Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #892151 > unrolled thread

Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-04-03 22:03 -0700
    Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-04-04 05:24 +0000
      Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-04-04 07:55 +0200
        Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-04-04 22:38 +0000
    Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-04-04 10:46 -0700
      Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-04-04 12:29 -0700
        Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-04-04 12:37 -0700
          Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-04-10 19:02 -0500
            Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-04-10 20:12 -0700
              Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-04-10 20:39 -0700
                Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-04-10 20:50 -0700
              Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-04-10 23:39 -0500
                Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-04-10 23:57 -0500
      Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-04-04 14:15 -0700
        Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-04-04 15:19 -0700
          Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-04-10 22:58 -0700
            Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-04-13 12:17 -0700
              Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-04-14 01:13 -0700
                Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-04-19 23:50 -0700
        Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-04-05 11:17 -0700
          Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) - 2025-04-09 13:00 +0000
            Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-04-09 13:10 +0000
            Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-04-10 15:15 -0500
              Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-04-10 22:32 +0200
                Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-04-10 14:06 -0700
                  Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? x <x@x.org> - 2025-04-10 15:14 -0700
                    Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-04-11 07:30 +0200
                      Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-04-14 01:12 +0000
                Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-04-10 19:32 -0500
                  Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-04-11 15:44 +0200
                    Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-04-11 08:17 -0700
                      Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-04-11 08:53 -0700
                    Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-04-11 11:56 -0500
            Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-04-12 11:03 -0500
    Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-04-04 14:34 -0500
      Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-04-04 12:39 -0700
        Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-04-04 14:45 -0500
          Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-04-04 13:02 -0700
      Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-04-04 12:57 -0700
    Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2025-04-09 15:21 +0100
      Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-04-09 09:44 -0700
        Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? "shades@cov.net.inv" <seeu@nt.net> - 2025-04-11 20:16 +0100
          Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-04-12 07:35 -0700
            Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-04-12 11:59 -0700
              Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-04-14 01:08 +0000
                Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-04-13 20:39 -0500
                  Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-04-13 21:40 -0500
                    Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-04-14 03:04 +0000
                      Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-04-13 22:49 -0500
                        Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-04-13 23:08 -0500
                          Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-04-13 23:27 -0500
                            Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-04-14 04:53 +0000
                              Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-04-14 00:48 -0500
                                Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-04-14 06:29 +0000
                        Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-04-14 04:24 +0000
                  Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-04-14 02:52 +0000
                    Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-04-13 23:45 -0500
                      Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-04-20 12:05 +0000
      Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-04-11 06:27 +0200
    Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? quadibloc <quadibloc@gmail.com> - 2025-04-11 09:58 +0000

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#892151 — Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?

Stephen Hawking once asked:

Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?

If Stephen Hawking would like an answer 
to that question, has he ever consider
asking a woman that question?

I don't mean a woman scientist..

i mean, just any woman.

Where did Stephen Hawking get the idea he is
entitled to know the answer? 


Is he Moses?

-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, 
and challenge the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#892154

On Fri, 4 Apr 2025 5:03:41 +0000, The Starmaker wrote:

> Stephen Hawking once asked:
>
> Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?

Why did Hawking go on existing?
>
> If Stephen Hawking would like an answer
> to that question, has he ever consider
> asking a woman that question?

She would answer that the universe exists because she does.
>
> I don't mean a woman scientist..
>
> i mean, just any woman.
>
> Where did Stephen Hawking get the idea he is
> entitled to know the answer?

Entitlement Raj.
>
>
> Is he Moses?

Are his toeses roses?

Woof woof

Bertietaylor

--

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#892155

Am Freitag000004, 04.04.2025 um 07:24 schrieb Bertitaylor:
> On Fri, 4 Apr 2025 5:03:41 +0000, The Starmaker wrote:
> 
>> Stephen Hawking once asked:
>>
>> Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?
> 
> Why did Hawking go on existing?

I had actually a theory about that, too.

My guess:

Hawking didn't use his 'eye controlled speech synthesizer' himself.

That was actually done by 'remote control' as was his wheel chair.

His own role in that was just to sit there and look ugly.


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#892169

On Fri, 4 Apr 2025 5:55:52 +0000, Thomas Heger wrote:

> Am Freitag000004, 04.04.2025 um 07:24 schrieb Bertitaylor:
>> On Fri, 4 Apr 2025 5:03:41 +0000, The Starmaker wrote:
>>
>>> Stephen Hawking once asked:
>>>
>>> Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?
>>
>> Why did Hawking go on existing?
>
> I had actually a theory about that, too.
>
> My guess:
>
> Hawking didn't use his 'eye controlled speech synthesizer' himself.
>
> That was actually done by 'remote control' as was his wheel chair.
>
> His own role in that was just to sit there and look ugly.

Just a part of the e=mcc racket. Great drama, negative science.

Woof woof woof-woof
>
>
> TH

--

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#892156

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> Stephen Hawking once asked:
> 
> Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?
> 
> If Stephen Hawking would like an answer
> to that question, has he ever consider
> asking a woman that question?
> 
> I don't mean a woman scientist..
> 
> i mean, just any woman.
> 
> Where did Stephen Hawking get the idea he is
> entitled to know the answer?
> 
> Is he Moses?

I was under the impression that Stephen Hawking  was an atheist.

But he refers to the universe as a person, a being, a self that feels
"bother"..


Why is Stephen Hawking soooo bothered by a bothered universe?


Mother Nature?


Is something bothering here?




Yous science guys make no sense...





-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, 
and challenge the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#892158

On 04/04/2025 10:46 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> The Starmaker wrote:
>>
>> Stephen Hawking once asked:
>>
>> Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?
>>
>> If Stephen Hawking would like an answer
>> to that question, has he ever consider
>> asking a woman that question?
>>
>> I don't mean a woman scientist..
>>
>> i mean, just any woman.
>>
>> Where did Stephen Hawking get the idea he is
>> entitled to know the answer?
>>
>> Is he Moses?
>
> I was under the impression that Stephen Hawking  was an atheist.
>
> But he refers to the universe as a person, a being, a self that feels
> "bother"..
>
>
> Why is Stephen Hawking soooo bothered by a bothered universe?
>
>
> Mother Nature?
>
>
> Is something bothering here?
>
>
>
>
> Yous science guys make no sense...
>
>
>
>
>

That's the old "fundamental question of metaphysics",
that books like Genesis and John intend to entail,
as for a space-time and a language to ponder it,
then as with regards to why thusly a sort of
strong mathematical platonism and strong logicist positivism,
make for a sort of strong mathematical universe hypothesis,
it's called the fundamental question of metaphysics,
and the philosophy of physics then is meant to reflect
on "Foundations", which are a sort of altogether.

