State Laws" formed
under the Constitutional "full faith and credence" law issue between
the states, caused the creation early on. See:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uniform/uniform.html

Pro-life vs Pro-choice and the alternative marriage issues are driven
by this issue. Thus efforts to decide it nationally. The national
issue effort only trades local variation for global variation, but
adds input from many more cultural points of view.

Here in the US, perhaps we should just kill the extremists and walk
away from fighting about it for a while.

8=(


In trades (and engineering) it is _uniformly_ the rule/regulation/law
that only the "responsible" person needs the license... think P.E. for
example.

I can think of only a few instances where all workers need
(industry-specific) licenses, at least here in AZ... beauticians,
heavy truck drivers, securities salesmen, and certain real estate
agents.

For other jobs I am sure it varies substantially by state.

...Jim Thompson

Spot on. Now, trying to clarify further, there is usually a union
moderated trade skill licence, there is the state moderated
contractors licence, and the county moderated business licence. Plus
to own a company and have employees there is the federally moderated
EIN for income and SSI taxation.

ONLY in certain industries. Certainly not in the electronics industry.

 

[mpm]

On Oct 23, 11:18�pm, UltimatePatriot
<UltimatePatr...@thebestcountry.org> wrote:

On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 11:03:15 -0700 (PDT), mpm <mpmill...@aol.com> wrote:
On Oct 22, 1:42�pm, Richard The Dreaded Libertarian <n...@example.net
wrote:

I wonder how the bureaucrats came to believe that they know more about
plumbing than the plumbers do?

That's too easy: ďż˝"Shit flows downhill." ďż˝

The only other thing you got to know is hot's on left, cold's on
right.
Viola! �You're a plumber. � -mpm

�You probably have to call an electrician to change a light bulb.

Have you learned how to masturbate yet?
You seem to have a lot of pent up frustration.

 

[Glenn Gundlach]

john jardine wrote:

"Joerg" <notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote in message
newseQKk.5818$Ws1.5360@nlpi064.nbdc.sbc.com...
Jan Panteltje wrote:
The free spaces between US digital TV stations can now be used
for
wireless services.
In spite of failed tests ;-)

In German:

http://www.heise.de/newsticker/US-Regulierer-will-den-Weissen-Raum-oeffnen--
/meldung/117556


That has been around since a long time. Our church uses wireless
mikes
as a secondary UHF user. Of course we made sure that this doesn't
bother
anyone. Love thy neighbor

DTV is a whole 'nother ballgame. It falls apart every other night
around
here. And when it goes then most of the channels turn into a
blocky
Picasso, not just one.

--

Even though I can see the Emley Moor TV transmitter from my window
and have
a steerable Yagi and have just replaced my set top box with a new
one and
know I've an excellent signal cos the spectrum analyser says so, I
still see
a crap picture.
A year ago it used to be 'nearly acceptable' now it's not even
nearly.
Constant freezing, blocking out, loss of sound, paint-it-by-numbers
colours
and Max Headroom staccatos.
An inbuilt tendency to conspiracy theory has deduced I'm losing bit
bandwidth to that HD thing the broadcasters seem to be pushing.
They switch
off analogue in a couple of months, the telly's (and STBs) look
like they'll
be heading down the council recycling centre at the same time.

Really? After I used a spectrum analyzer to align my antenna, the
picture on the screen is rock solid and the display on the analyzer is
textbook. When I was having problems, it was indeed from multipath as
you could watch the spectrum response changing with up to a 10 dB
notch in the channel. My old receivers (Samsung SIR-T165 and 4 ATI
HDTV Wonders) can deal with pretty bad static multipath but they
aren't so good with dynamics.

Basically, I got the antenna high enough to clear the neighbors house
across the street and give me a clear shot to Mt Wilson (LA). At our
house, DTV is great.

GG

 

[JosephKK]

On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 19:27:50 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
<kaExtractThis@kevinaylward.co.uk> wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Kevin Aylward wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
"Kevin Aylward" wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

I don't disagree with you overall Kevin. I keep a little trick up
my sleeve with power amps that changes the game somewhat and
eliminates any such 'expenses'. However it's absurdly obvious
(when you think about it) and consequently couldn't be patented
I'm sure and the moment the 'secret' gets out everyone will be
doing it. It's insanely simple too. You just have to have the
wits to think of it.

