Entropy

.

<he he. It did it again. Took your advice, Az. thanks. :)>

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AbdoRinbo
The surgeon was his mother.

---

*smiling and horribly disappointed at being unable to stump abdo* yes. You're just as astute as I thought you were. Two seconds, right? Ax, yes, your answer could have worked too. I like the idea that they weren't actually related, but that was a fault on my part-it was supposed to be a father and his son. I suppose it could be a stepdad too. But the point is to challenge the person's perception of gender roles; most people start thinking along the line of fathers when they come across it, and ignore the fact he must also have a mother. Abdo, do you intend on ever telling us the answer to your 'reading rainbow' riddle? Do tell.

Ax, I don't really see what earth years and gravitational acceleration have to do with the velocity of neutrinos (though I suppose it's all relative). ?:confused: My point about quantum is that they don't seem that sure of their theories because how sure can they be of their data? Well, I mean, you know, they have to change their theories to suit reality because it's a physical science, but then how sure are they of their perceptions of reality? *drifting off into unknown territory* One thing I meant to ask you about Heisenberg's uncertainty principle (As I understand it, the more precisely momentum is known, the less precisely position.) It's not just that they can't measure it accurately, it's that the particles can't possess the two characteristics. Why not? *feels like she's asking a dumb question, but hasn't studied quantum so wouldn't know anyway. Admitting own ignorance*

Abs, I think Ax was relating to physics when he said the sphere was not infinately divisible. Physicists probably wouldn't want that because then couldn't everything be made up of nothing? (since the infinitesmally small parts would tend to zero) Whilst it could be mathematically (wondering about physically?) broken up into an infinite number of parts (I think) and still take up finite space, the paradox was that it could do that and then be rebuilt into something with twice the volume, and the same density, which physically wouldn't work, and perhaps would only work mathematically if the sphere had infinite density (going by what Az said. not sure on this one, since I didn't fully get the theory to begin with). Anyway, by mass over volume, the only way density could hold is if it had infinite mass. Or so it would seem..... I think, anyway... but do you think something could have infinite mass?

So can someone explain russell's paradox to me? :confused:

.

Oh no..... those things? I thought it was math....Aren't you going to give the ans to your riddle?

.

ok, will SKIPPY PLEASE ans the riddle?

.

.

Abs, you gotta tell me the keyboard command for acute accents and accent graves. I want to be able to say *ss, at least. (but we're kinda getting off topic here.....)

.

Did you just call me an *sshole???!! As for keyboard commands, I definately remember simpler ones from when I did French. that requires waaaayy too much effort than I'm willing to put in.
*wondering when Az will post so we can get back on topic*

.

real mature.

.

Yeah. Ouch. Never heard those before. :rolleyes: :P

.

Sorry I've been gone girls (just reading something about Abdo using he instead of he/she, so there). I moved from California back to Ohio, and now am on a labtop mac. UGH! So ab, I skimmed your complaint about my glazed over explination. Since you can obviously read and type, go find the name of the theorem I gave you, go to www.google.com, and paste it in. Read.

Good riddle Faye. I should have gotten that, as I knew a kid with both a mother and father as medical doctors. Oh well, at least my sense of pride wont be completely destroyed, as (like you said) my answer COULD have been right. I just didn't know what kind of role you were challenging, I suppose. Ah well, enough excuses.

Oh, and I believe the answer to the riddle was the word "gry" which means 1/8 inch (or maybe .008 inch, haven't been paying attention recently). Don't know if this still works, since it might not be a word any more. Who defines what is and what isn't a word? Webster? Oxford? (in english, in these cases) is it just a common understanding? Do I not know? (no, I don't).

And here i've been wondering if you were in Color Crayons for the winter holidays or some such around the Rockies. Welcome back!!!

Yes, gry is correct...i answered it as such (1/8 inch that is); it is an "archaic" term, b.c.? b.b.c.?

Thanks az! Sadly I've just got this laptop to work with, rather than a desk top. So now I hit all the wrong keys when I type. It stinks. I suppose I'd better get used to it, though.

what does being "archaic" mean in this case? Is it still a word, just one we don't use or was it a word and isn't anymore?

Oh, and anyone who wants to ask more about mathematical theories, will still get answers, although don't expect me to go in depth on every detail. I'm not getting paid after all.

