Newsgroup sci.physics 211901

Directory

In article <58asvu$pdb@news.asu.edu>,   wrote:
>	Advice / comments.  
It sucks.  It's a horrible test that doesn't seem to test anything
related to the ability to do physics.
Remember, you have 1.7 minutes per problem.  Extended calculations are
right out.  Look for the easy way to do the problem.  Often it is
easier to find the 4 answers that are wrong than to find the one that
is right.
Make multiple passes through the test.  The first pass you should
answer all the questions requiring no thought.  Then hit the ones
where you have to exclude a couple answers or do short calculations.
Then try the really tough ones.
Much of the test relies on exposure to basic ideas in areas you may
never have been exposed to.  In the next week, I recommend that you
get a copy of a modern physics text, Krane or Serway, Moses and Moyer,
for example, and read the sections on atomic, molecular, nuclear and
solid state physics.  You are looking for basic concepts you haven't
gotten in your classes and simple equations.
>What's a "good" score?  
Depends one what you mean by good.  Median score at top schools tend
to be in the low to mid 800's.
Here's my take on scores:
Guaranteed admission anywhere: 990
Near guaranteed admission anywhere: 900+
Good chances at top schools: 800+
Good chances at almost-top schools: 700+
These of course vary with what the rest of your record looks like.
Stellar recommendations can probably make up for so-so test scores.
YMMV
-- 
======================================================================
Kevin Scaldeferri				University of Maryland
"The trouble is, each of them is plausible without being instinctive"

In article <58cbpl$g37@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>,
Alan \"Uncle Al\" Schwartz   wrote:
>Derringer@Rapid.co.uk wrote:
>>I was looking at an encylopedia yesterday and saw that the length of a year is 
>>365.26 days. In a leap year that uses up the 0.25 every 4 years. What happerns to the 
>>other 0.01 which over 100 years would add up to a DAY?
>>Thank you in antisipation.
>
>Centuries divisible by 400 are leap years.  No problem.  The proper 
>number is 365 days, 5 hours, 48 minutes, 46 seconds of mean solar 
>time /equinoctial year.
>
This is a little vague although correct.  The system goes like so:
Every 4th year is a leap year, expect for
every 100th year which is not a leap year, expect for
every 400th year wich is a leap year.
There is a higher order correction which I forget, but we will almost
certainly not be using our current calendar system by then anyways.
-- 
======================================================================
Kevin Scaldeferri				University of Maryland
"The trouble is, each of them is plausible without being instinctive"

In article <32A2A993.41C67EA6@clipper.ens.fr>
David Madore  writes:
> >    doubly infinite number  .......95141.3271.....
> 
> Here, AP's madness crosses a new boundary. I would be curious
> to know, however, what he thinks the square of ...111111.1111...
> is... It should be a very interesting number, shouldn't it?
> 
>      David A. Madore ``silly young recruit''
 You have the weakness of wanting to judge the musician more than the
music.
 Think of back when France wanted to colonialize Vietnam, a
civilization just as old as France. Of course the French considered
everything that was not French as primitive and that the only
"standard" had to be White-AngloSaxon-Christian and French.
  Of course you want every number to be like a Real and are confused
when I tell you that the world has 3 distinct types of numbers.
  If I ask you to multiply or divide or add or subtract two points on
the Real line that is easy because there is a 0 to fall back on. But
what happens when I ask you to multiply or divide two points on a
circle (Riem geom) or two points on a saddle (Loba geom). Are you going
to do the David cry baby act and wet your drawers?
   The biggest criminal act of mathematics education is the horrible
propaganda that math schools feed students that idea that  Naturals are
god given and from Naturals are built Rationals and from Rationals are
built Reals and from them are built Complex and the whole world is
French Complex numbers. What a load of shit the world is fed. If this
crap where done in physics then all graduate students would not be
taught Quantum Mechanics but only Newtonian Mechanics.
   So then David, tell us how you multiply two points, your two points
of  
square of ...111111.1111... which are two points of Loba geometry, say
two 
points on a hyperbola.  Go ahead and multiply them.

