Dictionary definitions
Locked
 
|
I apologize in advance for the didactic tone of what follows.
Yes, God IS speaking through me. The closer one gets to the dictionary-making enterprise, the less one is inclined to use a dictionary to codify anything. Dictionary makers are at pains to capture usage, and usage is nothing if not ephemeral. The kings english does not, in general, come from listening to the King ... or any other authority ... speak. When somebody says, "I think we ought to keep close to the defnition" they are making a claim for the immutability of language, which, of course, is a fairly silly claim. These sorts of arguments remind me of original intent arguments with respect to the supreme court. The argument is not, of course, whether we are going to change our understanding of the constitution but how swiftly we are going to change it. The argument about whether we are comfortable to have gay couples live amongst us in our communities like any other couples and the argument about whether to call these arrangements "marriages" is a sign of magical thinking. Now I grant you that magical thinking often WORKS, but it still is magical thinking. Think about the crisis in telephone land that occured when dials were replaced by keys. Or think about the strain in the language that has been produced by feminism and the grammatical construction "each .... {she/he/they)". Gloria Steinem suggested in the first issue of Ms Mag, that we introduce the neologism "ter" as a singular neuter possessive. "Each man/woman to ter own opinion." I wish we had done it. Because we didnt have the courage or discipline to do it, I still have to suffer, 40 years later, "Each man to their own opinion." "Their" has ceased to become a plural possive and become a singular neuter possesive. I can hate it all I like, but it is still contemporary usage. Once we fully accept gay couples into our communities, the language will just .... change. Ok. That's all He told me to say. Nick Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology, Clark University ([hidden email]) > [Original Message] > From: <[hidden email]> > To: <[hidden email]> > Date: 11/11/2008 10:00:22 AM > Subject: Friam Digest, Vol 65, Issue 13 > > Send Friam mailing list submissions to > [hidden email] > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > [hidden email] > > You can reach the person managing the list at > [hidden email] > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Friam digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: And speaking of levels of heaven (Owen Densmore) > 2. Re: And speaking of levels of heaven (Owen Densmore) > 3. Re: And speaking of levels of heaven (Douglas Roberts) > 4. Re: And speaking of levels of heaven (Scott R. Powell) > 5. Re: And speaking of levels of heaven (Owen Densmore) > 6. Re: And speaking of levels of heaven (Owen Densmore) > 7. Re: And speaking of levels of heaven (Douglas Roberts) > 8. Are your skills obsolete? (Tom Johnson) > 9. Scientists Turn Tequila into Diamonds (Jochen Fromm) > 10. Obama, Proposition 8 (peggy miller) > 11. Fewer "subscription required"s (Robert Holmes) > 12. Re: Obama, Proposition 8 (glen e. p. ropella) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 10:02:52 -0700 > From: Owen Densmore <[hidden email]> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] And speaking of levels of heaven > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > <[hidden email]> > Message-ID: <[hidden email]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes > > I'd love to do a cosmology read sometime. Is there a particularly > good book in the field that is reasonably formal yet not overwhelming? > > One question I've always had with cosmology and the time to the big > bang is that does not seem to be relativistic effects taken into > account the time extrapolation. Certainly its been done but not > mentioned in the popular books. > > -- Owen > > > On Nov 10, 2008, at 7:59 AM, Robert Holmes wrote: > > > Check out galaxyzoo.org - they need volunteers and you can carry out > > the > > work (categorizing galaxies) from the comfort of your sofa. And it's > > actual > > significant research that you'd be contributing to - they've already > > got the > > largest and most reliable galaxy catalogue, and it's all from > > volunteer > > efforts. > > Robert > > > > On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 12:01 AM, Douglas Roberts <[hidden email] > > >wrote: > > > >> Hi, Jack. > >> > >> If I had it to do all over again I would quite possibly work in the > >> field > >> of cosmology in one regard or another. I'm envious of those who do > >> work in > >> cosmology-related fields.. > >> > >> At last year's SuperComputing conference I had the privilege of > >> meeting > >> George Smoot, Noble prize winner for physics in 2006. A small > >> group of 5 of > >> us sat at the Berkeley booth one afternoon and he talked with us > >> about > >> cosmology for over an hour. > >> > >> --Doug > >> > >> > >> > >> > > ============================================================ > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 10:22:30 -0700 > From: Owen Densmore <[hidden email]> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] And speaking of levels of heaven > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > <[hidden email]> > Message-ID: <[hidden email]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes > > Oops -- I miss-edited -- should read: > One question I've always had with cosmology is that the time > calculated to the big bang (via backwards extrapolation) does not seem > to take relativistic effects into account. Certainly its been done > but not mentioned in the popular books. > > -- Owen > > > On Nov 10, 2008, at 10:02 AM, Owen Densmore wrote: > > > I'd love to do a cosmology read sometime. Is there a particularly > > good book in the field that is reasonably formal yet not overwhelming? > > > > One question I've always had with cosmology and the time to the big > > bang is that does not seem to be relativistic effects taken into > > account the time extrapolation. Certainly its been done but not > > mentioned in the popular books. > > > > -- Owen > > > > > > On Nov 10, 2008, at 7:59 AM, Robert Holmes wrote: > > > >> Check out galaxyzoo.org - they need volunteers and you can carry > >> out the > >> work (categorizing galaxies) from the comfort of your sofa. And > >> it's actual > >> significant research that you'd be contributing to - they've > >> already got the > >> largest and most reliable galaxy catalogue, and it's all from > >> volunteer > >> efforts. > >> Robert > >> > >> On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 12:01 AM, Douglas Roberts > >> >wrote: > >> > >>> Hi, Jack. > >>> > >>> If I had it to do all over again I would quite possibly work in > >>> the field > >>> of cosmology in one regard or another. I'm envious of those who > >>> do work in > >>> cosmology-related fields.. > >>> > >>> At last year's SuperComputing conference I had the privilege of > >>> meeting > >>> George Smoot, Noble prize winner for physics in 2006. A small > >>> group of 5 of > >>> us sat at the Berkeley booth one afternoon and he talked with us > >>> about > >>> cosmology for over an hour. > >>> > >>> --Doug > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> ============================================================ > >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > >> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > > > > > ============================================================ > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 10:46:14 -0700 > From: "Douglas Roberts" <[hidden email]> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] And speaking of levels of heaven > To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group" > <[hidden email]> > Message-ID: > <[hidden email]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > Owen, two suggestions: > > 1) Stephen Weinberg's "The First Three Minutes", and > 2) George Smoot's "Wrinkles in Time" > > --Doug > > On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 10:22 AM, Owen Densmore <[hidden email]> > > > Oops -- I miss-edited -- should read: > > One question I've always had with cosmology is that the time calculated to > > the big bang (via backwards extrapolation) does not seem to take > > relativistic effects into account. Certainly its been done but not > > mentioned in the popular books. > > > > -- Owen > > > > > > > > On Nov 10, 2008, at 10:02 AM, Owen Densmore wrote: > > > > I'd love to do a cosmology read sometime. Is there a particularly good > >> book in the field that is reasonably formal yet not overwhelming? > >> > >> One question I've always had with cosmology and the time to the big > >> is that does not seem to be relativistic effects taken into account the time > >> extrapolation. Certainly its been done but not mentioned in the popular > >> books. > >> > >> -- Owen > >> > >> > >> On Nov 10, 2008, at 7:59 AM, Robert Holmes wrote: > >> > >> Check out galaxyzoo.org - they need volunteers and you can carry out the > >>> work (categorizing galaxies) from the comfort of your sofa. And it's > >>> actual > >>> significant research that you'd be contributing to - they've already got > >>> the > >>> largest and most reliable galaxy catalogue, and it's all from volunteer > >>> efforts. > >>> Robert > >>> > >>> On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 12:01 AM, Douglas Roberts <[hidden email] > >>> >wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi, Jack. > >>>> > >>>> If I had it to do all over again I would quite possibly work in the > >>>> field > >>>> of cosmology in one regard or another. I'm envious of those who do work > >>>> in > >>>> cosmology-related fields.. > >>>> > >>>> At last year's SuperComputing conference I had the privilege of meeting > >>>> George Smoot, Noble prize winner for physics in 2006. A small group of > >>>> 5 of > >>>> us sat at the Berkeley booth one afternoon and he talked with us about > >>>> cosmology for over an hour. > >>>> > >>>> --Doug > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> ============================================================ > >>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > >>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > >>> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > >>> > >> > >> > >> > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: b/attachment-0001.html> > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 11:04:08 -0700 > From: "Scott R. Powell" <[hidden email]> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] And speaking of levels of heaven > To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group" > <[hidden email]> > Message-ID: > <[hidden email]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > Hello, All, > Just to be clear George is not Oliver - Although Smoot attended MIT, he > not the same Smoot <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot> who was laid end to > end to measure the Harvard Bridge<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_Bridge> > between Cambridge <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge,_Massachusetts> > and Boston <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston,_Massachusetts>; this was > his cousin Oliver R. Smoot <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_R._Smoot>, > an MIT alumnus who served as the chairman of the American National Standards > Institute<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_National_Standards_Institute > > . > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Smoot > > Scott Powell, creeping back into his Liberal Arts den > > On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 12:01 AM, Douglas Roberts <[hidden email]>wrote: > > > Hi, Jack. > > > > If I had it to do all over again I would quite possibly work in the field > > of cosmology in one regard or another. I'm envious of those who do work in > > cosmology-related fields.. > > > > At last year's SuperComputing conference I had the privilege of meeting > > George Smoot, Noble prize winner for physics in 2006. A small group of 5 of > > us sat at the Berkeley booth one afternoon and he talked with us about > > cosmology for over an hour. > > > > --Doug > > > > > > On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 7:14 PM, Jack Leibowitz <[hidden email]>wrote: > > > >> Doug, > >> > >> May I boast for a minute that my wife, retired from NASA, worked on the > >> HUBBLE and WMAPS. The deep field picture and many other Hubble pics were > >> made possible by her group. She was an analyst and programmer in those > >> projects. A number of those pics, such as the deep field one, are in the > >> book we spoke of in our e-mail exchange.I am moved, as you are, by those > >> pictures. > >> > >> Jack. > >> > >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> *From:* Douglas Roberts <[hidden email]> > >> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group<[hidden email]> > >> *Sent:* Sunday, November 09, 2008 2:15 PM > >> *Subject:* [Norton AntiSpam] [FRIAM] And speaking of levels of heaven > >> > >> Here's a nice, long glimpse back towards our beginnings. *Much* further > >> back than 6.000 years ago, I might add. All the way back to when our > >> observable universe was a mere 2 billion hears old. You should pull down > >> the image & stare at all the galaxy dots for a minute or two. It's good for > >> the soul... > >> > >> http://www.eso.org/public/outreach/press-rel/pr-2008/pr-39-08.html > >> > >> My favorite photo in this class, however, is still the Hubble ultra-deep > >> field, in visible light looking back about 13 billion years: > >> > >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Ultra_Deep_Field > >> > >> > >> --Doug > >> > >> > >> ------------------------------ > >> > >> ============================================================ > >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > >> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > >> > >> > >> ============================================================ > >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > >> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Doug Roberts, RTI International > > [hidden email] > > [hidden email] > > 505-455-7333 - Office > > 505-670-8195 - Cell > > > > ============================================================ > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: d/attachment-0001.html> > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 11:09:21 -0700 > From: Owen Densmore <[hidden email]> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] And speaking of levels of heaven > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > <[hidden email]> > Message-ID: <[hidden email]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes > > On Nov 10, 2008, at 10:46 AM, Douglas Roberts wrote: > > > Owen, two suggestions: > > > > 1) Stephen Weinberg's "The First Three Minutes", and > > 2) George Smoot's "Wrinkles in Time" > > > > --Doug > > Oddly enough, I've read both! I didn't connect Smoot with the Nobel, > thanks! I was amazed at his tenacity, patiently