Hey! You didn't answer my question from earlier on quantum. :p I think archaic means that nobody uses it anymore. I don't suppose they can stop you, but then you might as well use whatever terms you like for things.

Anyway, back to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle!

Instead of "archaic" you could use "ancient" I think. Meaning very old.

This thing's floating to the bottom, so I'm picking it up, brushing it off, and writing some more stuff. I read this article about this professor at Yale who has this theory, that chances are, we are all fictional character's in some futuristic kid's computer game. Theory goes, in the future, computers and game characters will just keep getting more and more independent, until eventually they begin to think for themselves. The idea is that we could well be such characters, and what are the chances we are actually in the real world? I think it's all bulls*** personally, but worth sticking up here anyway.

But then, wouldn't the computer games be fictional as well?

There's one real world, in the theory, and millions of fake technological ones controlled by kids sitting at a desk somewhere playing a computer game. like i said, it's a stupid theory.

But by that logic, the 'real' world would be impossible to locate.

exactly. So you don't know if you're in the real world or the fake. Since there are millions of fakes, and only one real world, chances are ours is fake.

I wonder if the universe really IS beige.

should it be?

apparently.

I'm pretty sure it's black.

yeah you would say that. That's because you're inside the universe. [I assume]. The idea is, if you were outside the universe, with no other lights on, looking it, the combined light would be beige. -The universe would be beige from the outside.

BUT if you were outside the universe in daylight, it would be red, and outside the universe in indoors light, it would be blue.

so guys... I know I'm kinda jumping in here... but could someone define entropy for me?

Entropy is a measure of disorder, to put it simply. This can be by the number of different possible particle arrangements, or number of particles, etc. It's also connected to heat-more heat, more entropy, because a decrease in useful energy is an increase in entropy.... I'm pretty bad at explaining things... That's sort of it, around about.

If you're not in the universe, where are you??? outside. looking in on the universe?

They invented/are inventing a type of plastic that melts at 30'C. Somebody back me up on how STUPID that really is.

I read somewhere that we hiccup because we evolved from animals like lung fish. [check it out! I'm part lung fish!] And we kept the mechanism because it helps us know how to perform other tasks, like keeping food out of the windpipe. Interesting, huh? It's so cute how scientists just try to explain everything away.

Fool, the reason I like entropy is that it's why everything chemically occurs-eveything happens in order to increase entropy-more distorder.

there are some really good arguments out there against causality, faye. I went to a debate tournament at harvard when I was in high school and saw these two guys from some obscure university in kansas just rip into imperialism, metaphysics and science. what they said was that reality is always determined by culture . . . for example, we have weather forecasters who predict whether it will rain tomorrow or be sunny; indian tribes have a shaman who tries to coax the nature-gods into charity. now, if it doesn't rain, the forecaster might tell you that a warm front unexpectedly moved across the region and pushed the storm away from the city. he couldn't possibly have predicted that would happen ahead of time, it was just an honest mistake. now, if it doesn't rain after the shaman performs his ritual, then his answer is that an evil spirit hexed the whole thing. quite simply, his effort failed because of someone's bad karma, so the next step would be to find the force that is responsible, just as the weatherman did.

anyway, the lesson here is that the shaman rituals are always going to seem like bulls:hit to us westerners. we've inherited the greek way of viewing the world. we represent truth in the universe; we reside at the center (the polis). if you aren't at the center, you are a 'barbarian', which means everything you say is babble.

Every culture views itself as the center of the universe, the difference is that playing that role has different implications depending the culture.
Regarding the greek point of view, despite its many flaws, I think nobody embodied wisdom in the way those people did. The amount of things they've passed onto us is huge.

above all, eurocentrism.

most of their good ideas were stolen from the egyptians . . .

Not above all. They legacy is much richer than that, and you know it. And they didn't "stole most of their ideas from the egyptian". In fact, the only thing in common they have is a certain association between some of their gods, but that's all. But yes, I'll admit that eurocentrism is part of the deal. In fact, living in Europe (preferrably Scandinavia) is a recurring fantasy for me. But that doesn't mean I regard Europe as the epitome of perfection and morals. Every country (or group of countries) in a power trip wants to attract the attention of the others. In the case of the greeks, there are good reasons. Besides, seeing that we're a colonized continent, that was bound to happen.