Piano Forum

Topic: What have you got to lose?  (Read 2025 times)

Offline arensky

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2324
What have you got to lose?
on: February 21, 2006, 04:56:21 AM
Why do you strive? Why do you care? Does it matter? Why? Do we ever really have anything, or is it all an illusion?

Discuss ...
=  o        o  =
   \     '      /   

"One never knows about another one, do one?" Fats Waller

Offline rc

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1935
Re: What have you got to lose?
Reply #1 on: February 21, 2006, 09:22:06 AM
I'll try this:

Because it's only natural to want to always become better, you can only want what you don't have.

...Not much, I admit. But I'm seriously up past my bedtime :P.

Offline pianistimo

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 12142
Re: What have you got to lose?
Reply #2 on: February 21, 2006, 12:16:07 PM
this is why old folk become wreckless drivers.  personally, i do think we strive in vain if we don't have faith that it will all lead beyond death.  why try if you're just going to die and lose it all (money, power, talent, whatever).  but, if you are not trying to gain it all in this life (not saying that people shouldn't strive for excellence) then you aren't stressed out over 'perfection.'  understanding of this happens when models get into a car accident and lose their beauty, or people become cripples (like me - right now), and things don't work out the way you want.  you realize there's a bigger plan than your own.  so, then you go with the flow.  'i can do all things, through Christ, who strengthens me.'  those 'all things' might not be all the things we want to do - but maybe all the things God intended for us to do in our lifetimes.

ps.  i hope everyone on pf has a successful piano career - don't get me wrong.  whether teachers or pianists.  i think God blesses us with whatever we have or get - but we do have to work, too - and not just ask God to give it to us.

Offline gorbee natcase

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 736
Re: What have you got to lose?
Reply #3 on: February 21, 2006, 03:17:04 PM
Why do you strive? Why do you care? Does it matter? Why? Do we ever really have anything, or is it all an illusion?

Discuss ...
There would be no point if we didn't :)
(\_/)
(O.o)
(> <)      What ever Bernhard said

Offline Derek

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1884
Re: What have you got to lose?
Reply #4 on: February 21, 2006, 04:21:53 PM
I've heard interesting points from both religious and agnostic thinkers on this issue.

Those who think there is not necessarily an afterlife can say well, of course it matters *while we are alive*  because striving, trying to be a good person, etc. all will make us happy and fulfilled our whole lives (in most cases). I think we can all agree we want happiness, and if we can have more of it WHILE we are alive why not strive for it.


However..I tend to side with the religious thinkers...what IS the point of it all? I don't want my life to be just about living a life and trying to be happy, I want there to be something more. I don't want to lose all the people I love, I want to see them again some day. I can't think of anything more tragic than going into total oblivion for all eternity after I die.  However, given the fact that I exist now, which was probably quite improbable to begin with, I find it far more probable that life will continue somehow after death.  Again it brings me to the infinitude argument. Something infinite must have existed before my existence to allow for my temporal life to occur. Since the existence of that infinite thing has been established, once I die it will again become infinitely probable for me to exist again.

<<incoherent babble  ;D

Offline berrt

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 293
Re: What have you got to lose?
Reply #5 on: February 21, 2006, 04:49:36 PM
this is why old folk become wreckless drivers.  personally, i do think we strive in vain if we don't have faith that it will all lead beyond death. 
Is there a life before death? If yes, that's reason enough...

Berrt

Offline prometheus

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3819
Re: What have you got to lose?
Reply #6 on: February 21, 2006, 05:08:44 PM
Life has no purpuse, and this is very good.

Imagine life did have a purpose. Then in every thing we do we have to consider if that what we do actually does bring us closer to the purpose of life. You would be a hostage of your own purpose. This would not be desirable.

Without a purpose any life is as good as any other. We have total freedom.

Of course this is philosophy.

As for Derek's point. His first is pure wishful thinking. His second about 'infinitude', I tried to find a source where this argument is made because I assume he read about it somewhere, hoping that this would be a bit clearer. But I can't find it.

Quote
Something infinite must have existed before my existence to allow for my temporal life to occur.

Why? I don't agree with this. I don't see why this assumption would be correct. Even if you think we should have been created, why should our creator be infinite? Actually, is there anything that is infinite at all?