It's sort of like Born's "Restless Universe", about
some "root probabilistic flaw" in otherwise an empty
void or static universe, what makes for a theory that's
a physics that's a sum-of-histories sum-of-potentials
with least-action and least gradient, of which there's
a science that happens to always concur, that any sort
of reasonably apt reasoning agent can sort of establish
as via a "Principle of Sufficient, and Thorough, Reason",
the reason the rationality the natural the real,
that it's not much like Born's "Restless Universe",
which is more of a quantum theorist's lament the
indeterminism, that may be a simple enough consequence
of the deliberation and contemplation of a mathematical
universe, which is a continuum mechanics again, and
a heno-theory, with an ideal physics, and an analytical physics.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#892161

On 04/04/2025 12:29 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On 04/04/2025 10:46 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
>> The Starmaker wrote:
>>>
>>> Stephen Hawking once asked:
>>>
>>> Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?
>>>
>>> If Stephen Hawking would like an answer
>>> to that question, has he ever consider
>>> asking a woman that question?
>>>
>>> I don't mean a woman scientist..
>>>
>>> i mean, just any woman.
>>>
>>> Where did Stephen Hawking get the idea he is
>>> entitled to know the answer?
>>>
>>> Is he Moses?
>>
>> I was under the impression that Stephen Hawking  was an atheist.
>>
>> But he refers to the universe as a person, a being, a self that feels
>> "bother"..
>>
>>
>> Why is Stephen Hawking soooo bothered by a bothered universe?
>>
>>
>> Mother Nature?
>>
>>
>> Is something bothering here?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Yous science guys make no sense...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> That's the old "fundamental question of metaphysics",
> that books like Genesis and John intend to entail,
> as for a space-time and a language to ponder it,
> then as with regards to why thusly a sort of
> strong mathematical platonism and strong logicist positivism,
> make for a sort of strong mathematical universe hypothesis,
> it's called the fundamental question of metaphysics,
> and the philosophy of physics then is meant to reflect
> on "Foundations", which are a sort of altogether.
>
> It's sort of like Born's "Restless Universe", about
> some "root probabilistic flaw" in otherwise an empty
> void or static universe, what makes for a theory that's
> a physics that's a sum-of-histories sum-of-potentials
> with least-action and least gradient, of which there's
> a science that happens to always concur, that any sort
> of reasonably apt reasoning agent can sort of establish
> as via a "Principle of Sufficient, and Thorough, Reason",
> the reason the rationality the natural the real,
> that it's not much like Born's "Restless Universe",
> which is more of a quantum theorist's lament the
> indeterminism, that may be a simple enough consequence
> of the deliberation and contemplation of a mathematical
> universe, which is a continuum mechanics again, and
> a heno-theory, with an ideal physics, and an analytical physics.
>
>

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5L1BV3HAExU

"Logos 2000: end runaround"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#892279

On 4/4/25 2:37 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On 04/04/2025 12:29 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>> 
>>
>> It's sort of like Born's "Restless Universe", 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>
>>
> 


Hehe :) That book is not that unfamiliar to me. What a coincidence.


And now that I think about it, I can kind of make informed guesses as 
what caused him to write it.

Born deserved a Nobel earlier but they hadn't given him one by 1935 
while one of his students (Heisenberg) had got it. Who knows, Born may 
have even been the one who gave the right idea to Heisenberg, letting 
him do the job.

He had done, way earlier, the same thing with Einstein's GR too. Born is 
the one who was supposed to develop GR and he had started it too, but 
soon found out Einstein is working on it also, so in a favor to Einstein 
he stopped his own work on GR.

He later said he could finish it much earlier than Einstein did, if he 
had not stopped the work.

I think the same thing may've happened with Heisenberg.

Anyway, without a doubt, Born was a top physicist of his time, at the 
least at the level of Einstein and Heisenberg. This is my point. Yet, he 
hadn't gotten a Nobel.

So he decided to make money in some other way, I guess. But how?

Jews had already successfully shoved communism up cro-magnons' asses to 
fuck those bastards up for treating them bad for centuries, and this had 
destroyed the appeal that cro-magnons' "religion" had for them. And the 
1800's cro-magnons who had sold crap to people in the name of new 
religions were also fast dying off in the 1930s. No market value. So a 
kind of niche must've formed in those years to use cro-magnons 
imagination and desire for strange baloney and make money by that. Some 
chose writing science fiction stories and were successful.

But what would Jewish scientists do to make money off of the 
cro-magnons? The lousy ones resorted to write psychology books packed 
with bogus theories about sexuality and fucking, just so to sell well, 
and made good money too. But top scientists would not do that sort of 
things. That kind of fraudulent work was beneath their dignity.

So what would a man like Born do now that he was being denied the Nobel 
Prize money? I think he chose to write this book, The Restless Universe. 
I get a hint at least by the title of it. It is for selling something to 
the maximum number of ordinary people hungry for stuff that are to some 
degree strange to them and are true as well :)

I happened to read this book way back in early 1970s cause someone had 
translated it to Persian and one copy of that was for reasons unknown to 
me in our house, I think purchased by one of my elder brothers falling 
for its title. The book was being spotted by me here and there in the 
house for at least a decade, along all sorts of other books and 
magazines that I had nothing to do with them.

In the 1960s, we high schoolers would see much more of George Gamow's 
popular physics books which almost all of them had been translated to 
Persian in late 1950s. But somehow, somebody in the same period of years 
had chosen this book also to translate. I don't know why. I cannot 
imagine Born was a known figure in Tehran as a top physicist. I 
personally heard of his work only in early 1970s when studying physics 
at Tehran University. And only then, it had clicked in me that this same 
man was also the author of this "  جهان ناآرام  " book that here and 
there I'd seen in the house for years.

So after starting physics in university, and soon after my physics 
background got strengthened a bit, I naturally began reading it at last. 
I don't remember much, but the impression that the book had made on me 
was that it was like a long story but in physics concepts, spoken to the 
reader in a friendly manner, which was a great relief compared to how 
physics was covered in the university - our physics texts in the 
university were mostly translations of French physics books which were 
all quite rigorous and formal and presented in somewhat sadistic ways 
for students who were being exposed to them for the first time. The 
French usually first treat everything rigorously, and only then may do 
the explanations. It is not so in the United States, and thanks god for 
that!

That's the only expression of the Born's book that I still remember. 
Gamow books were a bit too informal and for a wider audience. We had 
begun reading them in high school.

Anyway, when you referred to it, it took me a quite a few seconds to 
realize and remember all that about it and make sure the book was the 
same thing we had back then in the house :-) Still don't know who bought 
it. Both my brothers are still alive, I can ask them that; they may 
remember.

Hehe :) I read that before even you were in existence :)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#892281

On 04/10/2025 05:02 PM, Physfitfreak wrote:
> On 4/4/25 2:37 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>> On 04/04/2025 12:29 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> It's sort of like Born's "Restless Universe",
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> Hehe :) That book is not that unfamiliar to me. What a coincidence.
>
>
> And now that I think about it, I can kind of make informed guesses as
> what caused him to write it.
>
> Born deserved a Nobel earlier but they hadn't given him one by 1935
> while one of his students (Heisenberg) had got it. Who knows, Born may
> have even been the one who gave the right idea to Heisenberg, letting
> him do the job.
>
> He had done, way earlier, the same thing with Einstein's GR too. Born is
> the one who was supposed to develop GR and he had started it too, but
> soon found out Einstein is working on it also, so in a favor to Einstein
> he stopped his own work on GR.
>
> He later said he could finish it much earlier than Einstein did, if he
> had not stopped the work.
>
> I think the same thing may've happened with Heisenberg.
>
> Anyway, without a doubt, Born was a top physicist of his time, at the
> least at the level of Einstein and Heisenberg. This is my point. Yet, he
> hadn't gotten a Nobel.
>
> So he decided to make money in some other way, I guess. But how?
>
> Jews had already successfully shoved communism up cro-magnons' asses to
> fuck those bastards up for treating them bad for centuries, and this had
> destroyed the appeal that cro-magnons' "religion" had for them. And the
> 1800's cro-magnons who had sold crap to people in the name of new
> religions were also fast dying off in the 1930s. No market value. So a
> kind of niche must've formed in those years to use cro-magnons
> imagination and desire for strange baloney and make money by that. Some
> chose writing science fiction stories and were successful.
>
> But what would Jewish scientists do to make money off of the
> cro-magnons? The lousy ones resorted to write psychology books packed
> with bogus theories about sexuality and fucking, just so to sell well,
> and made good money too. But top scientists would not do that sort of
> things. That kind of fraudulent work was beneath their dignity.
>
> So what would a man like Born do now that he was being denied the Nobel
> Prize money? I think he chose to write this book, The Restless Universe.
> I get a hint at least by the title of it. It is for selling something to
> the maximum number of ordinary people hungry for stuff that are to some
> degree strange to them and are true as well :)
>
> I happened to read this book way back in early 1970s cause someone had
> translated it to Persian and one copy of that was for reasons unknown to
> me in our house, I think purchased by one of my elder brothers falling
> for its title. The book was being spotted by me here and there in the
> house for at least a decade, along all sorts of other books and
> magazines that I had nothing to do with them.
>
> In the 1960s, we high schoolers would see much more of George Gamow's
> popular physics books which almost all of them had been translated to
> Persian in late 1950s. But somehow, somebody in the same period of years
> had chosen this book also to translate. I don't know why. I cannot
> imagine Born was a known figure in Tehran as a top physicist. I
> personally heard of his work only in early 1970s when studying physics
> at Tehran University. And only then, it had clicked in me that this same
> man was also the author of this "  جهان ناآرام  " book that here and
> there I'd seen in the house for years.
>
> So after starting physics in university, and soon after my physics
> background got strengthened a bit, I naturally began reading it at last.
> I don't remember much, but the impression that the book had made on me
> was that it was like a long story but in physics concepts, spoken to the
> reader in a friendly manner, which was a great relief compared to how
> physics was covered in the university - our physics texts in the
> university were mostly translations of French physics books which were
> all quite rigorous and formal and presented in somewhat sadistic ways
> for students who were being exposed to them for the first time. The
> French usually first treat everything rigorously, and only then may do
> the explanations. It is not so in the United States, and thanks god for
> that!
>
> That's the only expression of the Born's book that I still remember.
> Gamow books were a bit too informal and for a wider audience. We had
> begun reading them in high school.
>
> Anyway, when you referred to it, it took me a quite a few seconds to
> realize and remember all that about it and make sure the book was the
> same thing we had back then in the house :-) Still don't know who bought
> it. Both my brothers are still alive, I can ask them that; they may
> remember.
>
> Hehe :) I read that before even you were in existence :)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Same words / different lens