overcoming constant, > huge problems. > > And Weinberg's book is an absolute gem as well; beautifully crafted > and wonderfully mature. I only wish it had been written after the > expansionary universe discoveries. > > But as far as I can recall, neither book wrestled with the problem of > "time" in the early universe. We know both velocity and gravity/mass > distorts time. The description of time to the beginning of the > universe uses linear extrapolation as far as I can tell. This seems > at odds with relativity. > > Possibly it is not an issue within cosmology because it is, after all, > the entire universe that is expanding, thus observational problems > cancel out, so to speak? > > -- Owen > > > On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 10:22 AM, Owen Densmore > > <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > >> Oops -- I miss-edited -- should read: > >> One question I've always had with cosmology is that the time > >> calculated to > >> the big bang (via backwards extrapolation) does not seem to take > >> relativistic effects into account. Certainly its been done but not > >> mentioned in the popular books. > >> > >> -- Owen > >> > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 11:12:04 -0700 > From: Owen Densmore <[hidden email]> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] And speaking of levels of heaven > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > <[hidden email]> > Message-ID: <[hidden email]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes > > Damn. s/expanson/inflation/ below re: Weinberg. > > -- Owen > > > On Nov 10, 2008, at 11:09 AM, Owen Densmore wrote: > > > On Nov 10, 2008, at 10:46 AM, Douglas Roberts wrote: > > > >> Owen, two suggestions: > >> > >> 1) Stephen Weinberg's "The First Three Minutes", and > >> 2) George Smoot's "Wrinkles in Time" > >> > >> --Doug > > > > Oddly enough, I've read both! I didn't connect Smoot with the > > Nobel, thanks! I was amazed at his tenacity, patiently overcoming > > constant, huge problems. > > > > And Weinberg's book is an absolute gem as well; beautifully crafted > > and wonderfully mature. I only wish it had been written after the > > expansionary universe discoveries. > > > > But as far as I can recall, neither book wrestled with the problem > > of "time" in the early universe. We know both velocity and gravity/ > > mass distorts time. The description of time to the beginning of the > > universe uses linear extrapolation as far as I can tell. This seems > > at odds with relativity. > > > > Possibly it is not an issue within cosmology because it is, after > > all, the entire universe that is expanding, thus observational > > problems cancel out, so to speak? > > > > -- Owen > > > >> On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 10:22 AM, Owen Densmore > >> <[hidden email]> wrote: > >> > >>> Oops -- I miss-edited -- should read: > >>> One question I've always had with cosmology is that the time > >>> calculated to > >>> the big bang (via backwards extrapolation) does not seem to take > >>> relativistic effects into account. Certainly its been done but not > >>> mentioned in the popular books. > >>> > >>> -- Owen > >>> > > > > ============================================================ > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 7 > Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 11:20:31 -0700 > From: "Douglas Roberts" <[hidden email]> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] And speaking of levels of heaven > To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group" > <[hidden email]> > Message-ID: > <[hidden email]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > A few years ago I had an email exchange with Weinberg in which I asked him > if he planned to write a second edition of the "The First Three Minutes" > where he might address some of the new observational data that has been > published since the first edition was released, such as the sudden > (cosmologically speaking) apparent acceleration in the rate of expansion > the universe, dark matter, dark energy, Smoot's COBE findings, etc. > > Unfortunately, Weinberg said that he had no such plans. I did greatly enjoy > talking with Smoot on these topics last year, though. > > --Doug > > On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 11:09 AM, Owen Densmore <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > On Nov 10, 2008, at 10:46 AM, Douglas Roberts wrote: > > > > Owen, two suggestions: > >> > >> 1) Stephen Weinberg's "The First Three Minutes", and > >> 2) George Smoot's "Wrinkles in Time" > >> > >> --Doug > >> > > > > Oddly enough, I've read both! I didn't connect Smoot with the Nobel, > > thanks! I was amazed at his tenacity, patiently overcoming constant, > > problems. > > > > And Weinberg's book is an absolute gem as well; beautifully crafted and > > wonderfully mature. I only wish it had been written after the expansionary > > universe discoveries. > > > > But as far as I can recall, neither book wrestled with the problem of > > "time" in the early universe. We know both velocity and gravity/mass > > distorts time. The description of time to the beginning of the universe > > uses linear extrapolation as far as I can tell. This seems at odds with > > relativity. > > > > Possibly it is not an issue within cosmology because it is, after all, the > > entire universe that is expanding, thus observational problems cancel out, > > so to speak? > > > > -- Owen > > > > On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 10:22 AM, Owen Densmore <[hidden email]> > >> wrote: > >> > >> Oops -- I miss-edited -- should read: > >>> One question I've always had with cosmology is that the time calculated > >>> to > >>> the big bang (via backwards extrapolation) does not seem to take > >>> relativistic effects into account. Certainly its been done but not > >>> mentioned in the popular books. > >>> > >>> -- Owen > >>> > >>> > > ============================================================ > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > > > > > -- > Doug Roberts, RTI International > [hidden email] > [hidden email] > 505-455-7333 - Office > 505-670-8195 - Cell > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: e/attachment-0001.html> > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 8 > Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 13:35:04 -0700 > From: "Tom Johnson" <[hidden email]> > Subject: [FRIAM] Are your skills obsolete? > To: "Friam@redfish. com" <[hidden email]> > Message-ID: > <[hidden email]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > All: > > Some of us may recall Bruce Sterling's fun site, "Dead Media," > technologies that no longer are necessary or exist. > http://www.deadmedia.org/ > > The human side of all that can now be found at "Obsolete Skills" > http://obsoleteskills.com/Skills/Skills > > Build your personal timeline of obsolescence, friends. > > -tom > > -- > ========================================== > J. T. Johnson > Institute for Analytic Journalism -- Santa Fe, NM USA > www.analyticjournalism.com > 505.577.6482(c) 505.473.9646(h) > http://www.jtjohnson.com [hidden email] > > "You never change things by fighting the existing reality. > To change something, build a new model that makes the > existing model obsolete." > -- Buckminster Fuller > ========================================== > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 9 > Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 22:06:35 +0100 > From: "Jochen Fromm" <[hidden email]> > Subject: [FRIAM] Scientists Turn Tequila into