theory of art, music, poetry; sci.communications; theories not theorems of math?
Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
> So in my definition of art, I have three elements (1) skill above the
> ordinary (2) capturing of history (3) utility
So far I do not have a theory of art. I have a definition of what art
is, modelling on how Dr. Oden gave a definition for myth. Using that
model, I can arrange to give a definition of religion, for myth is
religion.
And I can do the same for music and poetry.
Now I have run into a problem here. A problem that is better seen on
my website.
http://www.newphys.se/elektromagnum/physics/LudwigPlutonium/
That website has 200 individual files of nearly every science. And
even subjects usually not considered sciences such as art, history,
architecture, religion etc.
And the problem is how to arrange all of these subjects? Physics is
first and that is made obvious by an Atom Totality theory. But which
subject should come in second place? Should I put engineering or
chemistry? And should I put astronomy closer to physics or biology? And
how do I arrange the soft sciences? And that theory subsumes all other
subjects and all other subjects are explained by the Atom Totality
theory. So do I arrange them by some better scheme?
And I have another problem that I have started to call things like
religion as artistic physics. Yet I had not really defined art when I
gave that description of religion. And I have not discussed how the
Atom Totality theory explains art. And finally is there a science
theory on art? And does art have science laws as physics and chemistry
have laws?
An Atom Totality theory is a theory-of-everything and so requires a
unification or at least an explanation of all subjects. I cannot be
going around calling religion as artistic physics and have no
definition of art.
But it is good that I have run into this problem for it forces me to
think and organize. Especially to organize and begin to realize what
gaps I must fill.
An Atom Totality theory requires an explanation for art and for music
and for poetry. Recently I have only given a definition for art. I will
not explore music or poetry much, not as much as say architecture where
I am in the midst of designing the world's most beautiful building.
Simply because I am tone-deaf in music, for I cannot even tune a guitar
and so cannot achieve much there. And I am not inclined towards poetry
because even my prose is not that good, for I have been endowed more
with science than language. And due to the circumstances of my birth in
Germany and learning German and then switching to English at the age of
5, I have a mixed syntax writing style and perhaps even speech. My
English is English+German. In art I think I am undistinguished in that
I never like what I draw freehand. Ask me to draw a person, and I do
not think I can render a good likeness of the person. I do not have
talents or skills in art, music, or poetry.
But today I am coming up with a theory of art and also a theory of
music and a theory of poetry. I want to set down a theory of art right
here and now, even if I have to alter it or trashcan it later.
I gave a definition of art with its three elements, modelling after
the definition of myth given by Dr. Oden.
I can do the same thing for music and poetry, that is give a
definition that has three elements. Let me do that before I give the
theory on these three.
Definition of Music: (melodies/tunes, not lyrics for the lyrics are
often poetry) I have three elements (1) not a skill for tunes unlike
art is discovered, and one could say that art is created not discovered
(2) capturing of psychology (or as some would say moods or emotions),
unlike art which was a capturing of history where no camera existed (3)
and again a utility and measured by how many revisions and new versions
of the first melody and one could say that great music is a reaching
for a Plato ideal form for if one were to follow the tune of say
Greensleeves down through the ages one is pleased with the modern form
And one could say that the universe has a register of all the
important tunes and that intelligent life forms discover these
important tunes as the civilization moves forward in history. Thus,
Handel's Messiah tune was discovered by some alien life on another
planet and roughly the same time that Handel on Earth discovered the
tune. Tunes, like laws of physics are set in the backdrop of the
universe waiting to be superdeterministically discovered by the
civilizations in the universe.
And the above definition eliminates many tunes as music. Just as my
definition of art eliminates nearly all the modern NY school, the
impressionists, the cubists as art. My definition of music eliminates
many tunes as music. If you listen to songs and their tunes or melody
you can hear similar versions in other melodies. It is like a
particular rock group who has a new album out and you never heard their
new song and just hearing a few notes of the melody you recognize them.