Jan P.L. Verhey wrote:
> >JS : Let me clarify this. The point is that in standard quantum mechanics
> >done the Bohm way, the quantum potential already directs the system in a
> >manner not predicted by classical physics. That is, in addition to the
> >classical electro-weak-strong gauge forces and the curved spacetime,
> >there is also a nonlocal context-dependent (i.e. Hilbert space ray
> >dependent) quantum force. In contrast, the electro-weak-strong classical
> >gauge forces are local and context-independent. So far, there is no
> >back-action.
> >
> >Back-action is the system directing the quantum potential in a manner
> >not predicted by standard quantum mechanics. This runs in the opposite
> >direction to the nonlocal context-dependent Bohm quantum force addition
> >to the classical gauge field forces on source particles (spinor
> >lepto-quarks).
> 
> Matti Pitkanen made the remark in an earlier post that any serious physical
> theory contains the idea of "back-action", or feedback. 
Well he is wrong, because standard quantum mechanics is a serous
physical theory and it does NOT have back-action. This was shown by Bohm
in 1952. It is for this reason that I say quantum mechanics is
incomplete. It is an approximation to post-quantum mechanics which does
have back-action. Objective reduction "OR" is a special case of a
back-action extension of standard quantum mechanics.
> This sounds logical to
> me. All seems to be a process action -> reaction making the whole universe one big
> strange and interdependent creative loop (ie unrepeatable ?)  !
That is qualitatively correct. There must be super-back-action from the
classical 3-space metric "point" in Wheeler superspace, which is the
hidden variable in Bohmian quantum gravity, to the quantum pilot-wave of
the universe in the Super-Hilbert space. The quantum pilot wave, with
super-back-action is the conscious Mind of GOD(D) in I.J. Good's sense.
The problem is: How do we get from this grand level down to what is
happening inside our minds since we are inside a single 3-geometry point
of Wheeler-superspace. We are a point inside a point. What is the
coupling?
> 
> One could see a soccer game as an example of back-action, where both teams
> inform each other through back-action and Q-force (action+re-action) about
> their relative paths in the play-field. 
The golds use the quantum force on the blues, and the blues use
back-action on the golds.
> The golden team is called The
> Mind-Scapers (orientals), and the blue team The Brain Beables (westerners).
> (please set me straight where the analogy becomes irrelevant). The ball
> moves around as the system point in the basins of attractions. 
NO! The configuration of the positions of all the blue team members on
the blue playing field is the system point. The golds do not play in the
same field as the blues. The golds play in Hilbert space. The blues play
in configuration space. THERE IS NO BALL! This is a game in virtual
reality. Like two chess players in different cities. It's not only a new
ball game. It's not a ball game at all!
The basins of attraction are felt by the blues as inner golden voices
guiding their patterns of decision-making. But the back-action from the
blues to the golds modifies the content of what the golden messages.
This is the feed-back loop that makes free-will possible. The Self is
the combination of the golds (mind) and the blues (brain). It is really
one system that we are analysing.
> The Golden
> Team has a strategy called Quantum Force (QF), the Blue Team uses
> Back-Action (BA). The QF tactics  are to confuse the other team by random
> and unpredictable actions using non-local potentials, the BA tacticts are to
> form a rigid structure, like an army of structured particles that follow
> determided rules set out by their coach. For the spactator, the game looks
> indeed like a strange self-organizing creative (unrepeatable) loop.
No not random. Random is what you get when you have no back-action.
There is an ACTION Principle working here. Allowing back-action
introduces order into quantum randomness. This is what violates the
statistical predictions of standard quantum mechanics. There is now a
non-equilibrium distribution of the hidden variables as described in
Ballantine's book on Hidden-Variables and Valentine's thesis cited by
Brian Josephson.
> 
> In the BA theory, the ball represents the sentient "subject", (kicked all
> over the place btw) -  a B(all)Einstein condensate, in which the idea of the
> game is "condensed" and focussed, ie expressed in conscious experiences.
No, there is no ball. The Bose-Einstein condensate is the huge Tsunami
pilot-wave which is the coherent robust dance of the Gods, I mean
"Golds" but I will keep the Freudian slip, in Heavenly Olympian Hilbert
space. Back-action restores "As Above So Below".
> 
> The rather radical and to me surprising interpretation that Jack cherishes
> of his  "strange creative loop" is the idea of free-will, self-organisation
> , and the like (even God comes in !) which looks to me to be kind of
> projection :
"Projection'? The point is that nonlinear feed-back control systems are
autonomous. They do not follow any simple rigid pre-set deterministic
algorithm because the back-action keeps changing the algorithm in
creative ways. This is why Penrose is correct that human understanding
is beyond algorithm. But strong AI people can build back-action into
their computers by going to the quantum level. Therefore, we can make
artifical conscious life in the new Q-chip, for example. "Igor, its
alive!"
> 
> >JS : It is the mechanism of self-organization of complex
> >adaptive systems. This is post-quantum mechanics because the statistical
> >predictions of standard quantum mechanics are violated.
> 
> How ?  Vulcano's are also "self-organizing" and "complex adaptive systems".
That's trivially easy to explain. Volcanos are classical. No classical
system can have a real mind. They can only, at best, be Golems
simulating mindful behavior with an inner life. The inner life is a
post-quantum phenonmenon. Any quantum phenomenon with back-action
becomes a post-quantum phenomenon with an inner mental life. Volcanos
are not nonlocal and context-dependent. They do not have any robust 
macro-coherent quantum pilot wave, i.e. BE condensate, guiding their
behavior. They are, therefore, mindless! Any self-organizing quantum
system is conscious. That's the basic hypothesis that this theory is
about and which can be tested by construction of the Q-chip.
> 
> >The feedback-control loop between the quantum potential and the system
> >imposes controllable order on the uncontrollable quantum randomness of
> >standard quantum mechanics.
> 
> "Controllable order" sounds a bit like "being in charge". How, or why should
> this feedback-control loop ( that represents our cs experiencing in the
> BA-theory) impose "controllable order" on "uncontrollable quantum
> randomness" ? What is "controllable order" supposed to be ? There is order
> (relative), pattern / structure all over the place in this universe (and
> of course the necessary chaos).
Read Norbert Weiner's "Cybernetics".  There is no homunculus here, no
"being in charge". The entire system is the being in charge. Stapp
explains this in his book, Mind, Matter and Quantum Mechanics. Although
I do not use his Heisenberg-James ontology, what he says there applies
also to the Bohm ontology that I use.
> 
> >The Born probability rule, i.e., the
> >von-Neumann projection postulate is strongly violated. We can
> >consciously choose a desired eigenstate of a brain observable to
> >"collapse" to.
> 
> This sounds spooky. Of course I can decide to do things, or think about
> things - but basically, I have no "final" control over my behaviour nor over
> my thoughts or emotions. 
Speak for yourself.:-) Yes, we all know that feeling. In some situations
of great complexity, you may make a "New Years resolution" that you
subsequently break. But in simple situations, like choosing how many
times to bend your finger in a trial of 10 tries, and choosing the exact
sequence etc - you can do that. If you were controlled by the Born rule
of standard quantum mechanics you could not do that. 
> To me your "strange creative loop" makes sense, but
> the character of this creative loop (at least mine) is its unpredictability
> and uncontrollability, ie  creation and  inspiration. 
Again that is because of conflicting desires in complex decision making.
It's like trying to calculate the details of large molecules from
Schrodinger's equation. Right now I am simply doing Mickey Mouse simple
toy problems like the hydrogen atom.
Inspiration is simply being receptive to the messages from Higher
Intelligence which are coming through everyone's mind all the time.
Channels can get there by meditation. But they often do not have the
scientific training to properly decode what they are receiving.
Einstein, Feynman and all the great ones simply channel their
information in their subconscious mind which then erupts into
consciousness. Like Martial Artists they train their minds in
mathematical gymnastics etc so that they can decode the messages from
GOD(D) in ways that lead to new scientific understanding, new technology
and new economic wealth. Genius is able to directly tap into the Mind of
God which is the Conscious Cosmic Quantum Back-Action Super-Computer
beyond space-time. See Olaf Stapledon's "Star Maker". This is the
Mythematical Drama for the New Millenium found in The Sacred Songs of
SAR. :-)
> It is not "my"
> decision to have certain thoughts, feelings - basically they just happen.
Yes, they happen because of the autonomous opertaion of the
strange-creative loop of the Bohm force on your mind on your brain
coevolving with the back-action of your brain on your mind. How your
mind "predicts" the future state of your mind-brain is not always
perfect. Sometimes, if you are open-minded, you can remote view your
future. This is very much a function of your lifestyle and value system
as well as genetic disposition. We can't all be Einsteins, Feynmans and
Mozarts. But more of us could be with the proper early childhood
opportunities.
> "Free will" me think, is just a useful and necessary illusion - basically
> the function to act in response change, like all animals do. "Free" could
> make some sense, and also "will", but together they suggest non-existing
> imaginations imo.
Depends on how you mean "free will". I have my technical definition in
terms of the feed-back control loop between post-quantum mind and
classical brain. The Self is the unified mind-brain system.
> Milton Freidman said "Free to Choose", 
If you mean the Nobel Prize economist from the Hoover, we both consulted
for the same think tank, The Institute for Contemporary Studies.
Gell-Mann cites a letter I wrote with the Director of this Institute in
his book The Quark and The Jaguar in "The Story Distorted" Ch. 12. It is
Gell-Mann who distorts the story by erroneously attempting to replace
"nonlocality" with a defective version of the "many-worlds" model for
quantum reality.
> and  Jack says :
> "Free to collapse".  
No, I do not like to use "collapse". But if you do use it, I mean, we
can choose which alternative to actualize in an objective collapse. You
cannot choose to do that in standard quantum mechanics. Only
post-quantum mechanics has free will in this sense. Rather than
collapse, I prefer choosing which basin of attraction to move the system
point into. Remember the basins are also changing with the motion of the
system point. The Self that "chooses" is the combined total system of
pilot-wave plus system point. This is why you are confused and feel like
you have no free will because you have reduced your Higher Post-Quantum
Self (i.e., pilot-wave + system point] to your lower purely
materialistic self [i.e., system-point]. This is what many, even great
scientist, do in this field today. A good example, is Francis Crick with
his materialistic "Astonishing Hypothesis".
>When I look at your BA model, it indeed seems to
> collapse !  :-o
Only because your understanding of it is very distorted of what the
model actually is.
> 
> >Or, in Bohmian terms, the path of the system in
> >configuration space can be intentionally guided to a particular basin of
> >attraction in a stable situation where the basin portrait is not
> >bifurcated by the actual path taken. The latter is more interesting as
> >it corresponds to creative thought.
> 
> Creative thought, is imo not "intentionally guided", but an expression of
> chaotic randomness as it enfolds in structure / pattern / meaning in the
> awareness of the observer - a re-active phenomenon. While thought and memory
> tend to "loop around" in the old beddings, creativity comes in when the
> bedding itself changes, meaning new thoughts. Of course one might say that
> the stream of thoughts and "intentions" influences the path of the riverbed,
> but the contextual landscape in which the path is shaped rather randomly
> (Q-force ) also guides / influences the actual flow of the river,
> interactively. 
What you do not understand is that the Q-force is only random when the
back-action is zero. You have thrown the coherent Post-Quantum Baby out
with the random quantum bathwater. You have not yet groked the essential
new idea in what I am saying. You are trying to drink new wine in old
contaminated skins. I bring new wine in new skins! 
> Since, as you mentioned, both are tightly coupled into one
> inseparable and indivisaile (or not ?) 
Yes, inseparable in actual ontological operation (ie., the territory) ,
but analysizable in our epistemological simulations (the map) inside our
mind-brains.
> process/creative loop, the idea of a
> distinguishable intentional guiding force (the chicken or the egg ?) acting
> like a "commander" (like God) sounds spooky to me. 
It's a democratic process since the commands are modified by the
behavior of the commanded. This is the real esoteric meaning of The
Covenant that God made with Abraham in the Old Testament. Throw out the
babblings of many of the Theologians. Throw the Mondey Lenders out of
The Temple! :-)
> I think this projection
> is also caused by the word that was used by Bohm : "Pilot"-wave, suggestion
> some kind of pilot-commander that is directing the game - which doesn't
> exist I'm afraid.
Again you keep making the same error in understanding what the role of
back-action is. Einstein can tell God what to do because God in His Love
for His Son, gave Man Free Will to argue back with Him. This is the deep
Meaning of Judaism. It is no accident that I carry the Name of Rashi de
Troyes. God wants the Jews to be pushy! That's why they are God's
"Chosen People". All humans need to be Jews in this higher sense. We are
all God's Chosen People. Wow! I am really channeling today! This is all
bubbling out of my subconscious mind and I am leaving it here for the
World Mind to process. :-)
> 
> >
> >
> >> LC : As I have approached
> >> the problem I see nonlinear quantized systems as having the capacity to
> >> promote fluctuations into the future.
> 
> The future/past seems only relevant in the perspective of an observer. If
> so, are there fluctuations into the future (non-locally I guess) between
> observers, or also between rocks, stars - anything, and is there a "scale"
> definable for such fluctuations ?
There are many scales. It is the renormalization group. My Father's
Fractal Universe has many scales. :-)
> 
> >
> >There are also advanced effects from the future which are 50-50 with
> >retarded effects from the past in the sense of Wheeler-Feynman theory
> >but with the final total absorber boundary condition violated. This is a
> >controlled form of Wheeler's delayed choice. The delayed choice in
> >standard quantum theory cannot be used to send decodable messages
> >backward in time, but it can happen in the back-action theory.
> 
> The idea that future and past are related seems common sense. Since all
> measurement is observer dependant and all observers live in different and
> relative space-time frames (non-linearity), the idea that information from
> different frames can be transmitted back- and forwards in "time" sounds
> logic, but also again a little spooky. 
Post-quantum physics is "spooky" in Einstein's sense of "telepathic".
Yes, of course, it is spooky. Einstein would hyave changed his mind on
this if he wwere alive today.
> Relative future and relative past -
> how does that work ? You probably refer to psi-phenomena - tapping from
> different slices of space-time by supra-luminal / instant non-local
> information-transduction. How do I get all this in my 3D mind-set ? I can
> "imagine" that "my" future already exists for another observer in another
> slice of relative space-time, but at what scale can it be relative - a few
> milliseconds, a day, a year, millions of years ?
It comes to you like a Thief in the Night. It's like sex. It's best when
you don't try. Don't puch the river. It will find you. That is what is
mean't by "The Grace of God". 
> >
> >The next idea is that any quantum system which has a robust quantum
> >state, like Worden's Bose-Einstein condensate, so that it is not quickly
> >destroyed by environmental decoherence, will automatically be in the
> >back-action regime because the objective-reduction process is
> >funda-MENTAL.
> 
> This is an assumption, yet to be confirmed by experiment. MENTAL has to do
> with neurons, with chemistry, with strong, middle and weak forces - with all
> that is discovered and will be discovered, ie interpreted. 
This is wrong. Dead wrong. That is exactly what "menta;" is not. The
above is classical material "beable".
> To assume 
It's not assumed. It is there in Bohm's mathematics. Right now, I am
working on exactly how Bohm's ontology fits in with Feynman's path form
of QM. I need to make a Feynmanesque post-quantum mechanics for those
cases where a simple wave function at a single time is no good. That is
I need a multiple time version of the Bohm quantum potential that I will
call the post-quantum potential. Aharonov may have done this already.
>that
> there could be a *final* trick to cs experiences, tends to neglect the other
> tricks that are needed to what one imagines to be the  final-trick. 
There is only one final trick. That trick is the back-action. More with
less. Nature is simple. God is not malicious. This is the Final Secret
of the Super-Illuminati. :-)
> I
> understood that in The Undivided Universe there are no *special* tricks -
> all is interdependently connected.
This is vague. Bohm did not understand the full meaning of his
back-action discovery. I am Joshua to his Moses. The Walls of Light come
tumbling down with the Sound of My Music.
> >Solution of the Hard Problem
> >When back-action is dominant over decoherence we have sentience. This is
> >a postulate, but it is the same postulate that is used by neural-network
> >theorists who associate a mental experience with capture of the neural
> >net system point in a basin of attraction.
> >
> >The formalism of post-quantum mechanics fits neatly into the formalism
> >of neural-nets though the scale is different. The change in weights of
> >the neural nets is like the modification of the basins by the actual
> >path of the system.
> >
> >The actual path of the system now is co-determined by both its past and
> >future pieces in a globally self-consistent loop.
> 
> What is exactly "the system" ? The IGUS, conscious experiencing ? 
The system, the IGUS, is robust protected pilot-wave + its attached
system point (material hidden variable).
> Or all
> events that occur in (physical) reality, that we distinguish as events ? You
> seem to refer to cs experiences, "when back-action is dominant over
> decoherence". What exactly is the difference between the "brain-beable" and
> the "mindscape" (that are coupled) ? 
See any book on neural-nets, or Stu Kaufmann's book, The Origins of
Order. The brain-beable is the system point that is moved by the quantum
force that sets up the basins of attraction. The mindscape is simple the
landscape or portrait of all the basins of attraction. In Stapp's
theory, each "collapse" destroys all the basins but one. In Bohm's
theory all the basins are still there. Without back-action the basins
are rigid independent of the motion of the brain-beable. Back-action is
self-creation of the observable in the mind whose eigenfunctions form
the basins.
> What constitutes "the mindscape" - what
> is it *really* (apart from a statistical QM abstraction)? 
The mind-scape is the funda-MENTAL Chalmers information space of
possible felt-experiences of the mind-brain IGUS.
> What proof do you
> have that there is "a (physical) mind-scape" ?
Look inside yourself. I experience, therefore, I am. My mythmatical
physics is simply a map of that fundamental map which will be tested by
the profitable manufacture of the coming Q-chip. By their fruits, ye
shall know them. When your pot of superfluid helium files a brief for
equal rights, then you will know!
> 
> You seem to say in BA theory that the brain can "change its mind" by
> informing the mindscape thru back-action, and that the pilotwave is "the
> mind". 
Yes.
> This doesn't sound to bad for me, yet it fails to answer some major
> questions about where / how the conscious and distinct subjects like "you"
> or "me" originate, because, in my view "I might still as well be You".  This
> drives me to some probably idiotic idea - that our IGUS (soul =
> pre-conscious form without content) has always existed.
The World Soul is the Mind of God which is the pilot-wave of the actual
expanding material universe of general relativity. The problem is how
this all projects via reduced destiny matrices down the Great Chain of
Being to our smaller mind-brains inside single points of Wheeler
superspace. We are in the Homomorphic Image of God. I am still working
on the math of this unsolved problem.
> 
> >
> >Rather, than "objective reduction" I prefer "back-action" where the
> >quantum potential has a direct functional dependence on the actual
> >hidden-variable "system" path in configuration space where it feels the
> >force from that same quantum potential. This is self-measurement. This
> >is the "orch" of Penrose's "orch OR".
> 
> The question is, why this specific "back-action" differs qualitatively from
> ordinary physical feed-back  processes and structure (Matti's point) of any
> kind.
Because ordinary feedback is classical within one level i.e.,
configuration space with local non-context-dependent forces. Hilbert
space plays no direct macorscopic role because it is washed out by
environmental decoherence. Mulhauser described this in a paper on line.
His error was that he did not realize that Bose-Einstein condensates are
robust against decoherence as explained recently by Robert Worden, for
example.
> 
> >
> >> LC : Standard quantum mechanics states
> >> that quantum fluctuations are delta function correlated and the noise
> >> spectrum is white.  Yet for back action the fluctuations are tied to an
> >> autocorrelation function that  gives a colored spectrum.
> 
> The "delta-function" refers to *measurements* where one finds apparent
> random statistical averages, making them white "when measured". Why bring in
> "autocorrelation" to explain conscious experiences ? 
AdvancedaAutocorrelation FROM future to past with back-action is
precognition.
> Is conscious observing
> the only event that can measures itself entirely ? 
I would include sub-conscious processing. I would use word "sentient"
rather than "conscious". Both "conscious" and "subconscious" are
"sentient". The difference between "conscious" and "subconscious" is one
of a higher level"attention" mechanisms which may well be a
semi-classical mechanism that a guy like Francis Crick could adequately
explain phenomenologically.
Then we don't need science !
You are waxing irrationally. That is not logical.
> 
> >
> >Yes, this is the distortion away from the statistical predictions of
> >standard quantum mechanics which is a necessary condition for sentience
> >both conscious and sub-conscious.
> >
> >> Fluctuations can
> >> be promoted into the future.
> >
> >Yes, but also they propagate into the past as in Wheeler-Feynman.
> >>
> >> Jack then takes Stapp's ideas about quantum consciouness and ties them to
> >> back action.  Now the Bohm model has some nice features in how one can
> >> model measurement.  The idea is that consciousness is a process of
> >> self-measurement, and rather than having a spontaneous collapse you have a
> >> dynamical process that interrelates the information associated with
> >> implicate order and the external world and information of explicate order.
> 
> 
> >>
> >> As I see the two theories likely have little to do with each other at this
> >> stage.  
I don't think there is any connection between my theory and Matti's/
Matti has some interesting math ideas but I don't see how they are
relevant to the hard problem.
> 
> It seems Matti Pitkanens' ideas are more in line with the reality / the
> possibility of consciousness, because his p-adic math and the many sheeted
> spacetime concept make it a more general theory, 
How does "many-sheetedness" of spacetime have any thing do do with
consciousness? Penrose has some model of this kind that he relates to
single-graviton emission. At least I can follow Penrose's idea and say
maybe so. I cannot at all follow Matti's train of thought.
> where there is no special
> or final "trick". It doesn't solve any final mystery or magic, but he
> doesn't bombard "the pilot wave" to "the mind", or back-action as the final
> link between mind and matter.
My model that the pilot wave with back-action IS mind, is the simplest,
most elegant. It is more with less. It is testable. Why make easy things
hard?
> Does the pilot wave exist ? Is it detected, or only presupposed ? 
It exists as well as electric charge or any other object in modern
physics exists. Aharonov has shown how to measure the pilot wave of a
single system, not just its squared Born probability density.
 I might
> as well presuppose that we have souls that (in)carnate (which I do) which
> explains why there exist conscious subjects in the first place.
The soul is the pilot-wave with back-action. IBM's quantum teleportation
is the transmigration of souls from one beable to another. This is the
mechanism for reincarnation. James Joyce's Finnegan's Wake has come to
Corporate America in the 21st Century.
> >My attitude is the same as Einstein's toward general relativity and also
> >Dirac's toward quantum mechanics. The back-action theory is too simple,
> >elegant, and beautiful not to be true. If God is not malicious, then it
> >is true. Like Einstein, I did a thought experiment and said, if I were
> >God, knwoing what I know, how would I make the universe? This is the
> >Universe that Jack built. This the The World According To Jack.
> 
> Does it change the world apart from Jack ? ;-)
Yes, that's the Q-chip Bhubba. We Physicist-Magicians-Sorceror-Shamans
are simply jerking off. Our Magick without Magic really works. Remember,
my Professors at Cornell in the 1950's brought you The Bomb, so now it's
my job to do damage control. Fight Magick with Magick! If I appear like
Mickey Mouse in The Sorceror's Apprentice - well I can understand why
you might think that!