Diamonds > To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group" > <[hidden email]> > Message-ID: <09DF8D614E8C4ABCA1EDC229AE43E712@Toshiba> > Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; > reply-type=original > > Do you have lots of Tequila in Santa Fe? > http://www.physorg.com/news145255770.html > > -J. > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 10 > Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 09:07:50 -0700 > From: "peggy miller" <[hidden email]> > Subject: [FRIAM] Obama, Proposition 8 > To: [hidden email] > Message-ID: > <[hidden email]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > Related to the issue of legalizing gay marriage, I think it is extremely > important to stick with the Webster definition of marriage -- which > "to unite in a close personal way: AND "a legal union as husband and wife" > -- I think if two people are the age of consenting adults and meet these two > requirements (since gay couples can choose who is generally the husband and > generally the wife if they want to) then they should be able to form a legal > marriage. I think that anything else ignores their rights, and ignores the > definition of marriage itself. > > Peggy Miller > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20081111/096cb46 7/attachment-0001.html> > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 11 > Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 09:51:47 -0700 > From: "Robert Holmes" <[hidden email]> > Subject: [FRIAM] Fewer "subscription required"s > To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group" > <[hidden email]> > Message-ID: > <[hidden email]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > A neat little tip (via lifehacker) that improves the odds of avoiding > "subscription required" messages when you are searching for academic papers: > http://googlesystem.blogspot.com/2008/11/when-google-scholars-integration-wi th.html > > Robert > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20081111/b41c919 8/attachment-0001.html> > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 12 > Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 08:55:52 -0800 > From: "glen e. p. ropella" <[hidden email]> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Obama, Proposition 8 > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > <[hidden email]> > Message-ID: <[hidden email]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > Thus spake peggy miller circa 11/11/2008 08:07 AM: > > Related to the issue of legalizing gay marriage, I think it is extremely > > important to stick with the Webster definition of marriage -- which > > "to unite in a close personal way: AND "a legal union as husband and wife" > > -- I think if two people are the age of consenting adults and meet these two > > requirements (since gay couples can choose who is generally the husband and > > generally the wife if they want to) then they should be able to form a legal > > marriage. I think that anything else ignores their rights, and ignores the > > definition of marriage itself. > > But if we argue from the dictionary we may end up with arguments like > the following. > > While all the below agree with your point: > > 1) "marriage" generally refers to a spousal relationship and > 2) "spouse" is a term meaning things like vow, pledge, ritual, etc, and > 3) "husband" generally means master of the house, > > "wife" really is defined to be a female. So, while lesbian couples can > choose who is the husband and who is the wife; gay male couples can't. > They can choose the husband; but neither can be a wife. > > Personally, I think marriage is an obsolete concept. We should > completely separate legal contracts from religious ceremonies and purge > "marriage" from the law entirely. It should be in the exact same > category as baptism. > > -- > glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://tempusdictum.com > > > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Friam mailing list > [hidden email] > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > > > End of Friam Digest, Vol 65, Issue 13 > ************************************* ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
Thanks for being straight with us, Nick.
Snicker. On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 8:28 PM, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote: I apologize in advance for the didactic tone of what follows. ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
In reply to this post by Nick Thompson
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 8:28 PM, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:
I came home tonight to a crisis in our home telephone land. My daughter says the phones are broken, everytime she tries to call Shelby the phone doesn't work, she places the phone on speaker, enters Shelby's number, presses dial, and the phone goes click click-click-click-click-click click-click-click-click .... If we'd waited long enough it would have finished "dialing" the call to Shelby in Texas. It took longer to figure out how to unreprogram the phones than it did to figure out what had happened, still don't know how it happened. -- rec -- ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
In reply to this post by Nick Thompson
Your channel to God is excellent.
On Nov 11, 2008, at 10:28 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote: > I apologize in advance for the didactic tone of what follows. > > Yes, God IS speaking through me. > > The closer one gets to the dictionary-making enterprise, the less one > is > inclined to use a dictionary to codify anything. Dictionary makers > are at > pains to capture usage, and usage is nothing if not ephemeral. The > kings > english does not, in general, come from listening to the King ... or > any > other authority ... speak. > > When somebody says, "I think we ought to keep close to the defnition" > they > are making a claim for the immutability of language, which, of course, > is a > fairly silly claim. > > These sorts of arguments remind me of original intent arguments with > respect to the supreme court. The argument is not, of course, whether > we > are going to change our understanding of the constitution but how > swiftly > we are going to change it. > > The argument about whether we are comfortable to have gay couples live > amongst us in our communities like any other couples and the argument > about > whether to call these arrangements "marriages" is a sign of magical > thinking. Now I grant you that magical thinking often WORKS, but it > still > is magical thinking. > > Think about the crisis in telephone land that occured when dials were > replaced by keys. > > Or think about the strain in the language that has been produced by > feminism and the grammatical construction "each .... {she/he/they)". > Gloria Steinem suggested in the first issue of Ms Mag, that we > introduce > the neologism "ter" as a singular neuter possessive. "Each man/woman > to > ter own opinion." I wish we had done it. Because we didnt have the > courage or discipline to do it, I still have to suffer, 40 years > later, > "Each man to their own opinion." "Their" has ceased to become a > plural > possive and become a singular neuter possesive. I can hate it all I > like, > but it is still contemporary usage. > > Once we fully accept gay couples into our communities, the language > will > just .... change. > > Ok. That's all He told me to say. > > Nick > > > > Nicholas S. Thompson > Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology, > Clark University ([hidden