HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: eradm@brahms.Berkeley.EDU (Erik Radmall)
Subject: Re: Can quantum terminology be flakeproofed?
Reply-To: eradm@brahms.Berkeley.EDU (Erik Radmall)
Organization: Xerox
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 18:28:23 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.170626.16504@Princeton.EDU>, ydobyns@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (York H. Dobyns) writes:

[much deleted]

In article <1992Oct13.170626.16504@Princeton.EDU>, ydobyns@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (York H. Dobyns) writes:
|> In article <mcirvin.718939413@husc8> mcirvin@husc8.harvard.edu (Mcirvin) writes:
|> 
|> >>I'd like  to see some  of the Heavy  Hitters of Physics  come out
|> >>with  quotable (and  above all  *understandable* statements about
|> >>the nature of 'observation', so that people will realize that the
|> >>universe *does*  still exist independent of  the consciousness of
|> >>the observer.
|> 
|> Sorry, I lost the attribution on the person Mcirvin is quoting here.
|> Whoever you are, good luck: you'll need it. I quote N. David Mermin:
|>   
|>   "The questions with which Einstein attacked the quantum theory
|>   do have answers; but they are not the answers Einstein expected
|>   them to have. We now know that the moon is demonstrably not
|>   there when nobody looks."
|> 	("Quantum mysteries for anyone", Journal of Philosophy
|> 	78, 397 (1981), p. 397-408, reprinted in _Boojums_All_The
|> 	Way_Through_, a collection of Mermin's essays published
|> 	in 1990. Lest you mistake Mermin for a crank, he's a
|> 	professor of physics at Cornell; of the the 26 essays in
|> 	_Boojums_, 11 are reprinted from Physics Today, 7 from the
|> 	American Journal of Physics. One entry is reprinted from
|> 	the Cushing/McMullin anthology mentioned above.)
|> 
|> Mermin is no big fan of the consciousness of the observer; I'm sure
|> he would regard an automatic camera as an adequate case of "somebody
|> looking" for purposes of the quote above. However, the point Mermin
|> makes in his essays about Aspect-type experiments is that certain types of 
|> extreme objectivism have been experimentally refuted.  Regardless of the 
|> ultimate truth, falsehood, completeness or otherwise of QM, Einstein's view 
|> of a universe in which there are locally real events without "spooky 
|> actions at a distance" has now been *observed* to be false, for the 
|> universe we live in.
|> 
|> York Dobyns		ydobyns@phoenix.princeton.edu

Hmmm -- maybe Lao-tse, the Buddha, and the Hindus were right all along about the
fundamental nature of the universe. And they didn't even have particle accelerators -
just good observational skills and insight.

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
J. Erik Radmall                    | Xerox Corp.
eradm@brahms.wbst845e.xerox.com    | Knowledge-Based Systems Competency Center
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: toby@cs.man.ac.uk (Toby Howard)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Ezekiel Space Ship
Date: 11 Oct 92 14:10:13 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Manchester
In-reply-to: jec@pilatus.zurich.ibm.com's message of 9 Oct 92 15:49:46 GMT

There's a book all about this, by NASA engineer Joseph Blumrich. Called
"The space ships of Ezekiel" I think. Sorry, this is from memory.

Toby
--

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Toby Howard    Department of Computer Science, University of Manchester
Lecturer               Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, United Kingdom
                                                   Tel: +44 61-275-6274
toby@cs.man.ac.uk                                  Fax: +44 61-275-6236
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: revpk@cellar.org (Brian 'Rev P-K' Siano)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Satan: Big Business
Date: 11 Oct 92 18:18:07 GMT
Organization: The Cellar BBS and public access system

lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes:

> In article <n0bb0t@ofa123.fidonet.org>, David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org writes.
> >JLL> "[....] and Johanna Michaelson (who helped get the book
> >working for a Dr. Maas. I can email their address and phone
> >number to you if you want to talk to them personally.
> 
> I would.  Please email me.
> 
> Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
> Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
> University of Arizona
> Tucson, AZ 85721

        Me, too--Ijustfinished the first draft of an article on the Satan 
panic, but I
m always open for more sources.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian "Rev. P-K" Siano                                  revpk@cellar.org
Servo: "Dianetics, by L. Ron Hubbard."
Joel:  "Why is my life messed up? Page 74."
Servo: "When will this movie end? Page 155."
Crow:  "How much money can we get out of Tom Cruise? Page 85."

