OT: Why are Engineers snookered by Creationism ?

[Richard Henry]

"John Woodgate" <jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote in message
news:2mZ4vlJfpGbAFwmX@jmwa.demon.co.uk...

I read in sci.electronics.design that Kevin Aylward <kevindotaylwardEXTR
ACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote (in <9DZac.1120$Ny4.595@newsfep3-gui.server.ntl
i.net&gt about 'OT: Why are Engineers snookered by Creationism ?', on
Thu, 1 Apr 2004:

Indeed. If reality was truly conscious created, then I would be able to
materialise a big tilted, long legged blond,

Only Aylward Idiosyncratic Orthography could produce that!

You want a tall, fair-haired man with one leg shorter than the other?

Whatever turns you on, baby! (;-)

He got so excited thinking about it that he couldn't type straight.

 

[John Larkin]

On Thu, 1 Apr 2004 20:15:43 +0100, John Woodgate
<jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that Kevin Aylward <kevindotaylwardEXTR
ACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote (in <9DZac.1120$Ny4.595@newsfep3-gui.server.ntl
i.net&gt about 'OT: Why are Engineers snookered by Creationism ?', on
Thu, 1 Apr 2004:

Indeed. If reality was truly conscious created, then I would be able to
materialise a big tilted, long legged blond,

Only Aylward Idiosyncratic Orthography could produce that!

You want a tall, fair-haired man with one leg shorter than the other?

Whatever turns you on, baby! (;-)

Any more than a boot full is a waste.

John

 

[Spehro Pefhany]

On Thu, 01 Apr 2004 20:07:06 -0800, the renowned John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highlandSNIPtechTHISnologyPLEASE.com> wrote:

On Thu, 1 Apr 2004 20:15:43 +0100, John Woodgate
jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that Kevin Aylward <kevindotaylwardEXTR
ACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote (in <9DZac.1120$Ny4.595@newsfep3-gui.server.ntl
i.net&gt about 'OT: Why are Engineers snookered by Creationism ?', on
Thu, 1 Apr 2004:

Indeed. If reality was truly conscious created, then I would be able to
materialise a big tilted, long legged blond,

Only Aylward Idiosyncratic Orthography could produce that!

You want a tall, fair-haired man with one leg shorter than the other?

Whatever turns you on, baby! (;-)


Any more than a boot full is a waste.

John

What sense of "boot" would that be?

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

 

[Kevin Aylward]

John Woodgate wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that Kevin Aylward
kevindotaylwardEXTR ACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote (in
9DZac.1120$Ny4.595@newsfep3-gui.server.ntl i.net&gt about 'OT: Why
are Engineers snookered by Creationism ?', on Thu, 1 Apr 2004:

Indeed. If reality was truly conscious created, then I would be able
to materialise a big tilted, long legged blond,

Only Aylward Idiosyncratic Orthography could produce that!

Oh dear...that spelling checker again.

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

"quotes with no meaning, are meaningless" - Kevin Aylward.

 

[Mark Fergerson]

John Woodgate wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that Mark Fergerson <nunya@biz.ness
wrote (in <vrZac.68053$1I5.12185@fed1read01&gt about 'OT: Why are
Engineers snookered by Creationism ?', on Thu, 1 Apr 2004:

The difference between science and everything else is that science includes a
mechanism for the falsification of its precepts and conclusions, and
enthusiastically applies that mechanism at every opportunity.

Doesn't it share that property with mathematics?

No. Mathematics is built on axioms which are not to be
questioned. Science questions everything, and occasionally
questioning conclusions brings you around to questioning
your precepts. Did you miss the advent of Quantum Mechanics?

My guess is that a large proportion of working engineers would have
difficulty in determining whether the hypothesis' proposed in articles
published in their technical journals are falsifiable or statistically
testable as written. The result is that sometimes "fad" science ends
up being used or designed into products.

"Would have difficulty in" is not the same as "are fundamentally incapable of"
or "are forbidden by their philosophy from".

Quite right.

The required tools and the
knowledge of how to use them are freely available.

Well, no. The testing may in fact be very far indeed from easy. In the
field of audio reproduction, it turns out that what appears to be a very
simple thing, the measurement of the frequency response of a pair of
headphones, is in fact extremely difficult.

