| Autor |
Nachricht |
MI
Administrator
Anmeldungsdatum: 22.01.2005
Beiträge: 1140
Wohnort: München
|
 Verfasst am: 02. Jun 2011 20:49 Titel: |
 |
|
| Pablo hat Folgendes geschrieben: | | Okay. What do think is the easier language to learn? |
"Spain" and "France" are names of the countries - the languages are called "Spanish" and "French".
Well, it's not very easy to say, which language is easier. I learned them in the order Latin - French - (Spanish). I speak only very little Spanish, thus I cannot say anything about its hidden difficulties, but in principle, most of its grammar seems to be very similar to Latin or French and much of its vocabulary is also.
But which one is easiest? That depends on many factors. First, I'd say Spanish is easier than French for one reason:
- the grammar seems to me pretty much similar, especially because the difficult topics, such as subjunctive forms, exist in both languages.
- French' orthography is harder than Spanish' - a very large amount of French words has many unpronounced letters, which makes it difficult to write by hearing. In consequence, I consider writing flawless French to be much more difficult than writing flawless English (and I'd say also Spanish). Even when my knowledge of French was biggest (>C1 in the European reference system of assessing language skills), I made a lot more mistakes in French than somebody with the same skill level in English would be expected to make.
Now, what about Latin? Well, that mostly depends on your preferences. You see, at school, you don't learn to speak Latin. You learn to translate Latin and at a later stage of your education, you might begin translating simple German texts into Latin. This makes learning Latin a lot different to learning any spoken language. Learning Latin is much less intuition and much more learning of rules and vocabulary. The grammar of Latin is very complex and you learn much more complex grammatic structures when learning Latin than you learn when learning French or Spanish, not because those two languages don't have complex structures, but because you don't really need to know every grammatic detail there. In Latin, this is different. However, there is a very good thing about Latin, if you get easily irritated by rules and exceptions. Since Latin is no evolving language, the rules and exceptions are all very well studied. Very often you might find a rule together with a table of all existing exceptions - something which is very hard to find for English, Spanish or French.
That's why many people say that learning Latin is easy for people who are good at mathematics at school: both, mathematics at school and Latin can be done very schematic.
Greetings
MI |
|
 |
Pablo
Anmeldungsdatum: 23.11.2010
Beiträge: 192
|
| Verfasst am: 02. Jun 2011 21:28 Titel: |
|
|
Hi,
your answer is partial so difficult to read for me but I think that I have understood it.
You know, in the next year I must choose a second language and that is the reason why I asked you.
Last week my teacher said to me that the most pupils have problems with this second language and it is better to learn in time. Because of that I will start to learn in time and I hope, in the next year it won't be difficult for me.
So, I think that French will be to difficult. Then I have to choose between Latin and Spain. Hmm, that is a hard decision. I will think about it.
You know, that I go to a school for the second education way for older people and we have to learn in 2 Years the same subject-stuff for this second language as like as a normal Gymnasium-pupil. That could be very difficult.
Or what do you think?
Regards, your pupil  |
|
|
MI
Administrator
Anmeldungsdatum: 22.01.2005
Beiträge: 1140
Wohnort: München
|
| Verfasst am: 09. Jun 2011 23:58 Titel: |
|
|
| Pablo hat Folgendes geschrieben: | Hi,
your answer is partially very difficult to read for me but I think that I have understood it. |
Well, if there is anything you are not sure about, just point out the passage and I'll rephrase it with different words. Perhaps you'll pick up some useful vocabulary on the way.
| Zitat: |
You know, in the next year I must choose a second language and that is the reason why I asked you.
Last week my teacher said to me that the most pupils have problems with this second language and it is better to learn in time. Because of that I will start to learn in time and I hope, next year it won't be difficult for me.
So, I think that French will be to difficult. Then I have to choose between Latin and Spain. Hmm, that is a hard decision. I will think about it.
You know, that I go to a school for second chance education for older people and we have to learn in 2 years the same subject-stuff for this second language as normal grammar school pupils. (I had to look that up, but the term above is a better translation for "zweiter Bildungsweg"). That could be very difficult. |
Well, it all comes down to how well you learn new languages. French was my third language and that means I learned in two years, what others had to learn in four. The usual time that is required for your second language is, I believe, five. However, be assured that you don't have to learn five years in two. I mean, the people who invented these instruments for second chance education actually want you to succeed. That means, it will be feasible. Your second language at school might not be a soft subject, you might have to work a lot, but then there will be a good chance for you to pass. Since I can see that you are prepared to put in lots of work, you'll probably be fine.
