Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Should God be replaced? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LLCF who wrote (23723)	5/29/2006 8:31:30 PM
From: 2MAR$	Respond to of 28931

Somehow I feel a science fiction novel coming on , where the main characters sit in a Pub, set in a Universe far away and long ago in a land called Dublinfinnegan ! ...where the intelligent beings all worshiped the universal Tri~Hadron~Quark ! Prolly could be a nice side source of income Dak ;-) quark1 (kwôrk, kwärk) n. Any of a group of six elementary particles having electric charges of a magnitude one-third or two-thirds that of the electron, regarded as constituents of all hadrons. [From Three quarks for Muster Mark!, a line in Finnegans Wake by James Joyce.] WORD HISTORY “Three quarks for Muster Mark!/Sure he hasn't got much of a bark/And sure any he has it's all beside the mark.” This passage from James Joyce's Finnegans Wake, part of a scurrilous 13-line poem directed against King Mark, the cuckolded husband in the Tristan legend, has left its mark on modern physics. The poem and the accompanying prose are packed with names of birds and words suggestive of birds, and the poem is a squawk against the king that suggests the cawing of a crow. The word quark comes from the standard English verb quark, meaning “to caw, croak,” and also from the dialectal verb quawk, meaning “to caw, screech like a bird.” It is easy to see why Joyce chose the word, but why should it have become the name for a group of hypothetical subatomic particles proposed as the fundamental units of matter? Murray Gell-Mann, the physicist who proposed this name for these particles, said in a private letter of June 27, 1978, to the editor of the Oxford English Dictionary that he had been influenced by Joyce's words: “The allusion to three quarks seemed perfect” (originally there were only three subatomic quarks). Gell-Mann, however, wanted to pronounce the word with (ô) not (ä), as Joyce seemed to indicate by rhyming words in the vicinity such as Mark. Gell-Mann got around that “by supposing that one ingredient of the line ‘Three quarks for Muster Mark’ was a cry of ‘Three quarts for Mister . . . ’ heard in H.C. Earwicker's pub,” a plausible suggestion given the complex punning in Joyce's novel. It seems appropriate that this perplexing and humorous novel should have supplied the term for particles that come in six “flavors” and three “colors.”

To: LLCF who wrote (23723)	6/4/2006 8:53:46 PM
From: Solon	Respond to of 28931

“From the beginning I've said it was a radical paradigm shift of understanding“ Whereas I likened it more to the continued progress of science and a change of perspective. Because the basic predictability changed very very little, one may consider it as a change in theory akin to using a different lens. Neither theory is Absolute Truth. Einstein's theory is slightly more predictive. They are both descriptive rather than explanatory. Of course, it has fueled a renewed interest in pseudoscience. I think we both agree on that…

To: LLCF who wrote (23723)	6/12/2006 11:39:12 AM
From: one_less	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 28931

” Here's a radical new idea:… I don’t see it as radical or particularly new, except that it is being promoted by Hippy Eastern Mystic Physicists (physicists being the innovative contribution), which should be expected from Eugenites. The idea of monistic idealism shifts the locus of the universe from the dual interpretation of mind and matter to a singular atom and conscience, the former being local the latter being ubiquitous. The theory elevates consciousness to the level of omnipresence. In so doing it attempts to nudge the lab cloak clerics into a broader dialogue. So, within this theory scientists may associate matter with meaningfulness. Meaning being an A Priori awareness giving rise to the study of matter. This theory also pushes a science of moral realism as foundational, with material expression ... rather than intelligencia and morality being a natural bi-product developed from or in association with material realism. The obvious problem encountered when pursuing such discourse is obtaining agreement in ethical semanticisms. You have to categorize rational realisms in a way that can be logically discussed. You must separate and juxtapose relative moral reality with absolute ideas. You also open the door to motive, expression, and determinism. If you invert the classical physicists explanation of the Universe, then it is founded upon conscious meaning applied to matter, ... and the other age old natural question arises… ‘So What?’ What purpose does human consciousness serve, if not to allow human will to liberate self from the grosser endeavors of human existence. Liberation is not a matter of defeating your opposition; it is a matter of locating common purpose that binds the good in all of us. The history of the world is one of liberating human beings from one form of powerful corruption to another. If you have something to lose, you are not free. "We're not here because we're free. We're here because we're not free. There is no escaping reason; no denying purpose. Because as we both know, without purpose, we would not exist. It is purpose that created us. Purpose that connects us. Purpose that pulls us. That guides us. That drives us. It is purpose that defines us. Purpose that binds us." (The Matrix Revolution 2003) You think your stuff is important. “For what if you gain the whole world but lose your very soul?” "We must be the change we wish to see in the world" (Mahatma Gandhi) It’s not who I am underneath… It’s what I can do that defines me. (Batman Begins, 2005) "The question isn't 'who is going to let me'; it's 'who is going to stop me'." - Ayn Rand, The Fountainhead Be the change Be the Reason… Best Regards, Gem