User talk:Ancheta Wis/b

Hedgehog signalling maintains the optic stalk-retinal interface through the regulation of Vax gene activity

SMAD3 or Mothers against decapentaplegic homolog 3

+: S×S → S

The article shows a march of ideas, grounded in constraints such as truth, validity, reproducibility etc. and a lessening of the need to exalt one concept over another, except perhaps for our own attention and other resources. Might this be an explicit entry for part of the article. Deduction only yields to Deduction or Induction; Jevon's Plausibility of a Conjecture becomes a defensible effort rather than a waste of time; Evidence becomes just as important as Authority. Should we also include Wittgenstein's concept of the usefulness of Contradiction and Turing's rejection of that discussion? Would that not also allow the entrance into the speculative sciences, to use Roger Bacon's terminology.

These questions may be more appropriate for a philosophical article; in that case we could ignore them; would that be appropriate for a history article? In Max Born, Natural Philosophy of Cause and Chance, Born points out that Cause and Effect can be analyzed no further than that of a mathematical function. Thus he removes them as things to be found like mountains in terra incognita. This removes considerations such as 'First Movers' etc. and considerably simplifies discussions.

Ernst Mach makes a similar point about scientific law; our laws are psychologically dependent, like Occam's Razor. It helps us to simplify and otherwise transform the subjects of discussion, in order to manipulate their properties, and perhaps understand them better. Thus the laws of physics are simple, but the complication lies in the specification of the boundary conditions of the models.

In the twentieth century, statistics and computers came into their own, and we need no longer find only analytic solutions to mathematical functions, instead other techniques such as simulation by the Monte Carlo method were used to build things like bombs, etc.

On another philosophical point, Isaac Newton formulated laws of nature with forces to which we and Nature are subject. This is framed exactly like Roman law in which law started out as sacred mystery, to be passed in secret from father (patriarch) to son (but with a bow to vengance as a motivation for punishing transgressors of law). Then the plebeians demanded equal access to the law and their publication in the Twelve Tables. (Sounds like Wikipedia from 2200 years ago, doesn't it.) The analogy appears to be the personal dependence of scientific method on who is performing the steps. This concept is stated explicitly in the scientific method article itself, as well as the caution that scientific method is not a recipe and requires ingenuity and imagination. What is left unsaid is that it takes a special person to practice scientific method. Is this obvious to those reading a history? Does history take special people only? Is the historical fact that scientists have shown high moral development as well as the ability to maintain a neutral/ objective POV? Might this be myth? Is it possible for scientists to demonstrate that they only are able to practice scientific method? Might that be a litmus test?

There is a parallel situation in mathematics; it takes a mathematician to construct a mathematical proof, although a proof ought to be accessible to non-mathematicians. We do not yet understand how to make ingenuity and understanding methodical enough to satisfy Francis Bacon's dream of a better method. --Ancheta Wis 17:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

scholasticism Divine right and Roman law Roman law Oersted We need a community here. Failing that someone might just post this on Craigslist.org: "Wanted: nobel-level leader and expert in physics to devote countless hours on Free stuff. Wikiproject stalled for lack of community." or take it to the community for comment or maybe The Onion. Come on. --1 February 2007 (UTC)

What about setting a timer. After one week, one month, one year, 10 years, 100 years, ... declare the project dead. Draw a Black outline around the article/wip: "This effort is archived for historical purposes only. Please do not modify it." Then forbid any efforts to try again. 09:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is evidence that the page/wip is dead for want of moderation. That this page not be a total loss, you (the reader) might try the Autobiography of Benvenuto Cellini. Benvenuto Cellini was an extremely talented man of the Renaissance who had the ill-fortune to create works which were in high demand, and who was forced to defend himself, to put it charitably (he had to kill people who wanted to steal from him). I first learned of him through music: Benvenuto Cellini (opera). -- 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * This is OR. I suggest finding a venue like WikInfo where your POV will survive. "Wikinfo accepts and encourages original research." The next problem will be to find others who agree with you, and who will then propagate your ideas in the future. It's kind of too bad that Platonism is baked-in to your POV.
 * Gauss once stated that his work came through systematic, palpaple experimentation (I can't find the location where I saw this quote, unfortunately).
 * The categorical statement "theory is developed from data, not a wild brainstorm" also does not fit how many people think, including Albert Einstein. Where might data come from, in your scheme. Re-read the Heisenberg paraphrase of Einstein's comments on observation.
 * Mathematics doesn't come for free, especially the part about observing the logical steps in a proof. It takes mathematicians to do mathematics. Witness the Andrew Wiles proof of Fermat's Last Theorem; it took someone to say "I'm sorry, I can't understand step xxx" to Wiles. Fermat's Last Theorem continued to stump the entire world until Wiles had a brainstorm to save his proof.
 * Based upon the history of this article, involving hundreds of editors performing thousands of edits, I would be wary of the rocks hiding under the surface of the waters of your proposed voyage.

11:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Cross-channel interference
27 November 2007 I am struck by the similarity the situation on this physics/wip page and the disorder of autism.