Regards
MI |
|
|
Pablo
Anmeldungsdatum: 23.11.2010
Beiträge: 192
|
| Verfasst am: 11. Jun 2011 16:23 Titel: |
|
|
Hi,
yes, I always pick up words from your answers and learn them.
Well, the problem is that I have this second language only two years I don't have to write my abitur in it. That is the reason why I am searching for an easy one. Which is the easiest to learn?
Regards |
|
|
MI
Administrator
Anmeldungsdatum: 22.01.2005
Beiträge: 1140
Wohnort: München
|
| Verfasst am: 13. Jun 2011 23:11 Titel: |
|
|
As I said, the question is difficult. I'd say Spanish is easier than French, but it depends on your type, whether you find Spanish easier or Latin. Most would find Spanish easier, but then again, you seem to learn a little different than most people.
Greetings
MI |
|
|
Pablo
Anmeldungsdatum: 23.11.2010
Beiträge: 192
|
| Verfasst am: 15. Jun 2011 16:02 Titel: |
|
|
Hello,
I think I will choose Spanish. Thanks for your advice.
Regards |
|
|
Pablo
Anmeldungsdatum: 23.11.2010
Beiträge: 192
|
| Verfasst am: 18. Jul 2011 23:18 Titel: |
|
|
Hey MI my friend 
Are you still alive? I am here in England and the weather is so terrible. The whole day it rains or it is grey... What a pity!
I stay here by my guestfamilie and every day I talk about English grammar and these things and when I asked something about the past perfect and past perfect progressive or the passiv they looked me on and they started laughing because they did not know it. They say in English it is not normal to say: I had been having... They use the simple past or past progressive and it is no problem and in Germany they taught us that we should do this in this tense and that in that tense. They looked at me very amazed when I started talking about the present perfect progressive passive.
But they say that is the right way with all these tenses but nobody talk in this way. They all talk normal English, and not English like old books.
Moreover I love the English accent and I am customizing it on my own.
But the English food is weird because they eat everything which you can grill or toast in any way. Here is one restaurant besides an other one. This is crazy.
How are your experiences with the English food and the difference between English in Germany and real English in England?
Yours, Pablo |
|
|
MI
Administrator
Anmeldungsdatum: 22.01.2005
Beiträge: 1140
Wohnort: München
|
| Verfasst am: 19. Jul 2011 15:38 Titel: |
|
|
| Pablo hat Folgendes geschrieben: |
I stay here at my guestfamilie and every day I talk about English grammar and these things and when I asked something about the past perfect and past perfect progressive or the passiv they looked at me and they started laughing because they did not know it. They say in English it is not normal to say: I had been having... They use the simple past or past progressive and it is no problem and in Germany they taught us that we should do this in this tense and that in that tense. They looked at me very amazed when I started talking about the present perfect progressive passive. |
I very much believe that. That's what I have been trying to say once in a while: If you know about present progressive, simple present, will-future/going to future, present perfect, simple past and past perfect, you'll be absolutely fine (the only other type occasionally used is past progressive). You even don't have to know about the subtleties of the differences of present perfect and simple past or going-to and will-future.
Same with passive: More than two/three words for one verb of a sentence sounds unnatural - so don't use passive there.
Perhaps this will interest you: I recently came across "The Elements of Style" by Strunk & White - a book which is apparantly held in high esteem in American academia. It's a book giving advice on how to write correctly and well. Now, I found an interesting article critizising the book: http://chronicle.com/article/50-Years-of-Stupid-Grammar/25497
The author of the article is one of THE British capacities in English linguistics, one of the main authors of the pretty much comprehensive (and expensive) "The Camebridge Grammar of the English Language". He pans the book of Strung & White, saying that their style advice is mostly harmless and their grammar is mostly wrong. He gives several examples, for example: Strunk & White say that you shouldn't use the passive voice and also give examples, only one of which actually contains a passive construction (see for yourself, I believe you can see that there is no passive in these sentences). That means: The authors don't actually know what the passive is - so if you have slight difficulties, don't despair, even acknowledged native speakers sometimes have even bigger problems .
| Zitat: | | But they say that is the right way with all these tenses but nobody talks in this way. They all talk normal English, and not English like old books. |
Yes, it is correct, but as you say yourself, it doesn't sound natural to use stuff like "It has been being done" and spoken language, after all, is a natural thing (what, again, I've been trying to say all along ).
| Zitat: |
But the English food is weird because they eat everything which you can barbecue (more common) or toast in any way. Here is one restaurant besides an other one. This is crazy.