Quote
Since the existence of that infinite thing has been established, once I die it will again become infinitely probable for me to exist again.

I don't understand this at all. 'That infinite thing'? You mean god? So god exists because you exist? And God recreates you because he has created you in the first place? Why does God let you die in the first place? Does he replay time? What does it mean 'to exist again?' Reincarnation. Well, that's not really 'you' if your memories are lost.
"As an artist you don't rake in a million marks without performing some sacrifice on the Altar of Art." -Franz Liszt

Offline pianistimo

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 12142
Re: What have you got to lose?
Reply #7 on: February 21, 2006, 05:22:24 PM
numbers can be infinite.  space is infinite (at least we haven't found the borders).  light can penetrate so far - i don't know if it can go to infinity and beyond though. so far, reproduction has caused an infinite number of births, until this world is no longer viable to live in.  maybe that's classified under 'potential to be infinite.'

Offline prometheus

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3819
Re: What have you got to lose?
Reply #8 on: February 21, 2006, 06:15:16 PM
numbers can be infinite.

Can you give me this infinite number you speak of? The concept of infiniteness exist in math.

Quote
space is infinite (at least we haven't found the borders).

This is tricky. Without matter and energy there is no time. So there is nothing. The edge of the universe would be the point where there is no longer any matter and energy, thus no time. Beyond this there would be infinite nothingness. Two very very strange concepts combined. Very tricky.

Quote
light can penetrate so far - i don't know if it can go to infinity and beyond though.

What do you mean?

Quote
so far, reproduction has caused an infinite number of births, until this world is no longer viable to live in.  maybe that's classified under 'potential to be infinite.'

Surely there haven't been an infinite number of births. There haven't been an infinite number of bacteria either. There aren't an infinite number of atoms in the universe. The defict of the US isn't infinite. There aren't an infinite number of chess positions. Absurdly large, yes. But infiniteness is something else.

But then again, the concept of inifinity isn't that clear and agreed upon.
"As an artist you don't rake in a million marks without performing some sacrifice on the Altar of Art." -Franz Liszt

Offline rc

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1935
Re: What have you got to lose?
Reply #9 on: February 21, 2006, 10:50:58 PM
numbers can be infinite.  space is infinite (at least we haven't found the borders).  light can penetrate so far - i don't know if it can go to infinity and beyond though. so far, reproduction has caused an infinite number of births, until this world is no longer viable to live in.  maybe that's classified under 'potential to be infinite.'

I wonder about that too, at some point we must hit a wall where the earth can't sustain the growth of humanity. What then?

Maybe, move on to other worlds. Necessity is the mother of invention. Maybe as some religions have said, there will be some sort of apocalypse, we might just end up killing ourselves off. Maybe human nature will have to adapt to the restraints of the earth, and become geared more to sustaining than expansion.

...But, I won't be around then anyhow ;D

Offline rc

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1935
Re: What have you got to lose?
Reply #10 on: February 21, 2006, 11:08:40 PM
Life has no purpuse, and this is very good.

Imagine life did have a purpose. Then in every thing we do we have to consider if that what we do actually does bring us closer to the purpose of life. You would be a hostage of your own purpose. This would not be desirable.

Without a purpose any life is as good as any other. We have total freedom.

Of course this is philosophy.

If there is some concrete purpose for every persons life, I don't know what that would be. But from that total freedom, purpose becomes essential. We can devise our own individual purposes, entirely mutable to our will, but it's what gives us meaning... and to what end? I don't care, the means can be an end in itself. It's not that catch, it's the thrill of the chase.

To me, purpose is to give life a meaning, not boundary, and there is some reason behind a persons purpose.

Quote
As for Derek's point. His first is pure wishful thinking.

What about his first point is wishful thinking?

If you mean the notion of an entirely happy life, I would agree, that just doesn't exist. But, (just like the unrealistic notion of 'perfect') it's a useful ideal to keep a person striving to become more in life.

Quote
Actually, is there anything that is infinite at all?

Quote
But then again, the concept of inifinity isn't that clear and agreed upon.

One thing that comes to mind is that law; "energy can be neither created nor destroyed", could be seen as a sort of 'infinitude', that nothing ever really goes away, it just changes...