But not something engineers are "fundamentally incapable
of" or "forbidden by their philosophy from" doing. The mere
fact that the difficulties are known is a partial
demonstration that it's possible. Actually attempting such
things can point out more difficulties, and determining
their natures brings a solution closer. It can also
demonstrate that the question being asked is the wrong one,
which happens a lot in science.

Something even more difficulty is determining the bandwidth *really*
required for the correct reproduction of music. The 'DC to light' people
have just made an 'act of faith' that more bandwidth is better. The true
science is incredibly complex, and is certainly not yet fully
understood.

Yet we keep trying. Why? Because we're not satisfied with
the "Because I Said So" Golden Ears types who would turn
audio engineering into a religion, with themselves as
Arbiters of Truth.

Mark L. Fergerson

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Mark Fergerson <nunya@biz.ness>
wrote (in <gLkbc.68289$1I5.16293@fed1read01&gt about 'OT: Why are
Engineers snookered by Creationism ?', on Fri, 2 Apr 2004:

John Woodgate wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that Mark Fergerson <nunya@biz.ness
wrote (in <vrZac.68053$1I5.12185@fed1read01&gt about 'OT: Why are
Engineers snookered by Creationism ?', on Thu, 1 Apr 2004:

The difference between science and everything else is that science includes a
mechanism for the falsification of its precepts and conclusions, and
enthusiastically applies that mechanism at every opportunity.

Doesn't it share that property with mathematics?

No. Mathematics is built on axioms which are not to be
questioned.

It was the questioning of Euclid's Fifth that led to non-Euclidean
geometries. The questioning of axioms in mathematics IS a bit different
from questioning precepts in science, but not very greatly different.
Mathematics isn't bound to this Universe, so axioms can be adopted (or
challenged) in ways that would be analogous to postulating Universes in
which the laws of physics are different. Well, that's been done often
enough; it's called 'science fiction' and the best of has a fair track
record of predictions.

Science questions everything, and occasionally
questioning conclusions brings you around to questioning
your precepts. Did you miss the advent of Quantum Mechanics?

Yes. I was born about 30 years too late.

My guess is that a large proportion of working engineers would have
difficulty in determining whether the hypothesis' proposed in articles
published in their technical journals are falsifiable or statistically
testable as written. The result is that sometimes "fad" science ends
up being used or designed into products.

"Would have difficulty in" is not the same as "are fundamentally incapable
of"
or "are forbidden by their philosophy from".

Quite right.

The required tools and the
knowledge of how to use them are freely available.

Well, no. The testing may in fact be very far indeed from easy. In the
field of audio reproduction, it turns out that what appears to be a very
simple thing, the measurement of the frequency response of a pair of
headphones, is in fact extremely difficult.

But not something engineers are "fundamentally incapable
of" or "forbidden by their philosophy from" doing. The mere
fact that the difficulties are known is a partial
demonstration that it's possible.

I don't follow that. The difficulties are known because of failures. Can
repeated failure prove that something is possible?

Actually attempting such
things can point out more difficulties, and determining
their natures brings a solution closer.

Well, maybe not. So far, the headphone problem is in the 'too difficult'
file because the results can't be filtered for physical differences in
people's ears and perceptual differences in their brains.

It can also
demonstrate that the question being asked is the wrong one,
which happens a lot in science.

Yes, that can happen. I don't think it applies to the headphone problem,
though.

Something even more difficulty is determining the bandwidth *really*
required for the correct reproduction of music. The 'DC to light' people
have just made an 'act of faith' that more bandwidth is better. The true
science is incredibly complex, and is certainly not yet fully
understood.

Yet we keep trying. Why? Because we're not satisfied with
the "Because I Said So" Golden Ears types who would turn
audio engineering into a religion, with themselves as
Arbiters of Truth.

Sure.

--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

 

[KR Williams]

In article <CATVGzF1YDbAFwS8@jmwa.demon.co.uk>,
jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk says...