Science can prodide information to increase individual satisfaction and 
cultural survival but in the end goals are chosen based on the learning 
history of the indivdual.
Joe

On Fri, 6 Dec 1996 11:50:45 -0600, in sci.skeptic, Stephen Victor
 wrote:
>On Thu, 5 Dec 1996, Jim Batka wrote:
>
>> > Mistake numero uno: holding up the pope as some sort of a decent guy.
>> > Honestly, if ever there were a tyrant in sheep's clothing. He should be
>> > drawn and quartered for the misery he visits upon fertile women around
>> > the world.
>> 
>> Again someone with a sense of humor!  I'm ROTFL now :).  I'm waiting for
>> the punch line on what he's afflicted upon the poor fertile women of the
>> world (they're all just going crazy because they lust after him and they
>> know he's celibate?).
>
>Um, perhaps you've heard of the Catholic Church's ban on the use of 
>artifical contraception?
Perhaps you've heard the phrase "Honored more in the breach than in
the observance"? And most of the poor-but-fertile women who would be
most affected by honoring the ban aren't Catholic, AFAIK.
>
>-- 
>Stephen P. Victor                  svictor@compassnet.com
>Houston, Texas USA     http://www.compassnet.com/~svictor
>
>"At a certain season of our life we are accustomed to
>consider every spot as the possible site of a house."
>Thoreau, Walden
(Note followups, if any)
Bob C.
"No one's life, liberty or property is safe while
 the legislature is in session." - Mark Twain