Otherwise, I suppose the quantifiable notion of infinity would be more of a potentiality, not to be taken literally.

Offline Bob

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 16364
Re: What have you got to lose?
Reply #11 on: February 21, 2006, 11:26:34 PM
Why do I strive?

Because I choose to.  (Like that?)

I want things better than I have now.  I want a taste of something more, something higher, something more perfect.  

Music is as close to something truly magical as I has seen.  I want more of that.  And in trying to get more of that, I improve myself.

What do I have to lose?  I might possibly mess something up -- my body, my mind, etc.  I might waste a portion of my life.  But you have to gamble with something I think, otherwise it's no fun.

Favorite new teacher quote -- "You found the only possible wrong answer."

Offline timothy42b

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3414
Re: What have you got to lose?
Reply #12 on: February 22, 2006, 07:53:45 AM
fThe Premack principle says that High Probability Behaviors can be used to reinforce Low Probability Behaviors.

That says it all, I think. 
Tim

Offline pianolearner

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 573
Re: What have you got to lose?
Reply #13 on: February 22, 2006, 08:28:24 AM
I think infinity² is even more bizarre. Life has no purpose other than to live it but you get out what you put in. Newtons first law of motion implies that light would continue indefinitely, unless something stopped it.

Offline pianistimo

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 12142
Re: What have you got to lose?
Reply #14 on: February 22, 2006, 12:51:13 PM
this is getting beyond my understanding.  what is infinity2?  getting what you put into something.  that's finite isn't it.  an infinite number or any thing infinite would be something uncountable.  that's why it's infinite.  if we are talking just our own planet - it seems that it fits the 'set' idea - where the heavens are infinity and we are a subset of a portion of space.  perhaps beyond space is nothingness.  but, noone has proven anything but black holes.  does that suck you into nothingness? where do the black holes go?  do they revert you back to the beginning so you go in a circle?  circles can be infinite, right?  i don't know - i'm confusing myself.

Offline amojoam

  • PS Silver Member
  • Newbie
  • ***
  • Posts: 21
Re: What have you got to lose?
Reply #15 on: February 24, 2006, 03:28:53 AM
Why do you strive? Why do you care? Does it matter? Why? Do we ever really have anything, or is it all an illusion?

Discuss ...

I'm tempted to just say "no, nothing matters, we'll all be dead in the end..." It's true. There may be no God to reward us for being good or being bad, so why does it matter?

but i guess i'll answer along the lines of Existentialism.

Lets say there is no God, no afterlife, no one determining our lives, because after all, we can't be sure. So all that we have is what we make of ourselves. Sartre would say that we define ourselves, creating our own essence. Whatever we do, how we make our lives, is everything that we are, no more, no less. It's what defines us. More than just wanting to be "happy" or the natural tendency to improve, a person is only what he makes of himself. So being great only happens if you make it happen. Everything is in your control; everything is possible.
That's why it matters. Because doing is all you have.

Offline amojoam

  • PS Silver Member
  • Newbie
  • ***
  • Posts: 21
Re: What have you got to lose?
Reply #16 on: February 24, 2006, 03:48:57 AM
I think infinity² is even more bizarre. Life has no purpose other than to live it but you get out what you put in. Newtons first law of motion implies that light would continue indefinitely, unless something stopped it.

Completely WRONG.
An object at rest tends to stay at rest and an object in motion tends to stay in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force.

Light it not an "object."
     -Light has no mass.
(force=mass x acceleration)
Light is not a force, because it has no mass.
Light is not a force, so of course a force cannot stop light.

[this really has nothing to do with the point of this thread, but i had to correct the error of Newton's first law. Ok, i'm a nerd.. lol]

Offline prometheus

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3819
Re: What have you got to lose?
Reply #17 on: February 24, 2006, 10:36:06 AM
Photons do have momentum.

As photons go into a lower energy state their frequency changes: E = h*f.

So when light hits the solar sail of the science fiction spacecraft, the light 'changes colour' because when it loses energy it must lose frequency. The amount of light particles stay the same.

So yes, the only way to stop light is to change its direction or to decreate it and use it's energy for something else. Otherwise light moves in a straight line with speed c (through vacuum). Even when light is bend this is because the space-time light goes through is bend, while the photons still travel in a straight line.