                                       "Mystery Science Theater 3000,"
                                       during a volcano scene in
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Addiction (Was Re: Soul)
Date: 13 Oct 1992 23:27:04 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <1992Oct13.181140.8643@netcom.com>, payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>In that case, I must be extremely unusual, having smoked at least two packs of
>>cigarettes a day for over a dozen years without becoming addicted.
>
>The key here is if you can stop or not. If you are still smoking, it
>is a bit early to be making an assessment of the situation.

>You did not say whether of not you are still smoking BTW.

Yes, I did, several posts ago.  It's been two months now since my last
cigarette.

>At one point in time, I had a much worse habit. I stopped cold one day.
>I know several who have done the same with cigarettes. But I know
>many more who have tried to quit many times, and failed. The first moment
>of stress, and they light up.
>
>I'd like for you to explain your jump from a definition of an addiction
>to "I must be extremely unusual". Because it does not follow. I also assume
>that you have what you always seem to be asking for. Citations and numbers
>to show why you think that you "must be extremely unusual". How about
>sharing them with us?

Sorry, I should have added the clause "; either that or cigarettes are not
nearly as addictive as all the propaganda would have us believe."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.alien.visitors,sci.astro
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Faith and sceptics
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 17:49:39 GMT

In article <Bvqv3A.658@bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au> fernee@newton.physics.uq.oz.au (Mark Fernee) writes:
>|> Skeptics rely on the principle that it is far more probable that
>|> unexplained phenomena are the results of known causes than that such
>|> phenomena are the result of some extraordinary cause.
>This is fine as long as the explanation is indeed simple. However, if the
>explanation doesn't exist within science yet, what then does a skeptic
>believe?  

He believes something like "Hm, there's something out there I don't know the
explanation of".

Of course, just because the skeptic doesn't know what the _explanation_ is
doesn't mean he can't say "you say you can turn lead into gold, but whenever
you try to demonstrate the machine in front of me, it doesn't work".  Not
having decent evidence is not having decent evidence, whether you can explain
the phenomenon suggested by the evidence or not.
--
"the bogosity in a field equals the bogosity imported from related areas, plus
the bogosity generated internally, minus the bogosity expelled or otherwise
disposed of."  -- K. Eric Drexler

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
From: draper@odin.mda.uth.tmc.edu (E.J. Draper)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: AIDS and high-risk behavior
Date: 16 Oct 92 21:57:50 GMT
Article-I.D.: lib.7578
Organization: U.T.M.D. Anderson Cancer Center
X-UserAgent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
X-XXMessage-ID: <A704A5C92D02019A@mdarpi1.mda.uth.tmc.edu>
X-XXDate: Fri, 16 Oct 92 23:00:57 GMT

In article <schumach.719254992@convex.convex.com> Richard A. Schumacher,
schumach@convex.com writes:
>those lives. Similarly, simple, common-sense steps like dispensing
>condoms in all schools and clean needle exchanges would
>reduce the HIV infection rate significantly, as the Dutch experience
>demonstrates.

I'd like to see a study that does verifies these Dutch claims.  

