The most powerful woman in the world...
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Impossible For CO2 to Heat Oceans
Next: Existence of Preferred Frame: 2nd Australian Experiment confirms Cahill
From: mmeron on 13 Sep 2006 15:26 In article <Pine.WNT.4.64.0609140509010.1256(a)serene.st>, "Timo A. Nieminen" <timo(a)physics.uq.edu.au> writes: >On Wed, 13 Sep 2006, hanson wrote: > >> <mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote: >>> "tadchem" <tadchem(a)comcast.net> writes: >>>> >>>> The greatest weakness of democracy is that the people who end up >>>> getting the leadership jobs are the people who *want* those jobs, and >>>> megalomaniacs who are crazy enough to want such a job are precisely the >>>> people who *shouldn't* have them. >>>> >>> "Anybody who is willing to put up with what it takes to become the >>> Presisdent of the United States should be disqualified on grounds of >>> insanity". From Mark Twain. >>> >> That is valid everywhere, anytime, not just here. One of the sad >> upshots is unfortunately that the insanity of/in these megalomaniacs >> has never prevented them to regard the world as their personal >> domain/ball game/playground/money machine etc, wherein their >> populations are merely tools for their personal quirks or ambitions. >> == Fundamental question: Is there a better social system? Any? > >Churchill said it well in Parliament almost 60 years ago: "Many forms of >Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and >woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has >been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those >other forms that have been tried from time to time." > Yes, exactly. For all its follies (which are not unique to it, since they are present in any possible system of government), democracy at least provides corrective mechanisms (which are mostly absent in other systems). And, it is just, in the sense of "by and large people get the government they deserve". As to whether this bit is a bug or a feature, opinions are divided I guess:-) Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool, meron(a)cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
From: hanson on 13 Sep 2006 15:58 "Timo A. Nieminen" <timo(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote in message news:Pine.WNT.4.64.0609140509010.1256(a)serene.st... > "tadchem" <tadchem(a)comcast.net> writes: >>>> The greatest weakness of democracy is that the people who end up >>>> getting the leadership jobs are the people who *want* those jobs, and >>>> megalomaniacs who are crazy enough to want such a job are precisely the >>>> people who *shouldn't* have them. >>>> mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote: >>> "Anybody who is willing to put up with what it takes to become the >>> Presisdent of the United States should be disqualified on grounds of >>> insanity". From Mark Twain. >>> hanson wrote: >> That is valid everywhere, anytime, not just here. One of the sad >> upshots is unfortunately that the insanity of/in these megalomaniacs >> has never prevented them to regard the world as their personal >> domain/ball game/playground/money machine etc, wherein their >> populations are merely tools for their personal quirks or ambitions. >> == Fundamental question: Is there a better social system? Any? > [ Timo] > Churchill said it well in Parliament almost 60 years ago: "Many forms of > Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and > woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has > been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those > other forms that have been tried from time to time." > [Mati] Yes, exactly. For all its follies (which are not unique to it, since they are present in any possible system of government), democracy at least provides corrective mechanisms (which are mostly absent in other systems). And, it is just, in the sense of "by and large people get the government they deserve". As to whether this bit is a bug or a feature, opinions are divided I guess:-) > [hanson] .... ahahaha.. but both you guys skirt the issue with/by handwaving the same official platitudes in different words. Let me rephrase my issue: "Is there, philosophically, a better social system possible then the ones we have now?" All systems that have been tried so far, including the 3 criminal sociopathies which Abe, the Arab introduced some 6 KY ago, nor the recent worker's paradise, nor the Kibbutz gigs, when used as forms of government have failed. Granted, it is not easy to even imagine a new social structure when evolution has been at it ever since the blue green Algae hunkered together in their pods... But, does that mean that we have throw in the towel? Granted again, the hormone game within the individual has pretty much locked up the game. -- But that is chemistry... How about investigating the issue purely from the physics of the mechanics of/in social/group engineering? ..... ahahaha... Have at it, guys... ahahaha... ahahanson ..