This weekend, CNN broadcast a program, Autism is a World, featuring an autistic person, Susie Rubin, of Los Angeles, California. Susie Rubin carries spoons at all times. When she must, she watches the flow of water from a tap and modulates its flow with the spoons. At such times, she has stated that she ceases to think. Susie Rubin literally did not think until she learned how to use a communicator after 13 years of dysfunctional communication. She states "my mind woke up" after her use of the communicator.

A communicator is an electronic device with a keyboard which serves to rule out words as you type in letters, and which simultaneously allows you to select appropriate words in your message. This is very similar to the use of lexigram keyboards by some research primates in the US, who have learned to communicate words to humans and to each other.

Susie Rubin is afflicted with developmental problems, but the use of the communicator and a 24-hour/day support-person are allowing her to attend Whittier College.

Susie Rubin has behaviors which interfere with communication. She will not look at those who are speaking to her. Her face distorts with the effort of conversation. The subtleties of ordinary communication cannot be observed when attempting to communicate with her, and one must devote extra effort if one wishes to succeed with her. In communications terms, it is as if she has multiple broadcast channels which she cannot suppress even when highly educated people are devoting their full attention to her in conversation. At least one channel of her mind is attempting to attend to such conversation. The use of her communicator proves that she is in fact listening and can respond.

On this physics/wip page, a thread of conversation, asynchronous to the stated goal under discussion will pop-up, between individuals, sometimes antagonist, sometimes cooperative, as observed previously by several people.

It is as if the boiler on a steam engine were suddenly doused with cold water, suddenly lowering the temperature, and destroying the ability of the engine to do work.

This is the reason that I have proposed that we use an alternative page for the article, and the talk page for talk, rather than attempting to restrict work on the WIP page until consensus is reached. A normal wikipedia page works this way, after all. Is it not obvious that the protocol of reverting all edits to the WIP page has dampened the ability of editors to work?

}}
 * }

3. History & Foundations 

4. Principles/Concepts

5. Current Topics/Current Research

6. Applications and Influence

7. References and Notes

8. External Links

Word counts:
 * 1) Definition, not including the citations or italicized words -- 312   words

1.3.0.x -- 150 words

Further development from a tutorial point of view might place the physics of the playground (i.e., classical mechanics) under section 3 or section 4 depending on consensus.

Interrelationships of the topics of physics might go in section 3 or section 4 depending on consensus.

Some of the contributions to complex systems by Murray Gell-Mann and others might be placed in section 5.

It would be a shame not to highlight David R. Ingham's venn diagram for physics.

T

 * 1) Bayesian inference
 * 2) Cosmological decade
 * 3) Covariant derivative
 * 4) Diabetes management
 * 5) Diabetes mellitus
 * 6) Double negative
 * 7) Eigenface
 * 8) Electrical resistance
 * 9) Franklin Mountains
 * 10) Gravitation
 * 11) Great Books of the Western World
 * 12) Ground (electricity)
 * 13) Heuristic
 * 14) History of computing hardware
 * 15) History of science
 * 16) How to Solve It
 * 17) Hughes Aircraft
 * 18) Integrated circuit
 * 19) Kilbourne Hole
 * 20) King Ranch
 * 21) Law of physics
 * 22) Malay people
 * 23) Mathematical notation
 * 24) Maxwell's equations
 * 25) Mist Trail
 * 26) Model
 * 27) Negrito
 * 28) Noether's theorem
 * 29) On Intelligence
 * 30) Physical constant
 * 31) Portal/Geography/Intro
 * 32) Principia Mathematica
 * 33) Probability amplitude
 * 34) Process
 * 35) Pueblo people
 * 36) Quantum mechanics
 * 37) Ralph Bunche
 * 38) Recognition
 * 39) Richard Feynman
 * 40) Scales of measurement
 * 41) Scientific method
 * 42) Semiconductor fabrication
 * 43) Task
 * 44) Test
 * 45) Thinking
 * 46) Truth
 * 47) Validity
 * 48) Visual system
 * 49) Wisdom

It appears that the theses of Petrarch and Gibbon, who witnessed shepherds grazing their flocks among the ruins of Rome is under attack. Thus a Roman-centered view of the development of western civilization is POV. Fine. The counter-argument appears to be that the medieval universities were the truth-bearers. They started the infrastructure which we need for scientific communities; these universities produced thinkers like Robert Grosseteste (1175 - 1253), Roger Bacon (1214 – 1294), Albertus Magnus (1193-1280), Duns Scotus (1266 – 1308), William of Ockham (1285–1349), and Jean Buridan (1300 - 1358). Thus the disputed sentence might be replaced with


 * The regression in knowledge began to abate as early as the twelfth century. By this time, the universities of Europe aided materially in the propagation, translation and preservation of the texts of the ancients, including Archimedes, Eratosthenes, Hipparchus, Aristarchus, and Euclid. By the thirteenth century, these texts began to be extended by thinkers such as Robert Grosseteste, Roger Bacon, Albertus Magnus, Duns Scotus, William of Ockham and Jean Buridan. In particular, the empirical approach admired by Roger Bacon was exemplified by Petrus Peregrinus.