Funny thing about light. Our percieved intensity of light depends on the amount of photons, not on their energy state. Their energy state merely depends for the colour. Do note that the higher the frequency of the photons this does matter in reactions and other physical processe. A gamma particle, a photon with enormous energy and thus very very high frequency 'damages' (actually ionizes) matter. So because the atoms in our body degrade, breaking down molecular binds, our body is damaged. Thus gamma radiation can be lethal. Apperently one of the worst ways to die. Note, the person doesn't die from cancer. This is the effect of less radiation over a long term. When exposed to extreme doses of radiation over lenghts of time the body just falls apart on a molecular level in a matter of hours.


A black hole is just a very very mass-intense object. In a sense it is very simple in that it is a very heavy marble. A black hole doesn't have to be big in size, though some are also enormous in size.

The strange thing is the effect of the extreme gravity. In the center of the earth there is a radius of 9 mm where light would not be able to escape. In a black hole this radius lies outside the radius of the physical object. If the earth would be reduced to an object with a radius of less than 9 mm, earth would also be a black hole. But gravity is a relatively weak force so this does not happen.

Let me explain it through this.
The earth is relatively massive. Because of it's mass it can pull on other bodies of mass, for example you and me. Lets say we are in a garden with a nice ponds. In autumn there will be leaves floating on the surface of the water.
Gravity is so extremely weak that surface tension of the water prevents the whole earth from pulling the leaf through; the whole earth with all its mass! And if you take your finger and touch the water you can barely feel it takes some force to break the surface of the water.

Same with a magnet. Eventhough a magnet is the fraction of the mass of the earth it can easily defeat gravity.

In a black hole gravity does dominate. Electrons are pulled inside the nucleus of an atom. Your theories of quantum mechanics, that make our computer screens and tvs work, just ignore gravity because it's influence is irrelevant. But not in a black hole. Your theories do not apply.

Even worse, gravity affects space-time. A black hole is, in a sense, cut off from our space-time. There are different ways of putting this into words since this is too bizarre from our language. You could say that the space-time of a black hole is folded into itself. You could say that space-time falls inside a black hole faster than the speed of light. You could say that time stands still inside a black hole. No event inside a black hole can affect anything outside a black hole. There are many more very strange things. And this is why physicists are so interested in them.

Now something called Hawking radiation has been discovered by Stephen Hawking. Because of virtual particles(don't ask) particles can escape a black hole through 'quantum tunneling' (don't ask). So radiation can escape a black hole. This is one of the first steps into quantum gravity, as I explained earlier a field that is still largely empty. The theory may even not hold and be refuted within some years.
But the theory does say that a black hole slowly evaporates.

Quote
  an infinite number or any thing infinite would be something uncountable.

That's not very large for a small child.

Quote
circles can be infinite, right?

Of course not. Otherwise it would take infinite time to even draw one. The surface of the earth is finite, but it doesn't have any barriers. Space can be the same shape. It doesn't need a barrier to end. A 3d 'surface' on a 4d 'body'.

As it stands now the size of know space is limited by how far we can observe. So people always talk about the edge of the observable universe. Beyond that, light/information from those areas hasn't had enough time to reach us yet. So in a sense they aren't yet part of our reality.
"As an artist you don't rake in a million marks without performing some sacrifice on the Altar of Art." -Franz Liszt

Offline pianolearner

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 573
Re: What have you got to lose?
Reply #18 on: February 24, 2006, 12:02:54 PM
Completely WRONG.
An object at rest tends to stay at rest and an object in motion tends to stay in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force.

Light it not an "object."
     -Light has no mass.
(force=mass x acceleration)
Light is not a force, because it has no mass.
Light is not a force, so of course a force cannot stop light.

[this really has nothing to do with the point of this thread, but i had to correct the error of Newton's first law. Ok, i'm a nerd.. lol]

You have completely ignored the first law of thermodynamics. Conservation of energy is possibly the most important, and certainly the most practically useful of several conservation laws in physics. The law states that the total inflow of energy into a system must equal the total outflow of energy from the system, plus the change in the energy contained within the system. In other words, energy can be converted from one form to another, but it cannot be created or destroyed. So mass and energy are interchangeable.