I read in sci.electronics.design that Kevin Aylward <kevindotaylwardEXTR
ACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote (in <bTUac.596$Ny4.307@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli
.net&gt about 'OT: Why are Engineers snookered by Creationism ?', on Thu,
1 Apr 2004:
Whether or not entities exist without any conscious
observers is not provably, one way or the other. However, evidence
strongly suggests that entities do indeed exist without conscious
observation, there is *no* evidence that this is not the case. For
example, we know, absolutely, that the results of the double slit
experiment do not depend on whether there is a physicist in the room
watching, or outside having a smoke.

I don't see that you need to do physics experiments. The fact that you
can hit your head on the open door of a kitchen cabinet is sufficient.
If you had consciously observed the door, you would not have hit your
head. If it was not there because you did not consciously observe it,
you would not have hit your head. But you DID hit your head. QED.

....thus you "observed" the door (consciously or unconsciously,
depending on the velocity of impact). QED

--
Keith

 

[KR Williams]

In article <M9wG5fL79dbAFwRj@jmwa.demon.co.uk>,
jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk says...

I read in sci.electronics.design that Mark Fergerson <nunya@biz.ness
wrote (in <gLkbc.68289$1I5.16293@fed1read01&gt about 'OT: Why are
Engineers snookered by Creationism ?', on Fri, 2 Apr 2004:
John Woodgate wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that Mark Fergerson <nunya@biz.ness
wrote (in <vrZac.68053$1I5.12185@fed1read01&gt about 'OT: Why are
Engineers snookered by Creationism ?', on Thu, 1 Apr 2004:

The difference between science and everything else is that science includes a
mechanism for the falsification of its precepts and conclusions, and
enthusiastically applies that mechanism at every opportunity.

Doesn't it share that property with mathematics?

No. Mathematics is built on axioms which are not to be
questioned.

It was the questioning of Euclid's Fifth that led to non-Euclidean
geometries. The questioning of axioms in mathematics IS a bit different
from questioning precepts in science, but not very greatly different.
Mathematics isn't bound to this Universe, so axioms can be adopted (or
challenged) in ways that would be analogous to postulating Universes in
which the laws of physics are different. Well, that's been done often
enough; it's called 'science fiction' and the best of has a fair track
record of predictions.

....only if observed in hind-sight. Jules Verne's "predictions"
need a wide stroke of the belief brush to say that he predicted
space travel, or indeed the modern submarine. Likewise,
Leonardo's helicopter is as much a modern helicopter as the
Jetson's is 21'st century Americana. SF is much over-rated as a
predictor of the future. People simply aren't as smart as time.

--
Keith

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Kevin Aylward wrote:

R. Steve Walz wrote:
Scott Stephens wrote:

Kevin Aylward wrote:



The human mind is the consequence of existence existing - the
external world! Einstein's brain operated because it existed, and
because of physical principles in its operation. It evolved
according to the principles of biology, and those consequences of
principles of physics.
-----------------
There is no such proof that there is an externally existing world.

Ahh... you seem to be getting the point here.

There is ONLY the observation that we share a common existence.


Yes.


We see the universe through our self-centered eyes, but the "I AM",
consciousness, is not the center of the universe.
------------------
Of course it is, it is the ONLY manner in which ANY Being, Ever, and
in Any Universe will Ever exist,

Oh dear, you missed it...

...Can ever be *known* to exist.
----------------------

Same thing, existence is ONLY being known to exist.

and thus the ONLY way that ANYTHING
can exist.

No. We don't know. Whether or not entities exist without any conscious
observers is not provably, one way or the other.
--------------

Stating that something exists without beintg perceived is nonsense,
thus untrue.

However, evidence
strongly suggests that entities do indeed exist without conscious
observation, there is *no* evidence that this is not the case.
---------------

Insufficient. All possible ridiculous things do NOT magically exist
just because no one perceives them. You could say the IDEA that they
might exist does exist, but then that is itself a perception of
mental process.

For
example, we know, absolutely, that the results of the double slit
experiment do not depend on whether there is a physicist in the room
watching, or outside having a smoke.
----------------------

If you have instruments that report, then the perception exists only
as the report to the experimenter, and only there and then.

We discover our
thoughts, feelings, even reason and logic. We do not invent them, we
can merely change their flow, just as we did not bring about our own
birth, yet we can alter the course of our life.
---------------------
Nonsense, you cannot change your tiniest thought without having been
changed by the effect of others to do so.

