Toshiba TV29C90 problem; Image fades to black...

[Kevin Aylward]

R. Steve Walz wrote:

Kevin Aylward wrote:



But this is entirely irrelevant as to individuals making their own
decisions, with a claim that they are pre-ordained. Individual
outcomes are not predictable under QM, therefore they cannot be pre
determined.
------------------------------------
Note: "pre-determism" is NOT the same as Determinism.

This is your new definition of determinism I see.
-------------------------------
It is simply a mis-statement of terminology from Philosophy,
as you would know if you'd bothered to know BOO about the subject
of accepted Determinism. So far, from the beginning to here in
this post, you have managed to actually address properly precisely
nothing, and to do no more than disparage without actually arguing
in any sense that is rational.

So says RSW. Wow...

I actually have previously made the mistake of believing you
had a halfway decent intellect, but I now know that that impression
was actually hasty, and that I see you cut-n-paste a few notes you
must surely grab elsewhere and which youdon't actually understand.

Guess what, they were quotes from Ballentine. An guess what, "Quote"
means that one reproduces text written by others.

What part of the quotes do I misunderstand?

Also, as said before: Determinism does NOT rely on prediction in any
way, shape, or form. It is a strictly semantic truth about reality.

Nope. Not if *in principle* it can't be determined.
---------------
"Determinism" has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with anything being
"determined" by humans.

Who mentioned humans?

What part of the *in principle* do you fail to understand?

If you had read BOO on the subject you
would know that, but clearly you don't.

Its clear you can not have read any, as you fail to understood basic
English.

Again, give one
example of a determinate outcome with no in principle prediction
possible.
---------------------------------------
Example: You failed to understand Determinism.

I take it than, that you have no evidence to support your assertion.

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.

 

[Kevin Aylward]

ShrikeBack wrote:

I think the standard response is that the past is in some sense
infinite. Namely, that the rules themselves (such as logic, and
those governing quantum vacuum fluctuations) have always been here.

I have run across those who believe the past is infinte, though
not in the context of determinism. Moreover, usually, those people
are talking about physical existence. I tell those people that
if the past were infinite, there would have been an infinity
of passing time before the present. Saying something will not
occur until an eternity has passed is equivalent to saying that
it will never happen. Thus, the present would never have been
reached.

This logic is inherently not usable. Its a 101 math standard fallacy.
When one discusses infinite, in general, all bets are off. Its only
specific examples that can be handled, by taking the limit as x->
infinite, and this requires that the function be continuous. Most logic
deduced by assuming infinite leads to contradictions, e.g. 1=0, so you
simply can't use an argument like the one you describe above.

I actually prefer the idea that the universe has always existed, like
the continuous big bang and big crunch cycle e.g.

1 Fact, there is mass-energy in the universe.
2 If there was a time when there was no mass-energy, i.e. truly zero
content to the universe, how could this mass-energy come into sudden
existence.?

A *true* empty universe, could not have an effect, by assumption, to
spark the mass energy creation. Note, a *true* *empty* universe is also
zero ZPE, by definition.

If an effect could happen without any cause whatsoever, i.e. magic, this
last objection can be ignored. However, despite my claim on what
standard QM states, I don't personally believe in magic.

You, however, are not referring to physical time, but something
else, where the rules wait in an eternal timelessness for the
moment of creation, in a manner of speaking. I am not convinced
that time can exist without events,

It cant. Time is nothing more then noting that something is in a
different position than it was before. For example, going back in time
is nothing more than putting all objects back in the same place as they
were before, except youself.

though, just as some have
claimed that space cannot exist without matter.

If by space you mean x,y,z distance, it doesn't. It cant. You cant, in
principle, determine position without mass-energy to mark reference
points.

If a rule
of logic exists in the void, but there is no one there to think
about it, does it really exist at all?

Thinking, i.e consciousness is irrelevant to existence. All mass-energy
is under the same rules of physics. Consciousness is no different, it
cant be. It is not special. All this conscious stuff that abounds in
some expositions of QM is all nonsense. It comes from when people were
daft enough to have ideas of souls and spirits and other such nebulous
nonsense. Consciousness is a result of normal physical processes, it
can't be any other way, well unless you believe in magic.