In regard to Newtons 1st Law:

"His first law states that every object will remain at rest or (OR not AND as you imply) in uniform motion in a straight line unless compelled to change its state by the action of an external force. This is normally taken as the definition of inertia. The key point here is that if there is no net force resulting from unbalanced forces acting on an object (if all the external forces cancel each other out), then the object will maintain a constant velocity."

Quote
Light is not a force, so of course a force cannot stop light.

1) Gravity is a force, albeit the weakest force in the universe (and ironically the most dominant). If what you say is true then you will need to come up with a new theory to explain Black holes and Gravitational microlensing.

2) In labratory experiments solar sails have proven to be viable form of propulsion . They work on reflecting photons (electromagnetic "packets of energy")

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_sails

3) Scientists are working on methods of propulsion involving photons. The photon engine would eject photons, or light particles, at the speed of light. Although the amount of energy of a single photon is almost infinitesimal, the vast numbers of photons ejected would enable the photon engine to produce small thrusts for prolonged periods of time.

Offline prometheus

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3819
Re: What have you got to lose?
Reply #19 on: February 24, 2006, 12:17:11 PM
As I explained in my post, a black hole ( or galaxy involved in gravitational lensing) doesn't really pull on photons themselves. It pulls on the space-time the protons travel in. So gravity does not exercize force on photons.


And if it did, appying newtonian principles, then the force gravity would exercize would produce a fraction of the result we see.
Relativistic mass is a dead concept. Photons have no mass eventhough they do have energy and momentum which used to be translated into relativistic mass. They have what is called 'energy density'. Popular science often screws up the termology and refers to this as 'mass'. Energy density affects the curvature of space-time.

You are arguing over minor details. Or at least details not that important to non-physic students, which includes myself.

So "Completely WRONG" is wrong imo.


Gravity is a dominant force, on the large scale, because there is no negative charge to balance it out. Every mass is positive and attracts all other masses. So instead of neutralising each other, like with the electromagnetic force, they all 'add up' together.

Let me add another subtle bit. Because photons have energy, they also affect the curvature of space-time. And therefore they can exersize a 'gravitational pull' on other objects, since gravity, according to general relativity, is the curvature of space-time. (Wheneter the carrier particle turns out to be the graviton or not.)

And to make this totally clear, gravitational waves are fluctuations in the curvature of space-time that propagat as waves. They do not cause gravity (as we know it). That is caused by the curvature of space-time itself.
"As an artist you don't rake in a million marks without performing some sacrifice on the Altar of Art." -Franz Liszt

Offline pianolearner

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 573
Re: What have you got to lose?
Reply #20 on: February 24, 2006, 12:49:01 PM
The contentious issue was whether or not I misquoted Newton’s 1st law of motion-- I didn't.

"The laws of conservation of momentum, energy, and angular momentum are of more general validity than Newton's laws, since they apply to both light and matter, and to both classical and non-classical physics."

I simply stated that light would continue forever unless something stopped it. This isn't wrong even a little bit.

Offline prometheus

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3819
Re: What have you got to lose?
Reply #21 on: February 24, 2006, 12:51:48 PM
I agree.
"As an artist you don't rake in a million marks without performing some sacrifice on the Altar of Art." -Franz Liszt

Offline pianistimo

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 12142
Re: What have you got to lose?
Reply #22 on: February 24, 2006, 02:45:44 PM
enoyed reading both your posts.  you both explain things well enough for the average person to understand.  i didn't realize so many things about light and black holes.  you are both way beyond my understanding and i was surprised that the concept E=h*f  (heat and freqency - i'm imagining) was understandable esp. in regard to gamma radiation.  hate to see someone fall apart like that! 

Offline prometheus

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3819
Re: What have you got to lose?
Reply #23 on: February 24, 2006, 03:48:53 PM
Nononono, not heat. It's Plancks constant. Meaning energy is quantized.

This is actually quite simple. Energy is always in discrete packets. So energy is 1, or 2 or 3, but never 1,5 or 2,66. This is a very profound and important understanding in physics and the idea that started off the whole quantum mechanics.