Can I have your source?


      |E|J-  ED DRAPER
 rEpar|D|<-  Radiologic/Pathologic Institute
             The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center
             draper@odin.mda.uth.tmc.edu
From: mmestern@cs1.uct.ac.za (MA MESTERN)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Clinton and Creationism
Date: 7 Oct 92 09:47:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs1.mmestern.3.0
Organization: Computer Science Department, University of Cape Town

>> Arkansas *had* a law requiring the teaching of Scientific Creationism in
>> public schools, but it was struck down.
>
>I seem faintly to recall a poster some time ago on talk.origins investigating
>this issue, the conclusion being that the entire Arkansas equal-time fiasco
>occurred during a one-year interlude in Clinton's governorship, and that no
>pertinent quotes from Clinton appeared to exist to indicate what his opinion
>on the whole thing was or is.

I read somewhere that Clinton later stated that he would not have signed the 
bill, but the whole incident does not give one an encouraging picture of the 
Arkansas government.

>
>> At least one other state had a similar law, but I can't remember which
>> one right now.
>
>That'll be Louisiana.
>
>Cheers
>
>Simon
>-- 

Mark.
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:17957 alt.folklore.urban:25711
From: cspot@cats.ucsc.edu (Christopher Edward Hilker)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.folklore.urban
Subject: Weebles (was Re: Of Egg Yolks and Astrology)
Date: 15 Oct 1992 00:14:22 GMT
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: am.ucsc.edu


In article <1992Oct14.205706.18826@news.unomaha.edu> torsten@cwis.unomaha.edu (Torsten Wesley Adair) writes:
>	The best way to balance an egg on a flat surface is to shake it 
>vigorously for about a minute.  The yolk will sink to the bottom of the egg, 
>thereby providing the ballast (much like a Weeblewobble tm).  If it doesn't 
                                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>work the first time, shake it some more.

This is a pet peeve of mine. Those cute little egg-shaped people were
called "Weebles," hence the jingle:
		Weebles wobble,
		But they don't fall down.
I have absoulutely no idea why everyone insists on calling them
"Weeble-wobbles" nowadays, but I believe it may be a sign of the
coming Rapture.

C.
-- 
They have corrupted themselves,             |
their spot is not the spot of his children: |        Chris.Hilker
they are a perverse and crooked generation. | cspot@cats.ucsc.edu
From: wsadjw@rw7.urc.tue.nl (Jan Willem Nienhuys)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Can quantum terminology be flakeproofed?
Date: 14 Oct 92 11:16:37 GMT
Reply-To: wsadjw@urc.tue.nl
Organization: Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands

In article <1bem8aINNqi7@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>In article <5923@tuegate.tue.nl>, wsadjw@rw7.urc.tue.nl (Jan Willem Nienhuys) writes:
>>The physicist will as a rule take the moment that the measuring apparatus
>>has undergone an irreversible change as the moment on which the measurement
>>takes place. 
>
>I'm afraid that this claim flies in the face of the Schrodiner's Cat thought
>experiment.  The conclusion drawn from that experiment is that the measurement
>doesn't take place until the box is opened, despite the fact that a cat dying
>is certainly a macroscopic irreversible change.

Sure. That's why S. thought up this "experiment".  The Schr\"odinger cat
shows what happens when you take the point of view that the measurement
takes place after you open the box. You get a paradoxical answer.

Wigner (I believe) has even gone a step further.  When *you* (or Wigner's
friend) opens the box, even that is not a measurement  by *me* (or Wigner).
Only when *you* tell me (or Wigner's friend tells him) it is a measurement
by me.  Maybe it's only a measurement when is is published in a refereed
physics paper! That's no physics. The solution to the paradox is to put
the "measurement" at the time/place when the phenomenon observed has
resulted in an irreversible change of the environment.
This is also half of the solution of the EPR paradox.
In that experiment it was argued that one *can* know two variables at
the same time. The solution is that physics is about measurements, not
about knowledge.

JWN
and plac
From: gascan@dcst16.dc (Bill Gascoyne)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Faith and sceptics.
Date: 8 Oct 92 16:23:37 GMT
Reply-To: gascan@dcst16.dc
Organization: LSI Logic Corporation

In article 18688@s1.gov, lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
> 
> 	Let us not forget Mark Twain's definition of "faith":
> 
> 	Faith is when you believe something when you know it isn't true.
> 
> 	What more can be said?