Not strictly correct. As I have pointed out many times.
-------------

As you have FAILED to do more than point AT many times, as though
it could be true if you point that direction.

An individual,
in principle, can generate a *random* response, i.e. one unrelated to
any previous inputs if QM is correct.
---------------------

Nonsense, that's NOT what QM says at ALL! It merely says that many
worlds exist in which different things occur, but we have never lived
in more than one of them, finally.

It merely says that statistical measurement of multiple event data
sets is impossible to show to be different than what we have called
random, but of course chaos theory shows there is NO such thing as
any actual "ramndomness" anyway, and CANNOT be. The same thing in
this one "world" CANNOT occur other than it does, only multiple
DIFFERENT events in the SAME universe can do that! Cause and effect
is immutably preserved.

However, the individual has no
control over this response as it is random.
-------------------

That's your error in understanding QM and the meaning of "random".

There is NO randomness in the "world" we finally inhabit at long
last, the life we experience is one long world in which one and
only one cause and effect happens exactly. Your sort of confusion
occurs when you assume that datasets of ideal experiments that are
all actually different events happening either elsewhen or elsewhere
apart can be intermixed statistically and show some "randomness",
and they cannot!

So the point you are making
that an individual has no ultimate control appears to be correct,
however, this not does imply that any responses are strictly casual from
the effect of others.
--------------------------

Not casual, causal!
They are entirely caused by previous externally originated events in
your life. You are nothing without having been caused to come into
being by a series of perceived events that entirely form what you
are and what you do exactly, that is, as exactly as exactness exists!

However, the notion that there is no "I" that exists to make independent
decisions does not imply that we shouldn't pretend that there is.
--------------------------------

The "I" exists, it simply lies about its role in some kinds of
cultures, because culture is the lies we are taught to respond
with by external causes.

If you COULD you could
voluntarily change your belief that you were elsewhere and be so!!

We did not invent our thoughts,
no more than we invented our brains.
--------------------------
Nor do we control ourselves, "Free Will" is a myth!

I agree, in principle, but it is still more subtle than it appears. We
can simply define free will as that response that is not
deterministically related to its inputs, and according to QM, this is
possible.
-------------------------------

No, not other than statistically, and life does NOT occur as a dataset
of the behaviors of the SAME "World" being "re-run" over and over the
same instant in time to derive a blurry dispersed dataset that contains
randomness!!!

http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/specialreplicators.html
-----------------------

This is unrelated and misapplied. You simply said that what we call
cause and effect can be called "Free Will" merely because you seem
to need one so badly and are deluded into believing so by your
culture!

However... I'm still investigating whether or not there is still a
fundamental flaw in this argument of no true self control. The argument
is based on extending the physics of non complex systems to complex
systems. The basic issue is that conscious is not derivable from physics
(http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/thehardproblem.html), it is simply
an aspect of complex systems, so this argumant fails.
-----------------

Whatever physics consciousness cannot be derived from is not actual
physics, by reason that we exist.

Since this is the
case, they may be other properties of complex systems that are similarly
non-derivable. It may be that we simple have to take as a new,
nonderivable axiom, that there is an entity that can make independent
decisions based on the obvious evidence that this seems to be a very
good approximation for what we actually observe.
---------------------

Why are you so devoted to there being some form of independence to
the origin of thoughts and actions, are you resentful that you're not
solely responsible for your talents, or afraid that others will use
this cause to try to justify crimes? The actual nature of independence
is meaningless anyway, it gets you nothing, they don't give a prize
for it! That you are caused feels no different than if you flipped
some coin internally anyway, merely because you choose to take credit
for it! What purpose does some imagined "independence" serve? I see
no usefulness to it. Is there something WRONG with all events in a
closed universe not being entirely interlocked with the occurences
within it??? I don't see what you are trying to gain by your wild
gymnastics here.

If we accept that QM
allows an entity to produce non deterministic outputs, how can this
entity, in principle, be distinguished from an entity that we refer to
as an "I".

Kevin Aylward
------------------------

That point has been made over and over by pop-physics authors who
have abyssmally misapplied the physics, as some way to retain the
religious fiction of free will and guilt and blame so they can feel
justified in punishing people, but that has many times been refuted
by the actual physicists who can see that MWI is actually the best
fit and that all events are quite obviously caused, or else physics
doesn't work. Now which are you?