Of course, it cant be proved that the universes exists without someone
to observe it, but the evidence suggests that when anyone dies, the
universe still exists.

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.

 

[Kevin Aylward]

R. Steve Walz wrote:

ShrikeBack wrote:

I am aware, too, that my preceding argument only deals with the
epistemological problem of predictability. It is quite possible
that the universe is still utterly deterministic, according to
this argument, but it would be impossible, in spite of that, for
any means of total predictability to devised.
------------------------------
And we see that prediction, with any perfect result, is impossible,
merely and IF ONLY because we are finite and we die! The only way
that Reality occurs is in the form of an individual's own Life,
as they experience it.


I also have this vague impression that there is a category of things
that exist on the one hand and the category of all things (including
rules) that might exist on the other. I don't know that if we limit
our universe to just the former that Godel even applies.

Under determinism, all events could, in principle, be described
with algorithms, at least on the local level. This seems to me
to be true, though I have no rigorous proof. Thus the universe
itself could be considered isomorphic to some formal system.
If that is true, then a deterministic Universe is either
inconsistent or incomplete in the same sense as whatever formal
system maps to it must be, by a previously shown result.
------------------------------
No algorithm can ever be shown to be infinitely accurate as to
predicting outcomes. This is both obvious because of subjective
phenomenology and because of Goedel's Incompleteness,

Nonsense. Goedel has nothing to do with the ability of an *accurate*
prediction. Goedel, essentially says, that to have for example, a TOE,
it will consist of a number of separate axioms, that are not derivable
from anything else. i.e. You have to accept the underpinnings of your
TOE on faith, with only the consequences being "proved" from those
axioms.

which I
see as the two faces of a coin!

Obviously with only one eye.

You, however, are not referring to physical time, but something
else, where the rules wait in an eternal timelessness for the
moment of creation, in a manner of speaking. I am not convinced
that time can exist without events, though, just as some have
claimed that space cannot exist without matter. If a rule
of logic exists in the void, but there is no one there to think
about it, does it really exist at all?
----------------------------------
Time is NOT a continuum! Time is strictly subjective, it exists
in no other form!!

Not at all. If any object has changed its position in any manner, time
has changed. Its objective. It dose not depend on anyone's particular
view. It nothing moves, time has stopped, for everyone.


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.

 

[Kevin Aylward]

R. Steve Walz wrote:

ShrikeBack wrote:

Even if the Universe ulitimately follows one path of events (which
cannot be proven, by the way), it does not follow that the "decision"
is predetermined.
----------------------
You are unaware of the proper terminology:

"Predetermination" is NOT the same as Determinism. The first insists
everything is planned, Determinism merely says it is inevitable. I
insist only upon the latter.

All you have done is restricted your particular definition of what
"Determinism" means to that of "what happened, happened". Its vacuous.

There is also the problem of the First Cause. If you don't
assume that the past is infinite, you are stuck admitting
that there was one of these, and a First Cause is by definition
uncaused. If one uncaused event is allowed into your ontology,
how can you disallow the possibility of others?
---------------------------------
I don't think it's provable that the Universe exists Except as a
set of Features to My Perception of it. It began this morning when I
woke up, or when I was born, or when humans arose, take your pick.

If you want to take that tack, then you are getting close to the
idea that existence is created by observation.
--------------------------
I do indeed hold that the process of observation is the nature of
Reality.

Because you confuse *proof* of existence with existence.

Absence of proof is not proof of absence.

That being said, this indicates why it is you are wedded so
dogmatically to determinism: because you don't want to be
responsible for what you choose to do. Well, QM randomness
works just as well for that purpose, I would think.
------------------------------
Nonsense. I'm simply not so stupid as to believe that I have
any control over who I am in this life.

Indeed. For you personally, this is clearly true. You need continual
supervision with jags up your arse once a week.


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.

 

[R. Steve Walz]

bigmike wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message
news:3F110035.1AA8@armory.com...
bigmike wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message
news:3F10B548.165@armory.com...
Kevin Aylward wrote:

George Buyanovsky wrote:
"Kevin Aylward" <kevin@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<D6zPa.15946$4O4.1764028@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net>...

I'll re-phrase. Standard QM, says there is no direct cause and
effect.