Are you sure this is Twain?  I belive it was actually Ambrose Bierce
in "The Devil's Dictionary"

"Faith, n: That quality which enables us to believe what we know to be untrue." 

Twain may or may not have said it first, but there are so may things attributed to
him which he apparrently never said.

---
1. Bill Gascoyne
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Addiction (Was Re: Soul)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 18:11:40 GMT

In article <1beri6INN60g@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>In article <1992Oct13.145835.19569@netcom.com>, payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>>My point was that the nature of at least some addictions is "I can stop
>>>whenever I want to enough.  For the time being, I don't want to stop that
>>>badly."
>>
>>You are attempting to define addiction as a voluntary thing, and as I
>>understand it, it is not, regardless of how it started.
>>
>>If you -can- stop, then by definition, you are not addicted. If you
>>cannot, then you are. 
>
>In that case, I must be extremely unusual, having smoked at least two packs of
>cigarettes a day for over a dozen years without becoming addicted.

The key here is if you can stop or not. If you are still smoking, it
is a bit early to be making an assessment of the situation.

You did not say whether of not you are still smoking BTW.

At one point in time, I had a much worse habit. I stopped cold one day.
I know several who have done the same with cigarettes. But I know
many more who have tried to quit many times, and failed. The first moment
of stress, and they light up.

I'd like for you to explain your jump from a definition of an addiction
to "I must be extremely unusual". Because it does not follow. I also assume
that you have what you always seem to be asking for. Citations and numbers
to show why you think that you "must be extremely unusual". How about
sharing them with us?

>Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.folklore.urban
From: torsten@cwis.unomaha.edu (Torsten Wesley Adair)
Subject: Re: Of Egg Yolks and Astrology
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 20:57:06 GMT

JRowe@cen.ex.ac.uk  writes:
> 
> 	I thought the secret of balancing eggs upright was to use a
> little slight of hand to put down a small pile of salt or similar
> and balance the egg on that. Another UL?

	The best way to balance an egg on a flat surface is to shake it 
vigorously for about a minute.  The yolk will sink to the bottom of the egg, 
thereby providing the ballast (much like a Weeblewobble tm).  If it doesn't 
work the first time, shake it some more.

	As to the trick of balancing eggs on top of one another, do it at your
own risk.

	Is it possible to throw an egg from a great height and not have it 
break when it hits a hard surface?  I think it has something to do with
terminal velocity.

Torsten at Omaha	The first chicken was a mutant, so I would say the 
			egg came first.
 
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:18028 soc.men:17805 soc.women:17803 alt.feminism:2636
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,soc.men,soc.women,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Repressed Memories, Ruined Lives
Date: 16 Oct 92 14:48:47 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <13258@hans> hans@Software.Mitel.COM (Hans Johnsen) writes:
>noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) writes:
>>[ A description of a horrible travesty of justice]
>...
>>she made the allegations (about a month earlier).  This person made
>>statements to a reporter from 60 Minutes that she was 19 before she knew
>>that not all parents have sex with their children and also stated that
>>she had been raped by over 200 different men. 

You know, I am having a little bit of trouble with this. I am reminded
of cases that I have heard of (from a female social worker, it's gotta
be right :^) about a woman who seduces men, than cries rape. This really
happens.

I mean, 200 different men, I have a problem with this claim.

BTW, the ex-wife of a very good friend was molested as a child, and
she was so messed up sexually that she really did not know what was
wrong and what was not. When he finally found out how much she had
been sleeping around, he was devestated, and hence the divorce.

These are terrible tragedies, I am not trying to downplay that. But
this hardly seems justification for sending others to prison. 
 
>Yes, it sounds like this woman is messed up for sure. If her claims of
>incest and rape in her case are true, then that would certainly be a
>reason for her sickness. If they aren't it is just more evidence of her
>sickness.

