BaalChatzaf

The following SI metric prefixes have been proposed based on the names of the Marx Brothers: harpo- hr 1000^-9 10^-27 [1] Marx Bros. Harpo groucho- gc 1000^-10 10-^30 [1] Marx Bros. Groucho zeppo- zp 1000^-11 10^-33 [2] Marx Bros. Zeppo gummo- gm 1000^-12 10^-36 [2] Marx Bros. Gummo chico- ch 1000^-13 10^-39 [2] Marx Bros. Chico For example a Chicometer wold be 1000^-13 meters. See: http://www.chemtutor.com/prex.htm This sounds like there are people in the measurement naming community who have far too much idle time on their hands. Ba'al Chatzaf

Allow me to venture a guess why Rand stood away from Evolution Theory. The Theory of Evolution in its current state puts us in a continuum of descent from a common ancestor to the chimps and the bonbobos. The chimps and bonobos manifest behavior which not purely instinctual. This is not to say the chimps (for example) equal humans in linguistic ability or mental abstraction. But they do show conceptual ability at some level as is exhibit in certain problem solving scenarios. Think of the prehomonids portrayed in -2001: A Space Odessy-. The difference between the bone weapon and an orbiting space station is one of degree as was shown in the famous "toss the bone" seqway in the motion picture. Likewise, humans exhibit some "wired in" tropes and behavior modalities. See -The Blank Slate- by Steven Pinker for more on that. Rand, if I understand her correctly, insisted that man is the only advanced mammal -without- instincts. It just ain't so. It may be true that Man is not -ruled- by instinct, but we do have them and we occasionally overcome them with effort and training. If you grant Evolution, as it currently is, then Man differs from his cousins on the evolution tree sometimes only in degree and at other times by kind. We are not totally sundered from those species with whom we share 95+ percent of our genes. To put a point on it, I belief Rand did not like the theory of evolution for some of the same reasons that the religious folk of Britain had when they objected to Darwin's thesis. She did not believe Heroic Man was a Great Ape's cousin. Ba'al Chatzaf (Chutzpah Guy).

In a way, I was asking if the hypothetical questionee believed that the climate models are sound. I have grave doubts on that matter. As I have stated elsewhere we really do not have a well grounded theory of earth-climate. And for good reason. It is much more complicated than, say, field and particle physics and we are lacking a great deal of the data. In addition our data collection is biased by urban "heat islands" where most of the measuring stations are located. And to top it all off, the underlying processes, insofar as we comprehend them, are non-linear and chaotic. Compared to climate and weather, quantum field theory is a trivial exercise. I would be hesitant to base public policy and zillions of tax dollars on the conclusions from models which are incomplete and probably defective. In todays climate (sic!) this is a very un-PC attitude. That puts me at odds with (gasp!) The United Nations! Oh the horror, the horror! Ba'al Chatzaf (Lord of Chutzpah)

So it goes. Ba'al Chatzaf

Context! Jefferson was talking about the equality in basic rights: Life, Liberty and the Purfuit of Happineff. Ba'al Chafatz

Hume was simply being rhetorical. In fact he was a librarian at some period in his life, and he wrote -the- definitive book on English history (at that time). It was the first fully documented history of England. Our own Ben Franklin made arrangement to buy a set and to help fund Hume's historical efforts. So I seriously doubt that Hume was a genuine book burner. He considered only two classes of statement philosophically meaningful: 1. Statements about the relationships of ideas 2. Statements about fact and quantity (empirical statements). Anything else, he considered as nonsense, hence his rather rhetorically excessive quip. Whether you agree with Hume or not, just compare the clarity of his writing with the obscurity of Kant's writings. Hume wrote in order to be read with understanding. Ba'al Chafatz (Lord of Chutpah)

Here is a beauty spoken by our Rabbi at the last Purim Service: (Purim commemorates a failed genocide attempt in Persia 2300 years ago). They tried to kill us The failed Let's eat. Ba'al Chatzaf

