Posted: 10:43 AM on October 18, 2011
Harper’s team keeps hands off $35-billion shipbuilding hot potato
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/harpers-team-keeps-hands-off-35-billion-shipbuilding-hot-potato/article2203643/
Hopefully what all Canadians will not allow Harper to dodge is, of course, not where these ships will be built but
why do we need $25billion in "combat" vessels
when you combine this with $30 billion for 65 F-35 combat fighters
The real question is what is Canada's military objectives and who are we planning to go to war with.
Isn't there better things to spend $50 billion dollars upon.
Prediction:
- One will receive a $25-billion contract to build combat vessels:
Halifax - that's a no-brain'r
- $8-billion to build ice breakers and a naval supply ship:
Vancouver - of course
- $2-billion for smaller vessels:
Parry Sound—Muskoka - you tell me
comments Lloyd MacILquham cicblog
18 October, 2011
15 October, 2011
'Dark matter' - now there's "such stuff as dreams are made on"
The articles at: Science Daily, support what I have been saying, big-time.
Neutrinos Are Likely Half as Massive as Previous Estimates Suggested
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/07/100712115104.htm
"Although neutrinos are very light and interact with matter very rarely, they are so numerous that they can have a significant effect on the evolution of the material distribution in the universe.
. . .
There are restrictions on the information the map can provide, in part because there are three varieties of neutrinos (electron, muon, and tau neutrinos), each of which likely have different masses. As a result, MegaZ can only estimate the sum of the three neutrino masses."
Yah, got it, they're these mystical 'particles' (and I use the word 'particles' loosely), 3-in-1, but can switch around and also exist on their own, pass through everything, apparently uninhibited, well almost, (not that I might draw a parallel with the 'Trinity' concept), but have mass - except we don't seem to be able to measure it, and apparently travel at the speed of light but also even faster but we don't seem to be able to measure its speed either.
Sounds like a perception problem to me.
I just wonder if they really want to 'solve' the mystery of the 'neutrino' - since then they would have one less 'Imp' and would leave the theory psychologically ungratifying, as if there were something missing - like Norse mythology without Loki
***************
Scientists Shed Light On a Mysterious Particle, the Neutrino
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091215141512.htm
'Dr Di Lodovico says: "T2K will quickly advance our understanding of the strange properties of the enigmatic neutrino to unprecedented precision. Within a year, we will be able explore neutrino properties beyond the reach of the current experiments and shed light on the unknown."'
Dr. Di is talking in terms of 'Folklore' and I am surprised he, himself, didn't refer to them as 'Imps'
**********
"Dark matter" - now there's the stuff dreams are made of.
something like "anti-mater" i.e. opposite of matter
If 'anti-matter' didn't exist someone would invent it - how can you understand 'plus' without 'minus', 'male' without 'female', 'yin' without 'yang'.
Dark Matter May Be Lurking at Heart of the Sun
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/07/100721132407.htm
"Dark matter makes up more than 80 per cent of the total mass of the universe. We know that dark matter exists but to date it has never been produced in a laboratory or directly observed in any experiment, as a result we have very little information about what it actually is."
Now there's a mystery.
What they try to 'spin' into something positive: "We know that dark matter exists"
is in reality: dark matter is hypothesized in order to make the equations work.
Here's a hint from the article: "to date it has never been produced in a laboratory or directly observed in any experiment" - Oh, then I guess it must exist! It surely, then, couldn't be a figment of someone's imagination, a manifestation of some deep rooted primordial image hard-wired into our brains.
Check out Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter
"In astronomy and cosmology, dark matter is matter that neither emits nor scatters light or other electromagnetic radiation, and so cannot be directly detected via optical or radio astronomy.[1] Its existence is inferred from gravitational effects on visible matter and gravitational lensing of background radiation, and was originally hypothesized to account for discrepancies between calculations of the mass of galaxies, clusters of galaxies and the entire universe made through dynamical and general relativistic means, and calculations based on the mass of the visible "luminous" matter these objects contain: stars and the gas and dust of the interstellar and intergalactic medium."
PS:
By the way, neutrino's were invented to make the equations work.
Now they have been "detected' - sounds like a self-fulfilling prophecy to me.