You exaggerated:
Probably statement "there is cause/effect correlation" is more
appropriate

I already addressed the statistical nature of cause and effect, I
used
the qualify "direct" to highlight what I think is missed by many
doing
QM. Its easy to do all the sums, get your PhD, yet still not have it
sink in that QM fundamentally says "things happen without a cause".
As I
noted, its why Feynmann says "no one understand QM". Without
bringing it
to a clear head one simply does not, imo, understand how really
profound, and how at odds it is to conventional understanding QM is.

Kevin Aylward
-----------------
I don't know why you find this so hard to understand, but we really
do KNOW that "things happen without a cause", except that the "cause"
in that phrase is some process within reality. It does NOT preclude
all possible lives existing, and each being separated by each being
a different outcome such that each is Determined yet without Cause,
even a Divine one.
-Steve
--

Go outside on a clear night Steve, when it's easy to see many stars in
the
sky, look into the heavens above, and clear your mind of the idea that
we
have a clue what life is all about. Let the mystery and wonder of it all
come back into your heart and mind. As much as I love science, if your
not
careful, it can strip these basic, wonderful, human attributes from you.
----------------------
Garbage. Only an ass hides his superstition behind the romance of
mystery.
-Steve

It's not superstition Steve, it's the unknown. And the mystery of life will
remain unknown. What's more, there's not a damm thing you can do about it.
Get all the degrees you want. Read all the books you want. Do all the
calculations you can come up with, invent any theory you wish, and they will
never do you any good. The essence of life is in your thoughts, your
desires, your dreams and your emotions, not in any physical properties. If
science is your only tool to understanding, then a 3 year old has a better
understanding of life then you do. And that's a fact. But you know all of
this all ready, don't you Steve? I'll play along....
----------------

All you said, while true, is still just posturing. My Science is as
simple as pie, it isn't overly complex, strained, or calculated. The
essence of my Science is in my thoughts, desires, dreams, and emotion.
Life is just a tool the Infinite uses to exist.

Imagine, accusing me of not being poetic enough!!
-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

 

[Kevin Aylward]

R. Steve Walz wrote:

Kevin Aylward wrote:

R. Steve Walz wrote:
ShrikeBack wrote:


which seems
obvious to me anyway, since our lives are finite and possibility is
NOT, still, causation operates and generates ONE SINGLE OUTCOME for
MY LIFE.

You have this ingrained assumption that one outcome means causation.
-----------------
No, I just used words to explain something and hoped you got what I
said without being too long-winded. You thrashing around desperately
looking for evidence that I'm actually stupid and can't comprehend
something.

I don't need to look at all. Its as plain as day.

Please present one experimental piece of evidence that supports the
view that an event that is inherently unpredictable in principle,
was due to a cause.
--------------------------------------
When events follow contiguously in coherent context, one from another,
rather than being unrelated successive events passing before us, we
have reason to deduce that cause and effect are the operant principle
in this Life, and this is true of the whole Life/Universe we find
ourselves in.

We have seen many cases in our Life of things that were not obvious to
us how to predict or explain them without either, intense
investigation or extensive study of them.

But our experiences have given us reasons to trust, and which have
never been broken,

Er... QM.

that they result from cause and effect and are not
somehow just random happenings.

Er... QM.

The exception to this historically was always gambling devices, thus
their allure, but then even Newton brought some of them asunder in
that regard, and so we are used to seeing something APPEAR to be
"uncaused" when we find later that it is not, and this is part of the
laymen's existential sense of the validity of the Correspondence
Principle in Science, that we need not KNOW the specifics of the
Perfect Set of Universal Physical Laws to believe that they do indeed
exist because we find ourselves approaching them ever more closely
through Life experience and Historical time.

It is this reasoned belief in these Laws that gives us reason to
believe in cause and effect, and it was never perfect predictability
which did so. It is our faith in our experience of Life that tells
us to believe in cause and effect, because it is an eminently useful
concept which has never been refuted.

So, I see that you don't have any positive evidence.

Also, lastly, if some event is not caused, then why would that
specific event even occur, and not another different event? That
logical conundrum is virtually insurmountable.