...
|  must be special cases of some
|general Fundamental Theorem of Calculus,  which could probably be
|written in some suitably terse form,  like   "Q = T".
Stokes' theorem:
  integral_simga d(omega) = integral_d(sigma) omega.
The second d is supposed to be a curly "d", meaning the boundary of the
simplex sigma. The first "d" is the exterior derivative of the
differential form
omega.
Spivak's "Calculus on Manifolds" is a good introduction to this, if you
have the time for it. Not the least of its virtues is that the cover has a
little bit of a letter giving an early version Stokes' theorem on it. "My
Dear 
Stokes" it begins. I'm not sure how the theorem ended up getting named
after Stokes.
Keith Ramsay

taboada@mathe.usc.edu (Mario Taboada):
| Is there a possibility that boxing matches like those between
| Silke and Raghu can be fought by e-mail instead of publicly?
| Such matches seem of little interest to the general public...
| 
| This said, it it obvious that Silke-Maria has been roundly outclassed
| by Raghu, her late confession of "teasing" notwithstanding..
"Stop me before I read more," eh?  If you're following it
with such rapt interest, why deprive others of pleasure?
-- 
   }"{    G*rd*n   }"{  gcf @ panix.com  }"{

Grzegorz Kruk Ph.D. wrote:
> 
> Return-Path: cary@agora.rdrop.com
> 
> Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1996 23:52:10 -0700
> 
> To: raven@david.silesia.pik-net.pl (Grzegorz Kruk Ph.D.)
> 
> Subject: Re: why do we need to go faster than c ?
> 
> [copy posted to sci.physics]
> 
> I have been thinking about it since 1981 and discussing with my teachers
> 
> and friends while in seconary school. I have been posting this topic and
> 
> similar ones since 1991 from Ireland. Nobody replies except children and
> 
> students. Would it be a TOP SECRET theory ?
> 
[snip]
> No you do not need. That is what I wanted to say. The distance becomes 0
> 
> at the speed of light so where else do you want to go ? You perhaps should
> 
> be careful of other planets and star systems behind the point you wanted
> 
> to reach. It is better then to go slower than c, since ALL the distances
> 
> on the way become 0 when reaching the c speed (v=c) and this implies from
> 
> the Lorentz's equations.
> 
>                delta x'=delta x * sqrt(1-(v/c)^2)
> 
>                      y'=y
> 
>                      z'=z   while going along the "x"
> 
> The theory says...
> 
> And yet it says the time becomes infinity outside. FOREVER becomes real.
> 
> Infinity to the future (and to the past) ? If also to the past return
> 
> travels are possible (a-pex & business please).
> 
> now
> 
> If someone says:
> 
>    "It is only when we accelerate"
> 
>    so what ?
> 
>    The distance becomes 0 anyway at the speed of light,
> 
>    even if it requires the general relativity. What the general relativity
> 
>    says ? That the Lorentz's equations are wrong ? I do not think so...
	I've never studied relitivity, but based on what I know general
relativity says the Lorenz transformations, and indeed all of special
relativity, are only a special case for inertial frames (at constant
velocity.  They were only concieved of, and written, to apply as such. 
In non-inertial frames they would not yeild correct answers.  For one
thing they rely on, and predict, euclidian space time, which is not
present in an inertial frame.  If I understand GR correctly, the space
time invarient, which can be calculated via. the Lorenz transformations,
is not even invarient in accellerated frames.  As you know not even
Newtons laws hold in accellerated frames (an object with no forces
acting on it will change velocity in an accellerated frame), so one
should not expect the Lorenz transformations to do any better.  Consider
the time transformation, for example.  If the relitive velocity of the
frames of reference is not constant, then it would not yeild the right
transformation, just as a newtonian transformation like x=x'+vt will not
yeild the correct answer at time t and relitive speed v.  In this case
one could use the average velocity (which may require a simple
integration in accelleration is not constant) to find the correct
answer, but if one derived the Lorenz transformations (and does not
assume them ad hoc as H. A. Lorenz did) one would probably not find
generalizing them so easy.  Unfortunately, my information and
mathematical knowledge are insufficient for me to prove any further why
this must be true or to tell you what does exactly happen in
accellerated frames, but perhaps one of the more learned readers of the
news group could go further.  If not, ask me again in 5 or 6 years and
hopefully I'll be able to prove it to you.
	In all the examples you used with people making round trips to other
planets and accellerating in and out of earth's "rest" plane (as you
know earth is actually a non-inertial frame), one cannot use the Lorenz
transformations to predict.  One must use a more general form that
includes the Lorenz transformations as a special case for a=0.  As I
said, using Lorenz's equations in these situations would be as absurd as
the misuse of the newtonian transformations I mentioned.  As everyone
who has responded has said, only if the people in space ships maintained
a constant velocity could they make short trips to other planets, as the
Lorenz transformations suggest.  As soon as they accellerate you must
use some other tools to predict their experiences.  As to what would
happen, once they accellerate, for now I can only believe what I'm told,
that they would have experienced a short time for the trips and that
everyone else would have expetienced a long time.
> 
> If someone says:
> 
>    That says only about this what we can observe. That would have to mean
> 
>    also that the observed energy increases, not the real one, so again
> 
>    we can go faster than c and moreover observe other star systems at the
> 
>    speed of c.
> 
	What does real mean other than what one can observe?  I will take the
phenominalist view that any "observed" qualities due to relativity are
"real" if they are the only ones that can be observed and are consistant
with all other data.
> This or that way we can perhaps reach other galaxies if only using fast
> 
> enough engines or other accelerating systems.
> 
> When thinking about curvature of our spacetime...and reaching the speed of
> 
> light...
> 
> ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;Who's wrong who's right ?
> 
[snip]
> >Since the other galaxies are well over 100 light years away, it will be
> 
> >impossible to visit them in the 21st century (i.e., within the next 100
> 
> >years) -- unless, of course, we discover a method of traveling faster than
> 
> >'c'.
> 
> I think it has been misinterpreted someday and do not think so....:)
> 
> Thank you for your (one of the very few) response.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> GK
> 
Hope I didn't just repeat others' arguements,
Nick Cummings

HEARTS AND MINDS 1975
--- quoting from HEARTS AND MINDS ---
Walt Rostow, Aide to presidents Kennedy, Johnson :
  I know of no communist analysis or noncommunist analysis, that would
assert that there is a majority of the people in that country that
would want to be communist.
[reporter] Why did they need us then?
Rostow: Because they were subjected to ahh, military attack from
outside. Ahh, the, ahh, Are you really asking me this goddam silly
question? You really want me to go into this Mr. Davis? I mean, I mean,
we really got to go back to fundamentals, back to the origins of this
thing? Then alright I will do it. But this is pretty pedestrian stuff,
I must say at this late stage of the game, honestly it is ... There is
no doubt, and I will answer your questions, and you can throw away that
tape. I really did not expect to go back to this sophomoric stuff, but
I will do it.
Rostow:  The problem began after the Sputnik.  In its present phase,
the launching of Sputnik in 1957 in October. This opened a phase, of,
not well coordinated but universally optimistic and hopeful communist
enterprise in many parts of the world.
--- quoting from HEARTS AND MINDS ---
  Gee, with John Foster Dulles and Walt Rostow there should be a
presidental cabinet whose only duty is to "save the president from
dumbo - other - cabinet members."
   Someone ought to write a history book of how the presidential
advisors surrounding Kennedy, probably Harvard types, how these
goofball airheads not only got us into Vietnam and escalated the war
there but how they almost got us to drop nuclear warheads on Vietnam.
  What is Walt Rostow doing these days? Owner of Christmas card
manufacturer?
  Yea, have someone write a history of how dumb and deep the USA sank
in the years 1946 to 1980 because of "fear from communism". Be sure to
include what major role the stupid idealistic professor advisors of the
presidents  in those years.  The Ultimate Responsibility falls on the
president of the US, but how can he see a clear picture of the world
when he surrounds himself with idealistic dolts.
  Same way with Fermat's Last Theorem, when all the hoopla and
celebration of Wiles fake is over with. When Wiles is awarded the Wolf
prize and then the Wolfskehl. And then years later it is found that
Naturals = p-adics and that Naturals = Finite Integers were as Fake as
a flat-earth theory is a fake. 
  Then too, will all these little puppets of John Mckay,
Swinnerton-Dyer, Karl Rubin, Ken Ribet, Richard Taylor, John Coates,
Ian Stewart, Gerd Faltings who cheered Wiles on and foisted his fakery
onto the world. Will they all be raked over the coals for their
historical stupidity.
   The subject of mathematics will all but die in the classrooms and in
education when the Naturals = P-adics starts to gain its throne. In the
future, to be a mathematician will be a dirty word. And math will be
but a subdepartment of physics. 
  A Mathematician is a cheap physicist. An Experimental physicist uses
much of the surroundings to "test" his/her ideas. A mathematician on
the other hand uses little of the world to test his/her ideas and so,
it is easy for the goofiest of idealist crap to pervade mathematics and
be fobbed off as meaning something. Physics has experiments to prove
the correctness of ideas. Mathematics on the other hand has only a
gaggle of buffoons who nod agreement and that is what is accepted. The
world just has to witness the Wiles FLT and its social gaggle of
buffoons. 
  Does Wiles consider Naturals = p-adics as sophomoric, as pretty
pedestrian stuff?  Of course he does because I sent him a letter in
1993 asking him to prove his two assumptions in his alleged proof.
Prove that Naturals are not the p-adics and to prove that Axiom of
Choice is not the Dedekind Cut. He ignores me, but history will not.
History will make Andy Wiles the John Foster Dulles or the Joseph
McCarthy of math history.