Same with artists, you recognize their style. So, like the Rolling
Stones all of their tunes can be said to have perhaps five songs and
all the rest are repetitions of these five songs. We see some of this
repetition in art in that many artists painted Jesus on the cross. So
we pick out the one Jesus on the cross art and the other 10,000
paintings dismiss as less of a Platonic ideal form of Jesus on the
cross. History only needs a few Jesus on the cross for history sake,
and so the others are not art.
Definition of Poetry (poems and lyrics): I have three elements (1)
skill above the ordinary (2) capturing of what? of communication? of
language? or like a news reporter a bit of the news? (3) utility
I am glad that I am jotting down a theory of art, a theory of music
and a theory of poetry for I see in the above definition of poetry that
I need a category of sci.language over on my website. Poetry is tied to
language and a subset thereof. I cannot define poetry until I define
language.
And perhaps I need to go higher in generalization to that of
communication. A sci.communication that encompasses language and
poetry, visuals and art, and sound and music.
And through the Atom Totality theory I see language in an analogy with
Number theory of mathematics as compared to Geometry of mathematics. In
physics we have the duality of particle and wave. In mathematics this
becomes the duality of numbers as compared to geometry. In
communication we have the duality of the visual as compared to language
(spoken or written). And poetry is a special type of language. So I
need to define communication and language before I can make progress on
poetry.
But I can make a first stab at a theory of art.
Theory of Art: somewhere in these soft sciences, there no longer exists
any laws of science and therefore, somewhere in these soft sciences the
theories end. We can look at physics with its many theories and laws
and also chemistry. But once we get down to biology we have fewer
theories. And going further down to the soft sciences such as
economics, art, religion somewhere theories and science laws no longer
exist. Thus, these subjects have only definitions to go by and no
science laws or science theories to characterize them.
Perhaps I should organize that website by number of theories and laws
a subject has. But then I run into the trouble of applied science such
as engineering. And where to fit mathematics for theorems are not laws
nor theories of science. Which raises the interesting question of
whether math has any theories or laws of science (if so, mathematicians
have not discovered any so far, yet many may exist).
What do I think at this moment whether art, music, poetry are
sciences or not? I think they are sciences, for they have at least one
science law. One science law arising out of the ability to define these
subjects. And the content of that science law would be able to
scientifically tell a person whether a painting is art or not art, or a
tune music or not music or a text as poetry or not. So, I think for all
of the soft sciences, they possess at least one law of science that
permits a person to judge or discriminate what is art and not art.
Roman A Kresinski
Oh, no.. he's here as well!
By the way, Archie, your spire's crooked. I don't like that.
Archimedes Plutonium
admire the work of El Greco with those elongated bodies. And I admire
that painting of Toledo in a lightening-bolt.
I admire the paintings of Van Meer in those "stillness and
quietitude". As if one could hear a pin drop. I know why I admire Van
Meer, because I myself need that type of environment to function best
for my theories and science work.
Art is connected to history in that the photo camera did not exist
through most of history and that the artist was the best thing to a
photo camera. Great art captures history. That is why great art is so
expensive, because it has captured some history in a picture. If it
were not expensive, then much of history-captured-in-art may have been
lost. Art in a sense is colored fossils of history. Bones of fossils
and artifacts of archaeology is history captured. Art is history
captured in color.
My definition of art divides much of art into that which is truly art
and that which is not art, and which I call shyster art. False ideas or
theories of science I call con-artist science or fake science. Until
the Atom Totality theory was born in the 1990s science could not judge
or relate to art, poetry and the other fine arts. Now, science can
relate and will define those human activities. In an Atom Totality all
is connected and related, and all is physics.
Archimedes Plutonium
understood by Quantum Mechanics. Everything is a duality of particle
and wave. That duality exists also in communications.
The wave nature is apparent in the shapes of objects and geometry and
mental pictures. Art is visual and is mostly the wave nature of
reality.
There is also the particle nature of reality and in communication it
is language. When we speak a noun it is a particle but our minds
rapidly turn it into a visual or geometry or shape. But many words of
language are maintained in the particle form, such as verbs or adverds
or adjectives. Often it is quickier and easier to communicate via the
particle form which is language or text.