I agree, that this is a good argument. I use this one myself as to why I
take the view that the mass-energy of the universe has always existed. I
have addressed this elsewhere in this thread,so I wont repeat it here.

In other words,
it is fine to have different equally possible events happen in
differing circumstances, for whatever reason, but don't EVEN try
to tell us that in ONE circumstance, that any OTHER such event
COULD have happened and simply DIDN'T! If so, then why the one
that DID happen????? That is the insumountable question that is
embodied in the semantic argument that: Whatever finally happened
was always going to be the future anyway.

So, one would have to take the view, that standard QM has something
missing. An "identical" set-up according to the rules of QM gives
different outcomes, therefore the assumption of what constitutes an
"identical" set-up must be false.

All you have done here is *define* "one outcome" as "deterministic".
And this is blatantly false.
-----------------------------------
No, in fact David Hume used it in his work and it has not been refuted
because it cannot be.

I don't care a shit about the ideas of some unknown old fool who died
years ago. This argument from supposed authority carries zero weight
with me.

We are Finite, and It is NOT! Our Life has specific final outcome
because of It. To be Determined, something need not even be predicted,
caused, or reasonable, as long as it Finally Just IS!! I know this
smacks of an Infinite Deity to you,

Not at all. If the rules of physics determine an outcome, so be it.

And the "Big Bang" was actually a moment ago when I returned to
consciousness from staring into space living other lives. The Big
Bang is just Infinity when it arises in a new Manifestation.

Well, you are on a par to by brother. He thinks all the people in the
world and are robots set up as a big game by aliens to torment him.
He also gets a jag up his bum once a week.
---------------------------------------------
What is a "jag up his bum"????

Needle in his arse.

"I'm just sitting here watching the wheels go round and round.
I really love to watch them roll." JL

Actually I'm the sanest man on earth.

Thats what my brother says as well, even whilst on his medication.

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.

 

[Kevin Aylward]

John Fields wrote:

On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 03:50:34 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com
wrote:


To obviate determinism you'd need alternate realities you could
jump between at will, or, for mind to have the capacity to believe
you were elsewhere than you are and seriously believe it as
certainty, which would instantly render you psychotic, catatonic
and insane in this reality.

---
On the contrary, Steve, I believe that's what actually happens. That
is, our every action changes the fabric of the universe irreversibly
and produces a new light cone for us, its singularity meandering
about as we do. We don't perceive the changes because of something
like persistence of vision, so time seems to flow seamlessly, and
continuously, making us believe we live in a jello-like universe when
actually it's more like grits, as we're starting to learn.
---

We don't have Free Will because it would make existence impossible
and chaotic, with no continuity or cause and effect.

---
Well, it _is_ chaotic, probably because of noise in the system, but if
we didn't have free will, existence would be pointless

Existence is pointless. We exist because the laws of physics allow it.
Thats all there is to it.

and we'd only
be along for the ride.

That's right. So try and get as many rides as you can.

Kind of like a ball in a pinball machine.
_But_, even if that were true,

Why should it be any other way.


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.

 

[bigmike]

"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message
news:3F110035.1AA8@armory.com...

bigmike wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message
news:3F10B548.165@armory.com...
Kevin Aylward wrote:

George Buyanovsky wrote:
"Kevin Aylward" <kevin@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<D6zPa.15946$4O4.1764028@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net>...

I'll re-phrase. Standard QM, says there is no direct cause and
effect.

You exaggerated:
Probably statement "there is cause/effect correlation" is more
appropriate

I already addressed the statistical nature of cause and effect, I
used
the qualify "direct" to highlight what I think is missed by many
doing
QM. Its easy to do all the sums, get your PhD, yet still not have it
sink in that QM fundamentally says "things happen without a cause".
As I
noted, its why Feynmann says "no one understand QM". Without
bringing it
to a clear head one simply does not, imo, understand how really
profound, and how at odds it is to conventional understanding QM is.