email]) > > > > >> [Original Message] >> From: <[hidden email]> >> To: <[hidden email]> >> Date: 11/11/2008 10:00:22 AM >> Subject: Friam Digest, Vol 65, Issue 13 >> >> Send Friam mailing list submissions to >> [hidden email] >> >> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >> [hidden email] >> >> You can reach the person managing the list at >> [hidden email] >> >> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >> than "Re: Contents of Friam digest..." >> >> >> Today's Topics: >> >> 1. Re: And speaking of levels of heaven (Owen Densmore) >> 2. Re: And speaking of levels of heaven (Owen Densmore) >> 3. Re: And speaking of levels of heaven (Douglas Roberts) >> 4. Re: And speaking of levels of heaven (Scott R. Powell) >> 5. Re: And speaking of levels of heaven (Owen Densmore) >> 6. Re: And speaking of levels of heaven (Owen Densmore) >> 7. Re: And speaking of levels of heaven (Douglas Roberts) >> 8. Are your skills obsolete? (Tom Johnson) >> 9. Scientists Turn Tequila into Diamonds (Jochen Fromm) >> 10. Obama, Proposition 8 (peggy miller) >> 11. Fewer "subscription required"s (Robert Holmes) >> 12. Re: Obama, Proposition 8 (glen e. p. ropella) >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Message: 1 >> Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 10:02:52 -0700 >> From: Owen Densmore <[hidden email]> >> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] And speaking of levels of heaven >> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group >> <[hidden email]> >> Message-ID: <[hidden email]> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes >> >> I'd love to do a cosmology read sometime. Is there a particularly >> good book in the field that is reasonably formal yet not overwhelming? >> >> One question I've always had with cosmology and the time to the big >> bang is that does not seem to be relativistic effects taken into >> account the time extrapolation. Certainly its been done but not >> mentioned in the popular books. >> >> -- Owen >> >> >> On Nov 10, 2008, at 7:59 AM, Robert Holmes wrote: >> >>> Check out galaxyzoo.org - they need volunteers and you can carry out >>> the >>> work (categorizing galaxies) from the comfort of your sofa. And it's >>> actual >>> significant research that you'd be contributing to - they've already >>> got the >>> largest and most reliable galaxy catalogue, and it's all from >>> volunteer >>> efforts. >>> Robert >>> >>> On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 12:01 AM, Douglas Roberts >>> <[hidden email] >>>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, Jack. >>>> >>>> If I had it to do all over again I would quite possibly work in the >>>> field >>>> of cosmology in one regard or another. I'm envious of those who do >>>> work in >>>> cosmology-related fields.. >>>> >>>> At last year's SuperComputing conference I had the privilege of >>>> meeting >>>> George Smoot, Noble prize winner for physics in 2006. A small >>>> group of 5 of >>>> us sat at the Berkeley booth one afternoon and he talked with us >>>> about >>>> cosmology for over an hour. >>>> >>>> --Doug >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> ============================================================ >>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >>> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 2 >> Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 10:22:30 -0700 >> From: Owen Densmore <[hidden email]> >> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] And speaking of levels of heaven >> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group >> <[hidden email]> >> Message-ID: <[hidden email]> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes >> >> Oops -- I miss-edited -- should read: >> One question I've always had with cosmology is that the time >> calculated to the big bang (via backwards extrapolation) does not seem >> to take relativistic effects into account. Certainly its been done >> but not mentioned in the popular books. >> >> -- Owen >> >> >> On Nov 10, 2008, at 10:02 AM, Owen Densmore wrote: >> >>> I'd love to do a cosmology read sometime. Is there a particularly >>> good book in the field that is reasonably formal yet not >>> overwhelming? >>> >>> One question I've always had with cosmology and the time to the big >>> bang is that does not seem to be relativistic effects taken into >>> account the time extrapolation. Certainly its been done but not >>> mentioned in the popular books. >>> >>> -- Owen >>> >>> >>> On Nov 10, 2008, at 7:59 AM, Robert Holmes wrote: >>> >>>> Check out galaxyzoo.org - they need volunteers and you can carry >>>> out the >>>> work (categorizing galaxies) from the comfort of your sofa. And >>>> it's actual >>>> significant research that you'd be contributing to - they've >>>> already got the >>>> largest and most reliable galaxy catalogue, and it's all from >>>> volunteer >>>> efforts. >>>> Robert >>>> >>>> On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 12:01 AM, Douglas Roberts > <[hidden email] >>>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi, Jack. >>>>> >>>>> If I had it to do all over again I would quite possibly work in >>>>> the field >>>>> of cosmology in one regard or another. I'm envious of those who >>>>> do work in >>>>> cosmology-related fields.. >>>>> >>>>> At last year's SuperComputing conference I had the privilege of >>>>> meeting >>>>> George Smoot, Noble prize winner for physics in 2006. A small >>>>> group of 5 of >>>>> us sat at the Berkeley booth one afternoon and he talked with us >>>>> about >>>>> cosmology for over an hour. >>>>> >>>>> --Doug >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> ============================================================ >>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >>>> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org >>> >>> >>> ============================================================ >>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >>> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 3 >> Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 10:46:14 -0700 >> From: "Douglas Roberts" <[hidden email]> >> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] And speaking of levels of heaven >> To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group" >> <[hidden email]> >> Message-ID: >> <[hidden email]> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" >> >> Owen, two suggestions: >> >> 1) Stephen Weinberg's "The First Three Minutes", and >> 2) George Smoot's "Wrinkles in Time" >> >> --Doug >> >> On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 10:22 AM, Owen Densmore <[hidden email]> > wrote: >> >>> Oops -- I miss-edited -- should read: >>> One question I've always had with cosmology is that the time > calculated to >>> the big bang (via backwards extrapolation) does not seem to take >>> relativistic effects into account. Certainly its been done but not >>> mentioned in the popular books. >>> >>> -- Owen >>> >>> >>> >>> On Nov 10, 2008, at 10:02 AM, Owen Densmore wrote: >>> >>> I'd love to do a cosmology read sometime. Is there a particularly >>> good >>>> book in the field that is reasonably formal yet not overwhelming? >>>> >>>> One question I've always had with cosmology and the time to the big > bang >>>> is that does not seem to be relativistic effects taken into account > the time >>>> extrapolation. Certainly its been done but not mentioned in the > popular >>>> books. >>>> >>>> -- Owen >>>> >>>> >>>> On Nov 10, 2008, at 7:59 AM, Robert Holmes wrote: >>>> >>>> Check out galaxyzoo.org - they need volunteers