Graham

Note, as in the mosfet 1000, basically a stolen idea from Hitachi.
The second stage is a diff pair. This diff pair has less distortion
inherently. Don't know why D.Self don't use it in his Blameless
amp. Keep everything differential is one of my mottos. The current
mirror load gives the prior post mentioned push/pull drive to the
output buffer. The current source loads (CMFB) on the 1st stage,
rather than resisters, makes the total LF loop gain, truly huge,
making LF distortion, vanishing small.

Kevin Aylward

"Pro" audio design seems like an infinite chain of stolen circuits.

Lets not kid ourselves, "all" circuits are stolen, whatever the
field. Its that simple. Show me *any* design, and I will show you a
bit of is in a prior design. Like diff pairs, current mirrors,
cascodes, are all the same building blocks we all use.

But these are simply 'prior art', not actually 'stolen'.

Oh f&^%. Not you as well... I was speaking metaphorically.The idea is that
there is f&^%. all that is orginal, unless its randam

See link (I cited in other post as well),
http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/replicators/intelligence.html

Kevin Aylward
www.kevinaylward.co.uk
www.blonddee.co.uk
www.anasoft.co.uk - SuperSpice

When you do something new and original it gets named after you. Wilson
current mirror, Gilbert cell multiplier, etc., They are getting rarer
now.

 

On Oct 23, 10:59 am, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On a sunny day (Thu, 23 Oct 2008 18:45:27 +0100) it happened Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com> wrote in
4900B836.BBE40...@hotmail.com>:

Care to tell me why graphic equalisers are crap?
I wrote one that seems to work just fine (actually copied some of that code
from xine).

Do you want me to write a lecture ?

No, just simply answer the question,
maybe I can use your input to improve the code.
Maybe not....

If you need to boost a frequency band, this eats into dynamic range.
Most people rather live with the "suck out". While most audiophiles
don't even like tone controls, it is somewhat accepted that you can
filter out a peak in a room and it is not the end of the world.
Unless you use remez to generate a linear phase filter, any attempt to
equalize will alter group delay.

It's actually more complicated than this if the room isn't designed to
be well diffused. This is because music is not a sine wave. Given how
the sound bounces off the surfaces, it is possible that a short burst
would need different equalization than a sine wave. In fact, that is
how pseudo anechoic testing is done.

It's really harder to design a good room than a good amplifier. There
are room simulators. Not exactly what the pros use, but you can buy
CARA and simulate room acoustics.
http://www.rhintek.com

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Thu, 23 Oct 2008 23:15:31 GMT) it happened Rich Grise
<rich@example.net> wrote in <pan.2008.10.24.00.15.16.454427@example.net>:

You're denying Free Will. "quantum randomness" is a term used by
"sciencists" to rationalize away the fact that everything has Free Will.

I am not so sure about 'free will'.
I think that idea is more of a religion.
We, many decisions we make, come from the subconscious.
Recent experiments with MRI scanners showed that the scan already showed what
decision the person was going to make before they themselves made it.

We, as all objects, particles, everything in this universe,
are a playing ball of all the forces working on us now.
And those are set by interactions in the past.

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Thu, 23 Oct 2008 23:58:36 -0700 (PDT)) it happened
miso@sushi.com wrote in
<00e68c46-0951-42d1-9d26-6908e4af4859@b31g2000prb.googlegroups.com>:

On Oct 23, 10:59 am, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On a sunny day (Thu, 23 Oct 2008 18:45:27 +0100) it happened Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com> wrote in
4900B836.BBE40...@hotmail.com>:

Care to tell me why graphic equalisers are crap?
I wrote one that seems to work just fine (actually copied some of that=
code
from xine).

Do you want me to write a lecture ?

No, just simply answer the question,
maybe I can use your input to improve the code.
Maybe not....

If you need to boost a frequency band, this eats into dynamic range.
Most people rather live with the "suck out". While most audiophiles
don't even like tone controls, it is somewhat accepted that you can
filter out a peak in a room and it is not the end of the world.
Unless you use remez to generate a linear phase filter, any attempt to
equalize will alter group delay.