Kevin Aylward
-----------------
I don't know why you find this so hard to understand, but we really
do KNOW that "things happen without a cause", except that the "cause"
in that phrase is some process within reality. It does NOT preclude
all possible lives existing, and each being separated by each being
a different outcome such that each is Determined yet without Cause,
even a Divine one.
-Steve
--

Go outside on a clear night Steve, when it's easy to see many stars in
the
sky, look into the heavens above, and clear your mind of the idea that
we
have a clue what life is all about. Let the mystery and wonder of it all
come back into your heart and mind. As much as I love science, if your
not
careful, it can strip these basic, wonderful, human attributes from you.
----------------------
Garbage. Only an ass hides his superstition behind the romance of
mystery.
-Steve

It's not superstition Steve, it's the unknown. And the mystery of life will
remain unknown. What's more, there's not a damm thing you can do about it.
Get all the degrees you want. Read all the books you want. Do all the
calculations you can come up with, invent any theory you wish, and they will
never do you any good. The essence of life is in your thoughts, your
desires, your dreams and your emotions, not in any physical properties. If
science is your only tool to understanding, then a 3 year old has a better
understanding of life then you do. And that's a fact. But you know all of
this all ready, don't you Steve? I'll play along....

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Kevin Aylward wrote:

R. Steve Walz wrote:

Also, lastly, if some event is not caused, then why would that
specific event even occur, and not another different event? That
logical conundrum is virtually insurmountable.

I agree, that this is a good argument. I use this one myself as to why I
take the view that the mass-energy of the universe has always existed. I
have addressed this elsewhere in this thread,so I wont repeat it here.
--------------------------

If it were concretely real, I would agree.

In other words,
it is fine to have different equally possible events happen in
differing circumstances, for whatever reason, but don't EVEN try
to tell us that in ONE circumstance, that any OTHER such event
COULD have happened and simply DIDN'T! If so, then why the one
that DID happen????? That is the insumountable question that is
embodied in the semantic argument that: Whatever finally happened
was always going to be the future anyway.

So, one would have to take the view, that standard QM has something
missing. An "identical" set-up according to the rules of QM gives
different outcomes, therefore the assumption of what constitutes an
"identical" set-up must be false.
--------------------

Absolutely.
Also:
Identicality is impossible. It has never occurred.

All you have done here is *define* "one outcome" as "deterministic".
And this is blatantly false.
-----------------------------------
No, in fact David Hume used it in his work and it has not been refuted
because it cannot be.


I don't care a shit about the ideas of some unknown old fool who died
years ago. This argument from supposed authority carries zero weight
with me.
----------------------

Fine, just wanted to tell you if it happened to mean anything to you,
he is well-regarded by even modern physicists.

We are Finite, and It is NOT! Our Life has specific final outcome
because of It. To be Determined, something need not even be predicted,
caused, or reasonable, as long as it Finally Just IS!! I know this
smacks of an Infinite Deity to you,

Not at all. If the rules of physics determine an outcome, so be it.
--------------

Fine.

And the "Big Bang" was actually a moment ago when I returned to
consciousness from staring into space living other lives. The Big
Bang is just Infinity when it arises in a new Manifestation.

Well, you are on a par to by brother. He thinks all the people in the
world and are robots set up as a big game by aliens to torment him.
He also gets a jag up his bum once a week.
---------------------------------------------
What is a "jag up his bum"????

Needle in his arse.
------------------

Oh, why? Most drugs for psychotherapy are orally administered, or
they are given daily.

"I'm just sitting here watching the wheels go round and round.
I really love to watch them roll." JL

Actually I'm the sanest man on earth.

Thats what my brother says as well, even whilst on his medication.

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

Yes, but he's wrong.
-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:

R. Steve Walz wrote:
ShrikeBack wrote:

Even if the Universe ulitimately follows one path of events (which
cannot be proven, by the way), it does not follow that the "decision"
is predetermined.
----------------------
You are unaware of the proper terminology:

"Predetermination" is NOT the same as Determinism. The first insists
everything is planned, Determinism merely says it is inevitable. I
insist only upon the latter.

All you have done is restricted your particular definition of what
"Determinism" means to that of "what happened, happened". Its vacuous.
----------------------

That is what it is. If you don't think it's worth bothering with, then
why have you bothered to argue with me?

There is also the problem of the First Cause. If you don't
assume that the past is infinite, you are stuck admitting
that there was one of these, and a First Cause is by definition
uncaused. If one uncaused event is allowed into your ontology,
how can you disallow the possibility of others?
---------------------------------
I don't think it's provable that the Universe exists Except as a
set of Features to My Perception of it. It began this morning when I
woke up, or when I was born, or when humans arose, take your pick.