A lot of it is about his consideration and for Born what was
a sort of dread of the continuous, as that being too rigid
to make for chance, that then his shaky sort of lens made
all the chance, or opportunity and possibility, that mostly
he was about being able to make branches, instead of addressing
the issue of why the origin's everywhere/anywhere/everywhere,
that chance and uncertainty are constantly being created and
destroyed, and otherwise his straight-and-narrow sort of
linear narrative yet couched in the language of quantum
mechanics, has he was missing out on a continuum mechanics,
and things like the Zollfrei, and Poincare plane, as
with regards to what later and further is about the continuous
manifold, yet pretty about that mathematics _owes_ physics
more and better mathematics about continuity and infinity.


Then, Born rule and then the Copenhagen conference and that,
arriving at a probabilistic explanation instead of things
like Bohm and de Broglie and super-classical models of real
wave mechanics, with probabilistic observables, has that
pretty much for Bohm and de Broglie is the real wave collapse
to fill the particle conceit, then that functional freedom
is sort of like for a model of Dirac/Einstein's positron/white-hole
sea, i.e. like Zollfrei metri, i.e. like Poincare's rough plane,
i.e. like super-string theory.

I.e., continuum mechanics. (Super-classical, super-standard.)


Born ends "The Restless Universe" with something like "under
our observables, the universe quivers", yet, on the one hand
it's full of potential, on the other, not a theory of potentials.

So, a potentialistic theory with things like Bohmian mechanics
is considered a wider world though that Born rule is what it is.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#892282

On 04/10/2025 08:12 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On 04/10/2025 05:02 PM, Physfitfreak wrote:
>> On 4/4/25 2:37 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>> On 04/04/2025 12:29 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's sort of like Born's "Restless Universe",
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Hehe :) That book is not that unfamiliar to me. What a coincidence.
>>
>>
>> And now that I think about it, I can kind of make informed guesses as
>> what caused him to write it.
>>
>> Born deserved a Nobel earlier but they hadn't given him one by 1935
>> while one of his students (Heisenberg) had got it. Who knows, Born may
>> have even been the one who gave the right idea to Heisenberg, letting
>> him do the job.
>>
>> He had done, way earlier, the same thing with Einstein's GR too. Born is
>> the one who was supposed to develop GR and he had started it too, but
>> soon found out Einstein is working on it also, so in a favor to Einstein
>> he stopped his own work on GR.
>>
>> He later said he could finish it much earlier than Einstein did, if he
>> had not stopped the work.
>>
>> I think the same thing may've happened with Heisenberg.
>>
>> Anyway, without a doubt, Born was a top physicist of his time, at the
>> least at the level of Einstein and Heisenberg. This is my point. Yet, he
>> hadn't gotten a Nobel.
>>
>> So he decided to make money in some other way, I guess. But how?
>>
>> Jews had already successfully shoved communism up cro-magnons' asses to
>> fuck those bastards up for treating them bad for centuries, and this had
>> destroyed the appeal that cro-magnons' "religion" had for them. And the
>> 1800's cro-magnons who had sold crap to people in the name of new
>> religions were also fast dying off in the 1930s. No market value. So a
>> kind of niche must've formed in those years to use cro-magnons
>> imagination and desire for strange baloney and make money by that. Some
>> chose writing science fiction stories and were successful.
>>
>> But what would Jewish scientists do to make money off of the
>> cro-magnons? The lousy ones resorted to write psychology books packed
>> with bogus theories about sexuality and fucking, just so to sell well,
>> and made good money too. But top scientists would not do that sort of
>> things. That kind of fraudulent work was beneath their dignity.
>>
>> So what would a man like Born do now that he was being denied the Nobel
>> Prize money? I think he chose to write this book, The Restless Universe.
>> I get a hint at least by the title of it. It is for selling something to
>> the maximum number of ordinary people hungry for stuff that are to some
>> degree strange to them and are true as well :)
>>
>> I happened to read this book way back in early 1970s cause someone had
>> translated it to Persian and one copy of that was for reasons unknown to
>> me in our house, I think purchased by one of my elder brothers falling
>> for its title. The book was being spotted by me here and there in the
>> house for at least a decade, along all sorts of other books and
>> magazines that I had nothing to do with them.
>>
>> In the 1960s, we high schoolers would see much more of George Gamow's
>> popular physics books which almost all of them had been translated to
>> Persian in late 1950s. But somehow, somebody in the same period of years
>> had chosen this book also to translate. I don't know why. I cannot
>> imagine Born was a known figure in Tehran as a top physicist. I
>> personally heard of his work only in early 1970s when studying physics
>> at Tehran University. And only then, it had clicked in me that this same
>> man was also the author of this "  جهان ناآرام  " book that here and
>> there I'd seen in the house for years.
>>
>> So after starting physics in university, and soon after my physics
>> background got strengthened a bit, I naturally began reading it at last.
>> I don't remember much, but the impression that the book had made on me
>> was that it was like a long story but in physics concepts, spoken to the
>> reader in a friendly manner, which was a great relief compared to how
>> physics was covered in the university - our physics texts in the
>> university were mostly translations of French physics books which were
>> all quite rigorous and formal and presented in somewhat sadistic ways
>> for students who were being exposed to them for the first time. The
>> French usually first treat everything rigorously, and only then may do
>> the explanations. It is not so in the United States, and thanks god for
>> that!
>>
>> That's the only expression of the Born's book that I still remember.
>> Gamow books were a bit too informal and for a wider audience. We had
>> begun reading them in high school.
>>
>> Anyway, when you referred to it, it took me a quite a few seconds to
>> realize and remember all that about it and make sure the book was the
>> same thing we had back then in the house :-) Still don't know who bought
>> it. Both my brothers are still alive, I can ask them that; they may
>> remember.
>>
>> Hehe :) I read that before even you were in existence :)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> Same words / different lens
>
>
> A lot of it is about his consideration and for Born what was
> a sort of dread of the continuous, as that being too rigid
> to make for chance, that then his shaky sort of lens made
> all the chance, or opportunity and possibility, that mostly
> he was about being able to make branches, instead of addressing
> the issue of why the origin's everywhere/anywhere/everywhere,
> that chance and uncertainty are constantly being created and
> destroyed, and otherwise his straight-and-narrow sort of
> linear narrative yet couched in the language of quantum
> mechanics, has he was missing out on a continuum mechanics,
> and things like the Zollfrei, and Poincare plane, as
> with regards to what later and further is about the continuous
> manifold, yet pretty about that mathematics _owes_ physics
> more and better mathematics about continuity and infinity.
>
>
> Then, Born rule and then the Copenhagen conference and that,
> arriving at a probabilistic explanation instead of things
> like Bohm and de Broglie and super-classical models of real
> wave mechanics, with probabilistic observables, has that
> pretty much for Bohm and de Broglie is the real wave collapse
> to fill the particle conceit, then that functional freedom
> is sort of like for a model of Dirac/Einstein's positron/white-hole
> sea, i.e. like Zollfrei metri, i.e. like Poincare's rough plane,
> i.e. like super-string theory.
>
> I.e., continuum mechanics. (Super-classical, super-standard.)
>
>
> Born ends "The Restless Universe" with something like "under
> our observables, the universe quivers", yet, on the one hand
> it's full of potential, on the other, not a theory of potentials.
>
> So, a potentialistic theory with things like Bohmian mechanics
> is considered a wider world though that Born rule is what it is.
>
>

