Australians' disgusting behaviour
 

"The_navigator©" wrote in message
...
Strimmers.



You've been to Germany?




Regards


Donal
--

Australians' disgusting behaviour
 

Ya at 300 kmph!

Cheers MC

Ozzy's Oz Moh sis wrote:

"The_navigator©" wrote in message
...

Strimmers.




You've been to Germany?




Regards


Donal
--

Australians' disgusting behaviour
 

Donals Dilema wrote in message
...
On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 23:22:08 -0000, "Ozzy's Oz Moh sis"
wrote:

There are lots of things that I am man enough to admit that I know
nothing
about.

You?????

Sure, plenty....It's just that my list is much shorter than yours.


Interesting!!


I know nothing about an infinite number of subjects. How many things do
you know nothing about?

Take an Aspirin before you try to answer.


Regards


Donal
--

Australians' disgusting behaviour
 

You raise a dilemma. If you know nothing about an infinite number of
subjects it is possible to give a number for the things you do know
about (apart from zero of course).

Cheers MC

Donal wrote:

Donals Dilema wrote in message
...

On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 23:22:08 -0000, "Ozzy's Oz Moh sis"
wrote:


There are lots of things that I am man enough to admit that I know

nothing

about.

You?????

Sure, plenty....It's just that my list is much shorter than yours.



Interesting!!


I know nothing about an infinite number of subjects. How many things do
you know nothing about?

Take an Aspirin before you try to answer.


Regards


Donal
--

Australians' disgusting behaviour
 

I mean ... is it possible ...

Cheers MC

The_navigator© wrote:

You raise a dilemma. If you know nothing about an infinite number of
subjects it is possible to give a number for the things you do know
about (apart from zero of course).

Cheers MC

Donal wrote:

Donals Dilema wrote in message
...

On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 23:22:08 -0000, "Ozzy's Oz Moh sis"
wrote:


There are lots of things that I am man enough to admit that I know


nothing

about.

You?????


Sure, plenty....It's just that my list is much shorter than yours.




Interesting!!


I know nothing about an infinite number of subjects. How many
things do
you know nothing about?

Take an Aspirin before you try to answer.


Regards


Donal
--

Australians' disgusting behaviour
 

"The_navigator©" wrote in message
...
I mean ... is it possible ...


Yes, and I think that you already know that to be true.

So, now you know nothing about an infinite number minus one things.

The logical conclusion is that some of us are cleverer than others, and at
the same time we are all equally ignorant.

Regards


Donal
--

Australians' disgusting behaviour
 

But is that less than an infinite number?

Cheers MC

Donal wrote:

"The_navigator©" wrote in message
...

I mean ... is it possible ...



Yes, and I think that you already know that to be true.

So, now you know nothing about an infinite number minus one things.

The logical conclusion is that some of us are cleverer than others, and at
the same time we are all equally ignorant.

Regards


Donal
--

Australians' disgusting behaviour
 

"The_navigator©" wrote in message
...
But is that less than an infinite number?


I'll assume that there is a reason for your obtuseness, and give you the
answer that you want.


***No!***


We are *all* equally ignorant. Especially Australians!!

Regards



Donal
--

Australians' disgusting behaviour
 

Total knowledge in the universe must ne less than the energy content of
the universe which is finite. You say that your ignorance is infinite so
are you saying there's no point to knowledge since we have less than none?

Cheers MC

Donal wrote:

"The_navigator©" wrote in message
...

But is that less than an infinite number?



I'll assume that there is a reason for your obtuseness, and give you the
answer that you want.


***No!***


We are *all* equally ignorant. Especially Australians!!

Regards



Donal
--

Australians' disgusting behaviour
 

"The_navigator©" wrote in message
...
Total knowledge in the universe must ne less than the energy content of
the universe which is finite. You say that your ignorance is infinite so
are you saying there's no point to knowledge since we have less than none?


Actually, you are much closer than you think.

Any knowledge that we possess, must be greater than none, ... however we
are infinitely ignorant. We have theories about the origin of the Universe
that are incredibly stupid.


Einstein wasn't a genius, he was a brilliant deceiver. Hawkins is equally
gifted!




Regards


Donal
--

Australians' disgusting behaviour
 

I agree, the idea that the universe was created by a couple of guys
riding a turtle is absurd. In fact most religious theories are laughable.

Cheers MC

Donal wrote:

"The_navigator©" wrote in message
...