Check out Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/neutrinos
"Pauli's proposal
The neutrino[nb 1] was first postulated in 1930 by Wolfgang Pauli to preserve the conservation of energy, conservation of momentum, and conservation of angular momentum in beta decay. This was done by adding an undetected particle that Pauli termed a "neutron" to the proton and electron already known to be products of beta decay:[4][nb 2]
He theorized that an undetected particle was carrying away the observed difference between the energy, momentum, and angular momentum of the initial and final particles."
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Neutrinos Are Likely Half as Massive as Previous Estimates Suggested
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/07/100712115104.htm
"Although neutrinos are very light and interact with matter very rarely, they are so numerous that they can have a significant effect on the evolution of the material distribution in the universe.
. . .
There are restrictions on the information the map can provide, in part because there are three varieties of neutrinos (electron, muon, and tau neutrinos), each of which likely have different masses. As a result, MegaZ can only estimate the sum of the three neutrino masses."
Yah, got it, they're these mystical 'particles' (and I use the word 'particles' loosely), 3-in-1, but can switch around and also exist on their own, pass through everything, apparently uninhibited, well almost, (not that I might draw a parallel with the 'Trinity' concept), but have mass - except we don't seem to be able to measure it, and apparently travel at the speed of light but also even faster but we don't seem to be able to measure its speed either.
Sounds like a perception problem to me.
I just wonder if they really want to 'solve' the mystery of the 'neutrino' - since then they would have one less 'Imp' and would leave the theory psychologically ungratifying, as if there were something missing - like Norse mythology without Loki
***************
Scientists Shed Light On a Mysterious Particle, the Neutrino
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091215141512.htm
'Dr Di Lodovico says: "T2K will quickly advance our understanding of the strange properties of the enigmatic neutrino to unprecedented precision. Within a year, we will be able explore neutrino properties beyond the reach of the current experiments and shed light on the unknown."'
Dr. Di is talking in terms of 'Folklore' and I am surprised he, himself, didn't refer to them as 'Imps'
**********
"Dark matter" - now there's the stuff dreams are made of.
something like "anti-mater" i.e. opposite of matter
If 'anti-matter' didn't exist someone would invent it - how can you understand 'plus' without 'minus', 'male' without 'female', 'yin' without 'yang'.
Dark Matter May Be Lurking at Heart of the Sun
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/07/100721132407.htm
"Dark matter makes up more than 80 per cent of the total mass of the universe. We know that dark matter exists but to date it has never been produced in a laboratory or directly observed in any experiment, as a result we have very little information about what it actually is."
Now there's a mystery.
What they try to 'spin' into something positive: "We know that dark matter exists"
is in reality: dark matter is hypothesized in order to make the equations work.
Here's a hint from the article: "to date it has never been produced in a laboratory or directly observed in any experiment" - Oh, then I guess it must exist! It surely, then, couldn't be a figment of someone's imagination, a manifestation of some deep rooted primordial image hard-wired into our brains.
Check out Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter
"In astronomy and cosmology, dark matter is matter that neither emits nor scatters light or other electromagnetic radiation, and so cannot be directly detected via optical or radio astronomy.[1] Its existence is inferred from gravitational effects on visible matter and gravitational lensing of background radiation, and was originally hypothesized to account for discrepancies between calculations of the mass of galaxies, clusters of galaxies and the entire universe made through dynamical and general relativistic means, and calculations based on the mass of the visible "luminous" matter these objects contain: stars and the gas and dust of the interstellar and intergalactic medium."
PS:
By the way, neutrino's were invented to make the equations work.
Now they have been "detected' - sounds like a self-fulfilling prophecy to me.
Check out Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/neutrinos
"Pauli's proposal
The neutrino[nb 1] was first postulated in 1930 by Wolfgang Pauli to preserve the conservation of energy, conservation of momentum, and conservation of angular momentum in beta decay. This was done by adding an undetected particle that Pauli termed a "neutron" to the proton and electron already known to be products of beta decay:[4][nb 2]
He theorized that an undetected particle was carrying away the observed difference between the energy, momentum, and angular momentum of the initial and final particles."