The notion that a dataset taken among elsewhens and elsewheres
within one universe that shows dispersion must mean that we live
in some smudged present where all possible worlds connect on the
edge of now and that this means we still have "Free Will" is a
fraud on the Science!! and that it is being venally propagated
as an apologia for religion is SICK!

Just because you do the same experiment over and over and get a
variance in occurence does NOT mean that we can run this ONE
world (which we will have proved to have inhabited all along) over
and over and that then we will see a similar dispersion! It's total
NONSENSE and a misunderstanding of the meaning of the foundational
classic experiments of QM!!

MWI means we cannot ever live in more than ONE SPECIFIC UNIVERSE
in which all events are entirely caused! The other "worlds" went
someplace else and left us HERE!

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Kevin Aylward wrote:

John Woodgate wrote:
I read in sci.electronics.design that Kevin Aylward
kevindotaylwardEXTR ACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote (in
bTUac.596$Ny4.307@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli .net&gt about 'OT: Why are
Engineers snookered by Creationism ?', on Thu, 1 Apr 2004:
Whether or not entities exist without any conscious
observers is not provably, one way or the other. However, evidence
strongly suggests that entities do indeed exist without conscious
observation, there is *no* evidence that this is not the case. For
example, we know, absolutely, that the results of the double slit
experiment do not depend on whether there is a physicist in the room
watching, or outside having a smoke.

I don't see that you need to do physics experiments. The fact that you
can hit your head on the open door of a kitchen cabinet is sufficient.
If you had consciously observed the door, you would not have hit your
head. If it was not there because you did not consciously observe it,
you would not have hit your head. But you DID hit your head. QED.

Indeed. If reality was truly conscious created, then I would be able to
materialise a big tilted, long legged blond, because, believe me, no
matter how many times I have beaten my head against the wall, non has
ever appeared despite my best efforts to imagine them into existence.
Its only in my dreams I'm afraid.

Kevin Aylward
---------------------

If you had materialized a blonde, then that would be thought normal.
The fact that you did not only means that you did not. In a universe
in which you did you would have felt THAT was quite normal! What we
think is the character of physical law is merely OUR character, just
as in the Anthropic Principle, which says:

-----------------------------------------
"The universe has the properties we observe today
because if its earlier properties had been much
different, we would not be here as observers now.
The principle underlying this method of cosmological
analysis has been named the Anthropic Principle."
[Scientific American, Vol. 245, No. 6, 1981 p:154]
(see also S.W. Hawking "A Brief History of Time:
From the Big Bang to Black Holes", Bantam Books:
New York, 1988 p:124)

"The Anthropic Principle says that:
The seemingly unique hospitality of the Physical World
toward us is entirely explained if it simply permits us
a sufficiently developed capacity to speculate upon it!!"
-Richard Steven Walz 2003

The Anthropic Principle:
'The universe is what it is, because if it wasn't,
we wouldn't be here to see it'

"There are an infinitude of other universes having
properties unlike the known universe; almost all those
other universes are unsuitable for life; therefore
'nature' on the average has no special favour towards
life or humankind." [W.J. ReMine p:62]

Parmenides (c. 480 BC) the founder of the school of Elea
in Southern Italy was one of the earliest logicians. . . .
Parminides claimed that a 'many-worlds' interpretation of
nature is necessary because of the non-uniqueness of the
subjective element in our perception and understanding of
the world. As a corollary to this he maintained that what
is inconceivable must actually be impossible -- empty
space cannot exist!

And then there is this quote from another ancient Greek,
Democritus:
There are worlds infinite in number and different
in size. In some there is neither sun nor moon, in others
there are more than one sun and moon. The distance between
the worlds are unequal, in some directions there are more
of them . . .