Consider, for example, Schaefer's "A response to Carl Helrich".

https://www.zygonjournal.org/article/id/13448/#!

https://philpapers.org/rec/SCHART-8

"As to the power of authority, when Helrich can quote Max Born for the
metaphysical stance that “the wavefunction itself has no physical mean-
ing” (p. 554), Werner Heisenberg ([1958] 1962) can be quoted for the
opposite metaphysical stance."


Then, both of those can be put to the side, explaining both, as one.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#892283

On 04/10/2025 08:39 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On 04/10/2025 08:12 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>> On 04/10/2025 05:02 PM, Physfitfreak wrote:
>>> On 4/4/25 2:37 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>> On 04/04/2025 12:29 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It's sort of like Born's "Restless Universe",
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hehe :) That book is not that unfamiliar to me. What a coincidence.
>>>
>>>
>>> And now that I think about it, I can kind of make informed guesses as
>>> what caused him to write it.
>>>
>>> Born deserved a Nobel earlier but they hadn't given him one by 1935
>>> while one of his students (Heisenberg) had got it. Who knows, Born may
>>> have even been the one who gave the right idea to Heisenberg, letting
>>> him do the job.
>>>
>>> He had done, way earlier, the same thing with Einstein's GR too. Born is
>>> the one who was supposed to develop GR and he had started it too, but
>>> soon found out Einstein is working on it also, so in a favor to Einstein
>>> he stopped his own work on GR.
>>>
>>> He later said he could finish it much earlier than Einstein did, if he
>>> had not stopped the work.
>>>
>>> I think the same thing may've happened with Heisenberg.
>>>
>>> Anyway, without a doubt, Born was a top physicist of his time, at the
>>> least at the level of Einstein and Heisenberg. This is my point. Yet, he
>>> hadn't gotten a Nobel.
>>>
>>> So he decided to make money in some other way, I guess. But how?
>>>
>>> Jews had already successfully shoved communism up cro-magnons' asses to
>>> fuck those bastards up for treating them bad for centuries, and this had
>>> destroyed the appeal that cro-magnons' "religion" had for them. And the
>>> 1800's cro-magnons who had sold crap to people in the name of new
>>> religions were also fast dying off in the 1930s. No market value. So a
>>> kind of niche must've formed in those years to use cro-magnons
>>> imagination and desire for strange baloney and make money by that. Some
>>> chose writing science fiction stories and were successful.
>>>
>>> But what would Jewish scientists do to make money off of the
>>> cro-magnons? The lousy ones resorted to write psychology books packed
>>> with bogus theories about sexuality and fucking, just so to sell well,
>>> and made good money too. But top scientists would not do that sort of
>>> things. That kind of fraudulent work was beneath their dignity.
>>>
>>> So what would a man like Born do now that he was being denied the Nobel
>>> Prize money? I think he chose to write this book, The Restless Universe.
>>> I get a hint at least by the title of it. It is for selling something to
>>> the maximum number of ordinary people hungry for stuff that are to some
>>> degree strange to them and are true as well :)
>>>
>>> I happened to read this book way back in early 1970s cause someone had
>>> translated it to Persian and one copy of that was for reasons unknown to
>>> me in our house, I think purchased by one of my elder brothers falling
>>> for its title. The book was being spotted by me here and there in the
>>> house for at least a decade, along all sorts of other books and
>>> magazines that I had nothing to do with them.
>>>
>>> In the 1960s, we high schoolers would see much more of George Gamow's
>>> popular physics books which almost all of them had been translated to
>>> Persian in late 1950s. But somehow, somebody in the same period of years
>>> had chosen this book also to translate. I don't know why. I cannot
>>> imagine Born was a known figure in Tehran as a top physicist. I
>>> personally heard of his work only in early 1970s when studying physics
>>> at Tehran University. And only then, it had clicked in me that this same
>>> man was also the author of this "  جهان ناآرام  " book that here and
>>> there I'd seen in the house for years.
>>>
>>> So after starting physics in university, and soon after my physics
>>> background got strengthened a bit, I naturally began reading it at last.
>>> I don't remember much, but the impression that the book had made on me
>>> was that it was like a long story but in physics concepts, spoken to the
>>> reader in a friendly manner, which was a great relief compared to how
>>> physics was covered in the university - our physics texts in the
>>> university were mostly translations of French physics books which were
>>> all quite rigorous and formal and presented in somewhat sadistic ways
>>> for students who were being exposed to them for the first time. The
>>> French usually first treat everything rigorously, and only then may do
>>> the explanations. It is not so in the United States, and thanks god for
>>> that!
>>>
>>> That's the only expression of the Born's book that I still remember.
>>> Gamow books were a bit too informal and for a wider audience. We had
>>> begun reading them in high school.
>>>
>>> Anyway, when you referred to it, it took me a quite a few seconds to
>>> realize and remember all that about it and make sure the book was the
>>> same thing we had back then in the house :-) Still don't know who bought
>>> it. Both my brothers are still alive, I can ask them that; they may
>>> remember.
>>>
>>> Hehe :) I read that before even you were in existence :)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Same words / different lens
>>
>>
>> A lot of it is about his consideration and for Born what was
>> a sort of dread of the continuous, as that being too rigid
>> to make for chance, that then his shaky sort of lens made
>> all the chance, or opportunity and possibility, that mostly
>> he was about being able to make branches, instead of addressing
>> the issue of why the origin's everywhere/anywhere/everywhere,
>> that chance and uncertainty are constantly being created and
>> destroyed, and otherwise his straight-and-narrow sort of
>> linear narrative yet couched in the language of quantum
>> mechanics, has he was missing out on a continuum mechanics,
>> and things like the Zollfrei, and Poincare plane, as
>> with regards to what later and further is about the continuous
>> manifold, yet pretty about that mathematics _owes_ physics
>> more and better mathematics about continuity and infinity.
>>
>>
>> Then, Born rule and then the Copenhagen conference and that,
>> arriving at a probabilistic explanation instead of things
>> like Bohm and de Broglie and super-classical models of real
>> wave mechanics, with probabilistic observables, has that
>> pretty much for Bohm and de Broglie is the real wave collapse
>> to fill the particle conceit, then that functional freedom
>> is sort of like for a model of Dirac/Einstein's positron/white-hole
>> sea, i.e. like Zollfrei metri, i.e. like Poincare's rough plane,
>> i.e. like super-string theory.
>>
>> I.e., continuum mechanics. (Super-classical, super-standard.)
>>
>>
>> Born ends "The Restless Universe" with something like "under
>> our observables, the universe quivers", yet, on the one hand
>> it's full of potential, on the other, not a theory of potentials.
>>
>> So, a potentialistic theory with things like Bohmian mechanics
>> is considered a wider world though that Born rule is what it is.
>>
>>
>
> Consider, for example, Schaefer's "A response to Carl Helrich".
>
> https://www.zygonjournal.org/article/id/13448/#!
>
> https://philpapers.org/rec/SCHART-8
>
> "As to the power of authority, when Helrich can quote Max Born for the
> metaphysical stance that “the wavefunction itself has no physical mean-
> ing” (p. 554), Werner Heisenberg ([1958] 1962) can be quoted for the
> opposite metaphysical stance."
>
>
> Then, both of those can be put to the side, explaining both, as one.
>
>