Total knowledge in the universe must ne less than the energy content of
the universe which is finite. You say that your ignorance is infinite so
are you saying there's no point to knowledge since we have less than none?



Actually, you are much closer than you think.

Any knowledge that we possess, must be greater than none, ... however we
are infinitely ignorant. We have theories about the origin of the Universe
that are incredibly stupid.


Einstein wasn't a genius, he was a brilliant deceiver. Hawkins is equally
gifted!




Regards


Donal
--

Australians' disgusting behaviour
 

But, if all the information contained in the universe is finite, your
premise is incorrect -i.e. we cannot be infinitely ignorant.

Cheers MC

Donal wrote:
"The_navigator©" wrote in message
...

Total knowledge in the universe must ne less than the energy content of
the universe which is finite. You say that your ignorance is infinite so
are you saying there's no point to knowledge since we have less than none?



Actually, you are much closer than you think.

Any knowledge that we possess, must be greater than none, ... however we
are infinitely ignorant. We have theories about the origin of the Universe
that are incredibly stupid.


Einstein wasn't a genius, he was a brilliant deceiver. Hawkins is equally
gifted!




Regards


Donal
--

Australians' disgusting behaviour
 

If the universe is infinite how can you say total energy content is finite,
for that matter can you list all the forms of energy? Certain currently
existing types may be finite in specific locations but even those, once
used, only change into another form. If the universe is not infinite then
a) define the limits and b) describe what lies beyond those parameters.

This is not a test question. You don't get a gold star nor an ink blot in
your copy book.

Personally, to stay on topic, I don't find Australian behaviour disgusting
at all. That's a myth, mere propaganda like the rain of Seattle. They are
really quite. . . how should I say . . . .affable!

LOL
MST

Australians' disgusting behaviour
 

"The_navigator©" wrote in message
...
But, if all the information contained in the universe is finite, your
premise is incorrect -i.e. we cannot be infinitely ignorant.


Who said that all the information in the universe was finite?


Let us consider, for a moment, the properties of a sub-atomic particle ...
an electron.

For our example, I would invite you to take only *one* of the atoms of
oxygen that exist in the room that you are currently sitting in. .. (I
assume that you are seated).


Now, I invite you to consider the information that might pertain to that
single electron. We might consider it's mass! We might consider it's
position in space! Perhaps we might also consider it's position in space at
a specific point in the past. We might even try to forecst where it will be
at a specific point in the future.


As there are an infinite number of points of time in the future - there are
an infinite number of bits of information about this single electron. In
fact, there are an infinite number of points in time in the next second. As
you can see, there is an infinite amount of knowledge about the existence of
a single electron over the next second of its' existence.


To disprove your theory even further, we can either take our electron and go
down to smaller particles, or we can go up to bigger entities.


Either way, you are wrong. It is amazing, but with my knowledge of man's
ignorance, I can prove that you know nothing about the nature of knowledge!



Regards


Donal
--

Australians' disgusting behaviour
 

"Schoonertrash" wrote in message
...

Personally, to stay on topic, I don't find Australian behaviour disgusting
at all. That's a myth, mere propaganda like the rain of Seattle. They
are
really quite. . . how should I say . . . .affable!

LOL

"affable". Do you mean that they aren't real men?



Regards


Donal
--

Australians' disgusting behaviour
 

Easy going, mellow, laid back, polite in an understated way. . . .nice .
...affable. Course that's from my view point. Others think they are rude,
crude and tatooed . .Blue! . .. .. fair disgusting. That's from
their viewpoint. Ah well . .. .

Australians' disgusting behaviour
 

Who said it was infinite?

Cheers MC

Schoonertrash wrote:

If the universe is infinite how can you say total energy content is finite,
for that matter can you list all the forms of energy? Certain currently
existing types may be finite in specific locations but even those, once
used, only change into another form. If the universe is not infinite then
a) define the limits and b) describe what lies beyond those parameters.

This is not a test question. You don't get a gold star nor an ink blot in
your copy book.

Personally, to stay on topic, I don't find Australian behaviour disgusting
at all. That's a myth, mere propaganda like the rain of Seattle. They are
really quite. . . how should I say . . . .affable!

LOL
MST

Australians' disgusting behaviour
 

And that is where you are so wrong. The fact is that we can predict
exactly where the atom will be for a short period with perfect accurace
-that's thanks to QED. The problem is that the solution to greater times
becomes too complex. This does not mean that information content right
now is infinite. You are mixing the plurarity of the future with
existance. The fact is that the energy content right _now_ is finite. It
cannot be otherwise! The refute this implies that our existance (wave
state) right is not a certainty (deterministic). Now you are not going
to say you don't exist are you?