Here are few I use: When we run over libraries, persuaded of these principles, what havoc must we make? If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: For it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion. David Hume Mongol General: Conan! What is best in life? Mongol Soldier: Swift horse, the wind in the face, the falcon upon the hand! Mongol General: Wrong. Conan! What is best? Conan: To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women. Mongol General: Yes. That is best. From the mouth of Conan the Barbarian as played by the Governator -- Arnoldt Schwartzernegger Persian to Spartans: Lay down your weapons? Spartan to Persian: Μολών Λαβέ (Come and get them!). Ba'al Chatzaf

As soon as your doctor clears you to do physical exercise, visit the gym thrice weekly (at least). When there do, but not overdo, gentle aerobics and some upper body work with the weights. Easy does it, but do it. A day without a twenty mile bike ride is a day without joy. Like today. It has been raining steadily all day here in the Bad-a-Bing State, New Jersey. Phoo! Ba'al Chatzaf

You don't even have to join a cult. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment Normal people can easily be turned into monsters. With a little trickery we can all get in touch with our Inner Nazi. Ba'al Chatzaf

Mortimer Adler, who created the Great Books program and breathed that perspective, was worth a dozen Peikoffs as an educator. I am dismayed that more haven't followed Adler's lead in a host of areas. Such as with his small but potent book Aristotle for Everybody. That got me interested in delving into Rand's idol as no other book ever could, including the one she recommended by John Herman Randall. Why haven't more Objectivists or sympathizers found the writing touch to do other such brief, accessible treatments of philosophers for the general public? Amen to that. Adler has presented Aristotle in the best light for those not familiar with Aristotle's works. I am not an Aristotle fan myself. I think the blunders he committed in his -Physics- and -On the Heavens- set back real science hundreds of years. In spite of this, Adler has given me an appreciation of just how broad The Philosopher's interests were. He was a smokin' Philosophy Machine and he left his mark on the ages for -both- good and ill. A true genius. Men like Adler have done yeoman service to making philosophy both interesting and relevant to the non-scholar. On balance, I think Adler has done a better job of promoting Aristotle's philosophical heritage than either Rand or Peikoff. Ba'al Chatzaf

Roger-You're about the third or fourth whose intelligence I respect that has recommended these two books. I have read "Darkness At Noon", but nothing else of Koestler's. Think I'll pick those up(which is the last thing I need, more books I have to read!, but I can't resist any excuse to purchase more books) Read -The Sleepwalkers- by Koestler. Embedded therein is the only (partial) English translation of Kepler's notebooks. Kepler is one of the few scientists who kept a stream of consciousness journal of his thinking when he did researches on planetary motion, included self deprecations for making mistakes (oh what a dummkofp, I am etc. etc.). So you not only get Kepler's final results (he fitted ellipses to the data points of Mars which Tycho Brahe's people recorded), but you get the intermediate steps, his false and mistaken tries at fitting the data. Kepler's results are not only the work of genius and inspiration, but of elbow grease and lots of calculations (Kepler did not have calculus as did Newton). Kepler sweated over the Mars ephemarus for eight solid years before he got a decent fit. Bob Kolker

I think a case for generosity can be made on the basis of a generalized trader principle. Let us assume your acts of uncalculated generosity do not put you to excessive trouble or place you at hazard. If you want someone to grant you an unpurchased and unrequited favor, it seems fair that you be willing to do and actually do the same sort of thing. If I expect someone to give me directions if I ask them (it isn't all that troublesome to the person being asked) I feel obliged to do the same if I am asked. In any case, acts of minor generosity promotes an ambiance of helpfulness that we can all benefit from. And it promotes a generally friendly and cordial attitude to boot. There is nothing wrong with cordial relations with one's fellow humans. Ba'al Chatzaf

Sometime hot makes cold. If global weather warming causes enough melting of the Canadian ice pack and Arctic polar ice, the salt concentration in the ocean region between the Gulf of Mexico and the Northern Canadian Maritime Provinces will be lowered. This could rapidly turn off the thermo-hallicene conveyor which means the Gulf Stream will go away. That means warm water from the Gulf will not be transported to Europe. England, Holland and the areas bordering the North Sea will cool off and these areas will have hard cold winters. Once again folks may be ice skating on the Thames and in the Dutch canals. It will be time for Hans Brinker to get his Silver Skates out of the closet. The interruption of the Gulf Stream could have some heavy effects on the El Nino. This could lead to drought and flooding. Alas, the mechanics of the El Nino is not completely understood so there will be more said about that by the experts when they learn more. Ba'al Chatzaf