It's actually more complicated than this if the room isn't designed to
be well diffused. This is because music is not a sine wave. Given how
the sound bounces off the surfaces, it is possible that a short burst
would need different equalization than a sine wave. In fact, that is
how pseudo anechoic testing is done.

It's really harder to design a good room than a good amplifier. There
are room simulators. Not exactly what the pros use, but you can buy
CARA and simulate room acoustics.
http://www.rhintek.com

100% agreed, room acoustics set the scene, so to speak.
Yes, I have used some acoustics programs (running in Linux) but found
those hard to use.
I usually run without equaliser, but equaliser is great to fix some recordings
made from old analog tapes (reduce high frequency hiss), or just for fun make a real
strong bass.
As I stated before, HiFi is no longer my thing, unless perhaps when listening with headphones.
Maybe a few more years and direct brain implants will eliminate the room acoustics factor,
but hopefully after I am gone.
I like music, usually something plays here, either from mp3 (sorry audiophools),
or wave files, or mp2.
It is a background thing, much other noise going on, so fine with me.

As to the intermodulation thing (as discussed before), mp3 is based on
you not being able to hear (Hello Kevin) the small signals in the present
of strong ones.
So you are not likely to hear a weak 1kHz beat between 20kHz and 19 kHz anyways,
as that beat will be much much weaker then those 2 signals.
Now for somebody who cannot hear 20 - and 19 kHz, all that remains may well be 1000Hz,
and the person will hear that.
ONE MORE REASON to use the equaliser and cut above 15 kHz!!!!
Maybe the audiophools just make their own problems.

oops.

 

[Kevin Aylward]

John Fields wrote:

On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 17:08:36 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 20:49:05 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
kaExtractThis@kevinaylward.co.uk> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 19:27:50 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
kaExtractThis@kevinaylward.co.uk> wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Kevin Aylward wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
"Kevin Aylward" wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

I don't disagree with you overall Kevin. I keep a little
trick up my sleeve with power amps that changes the game
somewhat and eliminates any such 'expenses'. However it's
absurdly obvious (when you think about it) and consequently
couldn't be patented I'm sure and the moment the 'secret'
gets out everyone will be doing it. It's insanely simple
too. You just have to have the wits to think of it.

Graham

Note, as in the mosfet 1000, basically a stolen idea from
Hitachi. The second stage is a diff pair. This diff pair has
less distortion inherently. Don't know why D.Self don't use it
in his Blameless amp. Keep everything differential is one of
my mottos. The current mirror load gives the prior post
mentioned push/pull drive to the output buffer. The current
source loads (CMFB) on the 1st stage, rather than resisters,
makes the total LF loop gain, truly huge, making LF
distortion, vanishing small.

Kevin Aylward

"Pro" audio design seems like an infinite chain of stolen
circuits.

Lets not kid ourselves, "all" circuits are stolen, whatever the
field. Its that simple. Show me *any* design, and I will show
you a bit of is in a prior design. Like diff pairs, current
mirrors, cascodes, are all the same building blocks we all use.

But these are simply 'prior art', not actually 'stolen'.

Oh f&^%. Not you as well... I was speaking metaphorically.The idea
is that there is f&^%. all that is orginal, unless its randam


Random fiddling is a perfectly valid way to find new circuit
topologies. I do that all the time. Sometimes one has a hunch that
some circuit may exist, somewhere in circuit-space, and fiddles
until it emerges.

Yes...

However, the brain rejects most of the fiddles before it even
reaches our consciousness, maybe millions of variations, such that
it gives the illusion that the ones that actually emerge are not
fundamentally based on the Darwinian machine algorithm.



Chemists only get to use 90-ish elements. Musicians mostly use the
same list of notes. Novelists use the same character set. But new
stuff happens.


Yes new stuff can happen, but only if we assume that quantum
randomness kicks in somewhere in the brain, otherwise, its all
classical mechanics, like the current position and momentum
determines the next.

Our brains are obviously a seething mass of thermal, acoustic,
electrical, and nuclear disturbances, plus the random effects of
alcohol, chocolate, and coffee. Our DNA is certainly a form of
quantum computer. All the chemistry is happening at quantum-scale
dimensions. Evolution would sooner or later notice that quantum
computing is a powerful way to solve problems, so would use it.