Alec Horgan  writes:
> On Tue, 3 Dec 1996, David Swanson wrote:
> 
> > > > Your memory seems spotty.  Sure I displayed contempt for the review. 
> > > > The review displayed contempt for what sounded like an excellent book. 
> > > > But what difference does it make what's a concern for ME?  You don't
> > > > get around problems just because I'm fool enough to ignore them, do
> > > > you?
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > I would hope not.  However, my point is that, by raising the question 
> > > above, you've indicated that you haven't ignored the problem, in which 
> > > case your contempt for the review seems, if not completely mistaken, at 
> > > least a bit odd.
> > > 
> > 
> > You seem to be remebering backwards.  I don't have the review in front
> > of me, but if the question of future generations came up in it, I doubt
> > that the claim was that Unger didn't face this problem, or at least I
> > doubt that any such claim was made convincingly
> 
> That was indeed the claim, among others.  And why on Earth would such a 
> claim be difficult to make convincingly?  The point was not that the matter 
> was not addressed adequately by Unger, but that he ignored it completely.  
> The veracity of this claim is not difficult to establish.  Unger either 
> did or did not face the problem.  
> 
> > and I am absolutely
> > certain that I never proposed ignoring the question.
> 
> I'm glad to hear it.  As I will now say for the third time, I merely find 
> it curious that if you think the question worth paying attention to, you 
> would consider Unger's book the "best book ever on ethics" (despite not 
> having read it), when he ignores such an important matter, which, 
> according to McGinn, also renders Unger's position incoherent.
> 
> 
>   Dig out my comments if you can find them.  I'd like to
> > see what I said that led to this weirdness.  Meanwhile, you can provide
> > an answer to the question of how to price stuff across generations.
> > 
> I haven't the slightest idea how to answer the question.  In case you 
> haven't figured it out yet, that is precisely the source of my bewilderment, 
> since without an answer to this and other similar questions, the 
> "straightforward utilitarianism" which you praised in Unger is, well, not 
> so straightforward.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Alec  
Well, you're making sense now.  That is, I understand what
you're trying to say.  I have no memory of this in the review,
though I do recall a lot of other, and much sillier,
arguments.  McGinn's motivation for opposing utilitarianism
seemed to be a discomfort with thinking too much or doing
anything too difficult or out of the way of his usual habits.
If he tacked on a complaint about how to relate to future
generations, so be it. 
 But perhaps that's unfair.  Or perhaps
fairness is beside the point.  The question of how to deal with
future generations is a good question.  I'm not sure every book
on ethics need address it.  Utilitarianism is largely a
negative argument.  It says, let's drop any outdated mumbojumbo
still left lying around and just do whatever does the most
good.  Now, I don't think (and I imagine you agree) that any of
the mumbojumboists have produced any better answers to the
question of future generations than Unger has.  If his book
ignores the question, his book is incomplete.  That doesn't
make agreement with its theme "odd."
If you want to discuss McGinn's other concerns, the ones I
remember, let me know.  Otherwise, let's look at the problem of
the future.  It's been alleged that a horrible "paradox"
renders this problem unsolvable, viz. How can you act so as to
protect the interests of someone whom your very actions may
determine the existence of?  Now, I have an answer to this
puzzle, but it's an answer that will offend people who resist
utilitarianism.  My answer is to think in terms of quantity of
happiness, and not in terms of individual people.  Just as
Dawkins gets around the riddles of evolution by talking about
genes instead of individuals, we can get around the riddles of
Mr. Parfit by talking about happiness.  Act so that there will
be more happiness rather than less.  This means produce more
individuals (humans and nonhumans, depending on your
species-centric prejudices) up to the point at which you
estimate the greater number to be significantly diminishing
happiness.  Act so that whoever exists, whether or not the act
itself makes them exist, will be as happy as possible.
Now I may be here solving a problem you never thought of as a
problem, and failing to address the problems you are worried
about.  But then, you'll have to tell me what those are.  The
largest concern may be simply not knowing what people will
want.  The answer, I'm afraid is to guess, and to favor those
actions which can be more easily corrected.  Destroying a
species that will never return must be treated with far greater
hesitation than, say, building a bridge or a stadium
 that may outlast us.
The simplest solution, of course, would be to avoid any serious
disruption of the earth.  We would still produce pretty
long-lasting stuff.  Plato's books have done us more harm than
the Parthenon has given us pleasure.  But in relative terms a
few millenia is nothing beside the amount of time it takes for
species to evolve.
But then, do we really need to base our action on the possible
wishes of future people, when there are those of us alive now
who condemn the killing off of species?  (I'm sticking with
this one example.)  
In other cases our actions have the potential for harming
future people in ways we can quite certainly 
expect them to see as harm.  I
have in mind the spreading of diseases or the elimination of
food supplies.  It can always be argued that solutions will be
found just when they're needed.  The history of the species so
far, however, suggests that that is rarely the case.  So the
point always needs to be in fact ARGUED in each case.  And what
we owe the future is caution, a benefit of the doubt, a refusal
to gamble when the losses are theirs and the gains ours.  Here
I slip into the convenient language of individuals and Parfit
sticks his head in at the window to complain of paradoxes.  But
the point is this: do not dangerously risk suffering (in the future)
for happiness (now) any more than you would do the reverse.
You are to maximize happiness absolutely transtemporally,
working on certain minimal assumptions regarding the continued
existence of our species and others.
DS

In article <58cerf$1l1@mack.rt66.com>, oasis@mack.rt66.com (Foreign Accents) wrote:
> Actually, if you break 800, it would probably get in regardless...
I heard that the _average_ for Caltech was around 830 or so..
disgusting, isn't it?  :)
>  (Oh, I've heard that on some of the problems0 you can get the correct 
> answer by just checking the units, one choice of which was the only one 
> with the correct units.  I'm not sure how true this is ...
Quite true.  That's rather helpful.  Though usually the units won't let
you eliminate it down to one choice, but usually down to two or three.
-- 
Nathan Urban | nurban@vt.edu | Undergrad {CS,Physics,Math} | Virginia Tech

C'mon, Archie, what's the square of ...1111.1111... ?  You've been 
constantly bitching about how EVERYONE ELSE needs to learn how to 
multiply your goddamn p-adics, so you had right well better be up to the 
task.  Stop mouthing off and put your money where your flapping gums are, 
you infantile cretin.
Note that if you keep insulting all those who question you, then at 
SOME point, SOMEbody's gonna come over to your house and knock you into 
next week: it's just a matter of time.  Not all math geeks are weak-ass 
shits like you, y'know.

In <32A9A11A.66D4@club.innet.be> Marc Verkruysse
 writes: 
>
>
>
>
>
>Hallo, I do not believe that gravity or gravitomagnetism has something
>to do with electrical charges at all.
>But if you take the formula's of Lienard-Wichard, formula's that
procure
>us the magnetic forces acting upon and electrical charge due to linear
>movement and acceleration... These are the formula's that take into
>account the retarding potentials and influences ... because of the
>limited velocity of (electromagnetical and gravitational signals )...
>If you change the electrical charge things and formulas to the analog
>things for mass and gravity then, by assuming some simplifications to
>the shape of the universe you get formulas like:
>
>1) F = const.m.a  (2nd law on Newton ? NO ! :when mass under test m
>accelerates with acceleration a than F seems to be the force exerted
by
>the masses of the universe, following Mach's idea)
>2)F' = const.v     ( v is the constant velocity of mass m under test
and 
>F' seems to be the force... exerted by the same masses of the univers
:
>strange formula while controversial to the law of inertia, but what if
>in this formula the constant is extremely small, so small that we
cannot
>notice it with earthly experiments ...?)
>
>Remember that magnetic forces are only a second order effect due to
>motion and acceleration of electrical charges, in the same way
>gravitomagnetism (that has nothing to do with electrical magnetism at
>all but could be similar to it) would be a second order effect of
moming
>masses and their accelerations. When you realize that we need a huge
>mass (the earth, the sun ...  ) to prove the gravitational forces
>excerted by to masses to each other then the proofs for gravito-
>magnetical forces are even more far away. This seems to me the main
>reason that gravitomagnetism and its proofs for gravitation is not yet
>covered by our schoolbooks !       
>
>Marc VERKRUYSSE, Belgium
    Yes, this is exactly the sort of thing I have been looking for,
because there is something bothering me about some ideas I have. The
problem, as I see it, is why, in Newton's force and impulse laws, is
the acceleration only a function of mass and not of both mass and
charge? Charge is just as much a physical entity as mass. With regard
to neutral bodies this is not a problem. The effects of the positive
and negative charges cancel each other. But why does the acceleration
due to a force or impulse on a charged particle depend only on the mass
and not on both the mass and charge? You cannot say that charge and
mass are different dimensions because in Coulomb's Law the acceleration
due to electrostatic forces is a function of both mass and charge. Why
in Newton's Laws is the acceleration a function only of mass? For
example if you shoot a neutron at a deuterium nucleus, the change in
momentum is only a function of mass. Can the eqautions that you give
above account for this anamoly? In other words can the equations you
give above be interpreted as saying that the accelerations are indeed a
function of both mass and charge? Any thoughts anybody? A reply would
be greatly appreciated.
Regards,
Edward Meisner