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
09 October, 2011
- There are More Things In Heaven and Earth, Horatio, Than Are Hard Wired In Your Brain
On 01 October, 2011 I wrote:
- What Imps These Particles Be
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
"The assumption that the real world conforms to the Real number system reached a high water mark with Newtonian mechanics. However, that the real number continuum represents the real world arose, it seems to me, from perception (e.g. underlying Zeno's Dichotomy Paradox - i.e. to get to the end you must reach the ½ way point, to get to the ½ way point you must reach its ½ way point, etc. - this is, of course, one of the integral properties of the Real Number System, and Zeno was not only assuming that going from point 'A' to point 'B' could be represented by a Real number line, it was so much a part of his perception that he, apparently, was totally unaware that his 'paradox' was based on it).
The nature of Quantum mechanics suggests, to me, that perhaps the Real (Complex) Number System may not be suitable and finding a better one might, perhaps, simplify contemplation and expression."
Zeno's Dichotomy Paradox has, to some, been resolved by suggesting that to go half the distance takes half the time, etc., and when you add up all these increments you get a finite answer which happens to be the same amount of time as calculated using t=d/v.
This works for the Real Number line, but the issue is whether the space between two points is represented by the Real Number line - i.e. in 'real' (by naming the number system the 'Real' number system somehow it takes on a meaning of its own and becomes 'real' - as with giving the imp its name: 'neutrino') space, given two separate points can you find a point that is half way between - in other words, in going from point A to point B do you necessarily pass through a midway point.
Our perception tells us we can and do. That perception is the result of millions of years of evolution developing our senses to obtain information of our surrounding and developing a brain to process it, and presumably the underlying motivator is survival as opposed to reality and very small distances simply are not a factor. This may underlie the position some take - well, it is useful, so who cares.
In other words we are hard wired to perceive our surrounding as being a continuum. That the Real Number system expresses this is, in reality, a manifestation of this phenomenon. (Another concept of Physics where this may very well come into play is electrical charges i.e. being positive and negative, attraction and repulsion. In other words, the parallel between that and the very human reality of male-female, yin-yang, may not be a co-incidence, but our brains are hard wired to only be able to interpret such observations and perceive such effects in such terms - we understand our observations of our surrounding by relating them to pre-existing hard-wired psychological structures (I know, I know, sounds like Jung) and what we have already associated with them. This might explain why the concept of 'imp' comes into our world view. (It may also touch on why to some their concept of God might include very human characteristics - human characteristics I understand, God I don't).
Similarly, this applies to time as well.
Our concept of time and distance is based on the assumption that it is represented by the Real Number line; thus, so to velocity and momentum (since it also depends on mass, for which a similar argument applies, it is doubly implicated).
For distances that we are familiar with, assuming reality is represented by the Real Number System works quite well (in that we have been able to survive). However, in small distances we simply don't know. Is it any wonder that in the world of Quantum Physics they have trouble with position, momentum, time, etc.
Until they determine the mechanism by which an object actually gets from point A to point B in space - in which, it seems self evident, would be included just exactly what is 'space' anyway - I can't see them making huge progress. It seems to me that in current theories they have somehow swept this under the rug, so to speak, perhaps deliberately to avoid the issue.
Perhaps, between any two objects there are only a finite number of intermediary points which the objects could occupy. It is hard to imagine, but then that's viewed from our perception. Inertia and mass could possibly be a manifestation of 'drag' as we go through each one of these points (or the time it takes to materialize at that point then dematerialize - for fear of sounding too Trekky). It may be that objects are somehow draw to a point and then it takes something push them off. To express it in pre-conceived notions, perhaps the pushing is what requires energy (which is saved up in the pulling), and that is what takes the time, with the switching to being attracted to the next point occurring instantaneously (or the speed of light???, etc.) - and considering there is nothing in between - why not.
Or, perhaps, the number of points between two objects is a function of the two objects, where say, larger masses cause more points, or what we call 'mass' is a manifestation of those properties of objects that cause more points or longer times from point to point.