How are your experiences with the English food and the difference between English in Germany and real English in England? |
Where I was, food was pretty normal, not exceptionally good, but not bad either and since I rarely went to really British restaurants, I don't know about them barbecuing everything (which might also be an American invention that came across the ocean).
As for the language, I made pretty much the same experiences you did - the only difference was that I didn't much care for grammar in the first place, so I wasn't as surprised as you are, when I found out that some rules are pretty much ignored in spoken language. What I found really interesting is how some words were pronounced entirely differently than what I had been taught (e.g.: either was pronounced something like "ithe" and not "aithe", etc.), only later did I realise that this depended heavily on the local dialect.
Regards
MI |
|
|
Jack
Ehrenmoderator
Anmeldungsdatum: 09.04.2006
Beiträge: 549
|
| Verfasst am: 19. Jul 2011 16:51 Titel: |
|
|
| MI hat Folgendes geschrieben: | Perhaps this will interest you: I recently came across "The Elements of Style" by Strunk & White - a book which is apparantly held in high esteem in American academia. It's a book giving advice on how to write correctly and well. Now, I found an interesting article critizising the book: http://chronicle.com/article/50-Years-of-Stupid-Grammar/25497
The author of the article is one of THE British capacities in English linguistics, one of the main authors of the pretty much comprehensive (and expensive) "The Camebridge Grammar of the English Language". He pans the book of Strung & White, saying that their style advice is mostly harmless and their grammar is mostly wrong. He gives several examples, for example: Strunk & White say that you shouldn't use the passive voice and also give examples, only one of which actually contains a passive construction (see for yourself, I believe you can see that there is no passive in these sentences). That means: The authors don't actually know what the passive is - so if you have slight difficulties, don't despair, even acknowledged native speakers sometimes have even bigger problems . |
It would be interesting to read where exactly in American academia Strung & White's grammar is supposed to be widely popular, for I haven't noticed anything like that while I studied and taught English in the U.S. In fact, traditional grammar books like that are viewed as obsolete in most English departments at American universities nowadays. Therefore, modern English teachers would not necessarily circle a passive construction as long as it's rhetorically effective (if you want to read more about this so-called rhetorical grammar, I recommend "Rhetorical Grammar" by Martha Kolln, which is a great book about English grammar and effective writing). |
|
|
MI
Administrator
Anmeldungsdatum: 22.01.2005
Beiträge: 1140
Wohnort: München
|
| Verfasst am: 19. Jul 2011 20:36 Titel: |
|
|
I also asked myself how very popular the book actually is - it's interesting that you have never really come across it. Perhaps it is really not that popular in academia as the article says (or did I misread this?).
However there is a certain amount of evidence supporting the idea that it is "somewhat" popular (perhaps not more in academia than elsewhere), e.g.: Wikipedia-entry with rather long discussion-page, xkcd-comic with people claiming to know the book in the discussion fora (which is how I came across the title), over 300 customer reviews on amazon.com, etc.
The question remains, why that British linguist took his time to write such an article panning the book. 
Thanks for your advice on modern books about the topic. I will perhaps one day have the time to have a look at it.
Regards
MI |
|
|
Pablo
Anmeldungsdatum: 23.11.2010
Beiträge: 192
|
| Verfasst am: 19. Jul 2011 22:11 Titel: |
|
|
Hey MI,
your English must be sooooooo good! When I read your textes here I am sure that your English must be extrem good! I would like to talk to you in English!
Now I am two days here and I have talked the whole day English and my English Speaking has boosted from 10 to 100.
It is really fantastic to can use the English that you have learnd. I love it. Now I am starting to think in English. I hope that is a good sign, isn't it?
The English language sound so lovely and nice, better than the American English or what do you think?