So to increase in frequency a photon needs one packet of energy, one quanta, which equals the planck constant. Otherwise it will not jump to a higer energy state. So this is stair-like (is this correct english?). Half a quanta won't do. Actually, these do not even exist.

(This will probably be more difficult, and concrete.)
When something feels warm, without a medium so through the air (for example a fire or a light bulb), this is part of electromagnetic radiation. I guess most people are familiar with infrared camera's, (not the night vision cameras that just increase light-sensitivity). So these are actually images where the warm areas are bright and the cold areas are dark. So for example the eyes will be brighter than the more bone-ny parts of the face.
'Everything' radiates electromagnetic radiation. If an object gets hot enough it will even start to radiate in the visible spectrum, for example like do metals. When metal gets hot it starts to glow. But as it gets hotter it does not only start to glow in the visible part of the electromagnetic spectrum, getting whiter/blueer, which requires more energy. It will also start to glow brighter, more intensely. So both the number of photons and the frequency of the photons will start to increase.
The relation between tempature, intensity and the frenquency of the emmitted photons was a problem before quantum physics and one of the main problems that started the whole thing. The problem is called the ultraviolet catastrophe. The idea was that the intensity of light was the square of its frequency. But as the frequency got really big the intensity would get way too big. This would not allow very high frequencies.
So the problem was solved by quantization, making a distinction between brightness and frequency. They are still related, but in a different way. Now we get a peak graph, going from 0 intensity at extremely high frequency to the optimal intensity at a particular frequency, meaning that most of the photons ejected will be this frequency, and then back to 0 intensity for a very low frequency. So the majority of the photons would be somewhere in the middle.
If this wasn't the case every object would emmit infinitely strong in the very high ranges of the spectrum, well at least according to the classic incorrect formula, because this makes no sense at all. Just a strange artifact that was in the old formulas because it wasn't understood energy was quantized.
The formula isn't an easy one like E= h*f, or E=m*c^2 so lets just forget about that one.

I didn't really mean those posts to be understood easily by the average person.
Actually, this shows how 'easy' your mind works(Regarding to the religious discussions, no offence, since this is very common and human.), but you incorrectly assumed the 'h' meant heat and then extracted something that made sense to you out of it nonetheless.  :)
I hope you did understand some of the other parts, or at least appreciated them.

As for people being radiated to death, I think it only happened a few times. Once was the case of an accident on a sovjet nuclear submarine. So anyone interested will now probably be able to find more info about what actually happened through google or wikipedia. But only very energetic photons, which is called gamma radiation, have enough energy to smash apart our body like that. So 'normal' radiation is harmless. Just to make sure you don't get scared when I say everything radiates.
"As an artist you don't rake in a million marks without performing some sacrifice on the Altar of Art." -Franz Liszt

Offline pianistimo

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 12142
Re: What have you got to lose?
Reply #24 on: February 24, 2006, 04:23:39 PM
are  you going to be a prof.?  there's something i find irresistable and much more attractive than looks in someone who can put science into language.  it's probably harder than explaining music or theology to someone who hasn't read much about music or theory - and isn't familiar with the terms, or hasn't read the bible.  people often read the wrong thing into Christ's words, too.  they think he meant this or that - so other passages ahve to be compared.  suppose it's like science, too, because one mistake and you're off on another path. 

i will be the first to admit that even theologically, my pastor sometimes wonders.  but, every week i ask questions, so i don't act like i know it all.  there's so much written about every subject, and unless you are well read - you just sort of put two and two together and hope it makes four.  until you get to quantum physics where it starts quantuming.

Offline prometheus

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3819
Re: What have you got to lose?
Reply #25 on: February 24, 2006, 04:37:32 PM
I think I wouldn't cut it in the physics field because my math is not top notch.