From: Timo A. Nieminen on 13 Sep 2006 16:29 On Wed, 13 Sep 2006, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: >> >> And, the belief that scientific training translates to "requiring all >> the details" is quite false. [cut] >> On the contrary, it is a matter of >> recognizing which details matter and which can be ignored. > > Sure. [here comes the but ;-)] Don't you have to look at > all the details before you can ignore them? This takes time. Yes, it takes time, but often very little time. To look at the details of the details is what takes lots of time. In my when-I-had-more-time chess-playing days, perhaps the deepest (ie the most moves) combination I ever played was 7 moves deep (ie 7 moves each, and that's what I analysed). I usually find that about 3.5 moves, given 3 or so plausible moves each player each time (already a severe pruning of details that can be ignored) is about as far as is practical. Oddly, this 7 move combination - which was a queen sacrifice, so I felt I should make sure it was productive - was in a 10 minute game (ie we each have 10 minutes on our clocks). This was only possible because the main line was very straight-line - if my opponent took the queen, the best move was very obvious for about those 7 moves - no branching. Again, this is pruning of details. The biggest pruning was not looking in detail at the possibilities if my opponent didn't take the queen. At first glance, it didn't look like it would be a bad position, and given the psychological element that my opponent would think it a blunder on my part, and was skilled and experienced enough to be likely to see the possibility of a queen capture, it just wasn't worth the time to analyse in detail - this was rejected in seconds, as it needs to be in a 10 minute game. This is the paradox of science. Some attention to detail is required. New advances arise from anomalies. Too much attention to detail means that nothing gets done. This is just a reprise of the ultraviolet paradox! There must be some cut-off point beyond which it doesn't matter, else approximately all effort is wasted on details that don't matter. -- Timo Nieminen - Home page: http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/ E-prints: http://eprint.uq.edu.au/view/person/Nieminen,_Timo_A..html Shrine to Spirits: http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html
From: Edward Green on 13 Sep 2006 23:21 hanson wrote: > [hanson] > ... ahahaha.. but both you guys skirt the issue with/by handwaving > the same official platitudes in different words. Let me rephrase > my issue: "Is there, philosophically, a better social system possible > then the ones we have now?" All systems that have been tried > so far, including the 3 criminal sociopathies which Abe, the Arab > introduced some 6 KY ago, nor the recent worker's paradise, nor > the Kibbutz gigs, when used as forms of government have failed. > Granted, it is not easy to even imagine a new social structure > when evolution has been at it ever since the blue green Algae > hunkered together in their pods... But, does that mean that we > have throw in the towel? Granted again, the hormone game within > the individual has pretty much locked up the game. -- But that is > chemistry... How about investigating the issue purely from the > physics of the mechanics of/in social/group engineering? > .... ahahaha... Have at it, guys... ahahaha... ahahanson To evaluate "better" we need an objective function.
From: hanson on 14 Sep 2006 00:50
"Edward Green" <spamspamspam3(a)netzero.com> wrote in message news:1158204074.892968.226720(a)i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... >> [hanson] >> ... ahahaha.. but both you guys skirt the issue with/by handwaving >> the same official platitudes in different words. Let me rephrase >> my issue: "Is there, philosophically, a better social system possible >> then the ones we have now?" All systems that have been tried >> so far, including the 3 criminal sociopathies which Abe, the Arab >> introduced some 6 KY ago, nor the recent worker's paradise, nor >> the Kibbutz gigs, when used as forms of government have failed. >> Granted, it is not easy to even imagine a new social structure >> when evolution has been at it ever since the blue green Algae >> hunkered together in their pods... But, does that mean that we >> have throw in the towel? Granted again, the hormone game within >> the individual has pretty much locked up the game. -- But that is >> chemistry... How about investigating the issue purely from the >> physics of the mechanics of/in social/group engineering? >> .... ahahaha... Have at it, guys... ahahaha... ahahanson > [Ed] > To evaluate "better" we need an objective function. > [hanson] See, perceive, imagine, and/or dream one up and start the ball rolling...objectively or subjectively... ahahaha... I don't have the answers. I am here for fun!... Take care, Ed. ahahaha... ahahanson |