There is clearly massive parallel testing and selection going on. I
even design circuits in my sleep, sometimes weeks after I'd
consciously forgotten the situation. "Intellectualizing" the design
process leads one to treat it as an incremental tweak of prior art,
but brains are way past that.
---
I agree.

The thrill of "Eureka!" certainly seems to be more than just
incremental plodding toward a solution which emerges from the soup,
but Kevin's postulations are well founded in that whatever we build
we build upon the shoulders of our forbears.

There had to have been, however, something which started it all off.

Actually no. there is no reason that there should be any reason for
anything. Some in physics are taking the view that the mass-energy just
appeared, from nowhere.

Physics is characterised by "The laws of physics". However, these laws can
only exist, presumably, if mass-energy exists. In a truly empty universe,
there can not be any laws that prohit anything. Therefor, in an empty
univese here is no reason why mass-energy cannot simple appear from nowhere


I favour this position, as I see no other reasonable alternative. When all
else is proven false, what remains must be answer..

Kevin Aylward

www.kevinaylward.co.uk

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Rich Grise wrote:

On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 20:49:05 +0000, Kevin Aylward wrote:

Yes new stuff can happen, but only if we assume that quantum
randomness kicks in somewhere in the brain, otherwise, its all
classical mechanics, like the current position and momentum
determines the next.

You're denying Free Will.

Indeed.

"quantum randomness" is a term used by
"sciencists" to rationalize away the fact that everything has Free
Will.

Not to me they don't. Its a matter of logical conclusion. Either they there
is a soul transcending physics, or there is not, if not there cannot be free
will.

The absence of Free Will is not really open to debate, in my view

http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/replicators/freewill.html

If Bohmian Mechanics, is correct, then nothing is new.

Well, evidently, it's not.

Whether it is or is not correct, has no baring on the fact that none of us
can possible have free will. Its fundermental physics


Kevin Aylward

www.kevinaylward.co.uk

 

[John Fields]

On Fri, 24 Oct 2008 13:41:43 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
<kaExtractThis@kevinaylward.co.uk> wrote:

John Fields wrote:

The thrill of "Eureka!" certainly seems to be more than just
incremental plodding toward a solution which emerges from the soup,
but Kevin's postulations are well founded in that whatever we build
we build upon the shoulders of our forbears.

There had to have been, however, something which started it all off.


Actually no.

---
Then you support the proposition that we're not really here?
---

there is no reason that there should be any reason for
anything. Some in physics are taking the view that the mass-energy just
appeared, from nowhere.

---
That, then, started it all off and out of that maelstrom eventually came
the first idea.
---

Physics is characterised by "The laws of physics". However, these laws can
only exist, presumably, if mass-energy exists. In a truly empty universe,
there can not be any laws that prohit anything. Therefor, in an empty
univese here is no reason why mass-energy cannot simple appear from nowhere


I favour this position, as I see no other reasonable alternative. When all
else is proven false, what remains must be answer..

---
Yes, but you've proven nothing, only proposed a hypothesis.

JF

 

[John Fields]

On Fri, 24 Oct 2008 13:43:00 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
<kaExtractThis@kevinaylward.co.uk> wrote:

Rich Grise wrote:
On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 20:49:05 +0000, Kevin Aylward wrote:

Yes new stuff can happen, but only if we assume that quantum
randomness kicks in somewhere in the brain, otherwise, its all
classical mechanics, like the current position and momentum
determines the next.

You're denying Free Will.

Indeed.

"quantum randomness" is a term used by
"sciencists" to rationalize away the fact that everything has Free
Will.

Not to me they don't. Its a matter of logical conclusion. Either they there
is a soul transcending physics, or there is not, if not there cannot be free
will.

The absence of Free Will is not really open to debate, in my view

http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/replicators/freewill.html


If Bohmian Mechanics, is correct, then nothing is new.

Well, evidently, it's not.

Whether it is or is not correct, has no baring on the fact that none of us
can possible have free will. Its fundermental physics

---
The devil made me do it, in other words.

Truly a philosphy for libertines, since if everything is
deterministically ordained then one can easily shirk responsibility for
one's actions.