That was preliminary in order for me to get at a definition of poetry
which I attempted in another thread.
I had linked art with history. That the key link of art is its
historical value in that the picture camera was only a recent
historical invention, and through most of human history, art performed
the task of the picture camera. I defined art as (1) skill to represent
(2) link to history (3) utility.
I could not define poetry at that time because I did not have the
sci. communication or sci.language.
So, is poetry linked to history also as its reason-for-existence as
art is linked to history? And if art is the photo-camera not invented
yet, and in our modern day the movie picture camera with motion and
sound, then what is poetry?
Is poetry a capture of language/text in some way as art is a capture
of a slice of history. I am prone to say no.
I see poetry used mostly for songs, and music. And the use of music
is mostly for "mood enhancement" ie, psychology. And art is past
history or present history but seldom future history. Music and poetry
since they are linked to mood enhancers and psychology are more present
and future oriented.
And whereas art as painting pictures by the 20th century has been
mostly replaced by the motion picture film industry to capture history,
whether documentary or science fiction etc. The subjects of poetry and
music are essentially the same and have not received a huge revolution
in that subject.
Some may argue that poetry does capture history in that the oldest
languages are remembered chiefly through their epic poems such as
Beowulf to cite one example.
What I am after in this research is to understand these subjects as a
science. In an Atom Totality theory, everything must come together as
one whole and thus everything must fit together. What a subject is and
what its purpose and function is. In an Atom Totality, all is physics,
and every other subject is only given a name because it is convenient.
Chemistry really is physics and biology is chemistry and since
chemistry is physics, biology really is physics. But what part of
physics are these subjects such as art, poetry, music? That is what I
am exploring. An Atom Totality theory allows me to explore that
question.
B.O'Brien
(Archimedes Plutonium) wrote:
An artist might write the first two paragraphs but only a charlatan
(artist) would agree with the remaining text . Don't devalue the
ineffable by putting a dollar figure on it or relegating it to a
purely historical context . Art is a part of history though it is not
necessarily documentary . Art is alive and involves the participation
of the viewer into the mindset of the artist , even the worst of
artists. Besides , viewing art is a subjective repast , as is making
it . Marcel Duchamp was a brilliant artist who was called a shyster
by many but who opened up doors of perception unthought of before his
time . He was a shyster and a great artist .
B.O'Brien
"And also much cattle ." Jonah 4:11
Mike Wright
>
> sci.communications has its foundation in the duality of nature as
> understood by Quantum Mechanics. Everything is a duality of particle
> and wave. That duality exists also in communications.
I assume that you recognize that this "duality" is not anything inherent in
nature at the quantum level, but is based on our lack of direct experience
with nature at the quantum level, so that we are forced to use imperfect
analogies from our experiences of the macroscopic world in order to try to
visualize what is going on at the quantum level.
For example, a photon is neither particle-like nor wave-like. It is
photon-like. But we cannot experience a photon as an direct object of our
perception, so we cannot build a mental picture of its nature, and have to
make do with saying that some of its properties are particle-like and some are
wave-like. Quantum mechanics is a set of methods for using probability theory
to make predictions about the outcome of events at this level. It doesn't tell
us what is *really* going on.
To quote David Lindley in _The End of Physics_ (page 76) , "Quantum mechanics
is a set of rules for making sense of any measurements you care to make of a
physical system, but absolutely forbids you from pretending to deduce from
those measurements what is really 'inside' the system."
Or, as Richard P. Feynman says in _QED: The Strange Theory of Light and
Matter_ (page 37), "Quantum electrodynamics 'resolves' this wave-particle
duality by saying that light is made of particles (as Newton originally
thought), but the price of this great advancement of science is a retreat by
physics to the position of being able to calculate only the *probability* that
a photon will hit a detector, without offering a good model of how it actually
happens."