Agreed, I just question that anything she says should be taken at face
value.
 
[..--..]


Rich

payner@netcom.com
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:17719 alt.conspiracy:11106 alt.conspiracy.jfk:3467 talk.politics.misc:50541 alt.politics.elections:15824
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.conspiracy,alt.conspiracy.jfk,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: WHERE WAS BILL???
Date: 9 Oct 1992 16:07:58 GMT
Organization: Mips Technologies, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

Tim Miller) writes:
|> 
|> On 08 Oct 92 02:20:55 GMT, doug@ramona.com (Double Agent) said:
|> 
|>  D> Washington, DC (AP) - Mary Matalin, designated Bush campaign attack-bitch,
|>  D> followed up recent charges related to Democratic presidential candidate Bill
|>  D> Clinton's secret meetings in Moscow with high-ranking officers of the KGB by
|>  D> demanding to know why Clinton has no alibi for November 22, 1963, the date
|>  D> of President Kennedy's assassination. Asked Matalin, "why won't Bill Clinton
|>  D> come clean with the American people?"
|> 
|> 	Heh heh heh.  Man goes to Moscow, can't remember a thing about
|> it.  Anyone ever see "The Manchurian Candidate?"
|> 
 	Heh heh heh.  Man attends meeting in the white house on support 
	to Iraq, can't remember a thing about it.  Anyone ever see 
	"The Manchurian Candidate?"
-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Quit Judas / Crucifixion etc.
From: dnicol@cstp.umkc.edu
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 23:59:39 GMT
Organization: UM - Kansas City, Computer Science

In article <5850@tuegate.tue.nl>, wsadjw@rw7.urc.tue.nl (Jan Willem Nienhuys) writes:
> I propose that we drop this subject.  No new points of view are
> raised.  And the subject is going farther and farther away from
> the empirically testable (unless you call provoking people with
> strong opinions an empirical test of their mind contents . . .).
> 
> JWN
I second the motion

DLN
From: wsadjw@rw7.urc.tue.nl (Jan Willem Nienhuys)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Can quantum terminology be flakeproofed?
Date: 13 Oct 92 13:15:41 GMT
Reply-To: wsadjw@urc.tue.nl
Organization: Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands

In article <mcirvin.718939413@husc8> mcirvin@husc8.harvard.edu (Mcirvin) writes:
>
>Part of the problem is that physicists are by no means of one
>voice about what really happens when an apparatus measures something.
...
>changes the wave function when a measurement happens (and there
>are disagreements about what constitutes a measurement); people
...
>Almost no physicist thinks today that consciousness has anything to
>do with the act of measurement.  (You might say that the apparatus,
...
>seem so bizarre.  Distortion is by no means limited to interpretations
>where the act of measurement involves a physical "wave-function
>collapse."  Hugh Everett's nice collapse-free "relative
...
>It's a little incomplete, in that it doesn't say what a measuring
>apparatus is or how the state is affected.  Those issues are at
>the heart of the disputes over interpretations of QM. 
>

One aspect of each measurement is that it results in a macroscopic
change somewhere; and macroscopic means that a more or less irreversible
change has occurred, for instance a pointer has moved or a piece on
a photographic plate has blackened. They key ingredient is that the
observed change is irreversible from a thermodynamic point of view.
The "macroscopic state" indicating the result of the measurement
is usually a very large collection of states (all "states" corresponding
to a position of a pointer, typically 10 to a large power).

The physicist will as a rule take the moment that the measuring apparatus
has undergone an irreversible change as the moment on which the measurement
takes place. 

I understand that as follows: when the particle hits a detector, theoretically
the chain of events might be reversed and the particle re-emitted from the
detector and hit another detector or no detector at all.  However, when this
has become so improbable that this can be neglected, we consider the 
measurement done.

No consciousness needed. Just one detectable bit of information in the universe
changed suffices.

JWN