There's this summary of Kant's answer to these questions:
Our observation of order and structure in the Universe,
he argues, arises inevitably because we have introduced
such concepts into our analysis of experience. We must
not then proceed to rederive them from it. We can say
nothing stronger than that the world is such as to make
its perception by our minds in any form but ordered,
impossible.
-----------------------------

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that R. Steve Walz <rstevew@armory.com>
wrote (in <406E531E.30C1@armory.com&gt about 'OT: Why are Engineers
snookered by Creationism ?', on Sat, 3 Apr 2004:

"There are an infinitude of other universes having
properties unlike the known universe; almost all those
other universes are unsuitable for life; therefore
'nature' on the average has no special favour towards
life or humankind." [W.J. ReMine p:62]

Does he say how he knows that there are [sic] an infinitude of other
universes? Or that, given that they exist, that almost all of them are
unsuitable for life? Using 'almost all' about an infinitude is very
loose talk.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that KR Williams <krw@att.biz> wrote
(in <MPG.1ad7ffc7208e43859896fc@news1.news.adelphia.net&gt about 'OT: Why
are Engineers snookered by Creationism ?', on Fri, 2 Apr 2004:

...thus you "observed" the door (consciously or unconsciously,
depending on the velocity of impact). QED

Ah, so an attosecond before impact it wasn't there. Where was it, then,
and how did it get into position? Can cupboard doors predict where they
will need to be in the future?
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that R. Steve Walz <rstevew@armory.com>
wrote (in <406E51C0.119D@armory.com&gt about 'OT: Why are Engineers
snookered by Creationism ?', on Sat, 3 Apr 2004:

Stating that something exists without beintg perceived is nonsense,
thus untrue.

But saying that something does NOT exist unless it is perceived is
equally nonsense. There is a tree in my garden with a bird sitting in
it. The bird is singing, so I know it is there without seeing it. But I
cannot see the tree. So, if the tree does not exist, what is the bird
sitting in?
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that KR Williams <krw@att.biz> wrote
(in <MPG.1ad801a578e92e009896fd@news1.news.adelphia.net&gt about 'OT: Why
are Engineers snookered by Creationism ?', on Fri, 2 Apr 2004:

...only if observed in hind-sight. Jules Verne's "predictions"
need a wide stroke of the belief brush to say that he predicted
space travel, or indeed the modern submarine. Likewise,
Leonardo's helicopter is as much a modern helicopter as the
Jetson's is 21'st century Americana. SF is much over-rated as a
predictor of the future. People simply aren't as smart as time.

There are MUCH better predictors that Verne, such as Arthur C Clarke.
Leonardo's studies are theoretical analyses, not predictions, as is
Clarke's seminal paper on geostationary satellites.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

 

[KR Williams]

In article <DEAV3DC7lmbAFwiD@jmwa.demon.co.uk>,
jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk says...

I read in sci.electronics.design that KR Williams <krw@att.biz> wrote
(in <MPG.1ad801a578e92e009896fd@news1.news.adelphia.net&gt about 'OT: Why
are Engineers snookered by Creationism ?', on Fri, 2 Apr 2004:

...only if observed in hind-sight. Jules Verne's "predictions"
need a wide stroke of the belief brush to say that he predicted
space travel, or indeed the modern submarine. Likewise,
Leonardo's helicopter is as much a modern helicopter as the
Jetson's is 21'st century Americana. SF is much over-rated as a
predictor of the future. People simply aren't as smart as time.

There are MUCH better predictors that Verne, such as Arthur C Clarke.
Leonardo's studies are theoretical analyses, not predictions, as is
Clarke's seminal paper on geostationary satellites.

Actually, I was thinking of Clarke when I wrote the above.
Clarke wasn't looking *that* far into the future (rockets were
fairly well known in '45). It was more of an application of
technology that was reasonably close to reality.

--
Keith

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that KR Williams <krw@att.biz> wrote
(in <MPG.1ad8d339eabe61bc989706@news1.news.adelphia.net&gt about 'OT: Why
are Engineers snookered by Creationism ?', on Sat, 3 Apr 2004:

Actually, I was thinking of Clarke when I wrote the above.
Clarke wasn't looking *that* far into the future (rockets were
fairly well known in '45).

Yes, fairly. They were dropping on people in London only a short time
before.

It was more of an application of
technology that was reasonably close to reality.

If you believe that, you will believe anything. Rockets hardly come into
it. Can you say 'geostationary'?
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

 

[Richard Henry]

"John Woodgate" <jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote in message
news:+SW6SuHjDxbAFwUr@jmwa.demon.co.uk...