The fly in the ointment, however, seems to be that if true randomness
exists, then true determinism can't.

JF

 

[Kevin Aylward]

John Fields wrote:

On Fri, 24 Oct 2008 13:41:43 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
kaExtractThis@kevinaylward.co.uk> wrote:

John Fields wrote:

The thrill of "Eureka!" certainly seems to be more than just
incremental plodding toward a solution which emerges from the soup,
but Kevin's postulations are well founded in that whatever we build
we build upon the shoulders of our forbears.

There had to have been, however, something which started it all off.


Actually no.

---
Then you support the proposition that we're not really here?

No. A kick in the balls tells us that we exist. However, we are just
observers. Either we do what we are programmed by genes and memes to do, or
we do what we do due to quantum randomness. Either was we're F&*Łed. There
is just no escape from this conclusion.

Its actually all so simple really.

---

there is no reason that there should be any reason for
anything. Some in physics are taking the view that the mass-energy
just appeared, from nowhere.

---
That, then, started it all off and out of that maelstrom eventually
came the first idea.
---

Yes.

Physics is characterised by "The laws of physics". However, these
laws can only exist, presumably, if mass-energy exists. In a truly
empty universe, there can not be any laws that prohit anything.
Therefor, in an empty univese here is no reason why mass-energy
cannot simple appear from nowhere


I favour this position, as I see no other reasonable alternative.
When all else is proven false, what remains must be answer..

---
Yes, but you've proven nothing, only proposed a hypothesis.

err....That was a *quote* by...Sherlock Holmes.

JF

Physics does not prove anything, but gives evidence to support its
propositions. Truth can never be proved.

The explanation of the universe as a combination of classical mechanics and
quantum mechanics has extensive support. Fundamentally, its all we have,
well not unless you are a Jesus freak, or some other such numpty.

There *are* no other hypothesis available. The brain is a mass-energy
machine. It obeys the obeys the laws of physics or it doesn't. I believe it
does. The evidence for this is overwhelming, imo.

Kevin Aylward

www.kevinaylward.co.uk

 

[Kevin Aylward]

John Fields wrote:

On Fri, 24 Oct 2008 13:43:00 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
kaExtractThis@kevinaylward.co.uk> wrote:

Rich Grise wrote:
On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 20:49:05 +0000, Kevin Aylward wrote:

Yes new stuff can happen, but only if we assume that quantum
randomness kicks in somewhere in the brain, otherwise, its all
classical mechanics, like the current position and momentum
determines the next.

You're denying Free Will.

Indeed.

"quantum randomness" is a term used by
"sciencists" to rationalize away the fact that everything has Free
Will.

Not to me they don't. Its a matter of logical conclusion. Either
they there is a soul transcending physics, or there is not, if not
there cannot be free will.

The absence of Free Will is not really open to debate, in my view

http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/replicators/freewill.html


If Bohmian Mechanics, is correct, then nothing is new.

Well, evidently, it's not.

Whether it is or is not correct, has no baring on the fact that none
of us can possible have free will. Its fundermental physics

---
The devil made me do it, in other words.

In essence, yes.

The univese exists. We are mass-energy items in that universe, just going
along with the flow.

Truly a philosphy for libertines, since if everything is
deterministically ordained then one can easily shirk responsibility
for one's actions.

And also if it isn't deterministic we can shirk responsibility. This second
point seems to be missed.

If it is random, then we also have no control either.

The fly in the ointment, however, seems to be that if true randomness
exists, then true determinism can't.

But the key point is that, even with randomness, it still precludes free
will, so its irrelevant whether determinism exists or not, so I don't know
what you mean by fly in the ointment.

I can't really say that it is a "philosophy" as in a non-objective point of
view. The reality, is that physics demands that this is the case. It is the
logical view, but I suppose one can argue that someone taking a logical view
has a logical view philosophy. ahmmmm..

www.kevinaylward.co.uk

 

[Joerg]

Glenn Gundlach wrote:

john jardine wrote:

[...]