Each object having its own set of points which somehow combine with those of other objects. Perhaps objects with great mass have more closely spaced points
In such case, certainly the Real Number System may not be the best choice and a number system that is more discrete may be better.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
- What Imps These Particles Be
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
"The assumption that the real world conforms to the Real number system reached a high water mark with Newtonian mechanics. However, that the real number continuum represents the real world arose, it seems to me, from perception (e.g. underlying Zeno's Dichotomy Paradox - i.e. to get to the end you must reach the ½ way point, to get to the ½ way point you must reach its ½ way point, etc. - this is, of course, one of the integral properties of the Real Number System, and Zeno was not only assuming that going from point 'A' to point 'B' could be represented by a Real number line, it was so much a part of his perception that he, apparently, was totally unaware that his 'paradox' was based on it).
The nature of Quantum mechanics suggests, to me, that perhaps the Real (Complex) Number System may not be suitable and finding a better one might, perhaps, simplify contemplation and expression."
Zeno's Dichotomy Paradox has, to some, been resolved by suggesting that to go half the distance takes half the time, etc., and when you add up all these increments you get a finite answer which happens to be the same amount of time as calculated using t=d/v.
This works for the Real Number line, but the issue is whether the space between two points is represented by the Real Number line - i.e. in 'real' (by naming the number system the 'Real' number system somehow it takes on a meaning of its own and becomes 'real' - as with giving the imp its name: 'neutrino') space, given two separate points can you find a point that is half way between - in other words, in going from point A to point B do you necessarily pass through a midway point.
Our perception tells us we can and do. That perception is the result of millions of years of evolution developing our senses to obtain information of our surrounding and developing a brain to process it, and presumably the underlying motivator is survival as opposed to reality and very small distances simply are not a factor. This may underlie the position some take - well, it is useful, so who cares.
In other words we are hard wired to perceive our surrounding as being a continuum. That the Real Number system expresses this is, in reality, a manifestation of this phenomenon. (Another concept of Physics where this may very well come into play is electrical charges i.e. being positive and negative, attraction and repulsion. In other words, the parallel between that and the very human reality of male-female, yin-yang, may not be a co-incidence, but our brains are hard wired to only be able to interpret such observations and perceive such effects in such terms - we understand our observations of our surrounding by relating them to pre-existing hard-wired psychological structures (I know, I know, sounds like Jung) and what we have already associated with them. This might explain why the concept of 'imp' comes into our world view. (It may also touch on why to some their concept of God might include very human characteristics - human characteristics I understand, God I don't).
Similarly, this applies to time as well.
Our concept of time and distance is based on the assumption that it is represented by the Real Number line; thus, so to velocity and momentum (since it also depends on mass, for which a similar argument applies, it is doubly implicated).
For distances that we are familiar with, assuming reality is represented by the Real Number System works quite well (in that we have been able to survive). However, in small distances we simply don't know. Is it any wonder that in the world of Quantum Physics they have trouble with position, momentum, time, etc.
Until they determine the mechanism by which an object actually gets from point A to point B in space - in which, it seems self evident, would be included just exactly what is 'space' anyway - I can't see them making huge progress. It seems to me that in current theories they have somehow swept this under the rug, so to speak, perhaps deliberately to avoid the issue.
Perhaps, between any two objects there are only a finite number of intermediary points which the objects could occupy. It is hard to imagine, but then that's viewed from our perception. Inertia and mass could possibly be a manifestation of 'drag' as we go through each one of these points (or the time it takes to materialize at that point then dematerialize - for fear of sounding too Trekky). It may be that objects are somehow draw to a point and then it takes something push them off. To express it in pre-conceived notions, perhaps the pushing is what requires energy (which is saved up in the pulling), and that is what takes the time, with the switching to being attracted to the next point occurring instantaneously (or the speed of light???, etc.) - and considering there is nothing in between - why not.
Or, perhaps, the number of points between two objects is a function of the two objects, where say, larger masses cause more points, or what we call 'mass' is a manifestation of those properties of objects that cause more points or longer times from point to point.