In article <58cosm$nvo@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
> HEARTS AND MINDS 1975
> --- quoting from HEARTS AND MINDS ---
> Walt Rostow, Aide to presidents Kennedy, Johnson :
>   I know of no communist analysis or noncommunist analysis, that would
> assert that there is a majority of the people in that country that
> would want to be communist.
> 
> [reporter] Why did they need us then?
> 
> Rostow: Because they were subjected to ahh, military attack from
> outside. Ahh, the, ahh, Are you really asking me this goddam silly
> question? You really want me to go into this Mr. Davis? I mean, I mean,
> we really got to go back to fundamentals, back to the origins of this
> thing? Then alright I will do it. But this is pretty pedestrian stuff,
> I must say at this late stage of the game, honestly it is ... There is
> no doubt, and I will answer your questions, and you can throw away that
> tape. I really did not expect to go back to this sophomoric stuff, but
> I will do it.
> 
> Rostow:  The problem began after the Sputnik.  In its present phase,
> the launching of Sputnik in 1957 in October. This opened a phase, of,
> not well coordinated but universally optimistic and hopeful communist
> enterprise in many parts of the world.
> --- quoting from HEARTS AND MINDS ---
> 
>   Gee, with John Foster Dulles and Walt Rostow there should be a
> presidental cabinet whose only duty is to "save the president from
> dumbo - other - cabinet members."
> 
>    Someone ought to write a history book of how the presidential
> advisors surrounding Kennedy, probably Harvard types, how these
> goofball airheads not only got us into Vietnam and escalated the war
> there but how they almost got us to drop nuclear warheads on Vietnam.
> 
>   What is Walt Rostow doing these days? Owner of Christmas card
> manufacturer?
> 
>   Yea, have someone write a history of how dumb and deep the USA sank
> in the years 1946 to 1980 because of "fear from communism". Be sure to
> include what major role the stupid idealistic professor advisors of the
> presidents  in those years.  The Ultimate Responsibility falls on the
> president of the US, but how can he see a clear picture of the world
> when he surrounds himself with idealistic dolts.
> 
>   Same way with Fermat's Last Theorem, when all the hoopla and
> celebration of Wiles fake is over with. When Wiles is awarded the Wolf
> prize and then the Wolfskehl. And then years later it is found that
> Naturals = p-adics and that Naturals = Finite Integers were as Fake as
> a flat-earth theory is a fake. 
>   Then too, will all these little puppets of John Mckay,
> Swinnerton-Dyer, Karl Rubin, Ken Ribet, Richard Taylor, John Coates,
> Ian Stewart, Gerd Faltings who cheered Wiles on and foisted his fakery
> onto the world. Will they all be raked over the coals for their
> historical stupidity.
>    The subject of mathematics will all but die in the classrooms and in
> education when the Naturals = P-adics starts to gain its throne. In the
> future, to be a mathematician will be a dirty word. And math will be
> but a subdepartment of physics. 
> 
>   A Mathematician is a cheap physicist. An Experimental physicist uses
> much of the surroundings to "test" his/her ideas. A mathematician on
> the other hand uses little of the world to test his/her ideas and so,
> it is easy for the goofiest of idealist crap to pervade mathematics and
> be fobbed off as meaning something. Physics has experiments to prove
> the correctness of ideas. Mathematics on the other hand has only a
> gaggle of buffoons who nod agreement and that is what is accepted. The
> world just has to witness the Wiles FLT and its social gaggle of
> buffoons. 
>   Does Wiles consider Naturals = p-adics as sophomoric, as pretty
> pedestrian stuff?  Of course he does because I sent him a letter in
> 1993 asking him to prove his two assumptions in his alleged proof.
> Prove that Naturals are not the p-adics and to prove that Axiom of
> Choice is not the Dedekind Cut. He ignores me, but history will not.
> History will make Andy Wiles the John Foster Dulles or the Joseph
> McCarthy of math history.
  I post this to alt.president.clinton because there should be some
attention payed to the "advisory" system that goes on in the US. There
is a strong argument that the Vietnam War, the Bay of Pigs and the
Cuban Missile Crises were the work, for the most part, from the habit
of the president of the US to surround himself with advisors who are
idealistic dolts. To get from say Harvard or Princeton some college
professor who is so idealistic that his advise gets the whole of the US
into deep hot water.
  Someone ought to review this US penchant of the president surrounding
himself with Harvard professors whereas a more pragmatic advisory board
is needed.
  And another point of concern. And I am thinking of Eisenhower mostly.
That it appears bad for the US to have a war horse as a president. That
these guys are too trigger finger happy. And on the slightest of
provokations they jump in with a military answer. Witness Korea and
Vietnam. I think the US people ought to think twice before ever
electing a war hero into the presidency. I think war heroes or war
horses, eg, Eisenhower make bad presidents for they are not bright
enough and they are too dangerous in that office. If Eisenhower and
Kennedy had not been presidents, I doubt that we would have had a
Vietnam war.
   I place the Vietnam War as mostly Kennedy's war. Anyone shed light
on that assessment?

erg@panix.com (Edward Green) writes:
>They will be missed.  When is the wake?
>I have long had the feeling that your various classical theorems of
>differential geometry,  all having the basic form of the fundamental
>theorem of calculus  "Stuff evaluated over interior of region equals
>other stuff evaluated over the boundary"  must be special cases of some
>general Fundamental Theorem of Calculus,  which could probably be
>written in some suitably terse form,  like   "Q = T".
>Unfortunately my mathematical education stopped before I found out
>what this meta-theorem would be.
I think it's usually called the "general Stokes' theorem", and it reads:
     Integral over (n+1)-dimensional manifold M of dA =
     Integral over n-dimensional manifold (boundary of M) of A 
where A is a differential n-form.  This generalises FTC, Green's Theorem,
Gauss's Theorem, and the old Stokes' Theorem.  The differential operator
"d" acts like grad, curl and div for different n-forms in 3 dimensions.
Two good places to read about differential forms are:
     _Gauge Fields, Knots & Gravity_ by Baez & Muniain
     _Gravitation_ by Misner, Thorne & Wheeler
MTW have lots of nice pictures of 1-forms as series of planes, 2-forms as
the tubes formed by two intersecting series of planes, and 3-forms as
the cells formed by three intersecting series of planes.  If you integrate
a 1-form over a 1-d manifold (i.e. a curve) you "count the number of planes
that intersect the curve".  If you integrate a 2-form over a 2-d manifold
(i.e. a surface) you "count the number of tubes that intersect the
surface".  If you integrate a 3-form over a 3-d manifold (i.e. a volume)
you "count the number of cells that intersect the volume".  All taken in
the limit of adding up lots of infinitesimal volume elements intersecting
linear approximations to the n-form at each point.
Another way to think of n-forms is as perfectly antisymmetric linear scalar
functions of n vector fields, e.g. A(x,y) = -A(y,x) = psi is a scalar
field, where A is a 2-form, and x and y are vector fields.  Then scalar
fields themselves are 0-forms, and the differential operator d gives the
gradient of the scalar field, which is a 1-form:
     f is a 0-form 
     df is a 1-form, with df(x) = x(f), where x is a vector field
     interpreted as a directional derivative at every point
     And df alone acts like the gradient, because the directional
     derivative of f in the direction of some vector x is (x dot grad f)
     You can visualise df as a sequence of planes of f = constant
     (e.g. contour lines in 2-d, surfaces in 3-d, etc.)
     and d(df) = 0 from the general Stokes' theorem, because
     integral over M of d(df) = int. over bound M of df
                              = int. over bound(bound M) of f
                              = 0
     because the boundary of the boundary of a manifold is the empty set.
If f is a 1-form in three dimensions, df is a 2-form which acts like the
curl -- if you think of taking the curl of the vectors perpendicular to the
planes of f, and then (as the curl vectors themselves) the vectors which
run along the "tubes" of df.  There are proper ways to formalise all this
described in the two books cited, but conversion between 1-forms and
vectors only makes sense if the manifold has a metric to define what
"perpendicular" means.
If f is a 2-form in three dimensions, df is a 3-form which acts like the
divergence -- if you think of taking the divergence of the vectors which
run along the "tubes" of f, and obtaining a scalar from the 3-form df by
computing the density of its 3-dimensional cells.
There's also a product between forms, called the wedge product, "^", which
is like the cross product for two 1-forms.  In general,
    A ^ B = A X B - B X A
where "X" is the tensor product, so A ^ B = - B ^ A.  In general, any
n-form *can't* be expressed as an n-fold wedge product of 1-forms, but it
can be expressed as a (non-unique) linear combination of them. 
If you introduce coordinates on the manifold, you can construct a basis
of 1-forms (and 2-forms, etc.) and write formulas for all this in terms
of components with respect to the basis.