Galileo's nickname was Wrangler. Apparently he was argumentative and pugnacious. He was also a smart-ass of magnitude 1. His portrayal of Pope Urban VII as Simplicio (an Aristotelean dumb-dumb) in G's famous -Dialogues on the Two World System- did not endear him to the upper management of the Church. In fact, his cheekiness put his arse in a meat grinder. Galileo was truly a ba'al chatzaf! Strangely enough, Mr. G's favorite argument for the rotation of the Earth was completely bogus. G had a theory of tides that was essentially the water sloshing in a moving tub model. G, in his correspondence with Kepler, chided Kepler in thinking that the Moon had something to do with tides. Galileo called such speculation -moonshine-! Well Kepler was right and Galileo was wrong. So even smart-ass cheeky geniuses can be wrong sometimes. What is even more strange is that Galileo discovered the very instrument with which he could -prove- the Earth rotates about its axis. It is none other than the pendulum. In 1851 Leon Focault displayed his namesake pendulum in Paris proving for damned sure that the earth rotates on its axis (not that anyone at that time doubted it). Galileo had the proof he needed in his hand, but his grasp of inertia was not sound enough for him to make the case. Ba'al Chatzaf

That is not correct. The electrons from the spin-up beam will remain spin-up if there are no other interactions, they are in a pure state, so in a second SG apparatus they'll generate only an up-beam. However, if the second SG magnet is oriented in a different direction (for example in the y direction if the first SG magnet was oriented in the z direction and x is the direction of the beam) you'll get again split beam, half of the electrons with spin in the y direction and half of the electrons with spin in the -y direction. Still strange enough for your purposes. Thank you for the correction. Two identical measurements done real quick before decoherance indeed will be the same. Still strange: Take an up electron out of the first S.G. magnet and put it through a right-left S.G. magnet. That same electron put through an up-down S.G. magnet again has a fifty fifty chance of coming out down. In short, the direction of our much abused electron is not determined by any property it came to possess and what ever its final outcome is , is by chance. No necessity there. So even in the world of the inanimate and insentient you have contingent and accidental events (which are facts). The general statement that facts are necessary has been shown to be false by counter example. If an outcome different from the outcome observed is still -possible- then the outcome is not necessary. In general terms necessary p => not possible not p. That is modal logic for you. And lest we think there are hidden determinants (know as "hidden variables"), the experiments showing the failure of the Bell Inequalities throws that supposition into doubt. Be that is it may, the last word has not been said. Ba'al Chatzaf

Asking for politely for particulars in response to a rather general unspecific assertion is hardly condescension. What it is, is a request for more data. Apparently you are disinclined to elaborate on your assertion. 'Tis a shame. So be it. Ba'al Chatzaf

Chavez is another Alliende. After he gets through running the Venezuelan economy into the ground either the U.S. or China will have to bail him out along with what is left of the oil production capacity of Venezuela. I am worried some that it will be the Chines. Ba'al Chatzaf

Which mathematics? There are purely formal system of mathematics that are devoid of empirical content and there are mathematical theories which were specifically formulated to deal with the dynamics of motion in the real world. For example; calculus and differential equations. Mathematics done rigorously involves proving theorems from postulates. That is deductive. But sometimes deduction is guided by intuition and real world examples and hints. That is inductive. LP's grasp of mathematics is rather limited. Ba'al Chatzaf

Lerner's book presents a rather bogus version of the Cosmos. He leans heavily on the work of Aalfens, but the verdict is pretty well in. The measurement of the Cosmic Background Radiation initiated by Wilson and Penzias in 1965 gives very heaving evidence in favor of the Big Bang. Apparently, according to the best available evidence, really did happen. Even Hoyle's theory is better grounded than Lerner's nonsense, and Hoyles theory turned out to be wrong. Ba'al Chatzaf