I read in sci.electronics.design that KR Williams <krw@att.biz> wrote
(in <MPG.1ad8d339eabe61bc989706@news1.news.adelphia.net&gt about 'OT: Why
are Engineers snookered by Creationism ?', on Sat, 3 Apr 2004:

Actually, I was thinking of Clarke when I wrote the above.
Clarke wasn't looking *that* far into the future (rockets were
fairly well known in '45).

Yes, fairly. They were dropping on people in London only a short time
before.

Wasn't it von Braun who said "I aim for the moon. So far we have reached
London."?

Or something similar?

 

[KR Williams]

In article <+SW6SuHjDxbAFwUr@jmwa.demon.co.uk>,
jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk says...

I read in sci.electronics.design that KR Williams <krw@att.biz> wrote
(in <MPG.1ad8d339eabe61bc989706@news1.news.adelphia.net&gt about 'OT: Why
are Engineers snookered by Creationism ?', on Sat, 3 Apr 2004:

Actually, I was thinking of Clarke when I wrote the above.
Clarke wasn't looking *that* far into the future (rockets were
fairly well known in '45).

Yes, fairly. They were dropping on people in London only a short time
before.

....and thus we know that ballistic missiles were not only
possible, but real. It was a small matter of technology to reach
space. WVB had is eyes on it.

It was more of an application of
technology that was reasonably close to reality.

If you believe that, you will believe anything.

If you say so. We were already well acquainted with gravity, and
rather new about orbital mechanics.

Rockets hardly come into
it. Can you say 'geostationary'?

Sorry, I don't agree. It's all about getting there. Once it's
demonstrated that it can be done, the applications fall out.

--
Keith

 

[Al]

In article <MPG.1ad8d1cda602d803989705@news1.news.adelphia.net>,
KR Williams <krw@att.biz> wrote:

In article <CkWVfqBhembAFwAm@jmwa.demon.co.uk>,
jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk says...
I read in sci.electronics.design that KR Williams <krw@att.biz> wrote
(in <MPG.1ad7ffc7208e43859896fc@news1.news.adelphia.net&gt about 'OT: Why
are Engineers snookered by Creationism ?', on Fri, 2 Apr 2004:
...thus you "observed" the door (consciously or unconsciously,
depending on the velocity of impact). QED

Ah, so an attosecond before impact it wasn't there. Where was it, then,
and how did it get into position? Can cupboard doors predict where they
will need to be in the future?

Sure. They'll be in your way. ...never saw a tree jump out in
front of a car?

Have you been reading "Scientific American" lately? It recently had
articles in it about string theory, multiple universes and the like.
Sounds a lot like science fiction to me. At any rate, all things are
possible as infinite multiple universes are possible. Somewhere a tree
DID jump in front of a car.

Al

--
There's never enough time to do it right the first time.......

 

[KR Williams]

In article <no.spam-773A6C.11463004042004@news.verizon.net>,
no.spam@here.com says...

In article <MPG.1ad8d1cda602d803989705@news1.news.adelphia.net>,
KR Williams <krw@att.biz> wrote:

In article <CkWVfqBhembAFwAm@jmwa.demon.co.uk>,
jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk says...
I read in sci.electronics.design that KR Williams <krw@att.biz> wrote
(in <MPG.1ad7ffc7208e43859896fc@news1.news.adelphia.net&gt about 'OT: Why
are Engineers snookered by Creationism ?', on Fri, 2 Apr 2004:
...thus you "observed" the door (consciously or unconsciously,
depending on the velocity of impact). QED

Ah, so an attosecond before impact it wasn't there. Where was it, then,
and how did it get into position? Can cupboard doors predict where they
will need to be in the future?

Sure. They'll be in your way. ...never saw a tree jump out in
front of a car?

Have you been reading "Scientific American" lately?

Nah. I gave up reading that rag when they (should have) changed
their name to Pseudo-Scientific American.

It recently had
articles in it about string theory, multiple universes and the like.
Sounds a lot like science fiction to me. At any rate, all things are
possible as infinite multiple universes are possible. Somewhere a tree
DID jump in front of a car.

Anything is possible when you create your own religion. ;-)

--
Keith