Re: The Electrostatic Source of Magnetism and Gravity (and
gravitomagnetism)
Ken Fischer wrote:
- - - - 
Marc Verkruysse (mverkruysse@club.innet.be) wrote
>:Hallo, I do not believe that gravity or gravitomagnetism has something
>:to do with electrical charges at all.
>       Hello:
>              I'm afraid I do not know what gravitomagnetism is.
Then I fear that I understand that you don't see what I mean basicaly.
> I do not believe that gravity has anything to do with the long
Believe, believe: We need facts ! (I don't want to become rude, I used
the word believe also )  As I said facts are extremely difficult to get
for socalled gravitomagnetism.
I guess by gravitomagnetism, we  understand the extra forces exerted
between moving bodies, superposed upon static gravitational forces.
Those forces could (could) exist and could be analogue to magnetical
forces caused by moving charges.
> range electromagnetic spectrum, and I do not think that nature
> would have two long range interacting systems, one for transfer
> of energy, and the gravity one for "attraction" between material
> bodies, the fact that even massless particles are affected by
> gravity shows that there is no attraction and no gravitational
Since Einstein, all mass is concerned, metaphorically spoken, to be
'frozen energie'. Even massless particles have energie and Einstein
prooved that energie and mass are equivalent so ...
> mass, gravity is just something the object causing the apparent
> attraction is doing.  
That something has never been explained. What's the real origin of
gravitation ? I wouldn't know, if you would ask me; sorry but I have
hundreds of physicsbooks at home, and I read a lot of them thoroughly.
> : But if you take the formula's of Lienard-Wichard, formula's that procure
> : us the magnetic forces acting upon and electrical charge due to linear
> : movement and acceleration... These are the formula's that take into
> : account the retarding potentials and influences ... because of the
> : limited velocity of (electromagnetical and gravitational signals )...
> 
>        If there is one thing I can be sure of, it is that there
> are  no  gravitational signals.
What about gravitons and gravitational waves ? I guess those do not
exist either?
> : If you change the electrical charge things and formulas to the analog
> : things for mass and gravity then, by assuming some simplifications to
> : the shape of the universe you get formulas like:
> : 1) F = const.m.a  (2nd law of Newton ? NO ! :when mass under test m
> : accelerates with acceleration a than F seems to be the force exerted by
> : the masses of the universe, following Mach's idea)
>         I guess you are not talking about gravity here, merely
> accelerating a test object with an external force.
Oh no, by F and F' I do not mean the external forces causing the
acceleration. See a few lines above this one:  NO !
I am talking about the secundary forces that could exist as a
consequence of relative motion between masses. I should have mentioned
the relativeness of motion. If a mass is moving with respect to other
masses in the universe (take ALL masses into account, if you don't mind,
then the other masses (all masses of the universe)are moving with
respect to our test mass. Those masses are far, very far away, I know,
but the total mass is rather huge, if you ask me.  
>         But F = ma does not hold true in all cases, Mach was
> wrong about inertia.
So, I would be glad to hear from you where I can read some proofs of
your statement. I mean this, without ironicallity (is this good
english?) Maybe you say so because the results of the experiments where
almost unmeasureably small... and he could not do this with Cavendishes
'torture' balance.  
Mach was, I believe, one of the first people to think (another bad word
in our scientific world) that inertia was caused by the masses of the
universe, trying to hold test masses into their grip (I hope my english
is good enough, my french or german is not much better, and as you, have
an english sounding name, Ken, I guess, you do not speak dutch,my native
language)
> : 2)F' = const.v     ( v is the constant velocity of mass m under test and
> : F' seems to be the force... exerted by the same masses of the univers :
> : strange formula while controversial to the law of inertia, but what if
> : in this formula the constant is extremely small, so small that we cannot
> : notice it with earthly experiments ...?)
> I don't know of any forces acting on an object having
> a constant velocity, or rather, an object in inertial motion,
> ie. not accelerated.    In fact the term "constant velocity"
> infers a measured velocity relative to something, and that
> something needs to be specified.
In the physics books you can find the proofs of objects in inertial
motion causing forces on each other: electrical charges!
My (sorry, Mach's ) theories implicate that masses could behave like
electrical charges and that their movement (sorry, relative movement )
or acceleration could cause forces similar to those we call magnetic
forces. 
>          If by gravitomagnetism, you mean "attraction of gravity",
> then that is a misconception enjoined in by all (except me, I
> suppose), there just isn't any "attractive" forces at long
> range.
I guess you have your own theories ?
> : When you realize that we need a huge
> : mass (the earth, the sun ...  ) to prove the gravitational forces
> : excerted by to masses to each other then the proofs for gravito-
> : magnetical forces are even more far away.
> 
>          Not really, small instruments that can sit on a table
> can measure the apparent gravitational "force", it is a
> Cavendish torsion balance. 
I know this detail, Ken, as a matter of fact,I can show and demonstrate
this instrument to my students. I guess my saying was a bit too simple.
> : This seems to me the main
> : reason that gravitomagnetism and its proofs for gravitation is not yet
> : covered by our schoolbooks !
> : Marc VERKRUYSSE, Belgium
> 
>        I have a schoolbook called "Gravitation", and it pretty
> much says that falling objects are not accelerated by gravity,
> the freefalling objects are in inertial motion, which means
> "not accelerated".  [MTW]
>        This book is 1200+ pages and is meant for college
> seniors and graduate students, and I have another schoolbook
> called "Relativity Theory, concepts and basic principles",
> by Amos Harpaz, who thinks that General relativity should
> be taught much earlier so that students do not become so
> infatuated with Newton's mutual attraction gravitation.
>        It is inconceivable to me that college graduates
> can believe in long range attractive forces that work by
> some mystical unkmown mechanism.
>        I can only think that both gravity and inertia
> are intrinsic properties of matter, and that neither
> gravity, nor inertia, are produced by distant matter.
Remember that curvation of space is caused by the presence of ... matter
in the universe... The general theorie of relativity is a model to
explain things. But what are the causes of it all ... matter!  What is
matter ? oh, I know, 'frozen energy'. I liked the courses of general
relativity and relativistic quantum mechanics, many years ago. You won't
believe it but I am a fan of Albert E.
(My only purpose of dropping in, Ken, is trying to help physics a bit
further. I am not God, who (I hope ) understands everything already.)
(I also like the psychologic behaviours in our messages too each other:
I am not only interested in physics but also in psychology and human
behaviour, morals, philosophy and history) 
Regards
Marc Verkruysse.

       I think I have figured out why photons can only be absorbed in
quantized units. The photon is a curvature in spacetime. As such,
whenever it passes by a particle the particle will move along the
geodesic. No energy is transferred in the process because the curvature
is a potential. The energy of the particle that is converted to its
kinetic energy is merely a function of its position in relation to the
curvature. It position will determine it potential energy. It is this
potential energy due to its position that is converted to kinetic
energy and not the energy of the photon. Therefore the only way that
that a photon can transfer energy is when it is completely absorbed by
a particle. This transfer must be instantaneous because the energy is
transferred in a single quantized unit rather than gradually in an
incremental manner.
Edward Meisner

THE UNIVERSE- HOW IT WORKS- 
A GRAND UNIFIED THEORY
THE UNIVERSE- GRAVITY- A GRAND UNIFIED THEORY
WHY a grand unified theory of the universe?
Current physics theories do not explain the ocean tides,
the  photon (particle or wave), gravity, time, mass, or
the electromagnetic field.
The low tide, not the high tide,
is observed directly under the full moon. This contradicts
physics texts, the dictionary and encyclopedia definition of
tide,  which shows a picture of the earth with a bulge of water
on the side facing the full moon, and states that the high tide
occurs directly under the full moon. This is an error.
It is not conceivable that the moon could pull several feet
of ocean water around the earth at better than 1000 mph.
This would wash away the continents and humanity in a day.
The copyrighted theory 1988 A.C.Goodrich; cc023@
freenet.buffalo.edu. explains the tides as a decrease 
of kinetic energy and volume of the ocean water
with the increase of potential energy as the moon
direction changes and distance decreases relative to a
particular side of the earth's ocean, to maintain a
constant total energy of the universe.
THE FUNDAMENTAL EQUATION AND PRINCIPLE
of the universe is one of constant total energy expressed
by the (modified Galileo pendulum-Kepler-Newton-
equation by Goodrich) equation:
   2       3
T    = L    / K(M-m) where M is the total energy of the universe,
m is the mass-energy in question and T and L are time and
distance. This equation is derived from the FUNDAMENTAL
EQUATION AND PRINCIPLE of the universe (by Goodrich)
     2     2
mL  / T    + K(M-m)m/L = a constant M.
The total of kinetic and potential energy of the universe is a
constant M.
This grand unified theory defines time, mass, energy, gravity,
the photon, other forces, and the electromagnetic field as
geometric properties of the universe.
See Library of Congress Card Catalog
THE UNIVERSE- A UNIFIED THEORY-GOODRICH
and ISBN 0-9644267-1-4.
ALLEN C. GOODRICH
GRAVITY- A GRAND UNIFIED THEORY
Gravity, commonly called the force of gravity, is the
force equal to the product of the mass m and the 
acceleration of gravity g. It is the acceleration g 
of mass m relative to the rest of the universe M 
that is involved in the force of gravity.
The linear acceleration of gravity g  is the difference
of two accelerations, that of the universe M and that
of the mass m which is in question. F = mg = 
m (G-g) = Km( M/LL - m/LL ) = K m( M-m)  / LL.= 
m L/TT where G = KM/LL ; g = Km/LL ; L = distance
and T = time. LL = L squared and TT = T squared.
According to the grand unified theory, the mass m is 
accelerating more slowly than the rest of the universe 
because its mass-energy density is greater than the 
mass-energy density of the rest of the universe. 
The acceleration g is the apparent difference of two 
volumetric accelerations which are inverse functions 
of the density of mass-energy, consistent with the 
fundamental equation and the grand unified theory 
of the universe. It is this relative acceleration of mass
m in all three directions, or it's relative volumetric 
acceleration Y of mass m, that is sensed as the force
of gravity. Y = LLL/TT = K(M-m) = L cubed./ T squared.
This is the fundamental equation of the universe.
The volumetric acceleration of a mass m relative to
the rest of the universe is equal to the value K(M-m).
Relative to the rest of the universe, the mass m 
appears to be contracting, undergoing a force of 
gravity, due to its smaller relative volumetric 
acceleration and higher density compared with the 
rest of the universe.
Copyright 1988 Allen C. Goodrich 
THE ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELD-
 A GRAND UNIFIED THEORY
The electromagnetic and gravitational fields both
obey the fundamental equation and grand unified
theory of the universe.
Unlike the gravitational field, which is a function
of the relative volumetric and angular accelerations
of the mass m and the effective universe M, the 
electromagnetic field is a function of the relative 
volumetric and angular  accelerations of the
charges of the masses involved. A charge exists
only when there is a displacement of the centers
of positive and negative angular accelerations. The
electromagnetic field photon is the reaction of
the rest of the universe to a change of the
distance between charges or the distance
between positive and negative angular
accelerations.. Except for very large
mass-energies at very great distances, the
electromagnetic field would appear to be much
stronger than the gravitational field, because 
changes of the distance between the centers of
acceleration of the negatively and positively
charged masses occur outside of the nucleus of
the atom. They are therefore more effective relative
to the outside universe and are more easily
sensed  from the universe outside of the atom then
are the changes of the density of uncharged masses.
Copyright 1988 Allen C. Goodrich
See THE UNIVERSE- A GRAND UNIFIED THEORY
       GRAVITY- A GRAND UNIFIED THEORY
### 