Yes, people often read what they want This includes scientists like Einstein. People can literally fool themselves. For example, this jewish math professor who believed he found a bible code, who tricked himself using faulty statistical methods. Actually, statistics are very very tricky when it comes to interpretation or even manipulation. I guess you will have something to say on the bible code from the perspective if you like it or not. That's how the human mind works.
Even in science, or actually pseudosience, of people who don't like Einsteins relativity. Probably because they are attracted by the romatism of space travel like in Star Trek and the like. And they go and make up an alternative theory that does allow faster than light travel.
I mentioned Einstein before, I think he was a bit of a Spinozian theist. He could never accept the uncertaincy principle. He could not accept that God, or nature, didn't know by forehand what would happen on the subatomic scale and, almost literally, had to throw the dice to find out. It's ironic that someone like Einstein, after comming up with his very strange relativity, couldn't accept this strangeness from nature. Today it is very well accepted in the scientific community, eventhough everyone hates it with a passion, but Einstein never accepted it and tried to find a way to get around it. But it seems he was on a dead end, on the wrong track.

The problem with theology is that you can't go back and be really sure and proof what Christ said and meant.

I think explaining music theory is also quite hard because the psychological factor of the human mind is also a factor.
"As an artist you don't rake in a million marks without performing some sacrifice on the Altar of Art." -Franz Liszt

Offline pianistimo

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 12142
Re: What have you got to lose?
Reply #26 on: February 24, 2006, 05:03:40 PM
you'd probably do fine in physics.  my husband wasn't top notch at first in math either.  but, he was extremely persistent and never gave up.  he did get a degree in physics. the interesting thing is that people who get into information in general - and have a good memory - and can categorize and place things retrievably in their brain can do well in other areas too.  for instance, my husband just gleans info off of me about music and then i have to go and retrieve it from his brain later.  for some reason, i don't have very good long term memory on some things (and in music it is frustrating - because a year later i have to learn some pieces from maybe 1/2 way again).  perhaps repetition is key and i need to do more.  perhaps i am not aware of the 'geek mode' my husband occasionally goes into (perhaps regurgitating information and putting it back into place in his brain).  when my body is at rest, my mind is at rest.

on a graduate school test, i was expected to rewrite (textbook english), in my own words, a choice of one of three topics (which you are not allowed to know until the day of the test).  ok.  how to study for this.  well, you have to be able not only to retrieve information but put it down logically.  thankfully, nowdays we have computers and you can move around your paragraphs to make the most logical outline.  but, still, my papers always had something like 'wanders too much,'  'need to be more concise.' what's worse, is in graduate school they also mark you down for anything that is not punctuated correctly or is written with incorrect grammar - or, even footnotes or bibliography incorrectly cited.  writing a paper is a class in itself.  20 years ago - i don't think the emphasis was quite this stringent - but nowdays you can get sidetracked just by how to write something down in the most precise, concise manner.

as far as pragmatism - i'm queen.  and, i'm learning to listen better.  i used to be planning what to retort and not listen to the second half of sentences of someone speaking.  now, i realize that you can give a space of time - up to several days - on giving a response.  it is very hard for me to do that, though.  my creative mind is on equal or higher par than my scientific mind.  pragmatism allows one to take a problem and break it down and put it together again without making it significantly better or worse.  (at least that's how i see it).  bible codes have never really meant much to me, because it seems that the gospel is quite simple.  to love God and your neighbor as yourself.  it's like the fundamentals.  even if i knew a thousand codes of the bible - i would be as a clanging cymbal if i didn't have love.  of course, on the other hand, if we had no scholars or people interested in patterns or in analysis or statistics, we wouldn't get an idea if the effectiveness of love in situations was good or not. for instance, how to treat a grieving person.  you can be really good hearted and then make someone feel terrible by saying too much.  over the years, i've found that if someone has lost a child, friend, whatever - the less you say, the better. and, the more you should just let that person speak.

of course, the person that speaks several languages is probably farther ahead than a person that speaks only one.  to see how thoughts can be translated - and how there might be 'hidden' meanings in one language that might not be transferred when there is no word in another language that means exactly the same thing. 

i'm still stuck on this radiation thing, because the shroud of turin, if it is real, is a sort of x-ray that happened at Christ's ressurrection.  it literally radiated an image of the crown of thorns, the face, hands, body.  just interesting.  faith isn't necessarily proven by relics, though.  and, i don't wish to keep any relics or bones.  mysteries are not as appealing to me as pragmatism in life.



 
For more information about this topic, click search below!
 

Logo light pianostreet.com - the website for classical pianists, piano teachers, students and piano music enthusiasts.

Subscribe for unlimited access

Sign up

Follow us

Piano Street Digicert