Yours, Pablo |
|
|
MI
Administrator
Anmeldungsdatum: 22.01.2005
Beiträge: 1140
Wohnort: München
|
| Verfasst am: 20. Jul 2011 21:34 Titel: |
|
|
| Pablo hat Folgendes geschrieben: | | your English must be sooooooo good! When I read your textes here I am sure that your English must be extremly good! |
It's certainly not bad, but there is still room for improvement, especially with idioms and certain areas of vocabulary. I also think/know that some users here (who were here more often in the past) speak even better English than I do, however, you are probably right when you say that my level of English is already quite advanced.
| Zitat: | Now I am two days here and I have talked the whole day English and my English Speaking has boosted from 10 to 100. No problem understanding you, but you should better reorganise the sentence, e.g.: "Now, I am here for two days and I have talked English the whole day and my speaking abilities are boosted..."
It is really fantastic to be able to use the English that you have learned (can is a modal verb and has no real infinitve form - use "to be able to" instead). I love it. Now I am starting to think in English. I hope that is a good sign, isn't it? |
It's definitely not a bad sign, because it shows that you familiarise yourself with the English language. It might not help you with your grammar, but it will certainly help you to improve your oral communication skills (both in speaking and listening).
| Zitat: | | The English language sounds so lovely and nice, better than the American English or what do you think? |
Yes, I do, but that is probably because I went to England before I went to the United States, but I don't really bother very much.
Regards
MI |
|
|
Pablo
Anmeldungsdatum: 23.11.2010
Beiträge: 192
|
| Verfasst am: 21. Jul 2011 01:14 Titel: |
|
|
Okay, I need also vocublary. I know the whole English grammar but I need more vocabulary. Everytime I say the same words! If I want so say something and I don't know the right word I change the sentence and try to explain it in this way.
But I love English, but England is not as modern as Germany, isn't it? What do you think?
And they drive on the wrong side of the street! Everytime when I want to go in a car I go to the wrong side.
Regards Pablo |
|
|
Jack
Ehrenmoderator
Anmeldungsdatum: 09.04.2006
Beiträge: 549
|
| Verfasst am: 21. Jul 2011 10:55 Titel: |
|
|
| MI hat Folgendes geschrieben: | | Yes, I do, but that is probably because I went to England before I went to the United States, but I don't really bother very much. |
I think it's really a matter of taste. I prefer American English, but I also know that no variety of English is inherently better or worse than any other. Instead, they are simply based on different development over time (just like the different German dialects that are all "correct" but not equally popular). |
|
|
Pablo
Anmeldungsdatum: 23.11.2010
Beiträge: 192
|
| Verfasst am: 09. Aug 2011 02:24 Titel: |
|
|
Hello MI,
everything alright? I am back in Germany now and I have really improved my English after this journey.
My Imrepssions from England are:
bad Food
bad weather
dirty Houses & Streets
Did you make the same experiences?
I think my English is rather good now but I am not really content because I need more Vocabulary and I want to react faster and better. I will continue my exercises but I am sure that my English will be really good in 1-2 years.
Tomorrow I am going to start to learn Spanish but I think this is not as easy as English because I can't say anything in Spanish and I have to start from zero. Can you speak Spanish? The reason why I want to learn Spanish is that I have to choose it in school and another reason is that I met a lot of Spanish people in England and they are so friendly and lovely and I love the Spanish girls
Regards Pablo |
|
|
MI
Administrator
Anmeldungsdatum: 22.01.2005
Beiträge: 1140
Wohnort: München
|
| Verfasst am: 10. Aug 2011 21:11 Titel: |
|
|
| Pablo hat Folgendes geschrieben: |
My Imrepssions from England are:
bad Food
bad weather
dirty Houses & Streets
|
Since I haven't really eaten much British food, I cannot comment on the first, the second is bad luck for you. I know that many people think that the weather in England is really bad, but my experiences are different. In fact, when I was in Englad for a longer time there was a big drought and it hardly rained for four months (I remember two days of snow and one day of rain during these four months, it can't have been much more). This year, I believe, the weather was very bad in England, however, it's been pretty bad here, too. During the last four weeks, there weren't two nice days in a row.
Regarding your third point I think that it depends on where you live, although I think you'll find that very many British houses are made of wood and I think that these houses look dirty much quicker than the good old stone houses we have over here. So, you've probably got a point there.
Aside from this, I hope your stay has been very nice and you enjoyed being in England.