Cheers MC

Donal wrote:

"The_navigator©" wrote in message
...

But, if all the information contained in the universe is finite, your
premise is incorrect -i.e. we cannot be infinitely ignorant.



Who said that all the information in the universe was finite?


Let us consider, for a moment, the properties of a sub-atomic particle ...
an electron.

For our example, I would invite you to take only *one* of the atoms of
oxygen that exist in the room that you are currently sitting in. .. (I
assume that you are seated).


Now, I invite you to consider the information that might pertain to that
single electron. We might consider it's mass! We might consider it's
position in space! Perhaps we might also consider it's position in space at
a specific point in the past. We might even try to forecst where it will be
at a specific point in the future.


As there are an infinite number of points of time in the future - there are
an infinite number of bits of information about this single electron. In
fact, there are an infinite number of points in time in the next second. As
you can see, there is an infinite amount of knowledge about the existence of
a single electron over the next second of its' existence.


To disprove your theory even further, we can either take our electron and go
down to smaller particles, or we can go up to bigger entities.


Either way, you are wrong. It is amazing, but with my knowledge of man's
ignorance, I can prove that you know nothing about the nature of knowledge!



Regards


Donal
--

Australians' disgusting behaviour
 

"The_navigator©" wrote in message
...
And that is where you are so wrong. The fact is that we can predict
exactly where the atom will be for a short period with perfect accurace
-that's thanks to QED. The problem is that the solution to greater times
becomes too complex. This does not mean that information content right
now is infinite.

Of course it does!

Can you not break the next second into an infinite number of smaller time
frames?

Therefore, there are an infinite number of possibilities for the information
pertaining to the position of any single electron



You are mixing the plurarity of the future with
existance.

Well, if the next second is too difficult, how about the application of my
ideas to the last second?



The fact is that the energy content right _now_ is finite.

Only if you subscribe to the "Big Bang" Theory.

I don't.


It has several problems. The first is that the Universe was created out of
nothing at all - and that equal quantities of matter and anti-matter were
created.

Tell me, were equal quantities of Energy and anti-Energy created?

Is there really no empty space beyond the bounds of our little Universe?


It
cannot be otherwise! The refute this implies that our existance (wave
state) right is not a certainty (deterministic). Now you are not going
to say you don't exist are you?

I only exist in my own mind..... as do you.

Of course, *I* might only exist in your mind.




Regards



Donal
--

Australians' disgusting behaviour
 

Donal wrote:
"The_navigator©" wrote in message
...

And that is where you are so wrong. The fact is that we can predict
exactly where the atom will be for a short period with perfect accurace
-that's thanks to QED. The problem is that the solution to greater times
becomes too complex. This does not mean that information content right
now is infinite.


Of course it does!

Can you not break the next second into an infinite number of smaller time
frames?

That has nothing to do with the energy content of the system.

Therefore, there are an infinite number of possibilities for the information
pertaining to the position of any single electron

Yes but only one comes into exixtance with observation. At that point
the wave function is determined and there your are!


You are mixing the plurarity of the future with
existance.


Well, if the next second is too difficult, how about the application of my
ideas to the last second?

Seconds are a long time on the atomis scale.



The fact is that the energy content right _now_ is finite.


Only if you subscribe to the "Big Bang" Theory.

I don't.


That is not a requirement of BB theories.

It has several problems. The first is that the Universe was created out of
nothing at all - and that equal quantities of matter and anti-matter were
created.

Tell me, were equal quantities of Energy and anti-Energy created?

Is there really no empty space beyond the bounds of our little Universe?


Yes nothing. nada. Zip.

Cheers MC


It
cannot be otherwise! The refute this implies that our existance (wave
state) right is not a certainty (deterministic). Now you are not going
to say you don't exist are you?


I only exist in my own mind..... as do you.

Of course, *I* might only exist in your mind.




Regards



Donal
--

Australians' disgusting behaviour
 

Hi Katy,
more like a running wrestling match, IMHO
Scout

"katysails" wrote in message ...
What's rugby? ;-)

It's sort of a cross between soccer and football but very rude.

Australians' disgusting behaviour
 

"The_navigator©" wrote in message
...


Donal wrote:
"The_navigator©" wrote in message
...