If you want to take that tack, then you are getting close to the
idea that existence is created by observation.
--------------------------
I do indeed hold that the process of observation is the nature of
Reality.

Because you confuse *proof* of existence with existence.
-----------------------------

If I exist, no proof is needed (Decartes). If not, none is necessary!
If I perceive something, it exists, that is merely my inevitable
operant definition.

Absence of proof is not proof of absence.
------------------------------

Inappropriate to the question.

That being said, this indicates why it is you are wedded so
dogmatically to determinism: because you don't want to be
responsible for what you choose to do. Well, QM randomness
works just as well for that purpose, I would think.
------------------------------
Nonsense. I'm simply not so stupid as to believe that I have
any control over who I am in this life.

Indeed. For you personally, this is clearly true.
--------------------

Nonsense.

You need continual
supervision with jags up your arse once a week.

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

Actually I don't.
-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

 

[Ray L. Volts]

X-A-Notice: References line has been trimmed due to 512 byte limitationAbuse-Reports-To: abuse at airmail.net to report improper postings
NNTP-Proxy-Relay: library1-aux.airnews.net
NNTP-Posting-Time: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 06:25:06 -0500 (CDT)
NNTP-Posting-Host: !dT>B1k-WuDbNN< (Encoded at Airnews!)
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165


"paul s" <nospam@nospam.forme> wrote in message
news:r4TPa.9414$nD6.71650451@news-text.cableinet.net...

Ray L. Volts wrote:


I hope you have some sort of disclaimer on your receipts. Otherwise, if
somebody burns their house down, they might decide it's a good idea to
sue
ya because they weren't "adequately advised or warned". It happens..

As in the infamous 'McDonalds hot coffee' suit. Or those salted peanut
packets 'Warning this product may contain nuts'.

How about KFC? 'Warning this product *may* contain chicken'. ;-)

Sadly, our litigious society has gotten just that bad! Even sadder, though,
is that juries actually issue awards to these twits. You really have to
cover your ass in every imaginable fashion nowadays.

 

[Arthur Jernberg]

One question, with your username, are you a private pilot>> BTW just saw a
VS400 setting in a scrap pile but have no access to any of it's components.
"cessna" <nfroehling@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
news:M7LPa.76858$TJ.3963998@twister.austin.rr.com...

Need service manual, ckt boards for a Mitsubishi projection Tv model
unknown (rear cover missing) made mid '80s - early '90s, can email pic
Thanks

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Kevin Aylward wrote:

R. Steve Walz wrote:
Kevin Aylward wrote:
" To change the past OR the future you have to go be somebody
else.


However,
practically, since we have no way of realistically predicting the
future, the engineering approximation is that we have free will, sort
off...noting that some things are more free willable than others.
---------------------------
You're still confusing the capacity of the human to change and react
with "free will".

No. Your still confusing what "engineering approximation" means.

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

Yes, you're saying that my point makes no difference and that "free
will" seems to be so, so it must be true.

This would be true, except that that the two result in different
outcomes ansd inspire politically opposite treatment by humans.
-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

 

[cessna]

Yes, a private pilot with electronics as a second hobby, looks like no
one is repairing any more

Arthur Jernberg wrote:

One question, with your username, are you a private pilot>> BTW just saw a
VS400 setting in a scrap pile but have no access to any of it's components.
"cessna" <nfroehling@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
news:M7LPa.76858$TJ.3963998@twister.austin.rr.com...

Need service manual, ckt boards for a Mitsubishi projection Tv model
unknown (rear cover missing) made mid '80s - early '90s, can email pic
Thanks

 

[Geoffrey S. Mendelson]

In article <BH5Qa.41309$hY1.10675575@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>,
Peter Gottlieb wrote:

You need a small computer to interface to the internet streaming protocol.
If you want free, get a discarded old computer and investigate a Linux based
solution.

What he really wants is a Kerbango. The Kerbango was an "internet radio".
It did fairly well as a startup until 3Com bought the company. 3Com
decided to drop all of it's consumer products and the Kerbango went
off to oblivion.