Regards
MI |
|
|
Pablo
Anmeldungsdatum: 23.11.2010
Beiträge: 192
|
| Verfasst am: 11. Aug 2011 12:07 Titel: |
|
|
Hey MI,
in which city were you? Which languages can you speak beside German and English?
Yesterday I started to learn Spanish, but I gave up, because I didn't understand anything. Each word that you want to learn muste be learned with the articel and every word sound similar. It is rather difficult to learn this language without teacher.
Now I understand why the people say that English an easy language is.
What do you think about that?
Regards Pablo |
|
|
Pablo
Anmeldungsdatum: 23.11.2010
Beiträge: 192
|
| Verfasst am: 18. Sep 2011 16:01 Titel: |
|
|
Hey Mi,
what's up? How is your study going? What are you doing?
Regards |
|
|
MI
Administrator
Anmeldungsdatum: 22.01.2005
Beiträge: 1140
Wohnort: München
|
| Verfasst am: 19. Sep 2011 18:43 Titel: |
|
|
I'm extremely busy at the moment, so I'll only be looking into here once in a while, but that'll improve in October, when the new semester starts.
| Pablo hat Folgendes geschrieben: | | Which languages can you speak beside German and English? |
I think I already wrote that I can speak English and French, translate Latin and speak a little Spanish and Russian .
| Zitat: | | Yesterday I started to learn Spanish, but I gave up, because I didn't understand anything. Each word that you want to learn muste be learned with the articel and every word sound similar. It is rather difficult to learn this language without teacher. |
Well that's how it is in the beginning - but you'll get used to it. The article problem remains, but remember: There are also people who have learned flawless German (with three different articles), so everything is possible. Of course, the very reduced grammar of the English language compared to other Germanic and Romanic languages (reduced in conjugation, declination, gender - of course that means that other grammatic aspects have to be more complex) makes it easier to learn. But if you want to truly master the language in all its aspects, even English isn't as easy as you might think .
Regards
MI |
|
|
Pablo
Anmeldungsdatum: 23.11.2010
Beiträge: 192
|
| Verfasst am: 20. Sep 2011 13:29 Titel: |
|
|
Hey MI,
Do you have your exam in the next time? What do you do after the university? And how did you learn Englisch so well???
And what was your Abi-Schnitt, when I am allowed to ask that?
Regards |
|
|
MI
Administrator
Anmeldungsdatum: 22.01.2005
Beiträge: 1140
Wohnort: München
|
| Verfasst am: 09. Okt 2011 13:34 Titel: |
|
|
| Pablo hat Folgendes geschrieben: | | Do you have your exam in the next time? What do you do after the university? And how did you learn Englisch so well??? |
Yes and no. I changed university for my master's degree and thus had very little time for a while. It'll get better once the semester starts and I have internet once again.
As I told you, I learned my English in school and during my four months stay in England. After that, it was more or less reading books that improved my English.
Regards
MI |
|
|
Pablo
Anmeldungsdatum: 23.11.2010
Beiträge: 192
|
| Verfasst am: 10. Okt 2011 07:33 Titel: |
|
|
Hey MI my friend,
you are studying Physics, right? Could I ask you on which university you study? I read you live in Munich, are you at the LMU? I ask that because I think I will also go to this university, after my Abitur.
Regards |
|
|
MI
Administrator
Anmeldungsdatum: 22.01.2005
Beiträge: 1140
Wohnort: München
|
| Verfasst am: 11. Okt 2011 13:23 Titel: |
|
|
I'm studying more or less physics (with a lot of mathematics) at LMU, but in cooperation with the TU, yes. However, since I only just started there - in case you ask - I cannot give you any information about, whether I like it there, yet .
So I hope, your studies towards the Abitur are going well?
Regards
MI |
|
|
Pablo
Anmeldungsdatum: 23.11.2010
Beiträge: 192
|
| Verfasst am: 11. Okt 2011 18:15 Titel: |
|
|
Okay, I understand. Could you tell me which part of Physics you study? You know, Teilchen/Atom...
Do you like it? I think to study the subject Physics is the most interesting that you can do. I mean, what is more interesting than the question '' Why the world so is, how it is''?
I would choose the same subject, but I regret that my mathematical skills are not good enough to do that and If I would do that, Im sure that I would get problems with the exercises.