And that is where you are so wrong. The fact is that we can predict
exactly where the atom will be for a short period with perfect accurace
-that's thanks to QED. The problem is that the solution to greater times
becomes too complex. This does not mean that information content right
now is infinite.


Of course it does!

Can you not break the next second into an infinite number of smaller
time
frames?

That has nothing to do with the energy content of the system.

The discussion started with the contention that man's ignorance was
infinite. You introduced the "energy content" as a method of proving that
information was, in some way, finite. However, the sum total of energy
contained in the Universe is not related to the sum total of information
about the Universe. I have already demonstrated that information can be
related to time. As any unit of time can be divided into an infinite number
of sub-units, then the information regarding anything at all, can be
divided into an infinite number of discrete pieces of information.

The sum total of energy that exists in our Universe may well be finite.
However, the sum total of knowledge about the behaviour of any single
electron, in any single atom, is infinite!

In other words, we know nothing!



Regards


Donal
--




Therefore, there are an infinite number of possibilities for the
information
pertaining to the position of any single electron

Yes but only one comes into exixtance with observation. At that point
the wave function is determined and there your are!


You are mixing the plurarity of the future with
existance.


Well, if the next second is too difficult, how about the application of
my
ideas to the last second?

Seconds are a long time on the atomis scale.



The fact is that the energy content right _now_ is finite.


Only if you subscribe to the "Big Bang" Theory.

I don't.


That is not a requirement of BB theories.

It has several problems. The first is that the Universe was created out
of
nothing at all - and that equal quantities of matter and anti-matter
were
created.

Tell me, were equal quantities of Energy and anti-Energy created?

Is there really no empty space beyond the bounds of our little Universe?


Yes nothing. nada. Zip.

Cheers MC


It
cannot be otherwise! The refute this implies that our existance (wave
state) right is not a certainty (deterministic). Now you are not going
to say you don't exist are you?


I only exist in my own mind..... as do you.

Of course, *I* might only exist in your mind.




Regards



Donal
--

Australians' disgusting behaviour
 

Hi Katy,
more like a running wrestling match, IMHO
Scout

Hey Scout! Where you been????

--=20
katysails
s/v Chanteuse
Kirie Elite 32
http://katysails.tripod.com

"Women and cats will do as they please, and men and dogs should relax
and get used to the idea." - Robert A. Heinlein

Australians' disgusting behaviour
 

I'm still breathing Katy, but haven't been able to poke my head out
since school started in sept. It's great having summers off, provided
ya don't mind zero weekends throughout the school year and lots of 12
hour days. I wouldn't trade it for anything though.
I drop in frequently (lurk), enjoy the knee-slappers, and even share
some with my students. They get a huge kick out of asa and have even
shown some interest in sailing as a result of the readings. God help
us all if they start posting, lol.
Scout


"katysails" wrote in message ...
Hi Katy,
more like a running wrestling match, IMHO
Scout

Hey Scout! Where you been????

Australians' disgusting behaviour
 

Donal wrote:

"The_navigator©" wrote in message
...


Donal wrote:

"The_navigator©" wrote in message
...


And that is where you are so wrong. The fact is that we can predict
exactly where the atom will be for a short period with perfect accurace
-that's thanks to QED. The problem is that the solution to greater times
becomes too complex. This does not mean that information content right
now is infinite.


Of course it does!

Can you not break the next second into an infinite number of smaller

time

frames?

That has nothing to do with the energy content of the system.


The discussion started with the contention that man's ignorance was
infinite. You introduced the "energy content" as a method of proving that
information was, in some way, finite. However, the sum total of energy
contained in the Universe is not related to the sum total of information
about the Universe. I have already demonstrated that information can be
related to time. As any unit of time can be divided into an infinite number
of sub-units, then the information regarding anything at all, can be
divided into an infinite number of discrete pieces of information.

Information and energy have a very close connection. The minimum amount
of energy required to store a bit of information has been known for
quite some time. Since the energy content of the universe is finite it
follows that the information content is also finite for without energy
there is no information storage -i.e. that information does not exist.
Of course the amount of information is very very large but it's not
infinite -unless a big number means infinity to you...

The sum total of energy that exists in our Universe may well be finite.
However, the sum total of knowledge about the behaviour of any single
electron, in any single atom, is infinite!

No it isn't. Is it that you are confused about wave-particle duality -or
perhaps you are asking meaningless questions which cannot be answered
because there is no information in their answers?