There is a company selling a front end to your home network, but it
requires a PC to drive it.

A slow PII or fast Pentium computer should be available almost anywhere
for just about free. As long as it has a sound card in it, you should
be able to pickup internet radio if you have a decent connection.

I have a Pentium 166 that I use as a router and firewall. I stuck a sound
card in it and hooked the output to my sterep. I can listen to streaming
MP3 and Ogg files and am loving it. My two favorites are WCPE (clasical
music) and Virgin Radio in London.

Geoff.
--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson gsm@mendelson.com 972-54-608-069
Do sysadmins count networked sheep?

 

[David]

I did say ordinary failure, yes?
The statistics are from a major extended warranty/service contract
company's own numbers of actual failures for RPTV class. An ordinary
failure can include failure of the remote control, factor in the
remaining brands and it is easy to get to a 20% in 5 years failure
rate. Remember the infamous Sony KP41T15 and all its problems and
modifications? I cannot think of a single one of those that did not
need at least one repair before it was 3 years old.

As to the picture tubes, they have a finite life. The way most people
watch a set is with the contrast and brightness nearly at maximum.
That related to 4 to 5 years before even the better rptv tubes start
looking soft. 8 years at normal viewing time (average 7 hours a day)
and they really start to look bad. Philips admitted when they first
came out with the super bright RPTV sets in 1997/98 and the blue tubes
started cracking when people left the blue screen mute from teh vcr or
dvd player on for several minutes that if people watched the set at
factory torch settings, the tubes would look soft soon after the
warranty was out, 2+ years!!!!!

FYI back a couple of years ago I wound up getting a hold of
manufactures ACTUAL warranty failure rates for a couple of products.
Sony WEGA line 27" on up had a 1.5% failure rate within the first 90
days (this did not include shipping damage, etc, but actual infant
mortality failures). It was still under 5% for a first year warranty
repair rate, they admitted they could not factor out external causes
from this number with certainty (minor power surges, etc). This was
after they had the initial production and engineering problems fixed
after the set first came out.

Thomson CTC203 chassis with the Gemstar 4 module and modular tuner
when it first came out, had an impressive just under 30% first year
failure rate. Thomson instituted a servicer automatic partial labor
reimbursement to take care of the customers. Due to the extra
paperwork involved with getting Thomson to pay this we would typically
charge the customer a minimal fee to make sure everything was done
right (total was around $10 to cover the added time for the paperwork
and the tv set extended bench testing)


"Leonard G. Caillouet" <lcaillo_ns_@devoynet.com> wrote in message news:<tCAPa.77$pO5.38@fe03.atl2.webusenet.com>...

"David" <dkuhajda@locl.net.spam> wrote in message
news:3f0e60bf@news.greennet.net...
As to the future problems, I should have included from this incident.
Your set has a 1 in 5 chance over five years of normal use of having an
ordinary failure, that is simply ordinary statistical failure for
electronics at that complicated level. The expected picture tube life if
you watch it like most people is 8 years, around 20,000 hours of use; a
bit
longer if you turned down the contrast and brightness to proper levels.

Where do you get your statistics? Sounds pessimistic to me. We sell and
service these Sony sets, as well as Mitsubishi and I'd be very surprised to
have that high a failure rate or that short a life expectancy. I have
hundreds of sets out there that are over 10 years old and still looking
great.

Leonard Caillouet

 

[Paul Burridge]

On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 09:57:10 +0100, "Kevin Aylward"
<kevin@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:

Existence is pointless. We exist because the laws of physics allow it.
Thats all there is to it.

Er, no. The point of existence is simply to reproduce successfuly.
We're all slaves to that all-pervasive macromolecule, DNA.