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLDJXdOj_C8&list=PLb7rLSBiE7F4eHy5vT61UYFR7_BIhwcOY&index=4

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#892286

On 4/10/25 10:12 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On 04/10/2025 05:02 PM, Physfitfreak wrote:
>> On 4/4/25 2:37 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>> On 04/04/2025 12:29 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's sort of like Born's "Restless Universe",
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Hehe :) That book is not that unfamiliar to me. What a coincidence.
>>
>>
>> And now that I think about it, I can kind of make informed guesses as
>> what caused him to write it.
>>
>> Born deserved a Nobel earlier but they hadn't given him one by 1935
>> while one of his students (Heisenberg) had got it. Who knows, Born may
>> have even been the one who gave the right idea to Heisenberg, letting
>> him do the job.
>>
>> He had done, way earlier, the same thing with Einstein's GR too. Born is
>> the one who was supposed to develop GR and he had started it too, but
>> soon found out Einstein is working on it also, so in a favor to Einstein
>> he stopped his own work on GR.
>>
>> He later said he could finish it much earlier than Einstein did, if he
>> had not stopped the work.
>>
>> I think the same thing may've happened with Heisenberg.
>>
>> Anyway, without a doubt, Born was a top physicist of his time, at the
>> least at the level of Einstein and Heisenberg. This is my point. Yet, he
>> hadn't gotten a Nobel.
>>
>> So he decided to make money in some other way, I guess. But how?
>>
>> Jews had already successfully shoved communism up cro-magnons' asses to
>> fuck those bastards up for treating them bad for centuries, and this had
>> destroyed the appeal that cro-magnons' "religion" had for them. And the
>> 1800's cro-magnons who had sold crap to people in the name of new
>> religions were also fast dying off in the 1930s. No market value. So a
>> kind of niche must've formed in those years to use cro-magnons
>> imagination and desire for strange baloney and make money by that. Some
>> chose writing science fiction stories and were successful.
>>
>> But what would Jewish scientists do to make money off of the
>> cro-magnons? The lousy ones resorted to write psychology books packed
>> with bogus theories about sexuality and fucking, just so to sell well,
>> and made good money too. But top scientists would not do that sort of
>> things. That kind of fraudulent work was beneath their dignity.
>>
>> So what would a man like Born do now that he was being denied the Nobel
>> Prize money? I think he chose to write this book, The Restless Universe.
>> I get a hint at least by the title of it. It is for selling something to
>> the maximum number of ordinary people hungry for stuff that are to some
>> degree strange to them and are true as well :)
>>
>> I happened to read this book way back in early 1970s cause someone had
>> translated it to Persian and one copy of that was for reasons unknown to
>> me in our house, I think purchased by one of my elder brothers falling
>> for its title. The book was being spotted by me here and there in the
>> house for at least a decade, along all sorts of other books and
>> magazines that I had nothing to do with them.
>>
>> In the 1960s, we high schoolers would see much more of George Gamow's
>> popular physics books which almost all of them had been translated to
>> Persian in late 1950s. But somehow, somebody in the same period of years
>> had chosen this book also to translate. I don't know why. I cannot
>> imagine Born was a known figure in Tehran as a top physicist. I
>> personally heard of his work only in early 1970s when studying physics
>> at Tehran University. And only then, it had clicked in me that this same
>> man was also the author of this "  جهان ناآرام  " book that here and
>> there I'd seen in the house for years.
>>
>> So after starting physics in university, and soon after my physics
>> background got strengthened a bit, I naturally began reading it at last.
>> I don't remember much, but the impression that the book had made on me
>> was that it was like a long story but in physics concepts, spoken to the
>> reader in a friendly manner, which was a great relief compared to how
>> physics was covered in the university - our physics texts in the
>> university were mostly translations of French physics books which were
>> all quite rigorous and formal and presented in somewhat sadistic ways
>> for students who were being exposed to them for the first time. The
>> French usually first treat everything rigorously, and only then may do
>> the explanations. It is not so in the United States, and thanks god for
>> that!
>>
>> That's the only expression of the Born's book that I still remember.
>> Gamow books were a bit too informal and for a wider audience. We had
>> begun reading them in high school.
>>
>> Anyway, when you referred to it, it took me a quite a few seconds to
>> realize and remember all that about it and make sure the book was the
>> same thing we had back then in the house :-) Still don't know who bought
>> it. Both my brothers are still alive, I can ask them that; they may
>> remember.
>>
>> Hehe :) I read that before even you were in existence :)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> 
> Same words / different lens
> 
> 
> A lot of it is about his consideration and for Born what was
> a sort of dread of the continuous, as that being too rigid
> to make for chance, that then his shaky sort of lens made
> all the chance, or opportunity and possibility, that mostly
> he was about being able to make branches, instead of addressing
> the issue of why the origin's everywhere/anywhere/everywhere,
> that chance and uncertainty are constantly being created and
> destroyed, and otherwise his straight-and-narrow sort of
> linear narrative yet couched in the language of quantum
> mechanics, has he was missing out on a continuum mechanics,
> and things like the Zollfrei, and Poincare plane, as
> with regards to what later and further is about the continuous
> manifold, yet pretty about that mathematics _owes_ physics
> more and better mathematics about continuity and infinity.
> 
> 
> Then, Born rule and then the Copenhagen conference and that,
> arriving at a probabilistic explanation instead of things
> like Bohm and de Broglie and super-classical models of real
> wave mechanics, with probabilistic observables, has that
> pretty much for Bohm and de Broglie is the real wave collapse
> to fill the particle conceit, then that functional freedom
> is sort of like for a model of Dirac/Einstein's positron/white-hole
> sea, i.e. like Zollfrei metri, i.e. like Poincare's rough plane,
> i.e. like super-string theory.
> 
> I.e., continuum mechanics. (Super-classical, super-standard.)
> 
> 
> Born ends "The Restless Universe" with something like "under
> our observables, the universe quivers", yet, on the one hand
> it's full of potential, on the other, not a theory of potentials.
> 
> So, a potentialistic theory with things like Bohmian mechanics
> is considered a wider world though that Born rule is what it is.
> 
> 



Yes, different lens, and of course I couldn't detect any personal touch 
Born had made in that book. I may not do that even if I read it now 
cause the lens is the same lens.

I just looked the book up (the English version) and remembered that it 
was full of images and interesting drawings, etc, probably what made it 
to our house in the first place. With that title, and such strange, 
amusing images inside, my artist brother _would_ fall for it. You know, 
kind of like Hofstadter's Gödel, Escher, Bach way of making the book 
sell to a large audience.