Cheers MC

Australians' disgusting behaviour
 

God help
us all if they start posting, lol.

You sure Bobbu isn't one of your students???

--=20
katysails
s/v Chanteuse
Kirie Elite 32
http://katysails.tripod.com

"Women and cats will do as they please, and men and dogs should relax
and get used to the idea." - Robert A. Heinlein

Australians' disgusting behaviour
 

Spare us, please have mercy.

S.Simon


"katysails" wrote in message ...
God help
us all if they start posting, lol.

You sure Bobbu isn't one of your students???

--
katysails
s/v Chanteuse
Kirie Elite 32
http://katysails.tripod.com

"Women and cats will do as they please, and men and dogs should relax
and get used to the idea." - Robert A. Heinlein

Australians' disgusting behaviour
 

"The_navigator©" wrote in message
...


Donal wrote:

"The_navigator©" wrote in message
...


Donal wrote:

"The_navigator©" wrote in message
...


And that is where you are so wrong. The fact is that we can predict
exactly where the atom will be for a short period with perfect
accurace
-that's thanks to QED. The problem is that the solution to greater
times
becomes too complex. This does not mean that information content right
now is infinite.


Of course it does!

Can you not break the next second into an infinite number of smaller

time

frames?

That has nothing to do with the energy content of the system.


The discussion started with the contention that man's ignorance was
infinite. You introduced the "energy content" as a method of proving
that
information was, in some way, finite. However, the sum total of energy
contained in the Universe is not related to the sum total of information
about the Universe. I have already demonstrated that information can
be
related to time. As any unit of time can be divided into an infinite
number
of sub-units, then the information regarding anything at all, can be
divided into an infinite number of discrete pieces of information.

Information and energy have a very close connection. The minimum amount
of energy required to store a bit of information has been known for
quite some time. Since the energy content of the universe is finite it
follows that the information content is also finite for without energy
there is no information storage -i.e. that information does not exist.
Of course the amount of information is very very large but it's not
infinite -unless a big number means infinity to you...

The sum total of energy that exists in our Universe may well be finite.
However, the sum total of knowledge about the behaviour of any single
electron, in any single atom, is infinite!

No it isn't. Is it that you are confused about wave-particle duality -or
perhaps you are asking meaningless questions which cannot be answered
because there is no information in their answers?

Does an electron exist? Is it a physical entity?

If so, then it must occupy a position in space!


Therefore, it will occupy an infinite number of positions in the next
second - because the next second contains an infinite number of points in
time.


Regards


Donal
--

Australians' disgusting behaviour
 

Donal wrote:



Does an electron exist? Is it a physical entity?

Yes


If so, then it must occupy a position in space!

Not unless you look for it, until then it is everywhere, if
you subscribe to quantum mechanical theory.


Therefore, it will occupy an infinite number of positions in the next
second - because the next second contains an infinite number of points in
time.

Like I said, it always was and is everywhere, it's one way of explaining
quantum tunneling.

Cheers
Marty

Australians' disgusting behaviour
 

Donal wrote:

"The_navigator©" wrote in message
...


Donal wrote:


"The_navigator©" wrote in message
...


Donal wrote:


"The_navigator©" wrote in message
...



And that is where you are so wrong. The fact is that we can predict
exactly where the atom will be for a short period with perfect

accurace

-that's thanks to QED. The problem is that the solution to greater

times

becomes too complex. This does not mean that information content right
now is infinite.


Of course it does!

Can you not break the next second into an infinite number of smaller

time


frames?

That has nothing to do with the energy content of the system.


The discussion started with the contention that man's ignorance was
infinite. You introduced the "energy content" as a method of proving

that

information was, in some way, finite. However, the sum total of energy
contained in the Universe is not related to the sum total of information
about the Universe. I have already demonstrated that information can

be

related to time. As any unit of time can be divided into an infinite

number

of sub-units, then the information regarding anything at all, can be
divided into an infinite number of discrete pieces of information.


Information and energy have a very close connection. The minimum amount
of energy required to store a bit of information has been known for
quite some time. Since the energy content of the universe is finite it
follows that the information content is also finite for without energy
there is no information storage -i.e. that information does not exist.
Of course the amount of information is very very large but it's not
infinite -unless a big number means infinity to you...


The sum total of energy that exists in our Universe may well be finite.
However, the sum total of knowledge about the behaviour of any single
electron, in any single atom, is infinite!