Even though I can see the Emley Moor TV transmitter from my window
and have
a steerable Yagi and have just replaced my set top box with a new
one and
know I've an excellent signal cos the spectrum analyser says so, I
still see
a crap picture.
A year ago it used to be 'nearly acceptable' now it's not even
nearly.
Constant freezing, blocking out, loss of sound, paint-it-by-numbers
colours
and Max Headroom staccatos.
An inbuilt tendency to conspiracy theory has deduced I'm losing bit
bandwidth to that HD thing the broadcasters seem to be pushing.
They switch
off analogue in a couple of months, the telly's (and STBs) look
like they'll
be heading down the council recycling centre at the same time.

Really? After I used a spectrum analyzer to align my antenna, the
picture on the screen is rock solid and the display on the analyzer is
textbook. When I was having problems, it was indeed from multipath as
you could watch the spectrum response changing with up to a 10 dB
notch in the channel. My old receivers (Samsung SIR-T165 and 4 ATI
HDTV Wonders) can deal with pretty bad static multipath but they
aren't so good with dynamics.

Basically, I got the antenna high enough to clear the neighbors house
across the street and give me a clear shot to Mt Wilson (LA). At our
house, DTV is great.

Lucky you. From here nobody ever has a clear shot unless they install a
tower of a few hundred feet or happen to live perfectly in line with the
cut DOT made at the Bass Lake grade for Hwy 50.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.

 

[John Fields]

On Fri, 24 Oct 2008 16:01:13 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
<kaExtractThis@kevinaylward.co.uk> wrote:

John Fields wrote:
On Fri, 24 Oct 2008 13:41:43 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
kaExtractThis@kevinaylward.co.uk> wrote:

John Fields wrote:

The thrill of "Eureka!" certainly seems to be more than just
incremental plodding toward a solution which emerges from the soup,
but Kevin's postulations are well founded in that whatever we build
we build upon the shoulders of our forbears.

There had to have been, however, something which started it all off.


Actually no.

---
Then you support the proposition that we're not really here?

No. A kick in the balls tells us that we exist. However, we are just
observers. Either we do what we are programmed by genes and memes to do, or
we do what we do due to quantum randomness. Either was we're F&*Łed. There
is just no escape from this conclusion.

Its actually all so simple really.

---

there is no reason that there should be any reason for
anything. Some in physics are taking the view that the mass-energy
just appeared, from nowhere.

---
That, then, started it all off and out of that maelstrom eventually
came the first idea.
---

Yes.

---
Then you agree that my earlier statement:

"There had to have been, however, something which started it all off."

Is correct?

Physics is characterised by "The laws of physics". However, these
laws can only exist, presumably, if mass-energy exists. In a truly
empty universe, there can not be any laws that prohit anything.
Therefor, in an empty univese here is no reason why mass-energy
cannot simple appear from nowhere


I favour this position, as I see no other reasonable alternative.
When all else is proven false, what remains must be answer..

---
Yes, but you've proven nothing, only proposed a hypothesis.


err....That was a *quote* by...Sherlock Holmes.

---
Probably more properly attributed, then, to Sir Arthur Conan Doyle,
since Holmes was his idea And Sir Arthur just plucked the quote out of
thin air.

The context in which you used it, however, was designed to lend credence
to your "it-just-popped-into-existence" hypothesis, for which you have
no proof.
---

Physics does not prove anything, but gives evidence to support its
propositions. Truth can never be proved.

---
Is that the truth?
---

The explanation of the universe as a combination of classical mechanics and
quantum mechanics has extensive support. Fundamentally, its all we have,
well not unless you are a Jesus freak, or some other such numpty.

There *are* no other hypothesis available. The brain is a mass-energy
machine. It obeys the obeys the laws of physics or it doesn't. I believe it
does. The evidence for this is overwhelming, imo.

---
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of
in your philosophy."

JF

 

[John Fields]

On Fri, 24 Oct 2008 16:06:25 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
<kaExtractThis@kevinaylward.co.uk> wrote:

John Fields wrote:
On Fri, 24 Oct 2008 13:43:00 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
kaExtractThis@kevinaylward.co.uk> wrote:

Whether it is or is not correct, has no baring on the fact that none
of us can possible have free will. Its fundermental physics

---
The devil made me do it, in other words.

In essence, yes.

The univese exists. We are mass-energy items in that universe, just going
along with the flow.