taboada@mathe.usc.edu (Mario Taboada) wrote:
>Is there a possibility that boxing matches like those between
>Silke and Raghu can be fought by e-mail instead of publicly?
>Such matches seem of little interest to the general public...
>This said, it it obvious that Silke-Maria has been roundly outclassed
>by Raghu, her late confession of "teasing" notwithstanding..
This is a very odd post.  The few checks I've seen have Silke ahead by
close to a TKO.  However, why read it at all if you want it on private
email?  There are a number of posts I never read, either for lack of
interest or tiresomness, but I dont really care if they are on the
unread thread or private.  Why does Taboada?
ken

>Minnie (mhlynn@geocities.com) wrote:
>
>: [grin] Don't be so judgemental, man. They do have a clue, at least in
>: the Flood part. Haven't you noticed that every culture in the world has
>: an ancient story of great flooding?
I don't know about the "every culture" part, but many of the Biblical
myths are copied from earlier Mesopotamian mythology.
-- 
                                              ^-----^ 
 Michael Huemer         / O   O \
 http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~owl             |   V   | 
                                              \     / 

I'd prefer an engineer's opinion to a physicist's on the claim that if
pigs had wings they could fly.
David
"I'd like to play for you now a song that's been very closely
associated with me for many many dec'des.  Mainly because I wrote it. 
It has WITHSTOOD the vah-sisitoods of the contingent world and moved in
an odyssey into the realm of the . . . metaphysical. And may we offer
at this time A Night In Tuneeseea." -Diz

Bernie wrote:
> 
> The fact that the Pope votes for evolution contributes nothing.
> Catholics don't believe in the bible. They believe in tradition.                                                                  
Why is it that if someone makes an obvious slanderous statement
aginst, say an Africian American, they are a racist, if they make
such a statement against a woman, they are a bigot, but if they
make such a statement against a Catholic, they are a good protestant.
Of course Catholics believe in the Bible.  In fact, it is the
protestants not the catholic who don't believe in the whole bible.
We even believe in the parts of the bible which you would rather
not see, and therefore omit from the bible.  We hold fast the
teachings and traditions which we have received from the Apostles,
just like Paul says to do in his letters in the Bible.  We hold
fast to the scriptural teaching that the Church, is the pillar
of truth.  
The Bible *IS* a part of the tradition of the Church.  It is not
the only part, and this fact is mentioned within scriptures in
several places.
-- 
|  _______          |Christopher Beattie |        P.O. Box 2310|
| /__   __\ Peace   |Tantalus Inc.       |   Key West, FL 33045|
|    / \    and     |Development Div.    |Phone: (305) 293-8100|
|   /___\   Good    |chrisb@Tansoft.com  |  Fax: (305) 292-7835|
|                   |#include          |

G T Clark wrote:
> 
> Judson McClendon  writes:
> 
> >David Hultgren wrote:
> >>
> >> Judson McClendon wrote:
> >> 
> >>
> >> > Is it strange, then, that we see these very signs about us in the world
> >> > today?
> >>
> >> Same have been said numerous times in history, especially every new
> >> century... (wanna bet against 1999 being a incomebringing year for the
> >> doomsayers?)
> 
> >No doubt.  But uniformitarianism and men's doubts about creation and the
> >Genesis Flood were prophesied almost 2000 years ago (2 Peter 3:3-10):
> 
>         the quote you use is all very well, but the point remains: the
> bible does not give a date. A friend who read the whole of revelations a
> few weeks ago told me hat he thought it was implying that the whole
> thing was due shortly after it was written. People are always saying
> it'll be soon, so why should we believe them this time when they were
> wrong all the other times? That's a serious question, by the way, and if
> you can tell us why now in particular I'd be very interested.
> 
>                 G.The Bible means, when its authors put things in a way to seem iminant, 
that you should be ready for these things to take place. If God were to 
return today, what your actions should be, you know, to keep you on your 
toes. most of the new and old testamnet prophetic writings are phrased 
in such a way. this is realy an irelevant point if this discussion is 
Creation VS. Evolution, though. I am a christian, but i think it is 
obsurd to beleave that some form of evolution has not taken place over 
time, at least, in humans, social or mental, if not physical evolution 
has taken place. if someone were to say that man has not changed at all 
since the days of the greeks, i would laugh at him.

This is an interesting web page i found completely on accident. It 
explains the theoretical concepts of the "Black-hole". im no physisist, 
but i found this extreamly interesting and informative.  no, im not the 
guy who publiched the web page. I would encourage all those interested 
in einstein's theories to go here.
	http://ally.ios.com/~bobl69/black_hole.html

On Sat, 7 Dec 1996, Jack Sarfatti, Ph.D. wrote:
> Jan P.L. Verhey wrote:
> 
> Read Norbert Weiner's "Cybernetics".  There is no homunculus here, no
> "being in charge". The entire system is the being in charge. Stapp
> explains this in his book, Mind, Matter and Quantum Mechanics. Although
> I do not use his Heisenberg-James ontology, what he says there applies
> also to the Bohm ontology that I use.
BJ: Thou art that, you see.
> > >The Born probability rule, i.e., the
> > >von-Neumann projection postulate is strongly violated. We can
> > >consciously choose a desired eigenstate of a brain observable to
> > >"collapse" to ...
BJ: A soggy grey mass of superpositions? An experienced event?
> > This sounds spooky. Of course I can decide to do things, or think about
> > things - but basically, I have no "final" control over my behaviour nor over
> > my thoughts or emotions. 
> 
BJ: If you are determined to think so.
> > To me your "strange creative loop" makes sense, but
> > the character of this creative loop (at least mine) is its unpredictability
> > and uncontrollability, ie  creation and  inspiration. 
BJ: The light shines in the darkness.
> Again that is because of conflicting desires in complex decision making.
> It's like trying to calculate the details of large molecules from
> Schrodinger's equation. Right now I am simply doing Mickey Mouse simple
> toy problems like the hydrogen atom.
BJ: Jack, with characteristic modesty, omits to say that he is himself a
solution of Schrodinger's equation--augmented, of course, with a quantum
potential. 
> Inspiration is simply being receptive to the messages from Higher
> Intelligence which are coming through everyone's mind all the time.
> Channels can get there by meditation. 
BJ: Having said that, why do you continue to defy me?
But they often do not have the
> scientific training to properly decode what they are receiving.
BJ: You said it.
> Einstein, Feynman and all the great ones simply channel their
> information in their subconscious mind which then erupts into
> consciousness. Like Martial Artists they train their minds in
> mathematical gymnastics etc so that they can decode the messages from
> GOD(D) in ways that lead to new scientific understanding, new technology
> and new economic wealth. Genius is able to directly tap into the Mind of
> God which is the Conscious Cosmic Quantum Back-Action Super-Computer
> beyond space-time. 
BJ: It's not all glamour, tho'.
> > I
> > understood that in The Undivided Universe there are no *special* tricks -
> > all is interdependently connected.
BJ: Right.
> 
> This is vague. Bohm did not understand the full meaning of his
> back-action discovery. I am Joshua to his Moses. The Walls of Light come
> tumbling down with the Sound of My Music.
BJ: So, the hills *are* alive?
> > >Solution of the Hard Problem
> > >When back-action is dominant over decoherence we have sentience. This is
> > >a postulate, but it is the same postulate that is used by neural-network
> > >theorists who associate a mental experience with capture of the neural
> > >net system point in a basin of attraction.
BJ: Now ask him to account for the diversity of experience.
> > >
> > >The formalism of post-quantum mechanics fits neatly into the formalism
> > >of neural-nets though the scale is different. 
BJ: As above, so below. One word, kid: matrix mechanics.
The change in weights of the neural nets is like the modification of the
basins by the actual path of the system. 
BJ: The change in weights of the NNs correspond to modifications of the
basins of attraction of the system. A higher potential here, a lower 
potential there ... follow the ball thru configuration space.
 We Physicist-Magicians-Sorceror-Shamans are simply jerking off. 
BJ: And in public!
Our Magick without Magic really works. Remember, my Professors at
Cornell in the 1950's brought you The Bomb, so now it's my job to do
damage control. 
BJ: I know I'll sleep better.
Fight Magick with Magick! If I appear like Mickey Mouse in The Sorceror's 
Apprentice - well I can understand why > you might think that!
BJ: How do you feel about Bullwinkle?