Or what do you think? Does anybody have to be a mathematical genius, who wants study Physics?
Pablo |
|
|
MI
Administrator
Anmeldungsdatum: 22.01.2005
Beiträge: 1140
Wohnort: München
|
| Verfasst am: 13. Okt 2011 00:37 Titel: |
|
|
| Zitat: |
I would choose the same subject, but I regret that my mathematical skills are not good enough to do that and If I would do that, Im sure that I would get problems with the exercises.
Or what do you think? Does anybody have to be a mathematical genius, who wants study Physics? |
You don't have to be a mathematical genius to study physics, however mathematics surely is a very important aspect and frankly, because the theories heavily rely on all kinds of mathematics and you also have to take theoretical physics for a Bachelor's degree, most people who abandon their studies do so because they can't cope with the maths.
But how much mathematics you need after your first years of study is in some part up to you. Experimental physicists for example need a lot of statistics, but they are rarely skilled in really complex mathematical topics. You see - as an experimental physicist, you are not really interested in the mathematical structure, you want to really "see" nature working and you want to "see" the underlying principles, thus you rather construct the formula from your experiments. However, sometimes you do need more mathematical tools, but most of the times you'd just read enough to do the calculations.
Contrary to this, a theoretical physicist thinks that he can gain deeper knowledge by looking at underlying mathematical principles and structures. One of the most beautiful theoretical results, the so called "Noether's theorem", which connects conservation laws and symmetries, is a mathematical result. But sadly, the mathematics needed in theoretical physics is not simple - in fact it touches nearly every part of mathematics and sometimes requires deepest knowledge. So again, the amount of mathematics you need depends on what you search. If you search to predict results by deriving formulae and calculate their consequences, you will need less mathematics than if you search for the mathematical structures hidden inside the mathematical model of the physical reality itself (which incidentally is what I love to do).
As you pointed out, physicists generally seek enlightenment, which means that it really comes down to this: How much mathematics are you prepared to take for granted, what is enlightenment for you? Are you more the experimental type of person, who is happy to see the effects and just uses the mathematics to predict them or do you wish to "proof" a physical theory by setting up axioms and deriving their consequences, as you do with a mathematical system? The former requires far less knowledge of mathematics than the latter - but in both cases you need more than most of mankind.
In my opinion, you could compare it a little bit to learning a language: If you want to read and understand Ulysses or similar books you need a far higher level of sophistication than if you are just interested in doing small talk - but there are aspects of the language you need for small talk that you probably won't come across very often in classical literature.
Greetings
MI |
|
|
Eris
Anmeldungsdatum: 25.08.2011
Beiträge: 73
|
| Verfasst am: 13. Okt 2011 21:46 Titel: |
|
|
|
This is so impressing for me, to meet a studying physicist. I'd very much like to join this discussion, if this is alright for you two. |
|
|
MI
Administrator
Anmeldungsdatum: 22.01.2005
Beiträge: 1140
Wohnort: München
|
| Verfasst am: 13. Okt 2011 23:58 Titel: |
|
|
Of course! Welcome to our discussion - and if you want to meet more students of physics (especially experimental physics, since I am more of a mathematical physicist), you'll find them on our PhysikerBoard .
Regards
MI |
|
|
Eris
Anmeldungsdatum: 25.08.2011
Beiträge: 73
|
| Verfasst am: 14. Okt 2011 01:07 Titel: |
|
|
Sure, that this is nice, to discuss a subject in English. For example I wanted to know more about ethics and if this is an issue with physics. With maths of course one like me couldn't ask, but I really wouldn't know, if there is moral in physics.
There is a physikerboard, too? That is totally new to me! But unfortunately, I'm a psychologist. I don't do physics. Like I said, I'm only interested in the moral. Are there any moral problems at all? |
|
|
MI
Administrator
Anmeldungsdatum: 22.01.2005
Beiträge: 1140
Wohnort: München
|
| Verfasst am: 14. Okt 2011 14:29 Titel: |
|
|
| Eris hat Folgendes geschrieben: | | Sure, that this is nice, to discuss a subject in English. For example I wanted to know more about ethics and if this is an issue with physics. With maths of course one like me couldn't ask, but I really wouldn't know, if there is moral in physics. |
Could you elaborate, please? I don't really see a connection between empirical and theoretical sciences and the human concept of morality.