Each object having its own set of points which somehow combine with those of other objects. Perhaps objects with great mass have more closely spaced points
In such case, certainly the Real Number System may not be the best choice and a number system that is more discrete may be better.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
04 October, 2011
- Finally, The Antidote to Con'ism - Take A Pill, oh, Sorry, I Meant Mushroom
Posted: 10:01am PDT, 4 Oct.'11
"Magic mushrooms can cause long-term personality changes" adriana barton, Monday, October 3, 2011 8:45PM EDT
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/the-hot-button/magic-mushrooms-can-cause-long-term-personality-changes/article2189697/
Finally (unfortunately too late for the last election), The Antidote to Con'ism - Take A Pill, oh, Sorry, I Meant Mushroom
"Want to Feel Younger, More Open? 'Magic Mushrooms' Trigger Lasting Personality Change", Maia Szalavitz Monday, October 3, 2011
http://healthland.time.com/2011/10/03/want-to-feel-younger-more-open-magic-mushrooms-trigger-lasting-personality-change/#ixzz1ZlLo6vpJ
"drug [the psychedelic drug psilocybin - 'Magic Mushroom'] showed increases in the key personality dimension of openness — being amenable to new ideas, experiences and perspectives."
The article goes on to explain that these personality changes were contrary to what is expected when people get older. Instead of becoming less and less open to new ideas and experiences, those who took the magic mushroom and obtained a "full mystical experience," a shift towards increase openness was observed.
At least one observed that they had become "much more forgiving of friends and strangers"
Wow, need I say more.
Peace Man!
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
"Magic mushrooms can cause long-term personality changes" adriana barton, Monday, October 3, 2011 8:45PM EDT
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/the-hot-button/magic-mushrooms-can-cause-long-term-personality-changes/article2189697/
Finally (unfortunately too late for the last election), The Antidote to Con'ism - Take A Pill, oh, Sorry, I Meant Mushroom
"Want to Feel Younger, More Open? 'Magic Mushrooms' Trigger Lasting Personality Change", Maia Szalavitz Monday, October 3, 2011
http://healthland.time.com/2011/10/03/want-to-feel-younger-more-open-magic-mushrooms-trigger-lasting-personality-change/#ixzz1ZlLo6vpJ
"drug [the psychedelic drug psilocybin - 'Magic Mushroom'] showed increases in the key personality dimension of openness — being amenable to new ideas, experiences and perspectives."
The article goes on to explain that these personality changes were contrary to what is expected when people get older. Instead of becoming less and less open to new ideas and experiences, those who took the magic mushroom and obtained a "full mystical experience," a shift towards increase openness was observed.
At least one observed that they had become "much more forgiving of friends and strangers"
Wow, need I say more.
Peace Man!
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
03 October, 2011
- Nothing New Under the Sun
Further Comment on Below:
"What Imps These Particles Be"
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
01 October, 2011
I suggested that using 'Imp' instead of 'Particle' to describe quantum particles, including neutrino's, was a good fit since:
" the word 'Imp' = a mythical creature of German folklore that caused mischief - which pretty much says it all for a lot of particles."
This raises the specter that perhaps a thousand years from now people will be referring to neutrino's and other sub-atomic 'particles' as:
"mythical creatures of Western folklore from the Dawn of Science epoch [that caused mischief . . .]"
Is this an insignificant 'thought experiment'.
Well any self-respecting Scientist (in my opinion) would say perhaps not.
Perhaps there is a deeper underlying fact of the human condition being expressed here.
Perhaps, these are simply the manifestation of the human condition, archetype(s) with re-occurrence in every epoch, a human necessity in any collective world view.
To suggest that they (current theories) are supported by "mathematics" and "rigorous science" is, of course, missing the point.
To us it is "mathematics" and "rigorous science".
Or, a more general way of expressing it, "it is in conformity with the rules and methodologies generally agreed upon by us at this point in time to be used in describing our world".
(compare: spelling and grammar - just because a sentence has all its words spelled correctly and conforms to the grammerical (for all those who think it is 'grammatical' - just wait a while) rules does not mean that the underlying concept truly reflects reality. Also, as we are living thru today, spelling and rules of grammar change).
Well perhaps 1000 years ago the concept of 'Imp' satisfied this condition as well.
To suggest that our current theories possess predictability also misses the point. Predictability is a very subjective concept, and very much dependent on our current condition and what we are willing to accept.
Clearly current theories don't possess the property of predictability, since that would imply perfection, which is very unlikely.
Also, even today it is generally accepted that our theories are not totally satisfactory.
Further, perhaps also a 1000 years ago it was quite acceptable to blame 'mischief' on Imp's thus providing empirical support for their existence.