No it isn't. Is it that you are confused about wave-particle duality -or
perhaps you are asking meaningless questions which cannot be answered
because there is no information in their answers?


Does an electron exist?

Only when it's interacting with something.

Is it a physical entity?

Yes it has rest mass

If so, then it must occupy a position in space!

Yes, when measured.

Therefore, it will occupy an infinite number of positions in the next
second - because the next second contains an infinite number of points in
time.

After measurement you will have to remeasure it's position and at at
that moment it does not occupy an infinite numer of positions. Do you
see it now -that the wave function collapses on measurement means that
the information conetent is finite.

Cheers MC

Regards


Donal
--

Australians' disgusting behaviour
 

"The_navigator©" wrote in message
...

After measurement you will have to remeasure it's position and at at
that moment it does not occupy an infinite numer of positions. Do you
see it now -that the wave function collapses on measurement means that
the information conetent is finite.

I can see that you would understand that the information content would be
finite for any given measurement.

I was wondering about the number of potential measurements that could be
taken in a second.

I suspect that any given second can be broken down into an infinite number
of "sub-seconds", and therefore, there are an infinite number of different
predictions about the electron's position in any given second.

Take the number of seconds that have existed over the last 15 billion years,
and combine that figure with the number of electrons in the *known*
Universe, and then you try to quantify the information about the spatial
position of each electron -...


Do you still maintain that you have any serious amount of knowledge?

Regards


Donal
--

Australians' disgusting behaviour
 

Donal wrote:

"The_navigator©" wrote in message
...

After measurement you will have to remeasure it's position and at at
that moment it does not occupy an infinite numer of positions. Do you
see it now -that the wave function collapses on measurement means that
the information conetent is finite.


I can see that you would understand that the information content would be
finite for any given measurement.

I was wondering about the number of potential measurements that could be
taken in a second.

Good idea but that's finite too because making a measuremnt requires
energy and the energy content of the universe is finite...

I suspect that any given second can be broken down into an infinite number
of "sub-seconds", and therefore, there are an infinite number of different
predictions about the electron's position in any given second.

Take the number of seconds that have existed over the last 15 billion years,
and combine that figure with the number of electrons in the *known*
Universe, and then you try to quantify the information about the spatial
position of each electron -...


Do you still maintain that you have any serious amount of knowledge?

Define "any serious" in Mbytes and I'll tell you.

Cheers MC

Australians' disgusting behaviour
 

"The_navigator©" wrote in message
...


Donal wrote:

"The_navigator©" wrote in message
...

After measurement you will have to remeasure it's position and at at
that moment it does not occupy an infinite numer of positions. Do you
see it now -that the wave function collapses on measurement means that
the information conetent is finite.


I can see that you would understand that the information content would
be
finite for any given measurement.

I was wondering about the number of potential measurements that could be
taken in a second.

Good idea but that's finite too because making a measuremnt requires
energy and the energy content of the universe is finite...

Good grief! Are you suggesting that facts cannot exist unless they have
been observed?

When a new fact is discovered, does it only come into existence *after* it
was obseverd?

Did humans need oxygen to survive before we knew that gasses existed at all?
Was the Sun at the centre of our Solar System when man still thought that
the Earth was the centre of the Universe?

Why do you try to equate facts with our ability to take measurements. Facts
exist independantly of observation.


I suspect that any given second can be broken down into an infinite
number
of "sub-seconds", and therefore, there are an infinite number of
different
predictions about the electron's position in any given second.

Take the number of seconds that have existed over the last 15 billion
years,
and combine that figure with the number of electrons in the *known*
Universe, and then you try to quantify the information about the spatial
position of each electron -...


Do you still maintain that you have any serious amount of knowledge?

Define "any serious" in Mbytes and I'll tell you.

Humans think that they are intelligent.

We are not very bright at all. We've had about 700 generations since we
lived in caves, and it looks like we will make the planet uninhabitable
within 100 years, or we will blow ourselves to bits.

I offer you a (rough) quote from Douglas Adams. "Man thought that he was
more intelligent than the dolphins, because all they did was swim around and
play. The Dolphins thought that they were more intelligent for exactly the
same reason."



Regards


Donal
--




Cheers MC

Australians' disgusting behaviour
 

I've been purposefully vague with them regarding the details of
posting. Honestly though, it's more an act of self-preservation.
Scout


"Simple Simon" wrote
Spare us, please have mercy.

S.Simon


God help us all if they start posting, lol.