BaalChatzaf

Members
  • Content count

    16,005
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About BaalChatzaf

  • Rank
    $$$$$$
  • Birthday 08/24/1936

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Currently residing in New Jersey, the Bad-a-Bing State.
  • Interests
    mathematics, physics, alternative energy sources.

    I am also involved in preparing recorded books for blind and dyslexic folks.

Previous Fields

  • Full Name
    Robert J. Kolker
  • Description
    I am retired, but far from inactive. A day without a twenty mile bicycle ride is a day without joy.
  • Favorite Music, Artworks, Movies, Shows, etc.
    Music: Mozart, Bethoven. Movie: Casablanca. Favorite Philsopher: David Hume
  • Looking or Not Looking
    not looking

Recent Profile Visitors

27,241 profile views
  1. regardless of political and philosophical labeling the underlying reality is a mix of market economics, welfare (i.e. redistribution), subsidies and regulation. This is the prevailing model of all of the present industrial economies with perhaps the exception of North Korea and the family run and owned islamic states. If look at this situation with a Darwinian view, it would appear that the mixed economy is the model that survived. Even the one time very collectivist Chinese system has modified its operation to conform with the mixed-economy model. What works survives. What does not work fades or perishes.
  2. religion, philosophy, science

    Actually rules of behavior do correlate (empirically) with the human organism to the extent that they sometimes reduce the occurrence of violence and force in communities and sometimes promote mutual aid and defense. These are empirical observations But at no time do any benefits from rules for reciprocal behavior follow logically or mathematically from the physical laws (insofar as we know them). In short, there are happenstantial benefits which sometimes result from the conventional laws of morality. However no logically necessary connection has been established between observance of moral constraints and benefits to our biological organisms. In short one cannot mathematically and logically derive Ought and Should from physical law. The path from Is to Ought is empirical and happenstantial. There is no mathematically or logically necessary connection. I am perfectly content to use good old common sense and follow empirically derived procedures which have in the past produced benefits for me. Furthermore I will continue to do so as long is it works to my benefit. Why not use something that works? But does it ALWAYS work? Can something other than these moral constraints also produce benefits?
  3. religion, philosophy, science

    I argue from the back to front in one direction. The point I am making is that the physical laws of nature insofar as we know them has no moral or ethical content.
  4. A physics PhD student using off the shelf equipment photographs a strontium atom! Have a look here: https://www.livescience.com/61763-single-atom-ion-trap-photo.html?utm_source=notification
  5. religion, philosophy, science

    Don't hold your breath waiting for morality to follow from physical law. If you do you will burn blue and faint. There are two elements of faith (a very reasonable kind of faith) that are embedded in science -- 1. The external world we perceive and use as the raw feed stock of science is really real, and not the result of an hallucination and 2. the laws of physics we derive from a combination of experience and reason are uniform in space and time. If we did not assume 2, then we could not use astronomical observation to verify that or or lead to local hypothesis we consider to be true. Every astronomical observation is a view of the past because light has a finite speed of propagation and a view of things far, far away from us, sometimes (as Carl Sagan might have said) billyuns and billyuns of light years away and before now.
  6. religion, philosophy, science

    Deduce from physical law a moral principle of you choice. Let us see how well you do.
  7. religion, philosophy, science

    You got my "joke". Thank you, sir. I was asserting that morality, qua morality, has no scientific or mathematical import. There are no moral facts. The laws of nature has no moral content. Morality is a human artifact from start to finish, from top to bottom. One could find moral "aspects" in the way science is practiced. For example emphasis on factual truth, openness in the way one reaches conclusions. Science when properly practices has virtues and aspects resembling morally admirable qualities.
  8. religion, philosophy, science

    Here is what could be published in a scientific journal --" A neurophysiological hypothesis explaining why people believe murder is morally wrong ".
  9. Psychological Needs & the torture rack of specialization?

    That instance was offered as an example of a more general point.
  10. Aristotle's wheel paradox

    nasty, nasty. But a very sophisticated insult. Well done.
  11. What if living is too painful to make it worth it?

    That would vary from person to person.
  12. Objectivism and Artificial Intelligence

    Believed when seen. I worked in the field of AI from 1960 to 1965. When I went on to do other things I became quite skeptical of the possibilities.
  13. Bohmian Mechanics. Pilot-wave theory

    Bohm's version of quantum theory makes the same predictions as does Bohr's version. Neither are quite correct. One must incorporate relativity to get the best predictions. For that we have quantum field theory.
  14. energy storage devices

    thank you for the heads up
  15. Should did not say "your are not allowed to film me" in the final and absolute sense. She said you are not allowed to film me until I am in public session. Which means until she functions publicly she has the right to privacy, just like all the non-government peasants have the right to privacy. Half quotes are just as likely to be false or misleading as outright lies.