I have no doubt that in the last 100,000 years the human condition has undergone many such re-workings of our collective world view, however, all with imp's in them.
This would also explain why the media gave so much play to the experiment regarding neutrino's going faster than light - what better story than those impish neutrino's not behaving themselves again.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
"What Imps These Particles Be"
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
01 October, 2011
I suggested that using 'Imp' instead of 'Particle' to describe quantum particles, including neutrino's, was a good fit since:
" the word 'Imp' = a mythical creature of German folklore that caused mischief - which pretty much says it all for a lot of particles."
This raises the specter that perhaps a thousand years from now people will be referring to neutrino's and other sub-atomic 'particles' as:
"mythical creatures of Western folklore from the Dawn of Science epoch [that caused mischief . . .]"
Is this an insignificant 'thought experiment'.
Well any self-respecting Scientist (in my opinion) would say perhaps not.
Perhaps there is a deeper underlying fact of the human condition being expressed here.
Perhaps, these are simply the manifestation of the human condition, archetype(s) with re-occurrence in every epoch, a human necessity in any collective world view.
To suggest that they (current theories) are supported by "mathematics" and "rigorous science" is, of course, missing the point.
To us it is "mathematics" and "rigorous science".
Or, a more general way of expressing it, "it is in conformity with the rules and methodologies generally agreed upon by us at this point in time to be used in describing our world".
(compare: spelling and grammar - just because a sentence has all its words spelled correctly and conforms to the grammerical (for all those who think it is 'grammatical' - just wait a while) rules does not mean that the underlying concept truly reflects reality. Also, as we are living thru today, spelling and rules of grammar change).
Well perhaps 1000 years ago the concept of 'Imp' satisfied this condition as well.
To suggest that our current theories possess predictability also misses the point. Predictability is a very subjective concept, and very much dependent on our current condition and what we are willing to accept.
Clearly current theories don't possess the property of predictability, since that would imply perfection, which is very unlikely.
Also, even today it is generally accepted that our theories are not totally satisfactory.
Further, perhaps also a 1000 years ago it was quite acceptable to blame 'mischief' on Imp's thus providing empirical support for their existence.
I have no doubt that in the last 100,000 years the human condition has undergone many such re-workings of our collective world view, however, all with imp's in them.
This would also explain why the media gave so much play to the experiment regarding neutrino's going faster than light - what better story than those impish neutrino's not behaving themselves again.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
02 October, 2011
- Liberals - "Been There Done That" - Not!
see below
Submitted: 8:05pm (PDT) 2 Oct.'11
Reply to: MapleMiss,
The brass ring is grabbed by the person most able to think, and bold enough to act, outside the box.
Also,
Extreme times call for extreme actions
etc., etc., etc.
You could only be referring to Ignatieff as the 'not looking from within'.
Ignatieff, to my understanding, has been a Liberal all his life and so, can hardly say 'not from within'. What he wasn't was a long time politician.
Your reasoning would also exclude Bob Rae as a consideration for Liberal leader, which I suspect is not very likely.
The fact of the matter is that the dynamics are far different now, if in nothing else, in their extremeness, even from when Iggie was made leader, for the Liberal Party and the solution must be based on an analysis of matter as they stand now.
"Been there, done that" simply does not apply.
The Liberals have never 'been there' where they are now and so could not have 'done that', whatever 'that' solution be.
One thing for sure is, if they don't get it right (oops!) I mean correct there's nothing left (oops again) I mean there will be no 'there' to be to.
comments Lloyd MacILquham cicblog
Submitted: 8:05pm (PDT) 2 Oct.'11
Reply to: MapleMiss,
The brass ring is grabbed by the person most able to think, and bold enough to act, outside the box.
Also,
Extreme times call for extreme actions
etc., etc., etc.
You could only be referring to Ignatieff as the 'not looking from within'.
Ignatieff, to my understanding, has been a Liberal all his life and so, can hardly say 'not from within'. What he wasn't was a long time politician.
Your reasoning would also exclude Bob Rae as a consideration for Liberal leader, which I suspect is not very likely.