It was sweet to read.

In Tehran University, physics dept, it was common knowledge that Sears 
Zemansky was like a "sweet story" compared to our horrible, almost 
sadistic texts. Hehe :)

That was not exaggeration! We did read SZ from begin to end like a sweet 
story. Too bad it was not our course text. We weren't that blessed. I 
don't know the evolution of Sears Zemansky and what it has turned into, 
in these days.

The French physics culture of "rigor first, explanations next" cost them 
the DNA discovery, by the way. Rosalind Franklin was French educated. So 
Watson won the game while being well behind her. It's too old; it's not 
the best way to neither learn concepts, nor to do R&D with. Common sense 
always goes a long way.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#892288

On 4/10/25 11:39 PM, Physfitfreak wrote:
> On 4/10/25 10:12 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>> On 04/10/2025 05:02 PM, Physfitfreak wrote:
>>> On 4/4/25 2:37 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>> On 04/04/2025 12:29 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It's sort of like Born's "Restless Universe",
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hehe :) That book is not that unfamiliar to me. What a coincidence.
>>>
>>>
>>> And now that I think about it, I can kind of make informed guesses as
>>> what caused him to write it.
>>>
>>> Born deserved a Nobel earlier but they hadn't given him one by 1935
>>> while one of his students (Heisenberg) had got it. Who knows, Born may
>>> have even been the one who gave the right idea to Heisenberg, letting
>>> him do the job.
>>>
>>> He had done, way earlier, the same thing with Einstein's GR too. Born is
>>> the one who was supposed to develop GR and he had started it too, but
>>> soon found out Einstein is working on it also, so in a favor to Einstein
>>> he stopped his own work on GR.
>>>
>>> He later said he could finish it much earlier than Einstein did, if he
>>> had not stopped the work.
>>>
>>> I think the same thing may've happened with Heisenberg.
>>>
>>> Anyway, without a doubt, Born was a top physicist of his time, at the
>>> least at the level of Einstein and Heisenberg. This is my point. Yet, he
>>> hadn't gotten a Nobel.
>>>
>>> So he decided to make money in some other way, I guess. But how?
>>>
>>> Jews had already successfully shoved communism up cro-magnons' asses to
>>> fuck those bastards up for treating them bad for centuries, and this had
>>> destroyed the appeal that cro-magnons' "religion" had for them. And the
>>> 1800's cro-magnons who had sold crap to people in the name of new
>>> religions were also fast dying off in the 1930s. No market value. So a
>>> kind of niche must've formed in those years to use cro-magnons
>>> imagination and desire for strange baloney and make money by that. Some
>>> chose writing science fiction stories and were successful.
>>>
>>> But what would Jewish scientists do to make money off of the
>>> cro-magnons? The lousy ones resorted to write psychology books packed
>>> with bogus theories about sexuality and fucking, just so to sell well,
>>> and made good money too. But top scientists would not do that sort of
>>> things. That kind of fraudulent work was beneath their dignity.
>>>
>>> So what would a man like Born do now that he was being denied the Nobel
>>> Prize money? I think he chose to write this book, The Restless Universe.
>>> I get a hint at least by the title of it. It is for selling something to
>>> the maximum number of ordinary people hungry for stuff that are to some
>>> degree strange to them and are true as well :)
>>>
>>> I happened to read this book way back in early 1970s cause someone had
>>> translated it to Persian and one copy of that was for reasons unknown to
>>> me in our house, I think purchased by one of my elder brothers falling
>>> for its title. The book was being spotted by me here and there in the
>>> house for at least a decade, along all sorts of other books and
>>> magazines that I had nothing to do with them.
>>>
>>> In the 1960s, we high schoolers would see much more of George Gamow's
>>> popular physics books which almost all of them had been translated to
>>> Persian in late 1950s. But somehow, somebody in the same period of years
>>> had chosen this book also to translate. I don't know why. I cannot
>>> imagine Born was a known figure in Tehran as a top physicist. I
>>> personally heard of his work only in early 1970s when studying physics
>>> at Tehran University. And only then, it had clicked in me that this same
>>> man was also the author of this "  جهان ناآرام  " book that here and
>>> there I'd seen in the house for years.
>>>
>>> So after starting physics in university, and soon after my physics
>>> background got strengthened a bit, I naturally began reading it at last.
>>> I don't remember much, but the impression that the book had made on me
>>> was that it was like a long story but in physics concepts, spoken to the
>>> reader in a friendly manner, which was a great relief compared to how
>>> physics was covered in the university - our physics texts in the
>>> university were mostly translations of French physics books which were
>>> all quite rigorous and formal and presented in somewhat sadistic ways
>>> for students who were being exposed to them for the first time. The
>>> French usually first treat everything rigorously, and only then may do
>>> the explanations. It is not so in the United States, and thanks god for
>>> that!
>>>
>>> That's the only expression of the Born's book that I still remember.
>>> Gamow books were a bit too informal and for a wider audience. We had
>>> begun reading them in high school.
>>>
>>> Anyway, when you referred to it, it took me a quite a few seconds to
>>> realize and remember all that about it and make sure the book was the
>>> same thing we had back then in the house :-) Still don't know who bought
>>> it. Both my brothers are still alive, I can ask them that; they may
>>> remember.
>>>
>>> Hehe :) I read that before even you were in existence :)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Same words / different lens
>>
>>
>> A lot of it is about his consideration and for Born what was
>> a sort of dread of the continuous, as that being too rigid
>> to make for chance, that then his shaky sort of lens made
>> all the chance, or opportunity and possibility, that mostly
>> he was about being able to make branches, instead of addressing
>> the issue of why the origin's everywhere/anywhere/everywhere,
>> that chance and uncertainty are constantly being created and
>> destroyed, and otherwise his straight-and-narrow sort of
>> linear narrative yet couched in the language of quantum
>> mechanics, has he was missing out on a continuum mechanics,
>> and things like the Zollfrei, and Poincare plane, as
>> with regards to what later and further is about the continuous
>> manifold, yet pretty about that mathematics _owes_ physics
>> more and better mathematics about continuity and infinity.
>>
>>
>> Then, Born rule and then the Copenhagen conference and that,
>> arriving at a probabilistic explanation instead of things
>> like Bohm and de Broglie and super-classical models of real
>> wave mechanics, with probabilistic observables, has that
>> pretty much for Bohm and de Broglie is the real wave collapse
>> to fill the particle conceit, then that functional freedom
>> is sort of like for a model of Dirac/Einstein's positron/white-hole
>> sea, i.e. like Zollfrei metri, i.e. like Poincare's rough plane,
>> i.e. like super-string theory.
>>
>> I.e., continuum mechanics. (Super-classical, super-standard.)
>>
>>
>> Born ends "The Restless Universe" with something like "under
>> our observables, the universe quivers", yet, on the one hand
>> it's full of potential, on the other, not a theory of potentials.
>>
>> So, a potentialistic theory with things like Bohmian mechanics
>> is considered a wider world though that Born rule is what it is.
>>
>>
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, different lens, and of course I couldn't detect any personal touch 
> Born had made in that book. I may not do that even if I read it now 
> cause the lens is the same lens.
> 
> I just looked the book up (the English version) and remembered that it 
> was full of images and interesting drawings, etc, probably what made it 
> to our house in the first place. With that title, and such strange, 
> amusing images inside, my artist brother _would_ fall for it. You know, 
> kind of like Hofstadter's Gödel, Escher, Bach way of making the book 
> sell to a large audience.
> 
> It was sweet to read.
> 
> In Tehran University, physics dept, it was common knowledge that Sears 
> Zemansky was like a "sweet story" compared to our horrible, almost 
> sadistic texts. Hehe :)
> 
> That was not exaggeration! We did read SZ from begin to end like a sweet 
> story. Too bad it was not our course text. We weren't that blessed. I 
> don't know the evolution of Sears Zemansky and what it has turned into, 
> in these days.
> 
> The French physics culture of "rigor first, explanations next" cost them 
> the DNA discovery, by the way. Rosalind Franklin was French educated. So 
> Watson won the game while being well behind her. It's too old; it's not 
> the best way to neither learn concepts, nor to do R&D with. Common sense 
> always goes a long way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 