Later on (page 82), Feynman says, "I have pointed out these things because the
more you see how strangely Nature behaves, the harder it is to make a model
that explains how even the simplest phenomena actually work. So theoretical
physics has given up on that." There's more of the same in Chapter 6 of his
_The Character of Physical Law_.
So, is your division of communication into waves and particles supposed to be
anything more than an interesting analogy? Is it supposed to reveal something
about the underlying reality? Is it supposed to show how such phenomena
actually work? Is it supposed to have any practical utility, or just
entertainment value?
--
Mike Wright
http://www.mbay.net/~darwin/
_____________________________________________________
"Is that your own hair, or did you scalp an angel?"
--Bob Hope in "My Favorite Blonde"
Doug Burgess
(Archimedes Plutonium) wrote:
snip...
> I defined art as (1) skill to represent
>(2) link to history (3) utility.
snip ...
What about art that does not represent, as in "abstract art" or music?
If art must always be linked to history, then all art must be past
art, what was it when it was current?
What is the utility of a melody?
Do you live a life devoid of aesthetic experience?
Archimedes Plutonium
Mike Wright <dar...@mbay.net> writes:
>
> I assume that you recognize that this "duality" is not anything inherent in
> nature at the quantum level, but is based on our lack of direct experience
> with nature at the quantum level, so that we are forced to use imperfect
> analogies from our experiences of the macroscopic world in order to try to
> visualize what is going on at the quantum level.
I take it you are not a physicist.
You really do not understand QM.
QM says everything is dualistic and duality is existence. In order
for something to exist it must possess duality. Everything from the
smallest to the largest comes in duality. Existence is duality and
duality is existence, that is the main point of QM. And that is the
idea embodied by the Uncertainty principle.
QM is not restricted to the small. In fact, that is what the Bell
Inequality and Aspect experiment proved was that QM is astronomical.
We see duality all over the place, everyday, even in sociology. Can
you have good without bad? Can you have love without hate?
The best advice I can give you is to watch the series THE MECHANICAL
UNIVERSE and write down the passage of where he says ".... but now tell
me how does it really work"
Archimedes Plutonium
dougb...@yahoo.com (Doug Burgess) writes:
> What about art that does not represent, as in "abstract art" or music?
>
If you study physics or biology or other sciences, you learn of ideas
that are fakes, such as the idea in physics that you can walk on water.
Or the idea in biology (thanks to Usenet) that a human fossil was found
in the Cambrium. These ideas are fakes.
In art, there is real art from non-art. It is the way you define art.
And perhaps there even exists a science theory of art-- something that
says that a precise definition of art is impossible.
I call it non-art but I could call it shyster art. In the series of
THE STORY OF PAINTING, she shows modern art of just a solid color or
one of taking paint and throwing it on a board.
> If art must always be linked to history, then all art must be past
> art, what was it when it was current?
>
According to my definition, if a picture has "no historical value"
then it is nonart. For example most all of Picasso is nonart for it
sheds no light on history.
> What is the utility of a melody?
>
Art is connected to history. Music to psychology. The utility is easy
to see in something like soldiers singing the melody of Battle Hymn
before a Civil War battle. A mood enhancer.
> Do you live a life devoid of aesthetic experience?
I am a scientist figuring out what art, poetry, and music are.
Concepts like aethetic are vague. You could say "good experience" as
well as aesthetic experience. You could categorize all sights as to
good or bad or aesthetic. I explain psychology as well, and your
various experiences hereunder.
Peter T. Daniels
> I call it non-art but I could call it shyster art. In the series of
> THE STORY OF PAINTING, she shows modern art of just a solid color or
> one of taking paint and throwing it on a board.
So Archimedes' experience of art is limited to television ... too bad,
if he lived in New York, last month he could have seen concurrent
retrospectives of Mark Rothko and Jackson Pollack; a couple years ago,
concurrent retrospectives of Ellsworth Kelley and Jasper Johns; last
year, an overview of abstract expressionism. Of course most of those
works hadn't been created yet when Sister Wendy and her middle brow
entered the cloistered life ...
> > If art must always be linked to history, then all art must be past
> > art, what was it when it was current?
> >
>
> According to my definition, if a picture has "no historical value"
> then it is nonart. For example most all of Picasso is nonart for it
> sheds no light on history.
Unfortunately I've missed the Picasso retrospectives of the last decade
or so. But note that Guernica -- one of the most "utilitarian" paintings
since Goya -- could not have been painted without his 30+ prior years of
experimentation and manipulation of painting (his and Braque's and many
others').
> > What is the utility of a melody?
> >
>
> Art is connected to history. Music to psychology. The utility is easy
> to see in something like soldiers singing the melody of Battle Hymn
> before a Civil War battle. A mood enhancer.
And the utility of a melody that *doesn't* have words attached to it --
say, the theme of the last movement of Sibelius's 2nd Symphony, which
emerges at last only once after fragments of it are hinted at
throughout?
> > Do you live a life devoid of aesthetic experience?
>
> I am a scientist figuring out what art, poetry, and music are.
> Concepts like aethetic are vague. You could say "good experience" as
> well as aesthetic experience. You could categorize all sights as to
> good or bad or aesthetic. I explain psychology as well, and your
> various experiences hereunder.
Evidence that the scientist is a troll. We used to have another one who
insisted he could explain language (change) by quantifying it all.
--
Peter T. Daniels gram...@worldnet.att.net
Material Fellow
>
> In article <366C2448...@mbay.net>
> Mike Wright <dar...@mbay.net> writes:
>
> >
> > nature at the quantum level, but is based on our lack of direct experience
> > with nature at the quantum level, so that we are forced to use imperfect
> > analogies from our experiences of the macroscopic world in order to try to
> > visualize what is going on at the quantum level.
>
> You really do not understand QM.
LOL
> QM says everything is dualistic and duality is existence. In order
> for something to exist it must possess duality. Everything from the
> smallest to the largest comes in duality. Existence is duality and
> duality is existence, that is the main point of QM. And that is the
> idea embodied by the Uncertainty principle.
>
> QM is not restricted to the small. In fact, that is what the Bell
> Inequality and Aspect experiment proved was that QM is astronomical.
>
> We see duality all over the place, everyday, even in sociology. Can
> you have good without bad? Can you have love without hate?
>
> The best advice I can give you is to watch the series THE MECHANICAL
> UNIVERSE and write down the passage of where he says ".... but now tell
> me how does it really work"
Dave Goldstein would laugh at you, archimedes.
It is one of my favorites, but it has been years since it was last
broadcast. I treasure the tapes, but your advice is simply silly.
Sometimes I enjoy reading you, just for the pompasity.
You are outstanding in this regard. Suggest you collect your works and
post them on a special site.
jim
Mike Wright
>
> In article <366C2448...@mbay.net>
> Mike Wright <dar...@mbay.net> writes:
>
> >
> > nature at the quantum level, but is based on our lack of direct experience
> > with nature at the quantum level, so that we are forced to use imperfect
> > analogies from our experiences of the macroscopic world in order to try to
> > visualize what is going on at the quantum level.
>
> You really do not understand QM.
No, but the folks I quoted, David Lindley and Richard Feynmam, are/were
physicists, and I do believe that Feynman, in particular, had a not-so-vague
understanding of QM.
> QM says everything is dualistic and duality is existence. In order
> for something to exist it must possess duality. Everything from the
> smallest to the largest comes in duality. Existence is duality and
> duality is existence, that is the main point of QM. And that is the
> idea embodied by the Uncertainty principle.
Not quite the way Feynman explains the uncertainty principle in the chapter on
"Probability and Uncertainty" in _The Character of Physical Law_. More
succinctly, Lindley, in _The End of Physics_ (pages 73-74), says, "This is the
notorious uncertainty principle of Heisenberg, which says in effect that the
more accurately you try to measure something, the more you interfere with what
you are measuring. ... The basic import of the uncertainty principle is that
if you want knowledge of one thing, you have to pay for it with ignorance of
something else." I suppose that this can be taken as a kind of dualistic
situation (knowledge vs. ignorance), but it hardly says that "existence is
duality and duality is existence".
Furthermore, in _QED_ (footnote 3, pages 55-56), Feynman says:
"This is an example of the 'uncertainty principle': there is a kind of
'complementarity' between knowledge of where the light goes between blocks and
where it goes afterwards--precise knowledge of both is imposible. I would like
to put the idea of the uncertainty principle in its historical place: When the
revolutionary ideals of quantum physics were first coming out, people still
tried to understand them in terms of old-fashioned ideas (such as, light goes
in straight lines). But at a certain point, the old-fashioned ideas would
begin to fail, so a warning was developed that said, in effect, 'Your
old-fashioned ideas are no damn good when ...' If you get rid of all the
old-fashioned ideas and instead use the ideas that I'm explaining in the
lectures--adding *arrows* for all the ways an event can happen--there is no
need for an uncertainty principle!"
> QM is not restricted to the small. In fact, that is what the Bell
> Inequality and Aspect experiment proved was that QM is astronomical.
>
> We see duality all over the place, everyday, even in sociology. Can
> you have good without bad? Can you have love without hate?
Yes, we do see duality all over the place, but this is a result of how we see
and define the world of our experience. It does not depend on physics (as a
science that we have worked out), because physics is just one more expression
of our view of the world. This is obvious when Feynman says, "... there is no
need for an uncertainty principle!" He has just revised his view of the world
by finding a new approach, QED.
> The best advice I can give you is to watch the series THE MECHANICAL
> UNIVERSE and write down the passage of where he says ".... but now tell
> me how does it really work"
I'll be sure to do that the next time I notice that it's being shown on a
local station.
--
Mike Wright
http://www.mbay.net/~darwin/language.html
Jeff Spencer
<gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
[ A bunch of typical AP nonsense, snipped for the protection of the world
at large.]
>
> Evidence that the scientist is a troll.
You're making 2 mistakes in this one sentence.
1) Archimedes Plutonium is not a scientist. In his words, he is
"The King of Science and Logic". In my words, he's a nut.
2) He isn't a troll. A troll says stupid things to cause a reaction
in a newsgroup. AP says stupid things because he believes them.
-Jeff
--
(Who still thinks we should introduce Archimedes Plutonium to
Scientology, and watch as the universe collapses due to too much
silliness in one place at one time)
Peter T. Daniels
>
> In article <366D26...@worldnet.att.net>, "Peter T. Daniels"
> <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> > Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>
> [ A bunch of typical AP nonsense, snipped for the protection of the world
> at large.]
>
> >
> > Evidence that the scientist is a troll.
>
> You're making 2 mistakes in this one sentence.
>
> 1) Archimedes Plutonium is not a scientist. In his words, he is
> "The King of Science and Logic". In my words, he's a nut.
Thanks -- this thread was his first appearance in sci.lang, and he
didn't use that title here (yet).
> 2) He isn't a troll. A troll says stupid things to cause a reaction
> in a newsgroup. AP says stupid things because he believes them.
We have a few of those too ...
> (Who still thinks we should introduce Archimedes Plutonium to
> Scientology, and watch as the universe collapses due to too much
> silliness in one place at one time)
kewl!
STAN MULAIK
I don't think I'm picking on Peter here, but I want to ride into this
thread on his message.
I've just finished reading Sokal and Bricmont's "Fashionable Nonsense:
Postmodern Intellectuals' Abuse of Science", published by Picador.
Both of them are physicists. Sokal was able to get published a hoax
essay in the postmodernist journal _Social Text_ titled "Transgressing
the Boundaries: Toward a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum
Gravity". This appeared in 1996. He and Bricmont (a Belgian physicist)
then published their book originally in French to demonstrate how
post-modernist and post-structuralist French writers like Lacan,
Kristeva, Irigaray, Latour (a sociologist of science, so called),
Baudrillard, Deleuze, Guattari, Virilio and others have attempted to
draw parallels to various mathematical and physical concepts and textual
analysis, but in actuality have demonstrated their profound ignorance
of physics and mathematics, so that what they have written is shere
nonsense. Sokal's hoax essay was to demonstrate how you could write
physical nonsense in a "postmodernist" style and get it past the editors
of a post-modernist journal. But the "Fashionable Nonsense" book seeks
to expose just how nonsensical some of these authors' writings are when
they venture into physics and mathematics. It's a case of demonstrating
that the Emperor is not wearing any clothes.
--
Stanley A. Mulaik
School of Psychology, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332
uucp: ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!pscccsm
Internet: psc...@prism.gatech.edu
Material Fellow
You do need your own website. Pretty clearly.
jim buch
Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>
> In article <366D95A4...@mbay.net>
> Mike Wright <dar...@mbay.net> writes:
>
> > I do believe that Feynman, in particular, had a not-so-vague
> > understanding of QM.
>
> You like to quote Feynman. You missed his most telling quote on QM and
> UP. Where he says words to effect "no-one understands QM."
>
> Feynman had grasp on QM, but his was shaky. I say shaky because
> Feynman actually did little to further physics, ie, creative and new
> physics. His contributions to physics were a "let-down" to the promise
> expected of him. Recent books on Feynman are highly exaggerated. What
> Feynman is remembered most for is his consolidation of physics in his 3
> texts. Those 3 texts still stand as the "bible of physics". They were
> written in the 1960s and this is approaching 2000. Until someone writes
> the new text of physics in the future we have Feynman.
> I say shaky because the reason you have principles that limit physics
> such as the Uncertainty Principle is because you have reached into
> physics far enough to pull out a consistency-problem-of-old-views and
> that you must replace the old view with a new one. A new view is needed
> to remove inconsistencies. Feynman should have sat down and said to
> himself, "how and with what can I build up the universe such that I get
> principles that limit."
> The consistency problem deals with scale. And the reason you have a
> scale problem is because the universe is the same entity as what goes
> to make-up the universe-- atoms. You have one big atom which is the
> universe itself with many atoms inside of it. That is what causes
> principles that limit such as UP, PEP. Once you understand that, then
> you understand UP, PEP and others. They no longer are mysterious
> because you see them as a smaller aspect inside a bigger picture.
> If Feynman had asked himself these questions (1) how can the universe
> have principles that limits itself (2) how could one build the universe
> and have principles of limitations such as UP, PEP (3) and with what
> can one build the universe such that (1) and (2) work. Then Feynman may
> have discovered the Atom Totality instead of myself. For the answer is
> to make the universe the same thing as what material it is composed of.
>
> You probably still do not understand what I am telling you. I am
> saying that UP, PEP and other principles are just a consequence of this
> one idea
> universe = atom
> atoms = the universe
Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium
between what is physics or biology and what is not. Until now, art was
never given such a definition. Just because you have a board with paint
on it and someone calling it art, then it passed as art.
My definition makes Picasso's work as nonart. The New York School of
Jackson Pollock; Willem de Kooning abstract expressionism; Rothko's
monochromatic visions; pop art and minimalism are all nonart. Those
paintings required no skill. They say nothing about history, except
that many suckers of the 20th century thought that such was art.
You would agree that physics has a-lot of ideas that are non-physics.
Such as the idea that the Earth is flat, or the idea that a turtle or
elephant hold up Earth, or the idea that the Sun revolves around Earth.
These have been proven as nonphysics.
If one claims to have a Cambrium fossil of a human, that is
nonbiology.
We need to know what is art and nonart.
In article <366bafd4....@news.direct.ca>
tofuh8...@direct.ca (B.O'Brien) writes:
> An artist might write the first two paragraphs but only a charlatan
> (artist) would agree with the remaining text . Don't devalue the
> ineffable by putting a dollar figure on it or relegating it to a
History has put the steep price tag on art which is good for much of
it may have been lost otherwise.
> purely historical context . Art is a part of history though it is not
> necessarily documentary . Art is alive and involves the participation
Art is linked to history since it was the picture camera of the past
when the camera did not exist. Painting art was replaced in modern
times with the motion-picture film. Just as Quantum Mechanics replaced
older physics the motion-picture replaced painting art.
> of the viewer into the mindset of the artist , even the worst of
> artists. Besides , viewing art is a subjective repast , as is making
Everything has subjective in it, even physics and mathematics.
Everything has objective in it. To say that a picture of the Grand
Canyon is art because it is subjective yet a look at the Grand Canyon
is objective is missing the point.
> it . Marcel Duchamp was a brilliant artist who was called a shyster
> by many but who opened up doors of perception unthought of before his
> time . He was a shyster and a great artist .
The old idea of "art" was one of (A) everything painted on a board
was considered art if someone thought it to be art (B) new schools of
art, eg impressionism, pointillism, cubism, minimalism were created
because art was never defined and thus new ways of applying paint to a
board gave new excitement and new money flowed in.
Is a Cambrium human fossil true? No, it is nonbiology. Is a Jackson
Pollock board with paint a artwork? No, it is nonart for it shows
little to no skill and it has no historical significance other than
that it shystered money out of a group of people who thought it was
art.
Gregory Loren Hansen
Archimedes Plutonium <Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>In article <366D95A4...@mbay.net>
>Mike Wright <dar...@mbay.net> writes:
>
>> I do believe that Feynman, in particular, had a not-so-vague
>> understanding of QM.
>
> You like to quote Feynman. You missed his most telling quote on QM and
>UP. Where he says words to effect "no-one understands QM."
>
> Feynman had grasp on QM, but his was shaky. I say shaky because
>Feynman actually did little to further physics, ie, creative and new
>physics. His contributions to physics were a "let-down" to the promise
>expected of him. Recent books on Feynman are highly exaggerated. What
I thought his diagrams were pretty cool. Everybody uses them. He did
good things with the path integral, too.
--
"Besides, it doesn't take much creativity or courage to figure out that
something which reads 'Danger: Flammable' on the label might be fun to
fool about with." -- Joris van Dorp
Jim Carr
In article <3670B9...@pacbell.net> jbu...@pacbell.net writes:
>
>Hi A Pu -
>
>You do need your own website. Pretty clearly.
You sure didn't look too hard. Go to Dartmouth and plug in "plutonium"
on their front page and hit "seek". You will get 22 hits, and you have
to go past quite a few for AP before you find something about the Cassini
mission. Anyway, take a look at his website:
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~atom/
If you are a newcomer to AP's theories, that will get you up to speed.
--
James A. Carr <j...@scri.fsu.edu> | Commercial e-mail is _NOT_
http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/ | desired to this or any address
Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst. | that resolves to my account
Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306 | for any reason at any time.
Material Fellow
>
> In article <3670B9...@pacbell.net> jbu...@pacbell.net writes:
> >
> >Hi A Pu -
> >
> >You do need your own website. Pretty clearly.
>
> You sure didn't look too hard. Go to Dartmouth and plug in "plutonium"
> on their front page and hit "seek". You will get 22 hits, and you have
> to go past quite a few for AP before you find something about the Cassini
> mission. Anyway, take a look at his website:
>
> http://www.dartmouth.edu/~atom/
>
> If you are a newcomer to AP's theories, that will get you up to speed.
>
Thanks.... looking forward to it.
jim buch
Paul L. Allen
Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> You probably still do not understand what I am telling you. I am
> saying that UP, PEP and other principles are just a consequence of this
> one idea
> universe = atom
> atoms = the universe
Actually, it can be stated far more simply.
Archimedes Plutonium = loony
loony = Archimedes Plutonium
--Paul
Jonathan Guyer
wrote:
> http://www.dartmouth.edu/~atom/
>
> If you are a newcomer to AP's theories, that will get you up to speed.
Crazy people are COOL!
--
Jonathan E. Guyer
Marvin Margoshes
Crazy people are to be pitied and helped.