The fact of the matter is that the dynamics are far different now, if in nothing else, in their extremeness, even from when Iggie was made leader, for the Liberal Party and the solution must be based on an analysis of matter as they stand now.
"Been there, done that" simply does not apply.
The Liberals have never 'been there' where they are now and so could not have 'done that', whatever 'that' solution be.
One thing for sure is, if they don't get it right (oops!) I mean correct there's nothing left (oops again) I mean there will be no 'there' to be to.
comments Lloyd MacILquham cicblog
- Mulcair - Liberal Leader - I Must Be Dreaming
Posted: 1:01 PM on October 2, 2011 (TO time)
Mulcair concedes he faces uphill battle in NDP leadership race, daniel leblanc, Globe and Mail, Sep. 21, 2011
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/mulcair-concedes-he-faces-uphill-battle-in-ndp-leadership-race/article2172139/
submitted: 10:19am (PDT) 2 Oct.'11
Paul Dewar to join NDP leadership race, CBC News, Oct 2, 2011
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/10/02/ndp-leadership-dewar.html
I think it is a question of priorities with the NDP.
If the top priority is winning the next election I don't think there is much doubt that with Thomas Mulcair the NDP could possibly do it.
If their priority is, instead, maintaining and supporting the status quo, emphasis on ideology, winning the election not a consideration (i.e. business as usual), then Brian Topp
To me Mulcair is more Liberal leader material, Brian Topp NDP.
The Liberals should be chomping at the bit at the opportunity to woo Mulcair over and Mulcair should be giving such serious consideration.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Mulcair concedes he faces uphill battle in NDP leadership race, daniel leblanc, Globe and Mail, Sep. 21, 2011
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/mulcair-concedes-he-faces-uphill-battle-in-ndp-leadership-race/article2172139/
submitted: 10:19am (PDT) 2 Oct.'11
Paul Dewar to join NDP leadership race, CBC News, Oct 2, 2011
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/10/02/ndp-leadership-dewar.html
I think it is a question of priorities with the NDP.
If the top priority is winning the next election I don't think there is much doubt that with Thomas Mulcair the NDP could possibly do it.
If their priority is, instead, maintaining and supporting the status quo, emphasis on ideology, winning the election not a consideration (i.e. business as usual), then Brian Topp
To me Mulcair is more Liberal leader material, Brian Topp NDP.
The Liberals should be chomping at the bit at the opportunity to woo Mulcair over and Mulcair should be giving such serious consideration.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
01 October, 2011
- What Imps These Particles Be
Below I wrote:
"It is the initial conditions, equipment, procedures and methodologies, observations and theory that is 'a neutrino'.
This is, of course, "such stuff as dreams are made on".
However, once this whole is given a name it is somehow cut free of these defining realities, takes on an existence all it's own, and becomes 'a particle'. "
(Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html: "such stuff as dreams are made on", 01 October, 2011)
"Particle"
It should really be called a 'Set' or an 'Empirical Set' or 'Empirical Particle' or in the new vernacular 'E-Particle'.
Perhaps, Imaginary Particle, or I-Particle, gets the message across better -applying Ockhams Razor the correct name should then be 'Im-P'.
'Im-P' has the added advantage of once it is cut free from its context it will take on the added common meaning of the word 'Imp' = a mythical creature of German folklore that caused mischief - which pretty much says it all for a lot of particles.
Current quantum mechanics reminds me of the theories of Epicycles and the Ptolemaic Universe. These complex systems were the result of the then perception that the Earth was the centre of the Universe. Once this perception was dispelled the much simpler Copernican heliocentrism took precedence. Basically it is a change in the frame of reference, not in the observation, but in the contemplation or means of expression.
What current perception might give rise to the complexities observed in Quantum Physics. This is, of course, hard to know since it involves how you think about the world.
Personally I would look first at the Real Line - the use of the Real (Complex) Number System in the expression of observations.
The assumption that the real world conforms to the Real number system reached a high water mark with Newtonian mechanics. However, that the real number continuum represents the real world arose, it seems to me, from perception (e.g. underlying Zeno's Dichotomy Paradox - i.e. to get to the end you must reach the ½ way point, to get to the ½ way point you must reach its ½ way point, etc. - this is, of course, one of the integral properties of the Real Number System, and Zeno was not only assuming that going from point 'A' to point 'B' could be represented by a Real number line, it was so much a part of his perception that he, apparently, was totally unaware that his 'paradox' was based on it).