Unix operating system was created because Thompson wanted to write a 
better Chess computer program.. It was not something ordained from above 
like inside IBM. Common sense always wins against rigor.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#892167

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > Stephen Hawking once asked:
> >
> > Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?
> >
> > If Stephen Hawking would like an answer
> > to that question, has he ever consider
> > asking a woman that question?
> >
> > I don't mean a woman scientist..
> >
> > i mean, just any woman.
> >
> > Where did Stephen Hawking get the idea he is
> > entitled to know the answer?
> >
> > Is he Moses?
> 
> I was under the impression that Stephen Hawking  was an atheist.
> 
> But he refers to the universe as a person, a being, a self that feels
> "bother"..
> 
> Why is Stephen Hawking soooo bothered by a bothered universe?
> 
> Mother Nature?
> 
> Is something bothering her?
> 
> Yous science guys make no sense...
> 


It appears that both Einstein and Hawking are using Philosphy (bother)
to try
to understand the universe...

and that the universe is some hot and bothered irrational woman.


Yous science people are certaintly not going to get the answers by being
...rational.


put on a dress, some lipstick and walk the streets at night.


leave your panties home.









-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, 
and challenge the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#892168

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > Stephen Hawking once asked:
> > >
> > > Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?
> > >
> > > If Stephen Hawking would like an answer
> > > to that question, has he ever consider
> > > asking a woman that question?
> > >
> > > I don't mean a woman scientist..
> > >
> > > i mean, just any woman.
> > >
> > > Where did Stephen Hawking get the idea he is
> > > entitled to know the answer?
> > >
> > > Is he Moses?
> >
> > I was under the impression that Stephen Hawking  was an atheist.
> >
> > But he refers to the universe as a person, a being, a self that feels
> > "bother"..
> >
> > Why is Stephen Hawking soooo bothered by a bothered universe?
> >
> > Mother Nature?
> >
> > Is something bothering her?
> >
> > Yous science guys make no sense...
> >
> 
> It appears that both Einstein and Hawking are using Philosphy (bother)
> to try
> to understand the universe...
> 
> and that the universe is some hot and bothered irrational woman.
> 
> Yous science people are certaintly not going to get the answers by being
> ...rational.
> 
> put on a dress, some lipstick and walk the streets at night.
> 
> leave your panties home.

If you want to know what the black hole and the big bang is all about...leave your panties at home!










-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, 
and challenge the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#892291

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Stephen Hawking once asked:
> > > >
> > > > Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?
> > > >
> > > > If Stephen Hawking would like an answer
> > > > to that question, has he ever consider
> > > > asking a woman that question?
> > > >
> > > > I don't mean a woman scientist..
> > > >
> > > > i mean, just any woman.
> > > >
> > > > Where did Stephen Hawking get the idea he is
> > > > entitled to know the answer?
> > > >
> > > > Is he Moses?
> > >
> > > I was under the impression that Stephen Hawking  was an atheist.
> > >
> > > But he refers to the universe as a person, a being, a self that feels
> > > "bother"..
> > >
> > > Why is Stephen Hawking soooo bothered by a bothered universe?
> > >
> > > Mother Nature?
> > >
> > > Is something bothering her?
> > >
> > > Yous science guys make no sense...
> > >
> >
> > It appears that both Einstein and Hawking are using Philosophy (bother)
> > to try
> > to understand the universe...
> >
> > and that the universe is some hot and bothered irrational woman.
> >
> > Yous science people are certaintly not going to get the answers by being
> > ...rational.
> >
> > put on a dress, some lipstick and walk the streets at night.

Okay, I see yous people have not clue (including Stephen Hawking)...

Stephen Hawking is searching for a 'rational' answer...

Clue number one: The universe isn't 'bothered'..

the reason Why numbers don't exist is because the universe is neither ratioanl or irrational.

Imaginay numbers.


Logic gots nothing to do with it.

The Universe 'simply' is ...unaware.

So, the universe is not 'bothered'.


It has absolutely has no awareness you are here.


And, (ask the math girls) there are no real numbers in a universe that is neither rational nor irrational.



Look up there in the universe, (my gawd it's filled with rocks!) you see a lot of 'rocks'..

rocks are neither rational nor irrational...

they are not even ...bothered at all.


Why does the rock go to all the bother of existing? Answer: No bother at all. It's just...there.















-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, 
and challenge the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#892335

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Stephen Hawking once asked:
> > > > >
> > > > > Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?
> > > > >
> > > > > If Stephen Hawking would like an answer
> > > > > to that question, has he ever consider
> > > > > asking a woman that question?
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't mean a woman scientist..
> > > > >
> > > > > i mean, just any woman.
> > > > >
> > > > > Where did Stephen Hawking get the idea he is
> > > > > entitled to know the answer?
> > > > >
> > > > > Is he Moses?
> > > >
> > > > I was under the impression that Stephen Hawking  was an atheist.
> > > >
> > > > But he refers to the universe as a person, a being, a self that feels
> > > > "bother"..
> > > >
> > > > Why is Stephen Hawking soooo bothered by a bothered universe?
> > > >
> > > > Mother Nature?
> > > >
> > > > Is something bothering her?
> > > >
> > > > Yous science guys make no sense...
> > > >
> > >
> > > It appears that both Einstein and Hawking are using Philosophy (bother)
> > > to try
> > > to understand the universe...
> > >
> > > and that the universe is some hot and bothered irrational woman.
> > >
> > > Yous science people are certaintly not going to get the answers by being
> > > ...rational.
> > >
> > > put on a dress, some lipstick and walk the streets at night.
> 
> Okay, I see yous people have not clue (including Stephen Hawking)...
> 
> Stephen Hawking is searching for a 'rational' answer...
> 
> Clue number one: The universe isn't 'bothered'..
> 
> the reason Why numbers don't exist is because the universe is neither ratioanl or irrational.
> 
> Imaginay numbers.
> 
> Logic gots nothing to do with it.
> 
> The Universe 'simply' is ...unaware.
> 
> So, the universe is not 'bothered'.
> 
> It has absolutely has no awareness you are here.
> 
> And, (ask the math girls) there are no real numbers in a universe that is neither rational nor irrational.
> 
> Look up there in the universe, (my gawd it's filled with rocks!) you see a lot of 'rocks'..
> 
> rocks are neither rational nor irrational...
> 
> they are not even ...bothered at all.
> 
> Why does the rock go to all the bother of existing? Answer: No bother at all. It's just...there.

In a nutshell

there are no real numbers
there are no laws of physics
there are no flying saucers
from other space
there is no life on other
planets in the universe..
there is no God
or anything with
any awareness at all.

It's just...You here.



Now, get off my fucking planet!

That's right! 

MY  Fucking   Planet!


Tell Musk to build you a fucking rocket to Mars and get the fuck out-of-here!!!!

I don't care where you go just get off my fucking planet now!


Go to one of those Red planets.