You are right. Newton derived his results using his newly invented calculus and differential equations, but his math was far too advanced for the readers of his time. So he translated the mathematical formulation to the more traditional Euclidean Geometric mode. In his time calculus was like the kind of mathematics used nowadays to express super string theory. Very few are sufficiently trained to follow it. Ironically, modern readers can handle the calculus based presentation, but are hard put to comprehend the older geometric approach. The central position of Euclidean Geometry in the mathematics curiculum has been denigrated and a watered down version is taught in American high schools. For a clear (but not easy) presentation of -Principia Mathematica- read the new translation edited by I. Bernard Cohen. The translation avoids some of the old fashioned locutions (in English) found in the Cajori translation. Really, who understands phrases like hemidemisubsesquintial ratios. (I exaggerate only slightly). Ba'al Chatzaf

Interesting. May I ask why? I assume you are not related to that hypothetical child. Do you have a dog in this hunt? If so, what is it? Would you react strongly (or even violently) simply because you disapprove? Why is your approval or disapproval substantive? Is it substantive? I would caution you as an apparently decent and reasonable fellow that appointing yourself guardian of interests that at not rightfully or factually yours and without invitation or permission leads you down a dangerous path: the Path of the Buttinsky. This is not to say that I don't understand your emotional charge. I really do. But emotions, per se, are not proper warrants for actions. Have a care, lest ye become dangerous to your fellow humans. Ba'al Chatzaf

Really? It is a fact that the United States consists of fifty States. Is that a necessary fact? Not at all. There was no law of nature compelling congress to admit Alaska and Hawaii as States. So the fact that the United States has fifty States is -contingent- on certain decisions having been made. Be careful now. You are on the verge of denying free will. Ba'al Chatzaf Ba'al, Welcome to OL. That either Alaska and Hawaii is a state (or at one time not) of the United States is not a "metaphysically given" fact, (which there is no alternative to) but rather a man-made fact. I take it that you are not too, too familiar with Rand's work, of else you would not have presented this type of challenge to me. :} -Victor First of all, I have read Ayn Rand (AS, TF, WTL) and I used to subscribe to -The Objectivist-., A Fact is Fact. A Fact is that which is. The distinction between metaphysically given facts and facts arising from choices (by man, beast or plant) is nugatory. Whatever is, is a fact however it came about. If it is facts independent of human choices then grok this. Shot an electron through a Stern Gerlach magnet. The electron will go up or down wrt. to the plane dividing the heads of the magnet. All electrons are alike being in a superposed quantum state for there spin. You have a fifty fifty chance of an up or down outcome. Now shoot a stream of up-electrons through another Stern Gerlach magnet. Lo and Behold! The stream splits again. Which way it comes out is not determined by any observable property of the electron. The same electron with spin up on one occasion will emerge spin down on another. Since no discernible factor determines the output I would say the output is happenstance. The odds on the outcome are fixed (50 - 50) by the symmetry of the electron spins but the particular outcomes are not determined, hence are accidental, happenstantial not necessary etc. etc. Yet another. How about your conception or mine or anyone's. Zillions of sperm racing to the egg (and which egg? I could have been one of many.). Which one gets there is a function of the when and the where of the ejaculation, not a matter of necessity. We are all accidents. So much of life is a horse-race. So much is accidental. So little is necessary. The facts are just what happen to be the case. Which is not to deny the existence of laws governing what facts may be. But these laws are constraints, not determinants. Many outcomes are possible, but not any old outcome. Ba'al Chatzaf.

Really? It is a fact that the United States consists of fifty States. Is that a necessary fact? Not at all. There was no law of nature compelling congress to admit Alaska and Hawaii as States. So the fact that the United States has fifty States is -contingent- on certain decisions having been made. Be careful now. You are on the verge of denying free will. Ba'al Chatzaf

Really? Do tell us what these ways are. Be very specific, if you please. No generalities, now. Just very specific ways of pulling the fangs out of the Iranian Mullahs. The Israelis may have had the right idea when they paid a visit to the French build reactor in Iraq back in 1981. These magnificent pilots of the IDF Air Force gave an entirely new meaning to the term: "surgical strike". Let us know how to make the Iranian Mullahs and politicians stop building A-bombs to kill the Jews and passing their nukes on to the Wahabites, without slaughtering the lot of them. Ba'al Chatzaf