and you can carry >>>> out > the >>>>> work (categorizing galaxies) from the comfort of your sofa. And >>>>> it's >>>>> actual >>>>> significant research that you'd be contributing to - they've >>>>> already > got >>>>> the >>>>> largest and most reliable galaxy catalogue, and it's all from > volunteer >>>>> efforts. >>>>> Robert >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 12:01 AM, Douglas Roberts > <[hidden email] >>>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi, Jack. >>>>>> >>>>>> If I had it to do all over again I would quite possibly work in >>>>>> the >>>>>> field >>>>>> of cosmology in one regard or another. I'm envious of those who >>>>>> do > work >>>>>> in >>>>>> cosmology-related fields.. >>>>>> >>>>>> At last year's SuperComputing conference I had the privilege of > meeting >>>>>> George Smoot, Noble prize winner for physics in 2006. A small >>>>>> group > of >>>>>> 5 of >>>>>> us sat at the Berkeley booth one afternoon and he talked with us > about >>>>>> cosmology for over an hour. >>>>>> >>>>>> --Doug >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ============================================================ >>>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>>>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >>>>> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >> -------------- next part -------------- >> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >> URL: > <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20081110/ > 5ff2481 > b/attachment-0001.html> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 4 >> Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 11:04:08 -0700 >> From: "Scott R. Powell" <[hidden email]> >> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] And speaking of levels of heaven >> To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group" >> <[hidden email]> >> Message-ID: >> <[hidden email]> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" >> >> Hello, All, >> Just to be clear George is not Oliver - Although Smoot attended MIT, >> he > was >> not the same Smoot <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot> who was laid >> end > to >> end to measure the Harvard > Bridge<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_Bridge> >> between Cambridge >> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge,_Massachusetts> >> and Boston <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston,_Massachusetts>; >> this was >> his cousin Oliver R. Smoot >> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_R._Smoot>, >> an MIT alumnus who served as the chairman of the American National > Standards >> > Institute<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ > American_National_Standards_Institute >> >> . >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Smoot >> >> Scott Powell, creeping back into his Liberal Arts den >> >> On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 12:01 AM, Douglas Roberts > <[hidden email]>wrote: >> >>> Hi, Jack. >>> >>> If I had it to do all over again I would quite possibly work in the > field >>> of cosmology in one regard or another. I'm envious of those who do > work in >>> cosmology-related fields.. >>> >>> At last year's SuperComputing conference I had the privilege of >>> meeting >>> George Smoot, Noble prize winner for physics in 2006. A small group >>> of > 5 of >>> us sat at the Berkeley booth one afternoon and he talked with us >>> about >>> cosmology for over an hour. >>> >>> --Doug >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 7:14 PM, Jack Leibowitz > <[hidden email]>wrote: >>> >>>> Doug, >>>> >>>> May I boast for a minute that my wife, retired from NASA, worked >>>> on > the >>>> HUBBLE and WMAPS. The deep field picture and many other Hubble pics > were >>>> made possible by her group. She was an analyst and programmer in >>>> those >>>> projects. A number of those pics, such as the deep field one, are in > the >>>> book we spoke of in our e-mail exchange.I am moved, as you are, by > those >>>> pictures. >>>> >>>> Jack. >>>> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> *From:* Douglas Roberts <[hidden email]> >>>> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee > Group<[hidden email]> >>>> *Sent:* Sunday, November 09, 2008 2:15 PM >>>> *Subject:* [Norton AntiSpam] [FRIAM] And speaking of levels of >>>> heaven >>>> >>>> Here's a nice, long glimpse back towards our beginnings. *Much* > further >>>> back than 6.000 years ago, I might add. All the way back to when >>>> our >>>> observable universe was a mere 2 billion hears old. You should pull > down >>>> the image & stare at all the galaxy dots for a minute or two. It's > good for >>>> the soul... >>>> >>>> http://www.eso.org/public/outreach/press-rel/pr-2008/pr-39-08.html >>>> >>>> My favorite photo in this class, however, is still the Hubble > ultra-deep >>>> field, in visible light looking back about 13 billion years: >>>> >>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Ultra_Deep_Field >>>> >>>> >>>> --Doug >>>> >>>> >>>> ------------------------------ >>>> >>>> ============================================================ >>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >>>> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org >>>> >>>> >>>> ============================================================ >>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >>>> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Doug Roberts, RTI International >>> [hidden email] >>> [hidden email] >>> 505-455-7333 - Office >>> 505-670-8195 - Cell >>> >>> ============================================================ >>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >>> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org >>> >> -------------- next part -------------- >> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >> URL: > <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20081110/ > 37bc2f1 > d/attachment-0001.html> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 5 >> Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 11:09:21 -0700 >> From: Owen Densmore <[hidden email]> >> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] And speaking of levels of heaven >> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group >> <[hidden email]> >> Message-ID: <[hidden email]> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes >> >> On Nov 10, 2008, at 10:46 AM, Douglas Roberts wrote: >> >>> Owen, two suggestions: >>> >>> 1) Stephen Weinberg's "The First Three Minutes", and >>> 2) George Smoot's "Wrinkles in Time" >>> >>> --Doug >> >> Oddly enough, I've read both! I didn't connect Smoot with the Nobel, >> thanks! I was amazed at his tenacity, patiently overcoming constant, >> huge problems. >> >> And Weinberg's book is an absolute gem as well; beautifully crafted >> and wonderfully mature. I only wish it had been written after the >> expansionary universe discoveries. >> >> But as far as I can recall, neither book wrestled with the problem of >> "time" in the early universe. We know both velocity and gravity/mass >> distorts time. The description of time to the beginning of the >> universe uses linear extrapolation as far as I can tell. This seems >> at odds with relativity. >> >> Possibly it is not an issue within cosmology because it is, after all, >> the entire universe that is expanding, thus observational problems >> cancel out, so to speak? >> >> -- Owen >> >>> On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 10:22 AM, Owen Densmore >>> <[hidden email]> wrote: >>> >>>> Oops -- I