 * One rule of thumb for the field: "Do you like to play computer games?" If you can say "yes" and you consistently beat everyone you play against, for example, you probably have the mental agility needed to be good in the CS field. No math required because you would pick up what you really need quickly. But don't be discouraged if it seems to take a while. Like any tech subject, it will take years to gain proficiency. Then your problem will be convincing someone you can do the work. But if you make your name in the Open Source field, where there are no barriers to entry except your own skill, then the field is wide open, and you will get a job because your programming skill will be apparent to everyone in Open Source. I would discourage you from the Gaming software field, however. Only fanatics succeed there; you have to work ridiculously long hours for low pay in that field. (But at least you get to work on the finest hardware.) Ancheta Wis 22:02, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

After years of chasing craigslist.org, our website has managed to cross places with the classified ads provider, as Alexa shows that today we are now at #31 in the world vs #34 for craigslist. Will the trend continue? Is this for today only? Their weekly average is 32 and ours is 34. But who's counting? Might this be a variant of editcountitis? And the blind test has shown that the category bar has no correlation with the rise; the only way to prove there is a correlation with the #31 is to remove the browsebar. Ancheta Wis 22:18, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Culture|Geography|History|Life|Mathematics|Science|Society|Technology Wikipedia FAQs · Browse · Portals · Ask a Question · Other languages
 * TOC
 * temp
 * taken
 * emptied.
 * red
 * a
 * b
 * c.
 * d.
 * e
 * f
 * g.
 * h
 * i isaac newton
 * j
 * k.
 * l ludwig wittgenstein
 * m.
 * n notation
 * o
 * p pueblos
 * q portals
 * r realplayer
 * s science
 * t time in physics
 * u.
 * v.
 * w articles, disputes, etc.
 * x IPTV
 * y stevens point WI
 * z.
 * w articles, disputes, etc.
 * x IPTV
 * y stevens point WI
 * z.

Truth

 * Everyone, I appreciate your sincere contributions; we are not in a race. That means giving each other space, eh? No one is trying to get anyone else. We are trying to contribute in good faith. It's no good to be 'true and valid' if the article fails the tenets of the encyclopedia. One of the side-effects of a community is that we get to know how someone else will act in a situation; we get to know each other's character. Then, actions of praise and kindness from mutually respected people can resonate.
 * Here is an example - in face-to-face conversation, we might look at each other's faces to see how our statements are being received. We don't just keep talking.
 * In the same way, when declaiming a proposition, we attempt to reach our audience, we don't just write and write. We wait for feedback. So, if someone writes 'a', and then 'A' and then A, etc. continually escalating, then what is the point? There must be another agenda in operation. If it becomes clear that the article is not on that agenda, but rather a form of competition, then we ought to call a 'time out'.
 * Is it clear that our 'behavior' is what is under review? I hope so.


 * Perhaps we might just give the article a rest for a while. In the meantime, I have found some vandalism which seems to have escaped our notice while the disputes are echoing.

This is a simple enough beginning and a start. But generally, in an introduction, we set the stage. That is, we give context before we state content. Are we agreed that the context of this term is philosophical? If not, might there be a manifold context, namely the psychological, ethical, practical, theological, and spiritual views, as well as philosophical? If so, where is the discussion of the more fundamental context? What article contains this more fundamental view? Is this the very article which must contain that view? In other words, where is the ontology for this article? Simply dealing with true as a predicate with value 1, doesn't say half of it; there is more to the meaning. The connotation for truth is that someone has thought about it, and that others can reliably depend upon it. It appears there are manifold views of truth. If we were to view truth as a jewel, and the different angles from which we view that jewel as "views of truth", then the nature of truth can be called unitary.

I am not trying to stir up trouble. My personal use of this article is as a foundation article for my own interests. As a user, truth is something I depend upon. I happily defer to those who can speak about it. Ancheta Wis 15:10, 24 September 2005 (UTC)


 * One difficulty is that people see through eyes that are culturebound. Another is that myth does not depend on truth as a basis for action. What is obvious to one person is completely obscure to another. Even worse, a society may ban someone whose values and culture do not coincide with the cultural norms of that society. Thus we have social islands of value and culture, which may or may not be able to bridge the gaps between them and other islands of value and culture. If philosophy is attempting to define those values which aspire to be global, if not universal applicability, then truth is a place to start. Ancheta Wis 19:00, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Tools

 * JavaScript tools
 * Kate's Tools

--
 * a scientific community is part of the ecosystem of science. See history of science for detail.
 * Hewitt and Kornfeld used a model for this process, as part of their research on actor and planner. This work was done years before the World Wide Web.
 * Hewitt retired and had time to contribute to the encyclopedia.
 * The rules for editors who are both researchers and original contributors had not been completely written out, at the time of the contributions.
 * As the contributions and the rules have unfolded, a researcher is currently not allowed to place his original result in the encyclopedia, as this is defined as "self-promotion". One is not currently allowed to place references to one's one work in the encyclopedia, although this is allowed in academia.
 * The role of an expert in the encyclopedia is both desired and denied at the current time. 12:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Result = No consensus. Hope this helps. --Ancheta Wis 12:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

-