The nature of Quantum mechanics suggests, to me, that perhaps the Real (Complex) Number System may not be suitable and finding a better one might, perhaps, simplify contemplation and expression.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
"It is the initial conditions, equipment, procedures and methodologies, observations and theory that is 'a neutrino'.
This is, of course, "such stuff as dreams are made on".
However, once this whole is given a name it is somehow cut free of these defining realities, takes on an existence all it's own, and becomes 'a particle'. "
(Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html: "such stuff as dreams are made on", 01 October, 2011)
"Particle"
It should really be called a 'Set' or an 'Empirical Set' or 'Empirical Particle' or in the new vernacular 'E-Particle'.
Perhaps, Imaginary Particle, or I-Particle, gets the message across better -applying Ockhams Razor the correct name should then be 'Im-P'.
'Im-P' has the added advantage of once it is cut free from its context it will take on the added common meaning of the word 'Imp' = a mythical creature of German folklore that caused mischief - which pretty much says it all for a lot of particles.
Current quantum mechanics reminds me of the theories of Epicycles and the Ptolemaic Universe. These complex systems were the result of the then perception that the Earth was the centre of the Universe. Once this perception was dispelled the much simpler Copernican heliocentrism took precedence. Basically it is a change in the frame of reference, not in the observation, but in the contemplation or means of expression.
What current perception might give rise to the complexities observed in Quantum Physics. This is, of course, hard to know since it involves how you think about the world.
Personally I would look first at the Real Line - the use of the Real (Complex) Number System in the expression of observations.
The assumption that the real world conforms to the Real number system reached a high water mark with Newtonian mechanics. However, that the real number continuum represents the real world arose, it seems to me, from perception (e.g. underlying Zeno's Dichotomy Paradox - i.e. to get to the end you must reach the ½ way point, to get to the ½ way point you must reach its ½ way point, etc. - this is, of course, one of the integral properties of the Real Number System, and Zeno was not only assuming that going from point 'A' to point 'B' could be represented by a Real number line, it was so much a part of his perception that he, apparently, was totally unaware that his 'paradox' was based on it).
The nature of Quantum mechanics suggests, to me, that perhaps the Real (Complex) Number System may not be suitable and finding a better one might, perhaps, simplify contemplation and expression.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
"such stuff as dreams are made on"
(see my post: "Neutrinos - Earth shattering???"
23 September, 2011 - below
It is the initial conditions, equipment, procedures and methodologies, observations and theory that is 'a neutrino'.
This is, of course, "such stuff as dreams are made on".
However, once this whole is given a name it is somehow cut free of these defining realities, takes on an existence all it's own, and becomes 'a particle'.
Vis.:
Prospero:
Our revels now are ended. These our actors,
As I foretold you, were all spirits, and
Are melted into air, into thin air:
And like the baseless fabric of this vision,
The cloud-capp'd tow'rs, the gorgeous palaces,
The solemn temples, the great globe itself,
and yea, even neutrinos,
Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve,
And, like this insubstantial pageant faded,
Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff
As dreams are made on; and our little life
Is rounded with a sleep.
see: Shakespeare, The Tempest Act 4, scene 1, 148–158
compare Einstein:
“Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.”
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
23 September, 2011 - below
It is the initial conditions, equipment, procedures and methodologies, observations and theory that is 'a neutrino'.
This is, of course, "such stuff as dreams are made on".
However, once this whole is given a name it is somehow cut free of these defining realities, takes on an existence all it's own, and becomes 'a particle'.
Vis.:
Prospero:
Our revels now are ended. These our actors,
As I foretold you, were all spirits, and
Are melted into air, into thin air:
And like the baseless fabric of this vision,
The cloud-capp'd tow'rs, the gorgeous palaces,
The solemn temples, the great globe itself,
and yea, even neutrinos,
Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve,
And, like this insubstantial pageant faded,
Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff
As dreams are made on; and our little life
Is rounded with a sleep.
see: Shakespeare, The Tempest Act 4, scene 1, 148–158
compare Einstein:
“Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.”
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)