 

[lcoe]

Buck Turgidson <jc_va@hotmail.com> wrote:

I am wondering if anyone has made a device that is basically a sound
card that can receive an Internet audio stream, but without having a PC?
I want to pick up some feeds, but don't want to invest in a PC. Thanks
for any replies.

well, i started to develop this device but decided that a combination
tv/microwave oven/wireless router would be a better seller. but, just
as soon as i get that on the market, i will go back and finish the
first project. will post progress.....;-) --Loren

 

[RonSonic]

On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 05:23:26 +1000, Bob Parker <bobp@bluebottle.com> wrote:

"Asimov" <warpcastgate@-removethis-bbs.juxtaposition.dynip.com> wrote:

"Lenny" wrote to "All" (06 Jul 03 09:02:29)
--- on the topic of "Low ohms, (Dick Smith ESR meter), measurement problems"

The ESR meter uses something like 100KHz AC signal frequency. You are
bound to fool it with the long wires's inductive reactance! The dc meter
has no such reactive problems.

Asimov
******

G'day,
My little reactance calculator says that it only takes about 40uH
of inductance to give a reactance of 26 ohms at 100kHz, which is
approximately the effective measurement frequency of the DSE ESR
meter. Long lengths of wire in a building would easily have 40uH of
inductance.
Sorry the meter led you astray, Lenny. It was only ever meant for
testing electrolytic caps and measuring low resistances which don't
have a significant amount of series inductance.

One place where that characteristic is really helpful is with some of the small
toroidal trannies in switching supplies. Shorted ones and good ones look about
the same to your average bench DC Ohmmeter. They look radically different on the
DS ESR meter.

Ron

 

[ShrikeBack]

Misanthrope <amisanthrope@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<6bu0hvcaf7t12b6thps6fg8pfiq8b6kgmq@4ax.com>...

On 12 Jul 2003 10:06:37 -0700, hewpiedawg@hotmail.com (ShrikeBack)
wrote:

I am not confusing the epistemological with the ontological.
I merely made the point that we can indeed show that arbitrary
predictability is unobtainable. You did not deal with my
ontological argument concerning the First Cause.

Well, then all of this predictability stuff is completely irrelevant.

I disagree. Determinism has consequences in the realm of epistemology
as well. In a universe where all that is known is known by subsystems
that are themselves embedded in this deterministic existence, it is
useful to examine what specific limits this imposes on what can be
known. I am looking for a reductio ad absurdum, or at least some
observable consequence of absolute determinism. If there is no
observable difference between a universe that deterministic and
one that is not, we will be unable to determine determinism's truth
or falsity. That is likely the result, but I am hoping for a more.

Note that if we wanted to be all positivitic about it, and it did
turn out that determinism was neither falsifiable nor verifiable,
we would likely consider the question meaningless.

As for the first cause argument, it is not complete. The burden,
then, is on you to prove that finite time implies a first cause and
that the existence of one first cause implies that we are each first
causes which is where free will comes from. The fact is that a first
cause is only required if time is finite AND linear. The reason time
is even thought to be finite is for the same reason space is thought
to be finite, namely because it is not linear. And even if there is a
first cause, it seems entirely likely that we are not ourselves
uncaused causes, anyway.

It was not my intention to try to establish the truth of the Liberty
of the Will in that argument, but rather to cast doubt on the Doctrine
of Necessity.

I thank you for bringing up the issue of non-linear finite but unbounded
time. That, I did not consider at the time. The reason I had not
considered it is that the current state of our knowledge leads me
to the conclusion that the universe will not collapse in on itself, but
rather expand indefinitely. This result could change, of course.

One thing that I had not really thought about is that the oscillating,
finite but unbounded, non-linear timeline, when wedded with the
Doctrine of Necessity, leads to Nietzsche's Eternal Recurrence.
So, we would have, in this cosmology, a timeline that continually
repeated the same set of causes and effects eternally. I have a
hard time seeing that in such a universe, cause and effect really
carry much meaning, however. Ultimately, at least in some instances,
when one traces back the chain of causes and effects, one is led back
to the original effect. Therefore some effects would cause themselves,
at least partially.

That assumes there is not a cause and effect horizon, say at the Big
Crunch/Big Bang singularity. If there is a cause and effect horizon,
then the first cause argument still stands.

You are correct that it does not prove that we are uncaused causers,
but I don't think proving that is required in order to cast doubt on
determinism.

We seem to be the products of genetics and
upbringing which doesn't detract from our having a *will* (that is not
metaphysically "free"), but we are not the uncaused causes that you
are talking about.

I will just point out that our wills, whether they be free or unfree,
are as self-referencing as the Liar's Paradox.