-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, 
and challenge the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#892353

On Sun, 13 Apr 2025 12:17:22 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>The Starmaker wrote:
>> 
>> The Starmaker wrote:
>> >
>> > The Starmaker wrote:
>> > >
>> > > The Starmaker wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > The Starmaker wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Stephen Hawking once asked:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?
>> > > > >
>> > > > > If Stephen Hawking would like an answer
>> > > > > to that question, has he ever consider
>> > > > > asking a woman that question?
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I don't mean a woman scientist..
>> > > > >
>> > > > > i mean, just any woman.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Where did Stephen Hawking get the idea he is
>> > > > > entitled to know the answer?
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Is he Moses?
>> > > >
>> > > > I was under the impression that Stephen Hawking  was an atheist.
>> > > >
>> > > > But he refers to the universe as a person, a being, a self that feels
>> > > > "bother"..
>> > > >
>> > > > Why is Stephen Hawking soooo bothered by a bothered universe?
>> > > >
>> > > > Mother Nature?
>> > > >
>> > > > Is something bothering her?
>> > > >
>> > > > Yous science guys make no sense...
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > It appears that both Einstein and Hawking are using Philosophy (bother)
>> > > to try
>> > > to understand the universe...
>> > >
>> > > and that the universe is some hot and bothered irrational woman.
>> > >
>> > > Yous science people are certaintly not going to get the answers by being
>> > > ...rational.
>> > >
>> > > put on a dress, some lipstick and walk the streets at night.
>> 
>> Okay, I see yous people have not clue (including Stephen Hawking)...
>> 
>> Stephen Hawking is searching for a 'rational' answer...
>> 
>> Clue number one: The universe isn't 'bothered'..
>> 
>> the reason Why numbers don't exist is because the universe is neither ratioanl or irrational.
>> 
>> Imaginay numbers.
>> 
>> Logic gots nothing to do with it.
>> 
>> The Universe 'simply' is ...unaware.
>> 
>> So, the universe is not 'bothered'.
>> 
>> It has absolutely has no awareness you are here.
>> 
>> And, (ask the math girls) there are no real numbers in a universe that is neither rational nor irrational.
>> 
>> Look up there in the universe, (my gawd it's filled with rocks!) you see a lot of 'rocks'..
>> 
>> rocks are neither rational nor irrational...
>> 
>> they are not even ...bothered at all.
>> 
>> Why does the rock go to all the bother of existing? Answer: No bother at all. It's just...there.
>
>In a nutshell
>
>there are no real numbers
>there are no laws of physics
>there are no flying saucers
>from other space
>there is no life on other
>planets in the universe..
>there is no God
>or anything with
>any awareness at all.
>
>It's just...You here.

Nobody knows you're here.

You don't know what are you doing here?

You don't know what's going on here?

You don't even know who you are anyway?

You don't know Where you are?

You don't know What you are?

You don't know Who you are?

None of yous knows who you are.

Yous have  no memory.

No knowledge of what went before.

No understanding of what is now.

No knowledge of what will be.

How long you we be here?

You are  all insane.

I want everybody out...Now!

Now, get off my fucking planet!

That's right! 

MY  Fucking   Planet!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#892476

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> On Sun, 13 Apr 2025 12:17:22 -0700, The Starmaker
> <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> 
> >The Starmaker wrote:
> >>
> >> The Starmaker wrote:
> >> >
> >> > The Starmaker wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > The Starmaker wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > The Starmaker wrote:
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Stephen Hawking once asked:
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > If Stephen Hawking would like an answer
> >> > > > > to that question, has he ever consider
> >> > > > > asking a woman that question?
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > I don't mean a woman scientist..
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > i mean, just any woman.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Where did Stephen Hawking get the idea he is
> >> > > > > entitled to know the answer?
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Is he Moses?
> >> > > >
> >> > > > I was under the impression that Stephen Hawking  was an atheist.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > But he refers to the universe as a person, a being, a self that feels
> >> > > > "bother"..
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Why is Stephen Hawking soooo bothered by a bothered universe?
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Mother Nature?
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Is something bothering her?
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Yous science guys make no sense...
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> > > It appears that both Einstein and Hawking are using Philosophy (bother)
> >> > > to try
> >> > > to understand the universe...
> >> > >
> >> > > and that the universe is some hot and bothered irrational woman.
> >> > >
> >> > > Yous science people are certaintly not going to get the answers by being
> >> > > ...rational.
> >> > >
> >> > > put on a dress, some lipstick and walk the streets at night.
> >>
> >> Okay, I see yous people have not clue (including Stephen Hawking)...
> >>
> >> Stephen Hawking is searching for a 'rational' answer...
> >>
> >> Clue number one: The universe isn't 'bothered'..
> >>
> >> the reason Why numbers don't exist is because the universe is neither ratioanl or irrational.
> >>
> >> Imaginay numbers.
> >>
> >> Logic gots nothing to do with it.
> >>
> >> The Universe 'simply' is ...unaware.
> >>
> >> So, the universe is not 'bothered'.
> >>
> >> It has absolutely has no awareness you are here.
> >>
> >> And, (ask the math girls) there are no real numbers in a universe that is neither rational nor irrational.
> >>
> >> Look up there in the universe, (my gawd it's filled with rocks!) you see a lot of 'rocks'..
> >>
> >> rocks are neither rational nor irrational...
> >>
> >> they are not even ...bothered at all.
> >>
> >> Why does the rock go to all the bother of existing? Answer: No bother at all. It's just...there.
> >
> >In a nutshell
> >
> >there are no real numbers
> >there are no laws of physics
> >there are no flying saucers
> >from other space
> >there is no life on other
> >planets in the universe..
> >there is no God
> >or anything with
> >any awareness at all.
> >
> >It's just...You here.
> 
> Nobody knows you're here.
> 
> You don't know what are you doing here?
> 
> You don't know what's going on here?
> 
> You don't even know who you are anyway?
> 
> You don't know Where you are?
> 
> You don't know What you are?
> 
> You don't know Who you are?
> 
> None of yous knows who you are.
> 
> Yous have  no memory.
> 
> No knowledge of what went before.
> 
> No understanding of what is now.
> 
> No knowledge of what will be.
> 
> How long you we be here?
> 
> You are  all insane.
> 
> I want everybody out...Now!
> 
> Now, get off my fucking planet!
> 
> That's right!
> 
> MY  Fucking   Planet!

I heard that scientists want to kill everyone on earth and
start all over again...but they don't know what to do with all the dead
bodies.






-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, 
and challenge the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#892178

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > Stephen Hawking once asked:
> > >
> > > Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?
> > >
> > > If Stephen Hawking would like an answer
> > > to that question, has he ever consider
> > > asking a woman that question?
> > >
> > > I don't mean a woman scientist..
> > >
> > > i mean, just any woman.
> > >
> > > Where did Stephen Hawking get the idea he is
> > > entitled to know the answer?
> > >
> > > Is he Moses?
> >
> > I was under the impression that Stephen Hawking  was an atheist.
> >
> > But he refers to the universe as a person, a being, a self that feels
> > "bother"..
> >
> > Why is Stephen Hawking soooo bothered by a bothered universe?
> >
> > Mother Nature?
> >
> > Is something bothering her?
> >
> > Yous science guys make no sense...
> >
> 
> It appears that both Einstein and Hawking are using Philosphy (bother)
> to try
> to understand the universe...
> 
> and that the universe is some hot and bothered irrational woman.
> 
> Yous science people are certaintly not going to get the answers by being
> ...rational.


I mean, I observe the Earth and it doesn't appear rational to me....


doesn't that ...bother...you?


Using rational means in a irrational world sounds STUPID to me.


Luckly, only a small percentage of the people on earth are rational.

There is NO scientific basis for a rational world...

but there is a scientific basis for a irratioan; world.


Don't let that bother you.



-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, 
and challenge the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web