miss-edited -- should read: >>>> One question I've always had with cosmology is that the time >>>> calculated to >>>> the big bang (via backwards extrapolation) does not seem to take >>>> relativistic effects into account. Certainly its been done but not >>>> mentioned in the popular books. >>>> >>>> -- Owen >>>> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 6 >> Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 11:12:04 -0700 >> From: Owen Densmore <[hidden email]> >> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] And speaking of levels of heaven >> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group >> <[hidden email]> >> Message-ID: <[hidden email]> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes >> >> Damn. s/expanson/inflation/ below re: Weinberg. >> >> -- Owen >> >> >> On Nov 10, 2008, at 11:09 AM, Owen Densmore wrote: >> >>> On Nov 10, 2008, at 10:46 AM, Douglas Roberts wrote: >>> >>>> Owen, two suggestions: >>>> >>>> 1) Stephen Weinberg's "The First Three Minutes", and >>>> 2) George Smoot's "Wrinkles in Time" >>>> >>>> --Doug >>> >>> Oddly enough, I've read both! I didn't connect Smoot with the >>> Nobel, thanks! I was amazed at his tenacity, patiently overcoming >>> constant, huge problems. >>> >>> And Weinberg's book is an absolute gem as well; beautifully crafted >>> and wonderfully mature. I only wish it had been written after the >>> expansionary universe discoveries. >>> >>> But as far as I can recall, neither book wrestled with the problem >>> of "time" in the early universe. We know both velocity and gravity/ >>> mass distorts time. The description of time to the beginning of the >>> universe uses linear extrapolation as far as I can tell. This seems >>> at odds with relativity. >>> >>> Possibly it is not an issue within cosmology because it is, after >>> all, the entire universe that is expanding, thus observational >>> problems cancel out, so to speak? >>> >>> -- Owen >>> >>>> On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 10:22 AM, Owen Densmore >>>> <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Oops -- I miss-edited -- should read: >>>>> One question I've always had with cosmology is that the time >>>>> calculated to >>>>> the big bang (via backwards extrapolation) does not seem to take >>>>> relativistic effects into account. Certainly its been done but not >>>>> mentioned in the popular books. >>>>> >>>>> -- Owen >>>>> >>> >>> ============================================================ >>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >>> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 7 >> Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 11:20:31 -0700 >> From: "Douglas Roberts" <[hidden email]> >> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] And speaking of levels of heaven >> To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group" >> <[hidden email]> >> Message-ID: >> <[hidden email]> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" >> >> A few years ago I had an email exchange with Weinberg in which I >> asked him >> if he planned to write a second edition of the "The First Three >> Minutes" >> where he might address some of the new observational data that has >> been >> published since the first edition was released, such as the sudden >> (cosmologically speaking) apparent acceleration in the rate of >> expansion > of >> the universe, dark matter, dark energy, Smoot's COBE findings, etc. >> >> Unfortunately, Weinberg said that he had no such plans. I did greatly > enjoy >> talking with Smoot on these topics last year, though. >> >> --Doug >> >> On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 11:09 AM, Owen Densmore <[hidden email]> > wrote: >> >>> On Nov 10, 2008, at 10:46 AM, Douglas Roberts wrote: >>> >>> Owen, two suggestions: >>>> >>>> 1) Stephen Weinberg's "The First Three Minutes", and >>>> 2) George Smoot's "Wrinkles in Time" >>>> >>>> --Doug >>>> >>> >>> Oddly enough, I've read both! I didn't connect Smoot with the Nobel, >>> thanks! I was amazed at his tenacity, patiently overcoming constant, > huge >>> problems. >>> >>> And Weinberg's book is an absolute gem as well; beautifully crafted >>> and >>> wonderfully mature. I only wish it had been written after the > expansionary >>> universe discoveries. >>> >>> But as far as I can recall, neither book wrestled with the problem of >>> "time" in the early universe. We know both velocity and gravity/mass >>> distorts time. The description of time to the beginning of the >>> universe >>> uses linear extrapolation as far as I can tell. This seems at odds >>> with >>> relativity. >>> >>> Possibly it is not an issue within cosmology because it is, after >>> all, > the >>> entire universe that is expanding, thus observational problems cancel > out, >>> so to speak? >>> >>> -- Owen >>> >>> On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 10:22 AM, Owen Densmore >>> <[hidden email]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Oops -- I miss-edited -- should read: >>>>> One question I've always had with cosmology is that the time > calculated >>>>> to >>>>> the big bang (via backwards extrapolation) does not seem to take >>>>> relativistic effects into account. Certainly its been done but not >>>>> mentioned in the popular books. >>>>> >>>>> -- Owen >>>>> >>>>> >>> ============================================================ >>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >>> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Doug Roberts, RTI International >> [hidden email] >> [hidden email] >> 505-455-7333 - Office >> 505-670-8195 - Cell >> -------------- next part -------------- >> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >> URL: > <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20081110/ > b7459f7 > e/attachment-0001.html> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 8 >> Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 13:35:04 -0700 >> From: "Tom Johnson" <[hidden email]> >> Subject: [FRIAM] Are your skills obsolete? >> To: "Friam@redfish. com" <[hidden email]> >> Message-ID: >> <[hidden email]> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 >> >> All: >> >> Some of us may recall Bruce Sterling's fun site, "Dead Media," >> technologies that no longer are necessary or exist. >> http://www.deadmedia.org/ >> >> The human side of all that can now be found at "Obsolete Skills" >> http://obsoleteskills.com/Skills/Skills >> >> Build your personal timeline of obsolescence, friends. >> >> -tom >> >> -- >> ========================================== >> J. T. Johnson >> Institute for Analytic Journalism -- Santa Fe, NM USA >> www.analyticjournalism.com >> 505.577.6482(c) 505.473.9646(h) >> http://www.jtjohnson.com [hidden email] >> >> "You never change things by fighting the existing reality. >> To change something, build a new model that makes the >> existing model obsolete." >> -- Buckminster Fuller >> ========================================== >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 9 >> Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 22:06:35 +0100 >> From: "Jochen Fromm" <[hidden email]> >> Subject: [FRIAM] Scientists Turn Tequila into Diamonds >> To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group" >> <[hidden email]> >> Message-ID: <09DF8D614E8C4ABCA1EDC229AE43E712@Toshiba> >> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; >> reply-type=original >> >> Do you have lots of Tequila in Santa Fe? >> http://www.physorg.com/news145255770.html >> >> -J. >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 10 >> Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 09:07:50 -0700 >> From: "peggy miller" <[hidden email]> >> Subject: [FRIAM] Obama, Proposition 8 >> To: [hidden email] >> Message-ID: >> <[hidden email]> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" >> >> Related to the issue of legalizing gay marriage, I think it is >> extremely >> important to stick with the Webster definition of marriage -- which > includes >> "to unite in a close personal way: AND "a legal union as husband and >> wife" >> -- I think if two people are the age of consenting adults and meet >> these > two >> requirements (since gay couples can choose who is generally the >> husband > and >> generally the wife if they want to) then they should be able to form a > legal >> marriage. I think that anything else ignores their rights, and >> ignores the >> definition of marriage itself. >> >> Peggy Miller >> -------------- next part -------------- >> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >> URL: > <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20081111/ > 096cb46 > 7/attachment-0001.html> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 11 >> Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 09:51:47 -0700 >> From: "Robert Holmes" <[hidden email]> >> Subject: [FRIAM] Fewer "subscription required"s >> To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group" >> <[hidden email]> >> Message-ID: >> <[hidden email]> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" >> >> A neat little tip (via lifehacker) that improves the odds of avoiding > those >> "subscription required" messages when you are searching for academic > papers: >> > http://googlesystem.blogspot.com/2008/11/when-google-scholars- > integration-wi > th.html >> >> Robert >> -------------- next part -------------- >> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >> URL: > <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20081111/ > b41c919 > 8/attachment-0001.html> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 12 >> Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 08:55:52 -0800 >> From: "glen e. p. ropella" <[hidden email]> >> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Obama, Proposition 8 >> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group >> <[hidden email]> >> Message-ID: <[hidden email]> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 >> >> Thus spake peggy miller circa 11/11/2008 08:07 AM: >>> Related to the issue of legalizing gay marriage, I think it is >>> extremely >>> important to stick with the Webster definition of marriage -- which > includes >>> "to unite in a close personal way: AND "a legal union as husband and > wife" >>> -- I think if two people are the age of consenting adults and meet > these two >>> requirements (since gay couples can choose who is generally the >>> husband > and >>> generally the wife if they want to) then they should be able to form >>> a > legal >>> marriage. I think that anything else ignores their rights, and >>> ignores > the >>> definition of marriage itself. >> >> But if we argue from the dictionary we may end up with arguments like >> the following. >> >> While all the below agree with your point: >> >> 1) "marriage" generally refers to a spousal relationship and >> 2) "spouse" is a term meaning things like vow, pledge, ritual, etc, >> and >> 3) "husband" generally means master of the house, >> >> "wife" really is defined to be a female. So, while lesbian couples >> can >> choose who is the husband and who is the wife; gay male couples can't. >> They can choose the husband; but neither can be a wife. >> >> Personally, I think marriage is an obsolete concept. We should >> completely separate legal contracts from religious ceremonies and >> purge >> "marriage" from the law entirely. It should be in the exact same >> category as baptism. >> >> -- >> glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://tempusdictum.com >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Friam mailing list >> [hidden email] >> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >> >> >> End of Friam Digest, Vol 65, Issue 13 >> ************************************* > > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > "A woman who doesn't wear perfume has no future." Attributed to Coco Chanel, said originally by Paul Valery. ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
In reply to this post by Nick Thompson
Thus spake Nicholas Thompson circa 11/11/2008 07:28 PM:
> When somebody says, "I think we ought to keep close to the defnition" they > are making a claim for the immutability of language, which, of course, is a > fairly silly claim. > > These sorts of arguments remind me of original intent arguments with > respect to the supreme court. The argument is not, of course, whether we > are going to change our understanding of the constitution but how swiftly > we are going to change it. > > The argument about whether we are comfortable to have gay couples live > amongst us in our communities like any other couples and the argument about > whether to call these arrangements "marriages" is a sign of magical > thinking. Now I grant you that magical thinking often WORKS, but it still > is magical thinking. I don't think arguments about the definition of "marriage" are a sign of magical thinking at all. Rather, it's a sign that the people doing the arguing are literate (and at least one half are literal). Literacy is a good thing and we should encourage it. The literate nature of the people on this list is the cause of the arguments about the surprising efficacy of mathematics. A mathematical proof is precisely an argument about definitions. Likewise, math, being a language, changes over time, albeit more slowly than natural language. To take your claim to its logical conclusion, that would mean mathematical proofs are evidence of magical thinking. (Indeed, non-platonists _do_ accuse platonists of magical thinking. And some very deep, considerate thinkers have even claimed that all positivist rhetoric is tautological. ;-) So claiming that these arguments that are based on definitions is a sign of magical thinking is either wrong or idealistic and impractical.... like arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. The bare truth is that it is _very_ good to have right-wingers making definitional/legal distinctions in this way, because that means that they can _read_. Granted, they may not think very clearly. It's like when a child begins arguing about how their teacher teaches algebra. They may be wrong in their rhetoric; but at least they're literate enough to lay out their rhetoric. The more sophisticated truth is that the presence of these legal/definitional arguments in the household is evidence that we peons are actually getting involved in the rhetoric laid down by our legislators. I.e. law, once solely accessible to the very rich and very intelligent, is now becoming accessible to the masses. And that's a good thing, even if we still need to protect ourselves from premature populism. And the most sophisticated truth is that the people making legal/definitional arguments are seeking _precision_ in their language and their societal code. And that's a very good thing. Again, granted, precision is not a panacea; but it's evidence that people are seeking better, more expressive language with which to express the human condition. It is progressive. -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://tempusdictum.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
«
Return to Friam
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |