Berne & Recognition
nort...@my-deja.com
recognized as far as credibility. Someone who wanted to use Berne in
professional life to obtain a position would likely (in my experience)
need an official evaluation from a recognized foreign credential
evaluator. I know that in our organization only an evaluation from our
list of recognized evaluators is accepted.
Prior to Berne meeting GAAP, an evlauator had told me they would not be
recognized because of the fact that although accredited by St. Kitts &
Nevis, the Federation does not have its own public university system on
which to base accreditation.
After the listing in the International Handbook of Universities, I
contacted another evaluator who was kind enough to respond. They
basically said that in order to be officially recognized when
accredited by a government of a country with no officially recognized
public degree granting institution, the credits and degrees of that
institution would have to be recognized by another offically recognized
public degree granting institution. (I know it is a terrible sentence
but I am in a hurry). This means that in the case of the english
Carribean, the offically recognized public degree granting institution
is the University of the West Indies. As many may or may not know they
have several campuses in the West Indies and I believe according to
Jason V.'s site are the parent organization of Clarence Fitzroy Bryant
College in Basseterre. According to UWI's web site they were once tied
to the University of London but gained autonomy. At any rate, for this
evaluator the degrees/credits of Berne University would have to be
recognized by UWI for Berne University to be considered to be
officially recognized.
I have twice tried to e-mail UWI with the question but as of yet have
heard nothing. I am looking forward to an answer.
Some have mentioned before that Berne had claimed it was going to try
to obtain RA. I don't know if this has anything to do with it or
whether it was just reorganization, or St. Kitt's accreditation, but
Berne (according to their latest catalogue) seems to have cut back its
degree offerings to Business, Education, and Social Services. Based on
what John had said about far more generous transfer credit policies in
the past they seem to have tightened that up (15 credits for
doctoral). Their faculty also have accredited terminal degrees.
If I hear anything from UWI I will let you all know. The current world
of distance education is sooo.. intriguing, if not confusing.
North (who has no connection to Berne other than a catalogue and
curiosity)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
rab...@my-deja.com
"Shilling for Berne!
Shilling for Berne!"
-Rabby Haze
P.S. Why do the shillfish use the words "no connection" so often?
nort...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Berne (according to their latest catalogue) seems to have cut back its
> degree offerings to Business, Education, and Social Services.
>
nort...@my-deja.com
making any comment about you on either issue).
My need is for an RA doctorate as I intend to use it professionally
here in the US. I have chosen a University which is a traditional
school with a non traditional program. I do not want to have to do too
much explaining (eg. Monterrey & Berne). That is not to say that they
are not good programs but I tend to agree with Steve Levicoff on the
issue of residency and RA. It is far easier to explain travel to
another state for residencies at a residential university as opposed
to "I got a degree from a third world country that I've never visited"
or in the case of Berne "I spent 30 days on a Carribean island for my
residency". This does not necessarily make foreign schools bad choices
based on what you intend to do with them and what kind of explaining
you want to do. There are many needs out there and for some as long as
the degree is considered accredited it may meet their needs no matter
what the country of origin. Certainly in the case of some schools
(University of London & University of South Africa) the prestige may
exceed that of an RA Gopher Gulch Bayou University (fictional) which
sits in the 4th tier of regional universities.
North (who has no connection to Rabrou - thanks be to God)
In article <8u04bl$ldv$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
John Bear
> At any rate, for this
> evaluator the degrees/credits of Berne University would have to be
> recognized by UWI for Berne University to be considered to be
> officially recognized.
>
> I have twice tried to e-mail UWI with the question but as of yet have
> heard nothing. I am looking forward to an answer.
University of the West Indies is indeed a key player in this matter. When
Mellen University first made its claims of accreditation through Turks and
Caicos, I spent quite a lot of time trying to get a response from UWI.
Like three years. Finally I decided to devote a day to the telephone. I
eventually reached a chap who said, in effect, and I may be quoting, "Oh,
no no no no no no no no, we would not recognize them (Mellen)." "Would you
put that in writing?" "Of course." That was three years ago. The bottle
has not yet washed up on California's shore.
John Bear
www.degree.net
nort...@my-deja.com
reputation, I probably ought to quit holding my breath. I e-mailed UWI
a week ago (twice) and heard nothing. I also e-mailed Berne twice and
heard nothing.
I appreciated the evaluator's response and the rather in depth
explanation of the process for situations like St. Kitts. Of course,
he made no committment as to whether or not Berne would be recognized
by UWI.
Incidentally, I also appreciated Jason V's site with Tertiary
insitutions located on St. Kitts/Nevis. Most of them were medical
schools and seemed to have been accredited By St. Kitts/Nevis and then
listed in the WHO directory. Same process as for Berne and IHU. They
also had one or two schools that were not accredited for degree
granting but had been incorporated on the islands. Unfortunately (?),
degrees from the islands seem to be the butt of jokes whether
recognized or not. An example is the episode of Frasier in which they
checked out a therapist's credentials and noticed his BA was from an
island and then said to themselves that surely that was just his
undergraduate degree. They then looked at his PhD and saw it was from
the islands as well and proceeded to laught their heads off even though
he had given them sound relational advice.
At any rate UWI seems to be keeping mum on the issue of Berne. Not
necessarily a good sign for Berne. It is possible they don't want to
end up offending the accreditation process of a fellow Carribean
country & operating under the philosophy that "if you don't have
anything nice to say then don't say anything at all".
North
In article <3A044B60...@ursa.net>,
John Bear <jo...@ursa.net> wrote:
> nort...@my-deja.com wrote, in part:
>
> > At any rate, for this
> > evaluator the degrees/credits of Berne University would have to be
> > recognized by UWI for Berne University to be considered to be
> > officially recognized.
> >
> > I have twice tried to e-mail UWI with the question but as of yet
have
> > heard nothing. I am looking forward to an answer.
>
> University of the West Indies is indeed a key player in this matter.
When
> Mellen University first made its claims of accreditation through
Turks and
> Caicos, I spent quite a lot of time trying to get a response from UWI.
> Like three years. Finally I decided to devote a day to the telephone.
I
> eventually reached a chap who said, in effect, and I may be
quoting, "Oh,
> no no no no no no no no, we would not recognize them
(Mellen)." "Would you
> put that in writing?" "Of course." That was three years ago. The
bottle
> has not yet washed up on California's shore.
>
> John Bear
> www.degree.net
>
>
lewchuk
> (University of London & University of South Africa) the prestige may
> exceed that of an RA Gopher Gulch Bayou University (fictional) which
> sits in the 4th tier of regional universities.
Not withstanding Monterrey and Berne, this is actually quite typical with
respect to DL... many of the "better" foreign schools have embraced DL
while in the US they tend to be the lower tier schools and non-traditional
schools / programs. Hence many US DLs would be far better off with foreign
alternatives than studying at GGBU cause its 'mercn.
>
> North (who has no connection to Rabrou - thanks be to God)
>
> In article <8u04bl$ldv$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> rab...@my-deja.com wrote:
rab...@my-deja.com
> Actually, I have intellectual
> curiosity
News Flash: North has intellectual curiosity
> (I am going to refrain
> from making any comment about
> you on either issue).
Well, my dear North. Congrats on your little shot at the humor arena.
> My need is for an RA doctorate as I intend
> to use it professionally here in the US.
News Flash: North has need for an RA doctorate
> I do not want to have to do too much
> explaining (eg. Monterrey & Berne).
You've done more explaining about Berne than most, Northy-poo. And
while you very well may not be consciously shilling for them, I can't
help but wonder why you spend so much time trying to figure out how to
legitimize a questionable school.
> North (who has no connection to Rabrou - thanks be to God)
Actually, it would be the Western concept of God and the universe that
would lead you to believe there is no connection between us. Both
quantum physics (e.g. the Heisenberg uncertainty principle) and the
Eastern mystic traditions reveal the universe to be an ineffable
ONENESS. I'm sorry you feel so disconnected.
-Rabbi Monism
George Brown
Business School, Robert Kennedy and all the others have no standing in the
Swiss Higher Education system (i.e. no 'official' Swiss, traditional
university will accept their transfer credits). So, where is the degree
granting authority obtained from and why are they tolerated in a seemingly
regulated society?
Cheers,
George
(who went to Swiss finishing school for 4 years, learnt how to swill beer
and ski like a demon!)
~~~~~~~ Virtual Universities of Australasia & the World ~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~ http://www.virtualuniversities.net ~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~ e-mail: gbr...@virtualuniversities.net ~~~~~~~~
John Bear <jo...@ursa.net> wrote in message
news:3A044B60...@ursa.net...
> nort...@my-deja.com wrote, in part:
>
> > At any rate, for this
> > evaluator the degrees/credits of Berne University would have to be
> > recognized by UWI for Berne University to be considered to be
> > officially recognized.
> >
> > I have twice tried to e-mail UWI with the question but as of yet have
> > heard nothing. I am looking forward to an answer.
>
George Brown
you to discuss this further? I have some questions that don't fit the thread
and therefore don't want to bore the group.
Cheers,
George.
~~~~~~~ Virtual Universities of Australasia & the World ~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~ http://www.virtualuniversities.net ~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~ e-mail: gbr...@virtualuniversities.net ~~~~~~~~
<nort...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8tvsh5$fjl$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Tom C. Head
> > North (who has no connection to Rabrou - thanks be to God)
>
> Actually, it would be the Western concept of God and the universe that
> would lead you to believe there is no connection between us. Both
> quantum physics (e.g. the Heisenberg uncertainty principle) and the
> Eastern mystic traditions reveal the universe to be an ineffable
> ONENESS. I'm sorry you feel so disconnected.
Well, now, that depends on the eastern tradition in question... See:
http://www.dvaita.org
http://www.srivaishnava.org
I technically volunteer at the former, but have been very lax about
actually helping them because my both my Sanskrit and my understanding
of Tattvavaada are so dreadful. One day, says Tom, one day... But in
any event, it would hold that both you and North are entirely different
entities (jiiva-jiiva bheda, one of the fundamental Five Differences)
and that your bodies are also comprised of non-identical matter, no
matter how similar the matter might appear (no two cells on your body
are truly identical, both Dvaita and quantum physics might say).
As for the latter: qualified non-dualism, e.g. non-dualism in substance
but not in form. Argues that the universe is indeed a oneness, but
probably not the sort of oneness that an Advaitin
(http://www.advaita.org) might embrace.
Kashmir Shaivism is also very dualistic; for more information, see
Gavin Flood's monumental work on the subject (Dr. Flood is,
incidentally, an adjunct lecturer for the Wales-Lampeter programs,
which can be done nonresidentially -- and would probably be my first
choice for a supervisor, if I could (a) make it into the Ph.D. program
and (b) be lucky enough to talk him into the idea).
There are also some nearly dualistic cultural strands of Buddhism, but
this sort of thing is so hard to isolate because Buddhism calls into
question all sorts of epistemological ideas we take for granted, so
what they mean by dualism is not at all the same thing as what we mean
by dualism.
I'm nitpicking like a mad demon, but just want to make it clear that
western ideals aren't necessarily alien to -all- eastern metaphysical
systems.
Peace,
TH
rab...@my-deja.com
> Well, now, that depends on the
> eastern tradition in question
I started to write "such as Taoism, Hinduism (at its core), and
Buddhism," but didn't, hoping it to be unnecessary. So I did leave a
nit to pick there, Tom, and you pick up from there, quoting a
deservedly obscure tradition...
> your bodies are also comprised
> of non-identical matter, no
> matter how similar the matter might
> appear (no two cells on your body
> are truly identical, both Dvaita
> and quantum physics might say).
Using this as an argument to say there is no connection between North
and me is like saying that because there are 40 million unique
snowflakes in a snowstorm that there are actually 40 million unique
snowstorms. If you tell someone you saw 40 million unique snowstorms
yesterday afternoon, will they believe you?
The Japanese have a saying: "ji-ji-mu-ge", where "ji" means "thing"
and/or "event", and "mu-ge" means "no barrier". In other words, any
separation is merely an illusion produced by the sensually conditioned
human mind. However, when Zen master Joshu was asked if the dog has
Buddha-nature, he replied, "No." Now, Buddhism says that all things,
even dust or empty space, have the nature to become enlightened. But
Joshu said the dog didn't. When you understand why he said this, you
have set foot on the path to enlightenment.
> As for the latter: qualified
> non-dualism, e.g. non-dualism in substance
> but not in form. Argues that the
> universe is indeed a oneness, but
> probably not the sort of oneness that an Advaitin
> (http://www.advaita.org) might embrace.
How many onenesses can there be, Tom? I don't embrace this type of
foolishness, wasting time discussing different onenesses.
> There are also some nearly dualistic
> cultural strands of Buddhism, but
> this sort of thing is so hard to
> isolate because Buddhism calls into
> question all sorts of epistemological
> ideas we take for granted, so what
> they mean by dualism is not at all
> the same thing as what we mean
> by dualism.
I'm not going to ask how many kinds of dualism there are.
> I'm nitpicking like a mad demon,
No argument there, Tom. However, I admittedly left at least one for
you to pick.
> but just want to make it clear that
> western ideals aren't necessarily
> alien to -all- eastern metaphysical
> systems.
Well, I did use quantum physics as one of my examples. Quantum
mechanics were born from the Western tradition and remain firmly rooted
there still. (Note how one of the first applications of the new
science was the atomic bomb.) However, a number of quantum physicists,
such as Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, and more recently Fritjof Capra
noticed striking similarities between the descriptions of basic reality
from the ancient teachings of Taoism, Hinduism (at its core), and
Buddhism and their new discoveries of atomic reality. Personally, I
think the discovery of the undeniable similarities in describing
reality from such radically opposite approaches and vastly different
periods of time could be the single most important revelation from
Western science in our lifetime.
-Rablert Einstein
> Peace,
P.S. I like your "Peace" sign-off, Tom. (I don't think you're a
cranky old bitch like Peter said. You remind me more of the
absentminded professor.)
> TH
>
> In article <8u1v5k$uu1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> rab...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > > North (who has no connection
> > > to Rabrou - thanks be to God)
> >
> > Actually, it would be the Western
> > concept of God and the universe that
> > would lead you to believe there is
> > no connection between us. Both
> > quantum physics (e.g. the Heisenberg
> > uncertainty principle) and the
> > Eastern mystic traditions reveal
> > the universe to be an ineffable
> > ONENESS. I'm sorry you feel so
> > disconnected.
Tom C. Head
> > Well, now, that depends on the
> > eastern tradition in question
>
> I started to write "such as Taoism, Hinduism (at its core), and
> Buddhism," but didn't, hoping it to be unnecessary. So I did leave a
> nit to pick there, Tom, and you pick up from there, quoting a
> deservedly obscure tradition...
Deservedly, now? Hrm. Not sure I agree there; the Haridasas sprung
from the Tattvavaada tradition, after all, and Jayatiirtha is one of
the most lively Sanskrit philosophers you'll ever encounter.
> > your bodies are also comprised
> > of non-identical matter, no
> > matter how similar the matter might
> > appear (no two cells on your body
> > are truly identical, both Dvaita
> > and quantum physics might say).
>
> Using this as an argument to say there is no connection between North
> and me is like saying that because there are 40 million unique
> snowflakes in a snowstorm that there are actually 40 million unique
> snowstorms.
Well... There are, in a sense. It's just awfully inconvenient to
refer to them in that way.
> If you tell someone you saw 40 million unique snowstorms
> yesterday afternoon, will they believe you?
Certainly, if I get them drunk enough first.
> The Japanese have a saying: "ji-ji-mu-ge", where "ji" means "thing"
> and/or "event", and "mu-ge" means "no barrier". In other words, any
> separation is merely an illusion produced by the sensually conditioned
> human mind.
This makes perfect sense in the context of Zen, but how would it work
with Shinto?
> However, when Zen master Joshu was asked if the dog has
> Buddha-nature, he replied, "No." Now, Buddhism says that all things,
> even dust or empty space, have the nature to become enlightened. But
> Joshu said the dog didn't. When you understand why he said this, you
> have set foot on the path to enlightenment.
It would be awfully pretentious and western of me to rationalize a
koan, wouldn't it? But my interpretation of that, as a westerner, is
that no dog has Buddha-nature *as a dog*, just as no human has
Buddha-nature as a human. The identity is itself something that one
must shrug off on the path to enlightenment.
Shankara begins the "Upadesha Sahasri" with an interesting bit of
dialogue. Paraphrased here:
Master: "Who are you?"
Bob: "I'm Bob Smith, a banker from Hoboken."
Master: "No, you're not. Let that be your first lesson."
> > As for the latter: qualified
> > non-dualism, e.g. non-dualism in substance
> > but not in form. Argues that the
> > universe is indeed a oneness, but
> > probably not the sort of oneness that an Advaitin
> > (http://www.advaita.org) might embrace.
>
> How many onenesses can there be, Tom? I don't embrace this type of
> foolishness, wasting time discussing different onenesses.
It gets worse. Here's my limited understanding of the most common
sampradaayas:
Advaita (Shankara Acharya): Tat Tvam Asi. Everything is One, illusory,
or any mix of the two, depending on which subtradition one belongs to.
Vishishtadvaita (Ramanuja Acharya): Tat Tvam Asi...sort of. The
aforementioned qualified non-dualism ("Vishishta Advaita" literally
means "qualified non-dualism"). This is, incidentally, probably the
most popular of the sampradaayas; if you go to any Vaishnava temple and
talk to the Guru, the Guru is more likely to be a follower of
Ramanuja's school than any of the others listed.
Dvaitaadvaita (Nimbarka Acharya): Tat Tvam Asi...sort of, but less so.
As Vishishtadvaita, but identity is real (e.g., one "swims in" the
Godhead). Heavily influenced the Hare Krishna movement.
Dvaita/Tattvavaada (Madhva Acharya): Tat Tvam Asi...in your dreams.
No two anythings are alike. Extremely popular in Karnataka, a large
province in India.
> > There are also some nearly dualistic
> > cultural strands of Buddhism, but
> > this sort of thing is so hard to
> > isolate because Buddhism calls into
> > question all sorts of epistemological
> > ideas we take for granted, so what
> > they mean by dualism is not at all
> > the same thing as what we mean
> > by dualism.
>
> I'm not going to ask how many kinds of dualism there are.
One. No, wait, two!
> > I'm nitpicking like a mad demon,
>
> No argument there, Tom. However, I admittedly left at least one for
> you to pick.
I know, but I think it bore dragging out -- some of my buddies in CMS
get really peeved when they're told that they believe in Oneness. :P
> > but just want to make it clear that
> > western ideals aren't necessarily
> > alien to -all- eastern metaphysical
> > systems.
>
> Well, I did use quantum physics as one of my examples. Quantum
> mechanics were born from the Western tradition and remain firmly rooted
> there still. (Note how one of the first applications of the new
> science was the atomic bomb.) However, a number of quantum physicists,
> such as Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, and more recently Fritjof Capra
> noticed striking similarities between the descriptions of basic reality
> from the ancient teachings of Taoism, Hinduism (at its core), and
> Buddhism and their new discoveries of atomic reality. Personally, I
> think the discovery of the undeniable similarities in describing
> reality from such radically opposite approaches and vastly different
> periods of time could be the single most important revelation from
> Western science in our lifetime.
Agreed 100%.
> > Peace,
>
> P.S. I like your "Peace" sign-off, Tom. (I don't think you're a
> cranky old bitch like Peter said. You remind me more of the
> absentminded professor.)
Thanks. I remind myself of...uh...well, darn. I forgot.
Peace,
TH
rab...@my-deja.com
> It would be awfully pretentious and
> western of me to rationalize a koan,
> wouldn't it?
Not necessarily pretentious or western, just pointless. Koans are
similar to jokes in the sense that you either get them or you don't.
-Rab Tzu
P.S. You didn't get it. Keep trying.
Bill Highsmith
I'm not really commenting on the spiritual content of this thread. I would
say that the Heisenberg uncertainty principle applies to a very specific set
of circumstances in physics. It is frequently cited as proof or evidence
for many far-removed domains (politics, psychology, religion,etc.), but I
think it is an error to make extrapolations in other domains using this
highly pointed principle. (Again, I'm not arguing your point; I just don't
think that the H.u.p. helps your case at all.)
Bill Highsmith
Tom C. Head
> "Bob Smith, a banker from Hoboken" wrote:
> > It would be awfully pretentious and
> > western of me to rationalize a koan,
> > wouldn't it?
>
> Not necessarily pretentious or western, just pointless. Koans are
> similar to jokes in the sense that you either get them or you don't.
That's the theory, anyway, but I've found that *some* koans -- not
necessarily all, but some -- are beneficial even when one goes about
interpreting them the "wrong" way, which is exactly what I was doing
(because it's not my nature to take any strange medicine). This is why
I unapologetically make a poor Zen Buddhist: I talk too much. I prefer
a more dialectic philosophy, regardless of which side of the pond it
leaps from. There's a school of thought that says I'll never get
anywhere with that approach, and there's a school of thought that says
I'll never get anywhere without that approach. When I resolve that
particular tension I'll know I'm enlightened, or nuts, or both.
Peace,
TH
rab...@my-deja.com
> I think it is an error to make
> extrapolations in other domains
> using this highly pointed principle.
I respectfully disagree. I think the Heisenberg uncertainty principle
begs for this type of extrapolation. You have to admit the essence of
the principle (beyond all the minutiae of science) is that observations
are affected by the observer, making them inseparable. Besides, would
Werner agree with you?
But, if you're not swayed, would you settle for Bell's theorem?
-Rabstract Logic
rab...@my-deja.com
> I've found that *some* koans -- not
> necessarily all, but some -- are
> beneficial even when one goes about
> interpreting them the "wrong" way,
There is a great story about this.
Years ago in Korea there was a monk the other
monks called "Rock Head" because he was so stupid.
He couldn't understand the sutras, so he tried
sitting meditation. That wouldn't work either,
so one day he went to the Master and asked for help.
The Master told Rock Head to give him a good
question. Rock Head thought for a moment and said,
"Okay, what is Buddha?" The Master replied, in
Korean of course, "Buddha is mind." But in Korean,
the word for mind sounds like the word for
"grass shoes." Rock Head misunderstood, and went
off thinking about why the Master had said that
Buddha is grass shoes.
Rock Head couldn't stop thinking about what
the Master had said. Years went by. One day
his mind came to a point where he wasn't thinking
about anything else. As he was fetching water,
he slipped and fell and one of his grass shoes
flew off and broke when it hit the ground. At
that moment, Rock Head attained enlightenment.
He ran to the Master and said, "Now I know
what Buddha is!"
The Master looked at him and said, "Oh? What
is Buddha?" Rock Head took off his other grass
shoe and hit the Master on the head. The Master
said, "Is this the truth?"
Rock Head said, "My shoes are broken."
The Master laughed, and Rock Head was filled with joy.
Bill Dayson
> I'm not really commenting on the spiritual
> content of this thread.
This thread doesn't *have* any spiritual content. It's just a dharma
grudge match for ego supremacy.
North started the thread with some interesting comments about how
foreign credential evaluators were responding to Berne. And Rabrou
immediately started flaming him. After tiring of his "shill" insult, he
has tried to divert the thread to trivialities, with the able assistance
of some who should know better.
While a number of things are on display here, none of them are
spiritual.
Kevin Stewart
religions/spirituality. It kinda sounds like you're equating "spiritual"
with "christian".
Kevin
Bill Dayson wrote in message
<19244-3A...@storefull-245.iap.bryant.webtv.net>...
Bill Highsmith writes:
> I'm not really commenting on the spiritual
> content of this thread.
This thread doesn't *have* any spiritual content. It's just a dharma
rab...@my-deja.com
> This thread doesn't *have* any spiritual content.
Gee, ex-hippy Bill. You seem to have grown heavy-handed and morose in
your old age.
> While a number of things are on display
> here, none of them are spiritual.
One would assume you refer to yourself as well.
-Rab
Tom C. Head
Dayson <cis...@webtv.net> wrote:
> > I'm not really commenting on the spiritual
> > content of this thread.
>
> This thread doesn't *have* any spiritual content. It's just a dharma
> grudge match for ego supremacy.
>
> North started the thread with some interesting comments about how
> foreign credential evaluators were responding to Berne. And Rabrou
> immediately started flaming him. After tiring of his "shill" insult, he
> has tried to divert the thread to trivialities, with the able assistance
> of some who should know better.
Guilty as charged, Bill. It just looked like so much fun -- and
besides, one of my hobby horses really is this whole foolishness about
saying that any person who belongs to an indigenous Indian religion is
a follower of Ramana Maharshi (with accompanying $2.95 action figure).
I don't like to see any tradition pigeonholed like that. There's a lot
of diversity in Indian philosophy, and I tried to reflect that in my
first and second posts. Everything else was babble that cheapened the
subject matter and was a complete waste of bandwidth, and I apologize.
And frankly, there's no reason to feel any "ego superiority" over
anything Rab or I said in this discussion; none of it is too big to fit
on a cereal box or to memorize in five minutes. This was purely
amateur night at alt.education.distance.stupa-for-ignorant-americans.
I remember thinking in my last post or two that Shrisha Rao of Cyber
Madhva Sangha would have me by the neck for babbling on as I have, and
for good reason (I think he would be lenient, taking into account my
good intentions, but I turned a venerable 1,300-year-old tradition into
a half-arsed bull session and I should know better).
Finally: for the record, I never thought North was shilling. I think
we should all investigate schools before we go around blasting them,
and I applaud his initiative. I thought I'd said this already, but
looking back I don't think I did, so I'm saying it here.
Peace,
TH
Tom C. Head
<ke...@jacksonmi.com> wrote:
> Gee, I hope you're not the one interested in comparative
> religions/spirituality. It kinda sounds like you're equating "spiritual"
> with "christian".
No, he's equating "spiritual" with "religious name-dropping" -- and
he's absolutely right. I was out of line.
Peace,
TH
LAW DAVID
regarding a lack of "spiritual content" but did not object to the
reference to the "dharma grudge match for ego supremacy." I guess
they're egotistical, but in a spiritual way? Bottom line: rabrou flamed
when it was uncalled for (in terms of the post that was responded to).
When north responded reasonably to the flame, then rabrou tried to show
off his intellect with childish sarcasm. Then he compounded his error by
getting involved in the childish ego-match.
rab...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> Bill Dayson wrote:
> > This thread doesn't *have* any spiritual content.
>
Tom C. Head
<he...@netdoor.com> wrote:
> > Gee, I hope you're not the one interested in comparative
> > religions/spirituality. It kinda sounds like you're equating "spiritual"
> > with "christian".
>
> No, he's equating "spiritual" with "religious name-dropping" -- and
> he's absolutely right. I was out of line.
Er, let me rephrase that...
Oh, never mind. You all know what I mean.
Anyway: For those of you who were genuinely interested in any of the
subjects blown over in this thread and would like to read up on them,
check the Vaishnava FAQ at http://www.dvaita.org -- I can't
overemphasize what excellent, professional work these people have been
doing to preserve their tradition. If you'd like to read up on Indian
philosophy as described by people who actually know what they're
talking about, go there. You may also find the list archives
interesting.
Above all, *don't* take my statements on Indian philosophy as
definitive. As best I know everything I said was technically accurate,
but I'm a rank amateur at best on these matters. Maybe one day I'll be
a scholar on these matters, but I'm certainly not there yet.
Peace,
TH
Tom C. Head
wrote:
> Interesting how both rabrou and T H took offence to the comment
> regarding a lack of "spiritual content" but did not object to the
> reference to the "dharma grudge match for ego supremacy."
I didn't take offense to the line about the lack of "spiritual
content"; reread my post. I agreed 100% with Bill's comment that I was
out of line.
Peace,
TH
rab...@my-deja.com
> > Rabrou immediately started flaming
> > him. After tiring of his "shill" insult,
> > he has tried to divert the thread to
> > trivialities, with the able assistance
> > of some who should know better.
>
> Guilty as charged, Bill. It just looked like so much fun
Bullshit, Tom. It *was* fun and I wouldn't let sourpuss Bill ruin it
with a guilt trip.
> Everything else was babble that cheapened the
> subject matter and was a complete waste of bandwidth
Oh, like there's never been a waste of bandwidth due to babble before.
Our babble was 100 times better than the average internet babble, and I
feel sorry for Dayson and his lack of humor and tolerance.
> I turned a venerable 1,300-year-old tradition into
> a half-arsed bull session and I should know better).
That's one way of looking at it. Another would be that you displayed
an incredible knowledge of that tradition during a bull session,
letting you off the guilt-hook.
> Finally: for the record, I never
> thought North was shilling.
I wasn't bent on it either, as my humorous approach was intended to
reflect. Sorry if my fun with North got out of hand.
> I think we should all investigate
> schools before we go around blasting them
Or praising them.
rab...@my-deja.com
LAW DAVID wrote:
> Bottom line: rabrou flamed
> when it was uncalled for
rab...@my-deja.com
about, your overbearing humility is killing me, Tom. Besides, I don't
know if this will get you anywhere with Law David. I apologized for
flaming North, and he still had to jump up and down and call
me "childish" (twice, I guess he has a little vocabulary challenge).
-Rabsolutely Positively
"Tom C. Head" <he...@netdoor.com> wrote:
> I didn't take offense to the line
> about the lack of "spiritual
> content"; reread my post. I agreed
> 100% with Bill's comment that I was
> out of line.
Bill Highsmith
rab...@my-deja.com wrote in message <8u352a$q1q$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>"Bill Highsmith" wrote:
>> I think it is an error to make
>> extrapolations in other domains
>> using this highly pointed principle.
>
>begs for this type of extrapolation. You have to admit the essence of
>the principle (beyond all the minutiae of science) is that observations
>are affected by the observer, making them inseparable. Besides, would
>Werner agree with you?
>
>But, if you're not swayed, would you settle for Bell's theorem?
>
> -Rabstract Logic
I respectfully disagree with your disagreement. Here is what the Heisenberg
principle actually says: in order to view an electron we must use light to
observe it, but in the process of observing we change the electron’s
momentary existence because the light necessary to view it takes the form of
a photon particle. The photon particle travels at approximately the same
velocity as the electron particle, so that when it impacts the electron it
alters its position as when two asteroids collide into each other at similar
velocities but different angles. Therefore, according to Heisenburg, it is
impossible to know decisively an electron’s position and momentum.
That is a very specific set of circumstances, a light photon having the same
velocity as the thing being observed (and somewhat similar masses, I
suppose). The common simplification that you used, "observations are
affected by the observer," is simply too gross. You can certainly observe a
beast in the field with an unmanned camera, observe a star with the hubble
telescope, and listen to a conversation with a microphone without affecting
the outcome. Two fundamental differences are: the velocity difference
already mentioned (the momentum or position of the beast will NOT be
affected by the photons in a significant way) and, using the same example,
the photons used to record the beast's image can be natural light that would
have reflected off of the beast whether a camera was there or not. (The
camera is not the light source.)
Similarly, the hubble telescope can record latent images of space objects
that no longer even exist. Tell me, how can a space telescope affect an
object that no longer exists?
Clearly, a poorly designed experiment can ruin the outcome. If you go
charging towards the beast in a Lexus with your polaroid sticking out the
moon roof, I'm guessing the beast might bolt. However, this has zero to do
with the actual meaning of the H.u.p. You can apply your gross
simplification of the principle all you want, but why don't you call it the
Rab u.p., because that would be much more accurate.
While you might say I'm focusing on the "minutiae of science," you're
failing to appreciate the theory. I think the hubble telescope example
clearly shows that you can observe things without affecting them.
Heisenberg did not say that you can never observe *anything* without
affecting it; he specifically observed that it is impossible to determine
the momentum and position of an electron. In summary, your simplification
is wrong and the H.u.p. doesn't apply.
And, yes, I think Werner would agree with me.
Bill Highsmith
Bill Highsmith
Bill Dayson wrote in message
<19244-3A...@storefull-245.iap.bryant.webtv.net>...
Bill Highsmith writes:
> I'm not really commenting on the spiritual
> content of this thread.
>This thread doesn't *have* any spiritual content. It's just a dharma
grudge match for ego supremacy.
>North started the thread with some interesting comments about how
foreign credential evaluators were responding to Berne. And Rabrou
immediately started flaming him. After tiring of his "shill" insult, he
has tried to divert the thread to trivialities, with the able assistance
of some who should know better.
>While a number of things are on display here, none of them are
spiritual.
I chose not to enter that thread line; call it what you wish.
Bill Gossett
>
> Similarly, the hubble telescope can record latent images of space
> objects that no longer even exist. Tell me, how can a space telescope
> affect an object that no longer exists?
I like the theory? that says the photon couldn't be emitted in the first
place unless there was a predetermined receptor awaiting it, even
hundreds of light years away.
Where's Dr. Wang when we need him?
Bill Gossett
rab...@my-deja.com
> rabrou wrote...
> > You have to admit the essence of the
> > principle (beyond all the minutiae of
> > science) is that observations are
> > affected by the observer, making them
> > inseparable.
"Bill Highsmith" wrote:
> Here is what the Heisenberg principle
> actually says: in order to view an
> electron we must use light to observe
> it, but in the process of observing we
> change the electron’s momentary existence
Okay, so you do admit I'm right (whether you meant to or not).
> You can certainly observe a beast
> in the field with an unmanned camera,
> observe a star with the hubble telescope,
> and listen to a conversation with a
> microphone without affecting the outcome.
Huh? There would be no outcome if the observing didn't take place (or
it would be a different outcome). In other words, the outcome is that
the beast, star, or conversation *has been observed*, which it hadn't
been before.
> Similarly, the hubble telescope can
> record latent images of space objects
> that no longer even exist. Tell me,
> how can a space telescope affect an
> object that no longer exists?
Well, the observation made the objects' existences known to us, which
wasn't the case previously. Now you can argue this all day until you
are blue in the face, but you would have forgotten the statement that
started this conversation, which was that quantum mechanics and the
major Eastern traditions have revealed the universe to be an INEFFABLE
oneness. Until you experience this oneness, you are like someone
lecturing about cake that has never tasted a cake.
> I think the hubble telescope example
> clearly shows that you can observe
> things without affecting them.
Prove to me they are unaffected.
> And, yes, I think Werner would agree with me.
Werner had this to say about your unwillingness to make the leap from
the limited application of the H.u.p. that you cling to and the
universal application that I espouse: "Once one has experienced the
desperation with which clever and conciliatory men of science react to
the demand for a change in the thought pattern, one can only be amazed
that such revolutions in science have actually been possible at all."
> > But, if you're not swayed, would
> > you settle for Bell's theorem?
Why did you not comment on this, Bill? Maybe it's because there really
is no refuting the implications of Bell's theorem that the underlying
connectedness of this universe is beyond our current means of
scientific expression.
-Rab
jvorde...@ggu.edu
told him (on the phone, never confirmed in writing), that it will not
accept degrees from the so-called "offshore" medical schools like Saba,
Ross and University of Health Sciences Antigua, even though the
Educational Commission on Foreign Medical Graduates will accept these
degrees and it is possible for these graduates (albeit through a
lengthy process) to become licensed physicians in most states.
The approach of the evaluator outlined by North means that the private
Northern Caribbean University in Jamaica is OK because the University
Council of Jamaica has recognized a public institution, the University
of Technology Jamaica. Berne, on the other hand, would not be OK
because the Accreditation Board of St. Kitts & Nevis has not recognized
any public institutions. I'm doubtful, however, that many institutions
in the USA would draw this distinction- I think most merely state that
they accept "Ministry of Education approved" institutions and don't
look to see whether or not the Ministry approves both private and
public institutions.
I have some concerns about this approach, however. Why should St.
Kitts and Nevis be penalized if it decided, for budgetary & population
reasons, not to open a second public institution to compete with the
UWI affiliate Clarence Fitzroy Bryant College? Couldn't one also argue
that Ministries of Education which only recognize public institutions
and refuse to recognize private ones are also suspect? And what about
countries which split the recognition of public and private tertiary
institutions between separate governmental entities?
Like George Brown, though, I'm beginning to wonder how much interest
this thread is to members of this NG. I'd be happy to discuss it
further via my e-mail address below.
Jason Vorderstrasse
jvorde...@ggu.edu
In article <3A044B60...@ursa.net>,
John Bear <jo...@ursa.net> wrote:
> nort...@my-deja.com wrote, in part:
>
> > At any rate, for this
> > evaluator the degrees/credits of Berne University would have to be
> > recognized by UWI for Berne University to be considered to be
> > officially recognized.
> >
> > I have twice tried to e-mail UWI with the question but as of yet
have
> > heard nothing. I am looking forward to an answer.
>
> University of the West Indies is indeed a key player in this matter.
When
> Mellen University first made its claims of accreditation through
Turks and
> Caicos, I spent quite a lot of time trying to get a response from UWI.
> Like three years. Finally I decided to devote a day to the telephone.
I
> eventually reached a chap who said, in effect, and I may be quoting,
"Oh,
> no no no no no no no no, we would not recognize them (Mellen)."
"Would you
> put that in writing?" "Of course." That was three years ago. The
bottle
> has not yet washed up on California's shore.
>
> John Bear
> www.degree.net
>
>
Bill Highsmith
rab...@my-deja.com wrote in message <8u70db$o6q$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>
>> rabrou wrote...
>> > You have to admit the essence of the
>> > principle (beyond all the minutiae of
>> > science) is that observations are
>> > affected by the observer, making them
>> > inseparable.
>
>> Here is what the Heisenberg principle
>> actually says: in order to view an
>> electron we must use light to observe
>> it, but in the process of observing we
>> change the electron’s momentary existence
>
I only admit that you have utterly missed the point (which you snipped out).
This is frustrating since I've over-explained it already. One more time:
the H.u.p. speaks ONLY (only! only!) about photons hitting electrons for
the purpose of observing electrons. Since photons and electrons have similar
velocity and mass (like two equal sized marbles colliding) the thing to be
observed is disturbed. My point is that the principle DOES NOT say
anything about any other observation, whether beasts in the field or angels
on the head of a pin. I gave three examples of objects that *were not*
disturbed by the observer, showing that the H.u.p. does not apply to at
least some situations. <---------the point-------
>
>> You can certainly observe a beast
>> in the field with an unmanned camera,
>> observe a star with the hubble telescope,
>> and listen to a conversation with a
>> microphone without affecting the outcome.
>
>Huh? There would be no outcome if the observing didn't take place (or
>it would be a different outcome). In other words, the outcome is that
>the beast, star, or conversation *has been observed*, which it hadn't
>been before.
Geez...the camera has film or tape in it. After the camera has filmed the
event of interest, go pick up the film, develop it and make the
observation. I thought that it would be obvious to remove the human from
the scene because of sound and scent disturbing the beast. Cameras can
operate by timers, radio control, etc. You've a tendency to complicate the
simplest idea...which is the difficulty with this conversation.
>
>> Similarly, the hubble telescope can
>> record latent images of space objects
>> that no longer even exist. Tell me,
>> how can a space telescope affect an
>> object that no longer exists?
>
>Well, the observation made the objects' existences known to us, which
>wasn't the case previously. Now you can argue this all day until you
>are blue in the face, but you would have forgotten the statement that
>started this conversation, which was that quantum mechanics and the
>major Eastern traditions have revealed the universe to be an INEFFABLE
>oneness. Until you experience this oneness, you are like someone
>lecturing about cake that has never tasted a cake.
Are you serious? And what of someone lecturing about science who has never
tasted science, so to speak? I didn't say that the object had never been
observed before. (Whether the object has been observed before is not even
relevant to the discussion, anyway.) You've just veered off into the
undefendable and inarguable philosophical domain to obscure the fact that
you're lost in this one. I simply said that viewing the light from a star
does not disturb it (whether it is dead or not). If you want to get
philosophical, then how can you observe anything? Light from an object is
not the object. Sound from an object is not the object. If you need to
observe something, then you are not yet enlightened and can not understand
it fully (or some such circular theory).
>
>> I think the hubble telescope example
>> clearly shows that you can observe
>> things without affecting them.
>
>Prove to me they are unaffected.
Prove to me that I haven't already proven it.
Now back to earth...the medium of the observation of the (optical) telescope
is visible light (photons). Heisenberg wanted his observation instrument to
bombard the electrons with photons and see the indirect effect on
photographic paper. The instrument he described, however, would knock the
electrons out of their normal path. His instrument behaved somewhat like an
anvil used to observe a deer by smashing it into a fine paste. Heisenberg's
simple conclusion was, it's really, really hard to observe
electrons...they're real small and even photons affect them. (He didn't
say that it is hard to observe antelope, that are scarcely affected by a few
photons.) Unlike Heisenberg's instrument, however, the telescope is
passive. It does not bombard the object with anything. It only collects
photons from the object that the *object itself* created or reflected. In
the example that I used, the star had actually died and photons arrived at
the telescope many years later, since the speed of light is finite. (Truly,
I can't tell how much more I need to over-explain the point.)
>
>> And, yes, I think Werner would agree with me.
>
>Werner had this to say about your unwillingness to make the leap from
>the limited application of the H.u.p. that you cling to and the
>universal application that I espouse: "Once one has experienced the
>desperation with which clever and conciliatory men of science react to
>the demand for a change in the thought pattern, one can only be amazed
>that such revolutions in science have actually been possible at all."
Great. If you admire him so much, why then do you disabuse his other
thoughts...such as the H.u.p.? IMHO, it is just as great a fault to
mis-apply a thought as it is to resist the thought without reason. I am not
resisting the H.u.p.; I am actually defending it from a common misconception
that you were spreading.
And here is a thought for you: are you sure you want to pin your "ineffable
oneness" to a physics theory? Do you know what the life expectancy of
physics theories has been historically? Just because you find quantum
mechanics appealing (if not the meaning of it), that doesn't mean it will
stand the test of time. In fact, if history is any teacher, it *will not*
stand the test of time. What then? Back to Barnes and Noble?
>
>> > But, if you're not swayed, would
>> > you settle for Bell's theorem?
>
>Why did you not comment on this, Bill? Maybe it's because there really
>is no refuting the implications of Bell's theorem that the underlying
>connectedness of this universe is beyond our current means of
>scientific expression.
Bill's Theorem: Bell's theorem was used as a dodge *long* before it had a
name by those who didn't know what they were doing until they learned what
they were doing or until someone told them what they were doing.
It seems strange that you're trying to defend quantum physics (upon which
you've apparently pinned your belief system) while citing Bell's theorem.
That seems self-contradictory, as you have described it.
Actually, I have my own manner of connectedness with the universe (Christ).
I said at the outset that I didn't want to comment on the "spiritual"
content of the thread. I was trying to be polite and not go into that space
but only talk a little physics. I shall continue that policy and ask you
not to make too many more uninformed statements (insults) about that area of
my life.
If you wish to use the vocabulary of quantum mechanics in other realms,
fine. As such, it is an analogy, rather than an extrapolation. Analogies
can be stretched well beyond their usefulness and to the point that the
original and the abstraction no longer resemble one another.
Here are my *final* comments. Actually, I am appealing to academics on the
subject:
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/glossary.htm
A Glossary of Frequently Misused or Misunderstood Physics Terms and
Concepts.
By Donald E. Simanek, Professor of Physics at Lock Haven University of
Pennsylvania (title from his home page)
"Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. Pairs of measurable quantities whose
product has dimensions of energy×time are called conjugate quantities in
quantum mechanics, and have a special relation to each other, expressed in
Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. It says that the product of the
uncertainties of the two quantities is no smaller than h/2(pi). Thus if you
improve the measurement precision of one quantity the precision of the other
gets worse.
"Misuse alert: Folks who don't pay attention to details of science, are
heard to say "Heisenberg showed that you can't be certain about anything."
We also hear some folk justifying belief in esp or psychic phenomena by
appeal to the Heisenberg principle. This is wrong on several counts. (1) The
precision of any measurement is never perfectly certain, and we knew that
before Heisenberg. (2) The Heisenberg uncertainty principle tells us we can
measure anything with arbitrarily small precision, but in the process some
other measurement gets worse. (3) The uncertainties involved here affect
only microscopic (atomic and molecular level phenomena) and have no
applicability to the macroscopic phenomena of everyday life."
Warren, J. W. The Teaching of Physics. Butterworth's, 1969.
--Bill Highsmith
rab...@my-deja.com
> I gave three examples of objects that
> *were not* disturbed by the observer,
> showing that the H.u.p. does not apply to
> at least some situations.
Disturbed? Who said disturbed? I think you're the only one disturbed
here. The fact is they were changed: Before it was an "unobserved
beast", then it was an "observed beast". Changed, period. Get it?
Like if you had an "unpainted car", got it painted, and it was
a "painted car". Changed, not disturbed.
> > In other words, the outcome is that
> > the beast, star, or conversation
> > *has been observed*, which it hadn't
> > been before.
>
> After the camera has filmed the event
> of interest, go pick up the film,
> develop it and make the observation.
> I thought that it would be obvious to
> remove the human from the scene because
> of sound and scent disturbing the beast.
If I go pick up the film, then the human has not been removed from the
scene. Maybe it would be different if you pick up the film.
> You've a tendency to complicate the
> simplest idea...which is the difficulty
> with this conversation.
Some people are quick to absolve themselves of responsibility.
> > Until you experience this oneness,
> > you are like someone lecturing about
> > cake that has never tasted a cake.
>
> Are you serious?
Yes.
> >> I think the hubble telescope example
> >> clearly shows that you can observe
> >> things without affecting them.
> >
> > Prove to me they are unaffected.
>
> Prove to me that I haven't already proven it.
You haven't, and this cowardice doesn't win you any points.
> (Truly, I can't tell how much more
> I need to over-explain the point.)
Clue: Over-explaining something does not make you right.
> And here is a thought for you: are
> you sure you want to pin your "ineffable
> oneness" to a physics theory?
First, Bill, I did use the examples of the major Eastern mystic
traditions as well. Second, as I also intimated, it is not pinned to
anything, other than experience.
> Bill's Theorem: Bell's theorem was
> used as a dodge *long* before it had a
> name by those who didn't know what
> they were doing until they learned what
> they were doing or until someone told
> them what they were doing.
The paragraph above is one of the biggest wastes of finger movement
I've seen in a while.
> It seems strange that you're trying
> to defend quantum physics (upon which
> you've apparently pinned your belief
> system) while citing Bell's theorem.
Uh, Bill, you might want to check to see if I have a belief system
before you rant on it. (FYI, I don't have one, finding them to be
unnecessary and cumbersome baggage. If you had proven your case, I
would simply drop my analogies, extrapolations, etc. and move on.)
> Actually, I have my own manner of
> connectedness with the universe (Christ).
> I said at the outset that I didn't want
> to comment on the "spiritual" content
> of the thread. I was trying to be
> polite and not go into that space
> but only talk a little physics. I
> shall continue that policy and ask you
> not to make too many more uninformed
> statements (insults) about that area of
> my life.
What the hell are you babbling about here, Bill? What insults about
that area of your life did I make? I didn't even know you were a
Christian.
> If you wish to use the vocabulary of
> quantum mechanics in other realms,
> fine.
Gee, thanks Bill. I think I'll use them in any realm I please.
> Here are my *final* comments.
Let's hope so.
-Rab
Bill Highsmith
rab...@my-deja.com wrote in message <8u9blu$lf2$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>"Bill Highsmith" wrote:
>> I gave three examples of objects that
>> *were not* disturbed by the observer,
>> showing that the H.u.p. does not apply to
>> at least some situations.
>
>here. The fact is they were changed: Before it was an "unobserved
>beast", then it was an "observed beast". Changed, period. Get it?
>Like if you had an "unpainted car", got it painted, and it was
>a "painted car". Changed, not disturbed.
That is truly one of the most naive statements I have ever encountered. Now
you are defining the observation itself to be the effect of the observation.
You really don't have a feel for science and would be better off avoiding
the subject altogether. No, the observation is not also the affect. The
effect is the change of state of the observed object caused by the mechanism
of the observation. The question ONE MORE TIME, is: does an observation
necessarily cause a disturbance to the thing being disturbed? The H.u.p.
says that electrons are disturbed by photons during an observation. That is
simple; do you not see that that is a disturbance? Do you disagree that
being knocked out of its orbit is a rather large disturbance? And your
example of the car is just plain silly. The observation of a beast (or car)
that is unaware of the observation is not like painting the beast or
car...can you see that? The observer is actually affected more by observing
the unaware beast than the beast is: the observer now has an image,
measurement or impression; the beast has nothing other than some vague
notion that being observed is tangible. However, being knocked out of one's
orbit is most definitely tangible.
>
>> > In other words, the outcome is that
>> > the beast, star, or conversation
>> > *has been observed*, which it hadn't
>> > been before.
>>
>> After the camera has filmed the event
>> of interest, go pick up the film,
>> develop it and make the observation.
>> I thought that it would be obvious to
>> remove the human from the scene because
>> of sound and scent disturbing the beast.
>
>If I go pick up the film, then the human has not been removed from the
>scene. Maybe it would be different if you pick up the film.
What??? The human (whoever he is) picks up the film *after* the observation
by the instrument. The human was not in the scene during the measurement
and therefore did not affect it. What happens after the experiment is
irrelevant because it is not part of the experiment. I suppose you would
have the observer leave the planet for all eternity after the experiment,
using your "interesting" definition of "affect." The H.u.p. is very
grounded in rolled-up cuffs, in-the-lab, practical physics experimentation,
for the purpose of tangible measurements. Your drifting off into
intangible effects really isn't worth debating because you may write your
own rules and no one can argue with them.
>
>> You've a tendency to complicate the
>> simplest idea...which is the difficulty
>> with this conversation.
>
>Some people are quick to absolve themselves of responsibility.
You're calling this conversation "quick?" I don't think so.
>
>> > Until you experience this oneness,
>> > you are like someone lecturing about
>> > cake that has never tasted a cake.
>>
>> Are you serious?
>
>Yes.
More cute snipping...an intellectually dishonest practice. The paragraph
was: "Well, the observation made the objects' existences known to us, which
wasn't the case previously. Now you can argue this all day until you are
blue in the face, but you would have forgotten the statement that started
this conversation, which was that quantum mechanics and the major Eastern
traditions have revealed the universe to be an INEFFABLE
oneness. Until you experience this oneness, you are like someone lecturing
about cake that has never tasted a cake."
It was the first sentence that I was chortling about...up to that point, the
conversation was about whether an object is affected by the observer. In
this paragraph, you tried to dodge the issue (or perhaps you were confused)
by saying that the effect on the observer is the issue. Good one.
>
>> >> I think the hubble telescope example
>> >> clearly shows that you can observe
>> >> things without affecting them.
>> >
>> > Prove to me they are unaffected.
>>
>> Prove to me that I haven't already proven it.
>
>You haven't, and this cowardice doesn't win you any points.
My challenge is as valid as yours, and I notice that you weren't up to your
own challenge. But I digress; you missed the point again because of your
lack of feel for science. The proof that you sought was for a malformed
proposition, phrased as it was as a logical negative (the "un" is the
negation). What would you have me do with that?
>> (Truly, I can't tell how much more
>> I need to over-explain the point.)
>
>Clue: Over-explaining something does not make you right.
True. It also drains one of patience.
>
>> And here is a thought for you: are
>> you sure you want to pin your "ineffable
>> oneness" to a physics theory?
>
>First, Bill, I did use the examples of the major Eastern mystic
>traditions as well. Second, as I also intimated, it is not pinned to
>anything, other than experience.
Excuse me, but you said, "...but you would have forgotten the statement that
started this conversation, which was that quantum mechanics and the
major Eastern traditions have revealed the universe to be an INEFFABLE
oneness."
I'm sorry, but if quantum mechanics revealed it to you, then you are pinning
your belief on that revelation. If you don't believe the revelation or give
it no regard whatsoever, why mention it?
>
>> Bill's Theorem: Bell's theorem was
>> used as a dodge *long* before it had a
>> name by those who didn't know what
>> they were doing until they learned what
>> they were doing or until someone told
>> them what they were doing.
>
>The paragraph above is one of the biggest wastes of finger movement
>I've seen in a while.
I liked it. Thank you.
>
>> It seems strange that you're trying
>> to defend quantum physics (upon which
>> you've apparently pinned your belief
>> system) while citing Bell's theorem.
>
>Uh, Bill, you might want to check to see if I have a belief system
>before you rant on it. (FYI, I don't have one, finding them to be
>unnecessary and cumbersome baggage. If you had proven your case, I
>would simply drop my analogies, extrapolations, etc. and move on.)
So you don't believe in the ineffable oneness? Gee, I could have saved
myself a lot of trouble if I'd known that sooner. But it sure sounded like
you believed in it.
>
>> Actually, I have my own manner of
>> connectedness with the universe (Christ).
>> I said at the outset that I didn't want
>> to comment on the "spiritual" content
>> of the thread. I was trying to be
>> polite and not go into that space
>> but only talk a little physics. I
>> shall continue that policy and ask you
>> not to make too many more uninformed
>> statements (insults) about that area of
>> my life.
>
>What the hell are you babbling about here, Bill? What insults about
>that area of your life did I make? I didn't even know you were a
>Christian.
You didn't insult Christianity. However, you said "Until you experience
this oneness, you are like someone
lecturing about cake that has never tasted a cake,," implying that I am a
spiritual zero and not worthy of having this conversation with you. Perhaps
you didn't mean that, but I can think of no other reason for making the
statement in the context in which you made it.
>> If you wish to use the vocabulary of
>> quantum mechanics in other realms,
>> fine.
>
>Gee, thanks Bill. I think I'll use them in any realm I please.
>
>> Here are my *final* comments.
>
>Let's hope so.
Here are more final comments.
Bill H.
Bill Highsmith
snipping out embarrassing points without comment. You made no comment about
the physics professor who agreed with me that you are abusing the meaning of
the Heisenberg Uncertainty Priniciple. I've repeated it here for your
convenience in case you want to refute it:
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/glossary.htm
A Glossary of Frequently Misused or Misunderstood Physics Terms and
Concepts.
By Donald E. Simanek, Professor of Physics at Lock Haven University of
Pennsylvania (title from his home page)
"Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. Pairs of measurable quantities whose
product has dimensions of energy×time are called conjugate quantities in
quantum mechanics, and have a special relation to each other, expressed in
Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. It says that the product of the
uncertainties of the two quantities is no smaller than h/2(pi). Thus if you
improve the measurement precision of one quantity the precision of the other
gets worse.
"Misuse alert: Folks who don't pay attention to details of science, are
heard to say "Heisenberg showed that you can't be certain about anything."
We also hear some folk justifying belief in esp or psychic phenomena by
appeal to the Heisenberg principle. This is wrong on several counts. (1) The
precision of any measurement is never perfectly certain, and we knew that
before Heisenberg. (2) The Heisenberg uncertainty principle tells us we can
measure anything with arbitrarily small precision, but in the process some
other measurement gets worse. (3) The uncertainties involved here affect
only microscopic (atomic and molecular level phenomena) and have no
applicability to the macroscopic phenomena of everyday life."
Warren, J. W. The Teaching of Physics. Butterworth's, 1969.
--Bill Highsmith
rab...@my-deja.com wrote in message <8u9blu$lf2$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>"Bill Highsmith" wrote:
>> I gave three examples of objects that
>> *were not* disturbed by the observer,
>> showing that the H.u.p. does not apply to
>> at least some situations.
>
>Disturbed? Who said disturbed? I think you're the only one disturbed
>here. The fact is they were changed: Before it was an "unobserved
>beast", then it was an "observed beast". Changed, period. Get it?
>Like if you had an "unpainted car", got it painted, and it was
>a "painted car". Changed, not disturbed.
>
>> > In other words, the outcome is that
>> > the beast, star, or conversation
>> > *has been observed*, which it hadn't
>> > been before.
>>
>> After the camera has filmed the event
>> of interest, go pick up the film,
>> develop it and make the observation.
>> I thought that it would be obvious to
>> remove the human from the scene because
>> of sound and scent disturbing the beast.
>
>If I go pick up the film, then the human has not been removed from the
>scene. Maybe it would be different if you pick up the film.
>
>
>> You've a tendency to complicate the
>> simplest idea...which is the difficulty
>> with this conversation.
>
>Some people are quick to absolve themselves of responsibility.
>
>> > Until you experience this oneness,
>> > you are like someone lecturing about
>> > cake that has never tasted a cake.
>>
>> Are you serious?
>
>Yes.
>
>> >> I think the hubble telescope example
>> >> clearly shows that you can observe
>> >> things without affecting them.
>> >
>> > Prove to me they are unaffected.
>>
>> Prove to me that I haven't already proven it.
>
>You haven't, and this cowardice doesn't win you any points.
>
>> (Truly, I can't tell how much more
>> I need to over-explain the point.)
>
>Clue: Over-explaining something does not make you right.
>
>> And here is a thought for you: are
>> you sure you want to pin your "ineffable
>> oneness" to a physics theory?
>
>First, Bill, I did use the examples of the major Eastern mystic
>traditions as well. Second, as I also intimated, it is not pinned to
>anything, other than experience.
>
>> Bill's Theorem: Bell's theorem was
>> used as a dodge *long* before it had a
>> name by those who didn't know what
>> they were doing until they learned what
>> they were doing or until someone told
>> them what they were doing.
>
>The paragraph above is one of the biggest wastes of finger movement
>I've seen in a while.
>
>> It seems strange that you're trying
>> to defend quantum physics (upon which
>> you've apparently pinned your belief
>> system) while citing Bell's theorem.
>
>Uh, Bill, you might want to check to see if I have a belief system
>before you rant on it. (FYI, I don't have one, finding them to be
>unnecessary and cumbersome baggage. If you had proven your case, I
>would simply drop my analogies, extrapolations, etc. and move on.)
>
>> Actually, I have my own manner of
>> connectedness with the universe (Christ).
>> I said at the outset that I didn't want
>> to comment on the "spiritual" content
>> of the thread. I was trying to be
>> polite and not go into that space
>> but only talk a little physics. I
>> shall continue that policy and ask you
>> not to make too many more uninformed
>> statements (insults) about that area of
>> my life.
>
>What the hell are you babbling about here, Bill? What insults about
>that area of your life did I make? I didn't even know you were a
>Christian.
>
>> If you wish to use the vocabulary of
>> quantum mechanics in other realms,
>> fine.
>
>Gee, thanks Bill. I think I'll use them in any realm I please.
>
>> Here are my *final* comments.
>
rab...@my-deja.com
> You really don't have a feel for science
> and would be better off avoiding the
> subject altogether.
Bill, I'm gonna shock you on this one: I totally agree with you. My
expertise is more in the realm of REALITY. I do not espouse clinging
to models of reality, be they scientific, religious, philosophical, or
any other abstraction. I do think, though, for the convenience of
conversation, we can use parallels, examples, analogies,
extrapolations, and poetic license without forever damaging the
reputation of science or running the risk of eternal damnation.
> And your example of the car is just plain silly.
Uh huh. But, of course, nothing you've said here is silly, Billy.
> What??? The human (whoever he is) picks
> up the film *after* the observation
> by the instrument. The human was not in
> the scene during the measurement
> and therefore did not affect it.
What??? Did not affect it? How the hell did the camera get there in
the first place, Bill? Magick? God? Last I checked, cameras are made
and used by humans, guy.
> More cute snipping...an intellectually dishonest practice.
I knew you were going to go here. If someone wants to see exactly what
was said, they can go to the previous post in the thread, Bill.
Calling me dishonest for snipping is just pure bullshit.
> >> And here is a thought for you: are
> >> you sure you want to pin your "ineffable
> >> oneness" to a physics theory?
> >
> > First, Bill, I did use the examples
> > of the major Eastern mystic
> > traditions as well. Second, as I
> > also intimated, it is not pinned to
> > anything, other than experience.
>
> Excuse me, but you said, "...but you
> would have forgotten the statement that
> started this conversation, which was
> that quantum mechanics and the major
> Eastern traditions have revealed the
> universe to be an INEFFABLE oneness."
>
> I'm sorry, but if quantum mechanics
> revealed it to you, then you are pinning
> your belief on that revelation.
Bill, you're losing it, partner. I never said quantum mechanics
revealed it to ME, it is merely a discovery made in that particular
niche of science and revealed in the writings of that niche's
philosophers. I will say that I have had many great experiences
reading about the amazing hidden worlds of subatomic phenomena and
astrophysics.
And I will tell you one more time for the record, Bill, listen up: No
belief system. I honestly cannot think of one thing I believe in. Why
should I? The sun is hot, the sky is blue...what more do I need to
believe in?
> >> Bill's Theorem: Bell's theorem was
> >> used as a dodge *long* before it had a
> >> name by those who didn't know what
> >> they were doing until they learned what
> >> they were doing or until someone told
> >> them what they were doing.
> >
> > The paragraph above is one of the
> > biggest wastes of finger movement
> > I've seen in a while.
>
> I liked it. Thank you.
Pardon my French. Pure bullshit. Smelly and bad. You make an appeal
to academics with that paragraph and see what happens. (Let me know
when you're gonna do it...I want videotape of the reaction.)
> So you don't believe in the ineffable
> oneness? Gee, I could have saved
> myself a lot of trouble if I'd known
> that sooner. But it sure sounded like
> you believed in it.
Believe in it? No. That would be like saying I believe my car is
white. I know my car is white.
> You didn't insult Christianity. However,
> you said "Until you experience
> this oneness, you are like someone
> lecturing about cake that has never tasted
> a cake,," implying that I am a
> spiritual zero and not worthy of having
> this conversation with you. Perhaps
> you didn't mean that, but I can think
> of no other reason for making the
> statement in the context in which you made it.
No. A spiritual zero is someone who takes too much cake. I doubt
that's you. But if for some reason you doubt the oneness of our world,
then you should take another look.
> > > Here are my *final* comments.
> >
> > Let's hope so.
>
> Here are more final comments.
It's okay, Bill. I understand.
-Rabph Waldo Emerson (espousing the mystic unity of nature)
rab...@my-deja.com
> I'm putting this comment in a separate
> message because of your habit of
> snipping out embarrassing points without
> comment.
I thought you would be happy not to be embarrassed by them twice.
> You made no comment about the physics
> professor who agreed with me that you
> are abusing the meaning of the Heisenberg
> Uncertainty Priniciple.
Okay, here's a comment: Professor, if you agree with this guy Bill
Highsmith, I've got some swamp land in Florida you might want to
consider.
Bill Highsmith
rab...@my-deja.com wrote in message <8uad12$j7n$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>"Bill Highsmith" wrote at length, including:
>> You really don't have a feel for science
>> and would be better off avoiding the
>> subject altogether.
>
>Bill, I'm gonna shock you on this one: I totally agree with you. My
>expertise is more in the realm of REALITY. I do not espouse clinging
>to models of reality, be they scientific, religious, philosophical, or
>any other abstraction. I do think, though, for the convenience of
>conversation, we can use parallels, examples, analogies,
>extrapolations, and poetic license without forever damaging the
>reputation of science or running the risk of eternal damnation.
>
So...you can experience reality without believing in it. Fine, a totally
abstractYou don't believe in anything but reality, which pretty much
prevents you from defining it except by saying reality is reality (assuming
you believe in "is"). You don't believe in models of reality but are
completely comfortable making extrapolations from them.
>> And your example of the car is just plain silly.
>
>Uh huh. But, of course, nothing you've said here is silly, Billy.
Good. You agree.
>
>> What??? The human (whoever he is) picks
>> up the film *after* the observation
>> by the instrument. The human was not in
>> the scene during the measurement
>> and therefore did not affect it.
>
>What??? Did not affect it? How the hell did the camera get there in
>the first place, Bill? Magick? God? Last I checked, cameras are made
>and used by humans, guy.
You aren't this lame. Here is how an experiment is conducted. Purpose:
observe a deer drinking from a pond. The deer goes to the pond in the
evening. At other times of the day, the deer is elsewhere. Put a
timer-controlled video camera near the pond in the morning. The next
morning, go pick up the video camera. Take the video camera
quick-like-a-bunny to another continent, never to return. Look at the video
tape. Voila, the deer was taped drinking from the pond, totally unaware, and
only the observer was affected. If you obstinently say that the deer was
affected merely because a camera was there, then I'll ask you, wasn't the
deer affected by the camera when it was 10 miles away in a closet? A
thousand miles away? How friggin' far does the camera have to be from the
deer not to affect it?
>
>> More cute snipping...an intellectually dishonest practice.
>
>I knew you were going to go here. If someone wants to see exactly what
>was said, they can go to the previous post in the thread, Bill.
>Calling me dishonest for snipping is just pure bullshit.
Not when you make a point that assumes that the snipped part never existed.
>
>> >> And here is a thought for you: are
>> >> you sure you want to pin your "ineffable
>> >> oneness" to a physics theory?
>> >
>> > First, Bill, I did use the examples
>> > of the major Eastern mystic
>> > traditions as well. Second, as I
>> > also intimated, it is not pinned to
>> > anything, other than experience.
>>
>> Excuse me, but you said, "...but you
>> would have forgotten the statement that
>> started this conversation, which was
>> that quantum mechanics and the major
>> Eastern traditions have revealed the
>> universe to be an INEFFABLE oneness."
>>
>> I'm sorry, but if quantum mechanics
>> revealed it to you, then you are pinning
>> your belief on that revelation.
>
>Bill, you're losing it, partner. I never said quantum mechanics
>revealed it to ME, it is merely a discovery made in that particular
>niche of science and revealed in the writings of that niche's
>philosophers. I will say that I have had many great experiences
>reading about the amazing hidden worlds of subatomic phenomena and
>astrophysics.
I'm losing it? I quoted your very words. Here they are again: "...but you
would have forgotten the statement that started this conversation, which
was that ----> quantum mechanics and the major Eastern traditions have
revealed the universe to be an INEFFABLE oneness. <---------"
You're only quibbling about whether you read it in a book vs having an
original thought. In either case, you said that quantum mechanics revealed
it to you.
>And I will tell you one more time for the record, Bill, listen up: No
>belief system. I honestly cannot think of one thing I believe in. Why
>should I? The sun is hot, the sky is blue...what more do I need to
>believe in?
Well, suppose a mugger points a gun at you and demands your money. Do you
know that he will shoot you or do you believe that he will shoot you?
>
>> >> Bill's Theorem: Bell's theorem was
>> >> used as a dodge *long* before it had a
>> >> name by those who didn't know what
>> >> they were doing until they learned what
>> >> they were doing or until someone told
>> >> them what they were doing.
>> >
>> > The paragraph above is one of the
>> > biggest wastes of finger movement
>> > I've seen in a while.
>>
>> I liked it. Thank you.
>
>Pardon my French. Pure bullshit. Smelly and bad. You make an appeal
>to academics with that paragraph and see what happens. (Let me know
>when you're gonna do it...I want videotape of the reaction.)
I didn't say it was great art..but neither is your non-retort.
>> So you don't believe in the ineffable
>> oneness? Gee, I could have saved
>> myself a lot of trouble if I'd known
>> that sooner. But it sure sounded like
>> you believed in it.
>
>Believe in it? No. That would be like saying I believe my car is
>white. I know my car is white.
Do you, really? Assuming you can define white, all you "know" is that the
portion of the car that you're looking at is white. You don't really "know"
that the other side is white unless you go look. To say that the other side
is white without looking is belief. You believe that you don't believe
anything. But I believe that every waking moment of your life is oozing
with beliefs that you intellectually convinced yourself don't exist. I'm
immutably convinced of this so don't bother arguing. I accept that you are
immutably convinced otherwise.
>
>> You didn't insult Christianity. However,
>> you said "Until you experience
>> this oneness, you are like someone
>> lecturing about cake that has never tasted
>> a cake,," implying that I am a
>> spiritual zero and not worthy of having
>> this conversation with you. Perhaps
>> you didn't mean that, but I can think
>> of no other reason for making the
>> statement in the context in which you made it.
>
>No. A spiritual zero is someone who takes too much cake. I doubt
>that's you. But if for some reason you doubt the oneness of our world,
>then you should take another look.
Bill H.
Bill Highsmith
rab...@my-deja.com wrote in message <8uada2$ji7$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
Well, it was probably an oversight, but you again forgot to refute the
physics professor's comments. You probably got distracted when you tossed a
little barb in my direction rather than attempting to refute the professor.
I'm certain that you don't want the professor's strong statement to go
unrefuted, so I'm repeating it here for your convenience. (You can thank me
later.) In case it is confusing, the statement starting with "Misuse
alert:" is the professor's, not mine. Here it is:
rab...@my-deja.com
> >> More cute snipping...an intellectually dishonest practice.
> >
> > I knew you were going to go here. If
> > someone wants to see exactly what
> > was said, they can go to the previous
> > post in the thread, Bill. Calling me
> > dishonest for snipping is just pure bullshit.
>
> Not when you make a point that assumes
> that the snipped part never existed.
Those snipped parts of yours are not assumed to be non-existent, Bill.
Just redundant and pointless, buddy.
> Well, suppose a mugger points a gun at
> you and demands your money. Do you
> know that he will shoot you or do you
> believe that he will shoot you?
Neither.
> > I know my car is white.
>
> Do you, really? Assuming you can define
> white, all you "know" is that the
> portion of the car that you're looking at
> is white. You don't really "know"
> that the other side is white unless you go look.
I went and looked. It's white.
> Bill H.
Whoops! Wait a second, Bill. Where's that comment about your "*final*
comments" being made (two days and 4 messages ago). You snipped it,
didn't you? What are you trying to pull here, you intellectually
dishonest turd?
-Rab
rab...@my-deja.com
> Well, it was probably an oversight, but
> you again forgot to refute the physics
> professor's comments.
Uh, Bill, do you remember telling me to avoid the subject of science
altogether? Now you want me to refute this myopic professor's 30-year-
old statements? You have problems, don't you, Bill?
Tell you what: I won't refute them. My official stance now on the
Heisenberg uncertainty principle is not to use it except in any case
that Bill Highsmith approves as appropriate. Otherwise, you will get
some ignorant blowhard trying to tell you that you don't know the color
of your own car.
-Rab
P.S. Folks, even though I have now admittedly lost this argument, do
you think it will stop Bill from making more "*final* comments"?
Bill Highsmith
rab...@my-deja.com wrote in message <8ubu9p$p5t$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>"Bill Highsmith" wrote:
>> >> More cute snipping...an intellectually dishonest practice.
>> >
>> > I knew you were going to go here. If
>> > someone wants to see exactly what
>> > was said, they can go to the previous
>> > post in the thread, Bill. Calling me
>> > dishonest for snipping is just pure bullshit.
>>
>> Not when you make a point that assumes
>> that the snipped part never existed.
>
>Just redundant and pointless, buddy.
>
see below (1)
>> Well, suppose a mugger points a gun at
>> you and demands your money. Do you
>> know that he will shoot you or do you
>> believe that he will shoot you?
>
>Neither.
See below. (1)
>
>> > I know my car is white.
>>
>> Do you, really? Assuming you can define
>> white, all you "know" is that the
>> portion of the car that you're looking at
>> is white. You don't really "know"
>> that the other side is white unless you go look.
>
>I went and looked. It's white.
Yeah, but NOW is it white? Do you believe that it is white or do you know
that it is white?
(The fact is, you dodge every question (see the references (1)) and seem
quite incapable of making substantive arguments. Perhaps you've bent your
vocabulary so much that words such as reality, know, and belief no longer
have usable semantics and it is just too hard to discuss them. These little
scenarios that I keep posing were obviously designed to ferret out what you
mean by "I have no beliefs," "reality" and "know." Fine. You will not or
can not define them and will continue only to dodge substantive inquiries.
I can live without the explanation that I diligently sought; the meaning is
now perfectly clear to me and I've lost interest in waiting for substance
from you.)
>
>> Bill H.
>
>Whoops! Wait a second, Bill. Where's that comment about your "*final*
>comments" being made (two days and 4 messages ago). You snipped it,
>didn't you? What are you trying to pull here, you intellectually
>dishonest turd?
Having a hard time finding a point to make? Following my "Here are more
final comments," you said, "It's okay, Bill. I understand." Were you just
spewing words? You said that you understood; what more needed to be said?"
My signoff wasn't even a question to you and needed no comment from you,
anyway. Take your lithium.
The above are currently my final comments.
Bill H.
Bill Highsmith
rab...@my-deja.com wrote in message <8ubuvu$ppg$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>"Bill Highsmith" wrote:
>> Well, it was probably an oversight, but
>> you again forgot to refute the physics
>> professor's comments.
>
>altogether? Now you want me to refute this myopic professor's 30-year-
>old statements? You have problems, don't you, Bill?
>
stance now on the
>Heisenberg uncertainty principle is not to use it except in any case
>that Bill Highsmith approves as appropriate. Otherwise, you will get
>some ignorant blowhard trying to tell you that you don't know the color
>of your own car.
Thanks; I don't approve of any use of it. Ignorant blowhard? Gee, that is
the most substantive argument that you've been able to cobble together.
Congratulations. (Too bad, actually. I really was diligently trying to
ferret out some definitions from you...it would have been easier to pull
teeth from a chicken.)
>
>P.S. Folks, even though I have now admittedly lost this argument, do
>you think it will stop Bill from making more "*final* comments"?
>
Cheap high school debate trick....