Truly a philosphy for libertines, since if everything is
deterministically ordained then one can easily shirk responsibility
for one's actions.

And also if it isn't deterministic we can shirk responsibility. This second
point seems to be missed.

---
No, it's obvious enough that it shouldn't have to be stated explicitly.

Perhaps I made my point badly, since what I meant was that in a truly
deterministic universe there'd be no reason for assuming responsibility
for anything, since it would all be going to happen the way it would and
what would seem to be decisions which one were making would all really
just be illusions since we'd merely be automatons.
---

If it is random, then we also have no control either.

---
Randomness is prohibited by determinism, since it preaches that every
action is preordained, so the only way we can exercise free will is if
randomness exists.
---

The fly in the ointment, however, seems to be that if true randomness
exists, then true determinism can't.


But the key point is that, even with randomness, it still precludes free
will, so its irrelevant whether determinism exists or not, so I don't know
what you mean by fly in the ointment.

---
Randomness is prohibited by determinism, since it preaches that every
action is preordained, so the only way we can exercise free will is if
randomness exists.

Ergo, if you admit that randomness exists then you must accept that
determinism doesn't. Then, if you accept that determinism doesn't exist
it follows that free will, which is random, must.
---

I can't really say that it is a "philosophy" as in a non-objective point of
view. The reality, is that physics demands that this is the case. It is the
logical view, but I suppose one can argue that someone taking a logical view
has a logical view philosophy. ahmmmm..

www.kevinaylward.co.uk

JF

 

[Kevin Aylward]

John Fields wrote:

---
Then you support the proposition that we're not really here?

No. A kick in the balls tells us that we exist. However, we are just
observers. Either we do what we are programmed by genes and memes to
do, or we do what we do due to quantum randomness. Either was we're
F&*Łed. There is just no escape from this conclusion.

Its actually all so simple really.

---

there is no reason that there should be any reason for
anything. Some in physics are taking the view that the mass-energy
just appeared, from nowhere.

---
That, then, started it all off and out of that maelstrom eventually
came the first idea.
---

Yes.

---
Then you agree that my earlier statement:

"There had to have been, however, something which started it all off."

Is correct?

To clarify, what "started" everything was, if the proposition is correct,
the creation of mass-energy. OK.

However, nothing "started" this "start". It just happened. On its own, for
no reason whatsoever., in my view. I see no reason why there should be a
reason.

Physics is characterised by "The laws of physics". However, these
laws can only exist, presumably, if mass-energy exists. In a truly
empty universe, there can not be any laws that prohit anything.
Therefor, in an empty univese here is no reason why mass-energy
cannot simple appear from nowhere


I favour this position, as I see no other reasonable alternative.
When all else is proven false, what remains must be answer..

---
Yes, but you've proven nothing, only proposed a hypothesis.


err....That was a *quote* by...Sherlock Holmes.

---
Probably more properly attributed, then, to Sir Arthur Conan Doyle,
since Holmes was his idea And Sir Arthur just plucked the quote out of
thin air.

You mean Sherlock Holmes wasn't a real person? wow...

The context in which you used it, however, was designed to lend
credence to your "it-just-popped-into-existence" hypothesis, for
which you have no proof.

It's the simplest solution. Apply ochams razor...

Either mass-energy has been here always, or it hasn't.

Cosmological evidence and theory indicts that there was a start to the
universe. Theory (General Relativity) says that the concentrated mass could
not have exited in that same state indefinitely prior. Therefore the
conclusion is that the mass-energy just came into existence. However..there
are other theories...

---


Physics does not prove anything, but gives evidence to support its
propositions. Truth can never be proved.

---
Is that the truth?
---

The explanation of the universe as a combination of classical
mechanics and quantum mechanics has extensive support.
Fundamentally, its all we have, well not unless you are a Jesus
freak, or some other such numpty.

There *are* no other hypothesis available. The brain is a mass-energy
machine. It obeys the obeys the laws of physics or it doesn't. I
believe it does. The evidence for this is overwhelming, imo.

---
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt
of in your philosophy."

There is no heaven. What evidence do you have that there is more to the
universe than mass-energy physics? Hint James Randi...

Kevin Aylward
kevin@kevinaylward.co.uk
www.kevinaylward.co.uk