Ethics isn't really a very big subject - at least not at first. Physics itself is just clean science, which doesn't give any directions as to how to interpret the result. It doesn't really tell you why things happen, it just tells you how they happen. This is also the way physics is taught: You get to know the different concepts and theories that have been developed and of course you learn how to set up and evaluate experiments.
Up to now there are no ethical problems, etc. involved - also because there is no real need for it. You don't need to experiment on animals or other living beings and most physics doesn't endanger anyone (especially theoretical physics, of course). The only aspect that needs ethical consideration is the money needed, which basically is a problem of almost everything but engineering and teaching.
Philosophy and other things only get involved when you think about the philosophical consequences of the theories. How do you interpret quantum mechanics and its consequences on the concept of "reality"? How does "free will" emerge from physics (it doesn't - at least not in current theories) and what consequences can you draw? Except for the last question, these aren't really ethical concepts.
| Zitat: | | There is a physikerboard, too? That is totally new to me! |
Yes, if you take http://www.englischboard.de/ and scroll down, you get links to all the different subjects available.
Regards
MI |
|
|
Eris
Anmeldungsdatum: 25.08.2011
Beiträge: 73
|
| Verfasst am: 15. Okt 2011 13:07 Titel: |
|
|
Hi MI,
| MI hat Folgendes geschrieben: |
Could you elaborate, please? I don't really see a connection between empirical and theoretical sciences and the human concept of morality.
|
Isn't science a human concept, too? Does it exist apart from the human perception? Or can physics not work with a theory, that includes this hypothesis?
There were experiments in Geneva at the CERN that concerned some persons. They were worried that the world or maybe even the whole universe will end, if the experiment would go on. The experiment was hacked and they had to stop the experiment. Not exactly because it was hacked, but because there were so many people afraid. A huge particle accelarator was involved.
I think, some ethics would do good to be able to defend these experiments, because it isn't right to keep science from experimenting just because there is a lack of trust in it.
| Zitat: |
Philosophy and other things only get involved when you think about the philosophical consequences of the theories. How do you interpret quantum mechanics and its consequences on the concept of "reality"? How does "free will" emerge from physics (it doesn't - at least not in current theories) and what consequences can you draw? Except for the last question, these aren't really ethical concepts. |
If there is no theory up until now, is the conclusion right, that physics has no concept of consciousness, either?
I see, there are some.
Regards,
Eris |
|
|
MI
Administrator
Anmeldungsdatum: 22.01.2005
Beiträge: 1140
Wohnort: München
|
| Verfasst am: 17. Okt 2011 17:16 Titel: |
|
|
| Eris hat Folgendes geschrieben: | | MI hat Folgendes geschrieben: |
Could you elaborate, please? I don't really see a connection between empirical and theoretical sciences and the human concept of morality.
|
Isn't science a human concept, too? Does it exist apart from the human perception? Or can physics not work with a theory, that includes this hypothesis?
|
The art of science itself is of course a human concept - but it investigates aspects of life that aren't (given a reality around us that does not spring from the human mind - Descartes and everything). The problem is that interpreting science has always ended in dogmatism, thus the most accepted concept is that science should only try to explain how things work and help us predict the results of experiments. Thus its methods must be independent of the human mind, which means that you need to get quantitative results. Its similar for the theories: A physical theory needs to be mathematically founded and get (mathematical) results. Two rules: The theories should be the simplest possible and they should be falsifiable - at least theoretically (this rules religion out in the process).
In fact, many mathematicians believe that mathematics is not a human invention, but a universal truth and since some/many physicists believe that the universe is but a mathematical structure (this is the so called strong "Mathematical Universe Hypothesis"), finding the structure is not really a human concept such as morality is.
So, in order to prevent dogmatism, science sees its role in empirically and theoretically predict the world and explain it mathematically. The explanation and interpretation of the findings are left to others. They can be done by scientists, clerics or anybody. Of course, since the results are complex, some explaining has to be done by scientists, but this is not really considered science by most scientists. So the idea is - in order to avoid that ideas are not being heard because they do not fit into the thinking of the other scientists, which sadly happens nontheless - to divide the observation and analysis from interpretation.
Basically at least some of these ideas go back to Popper (whether this is exactly what he said, I cannot say - I still haven't read it).
For example: If scientists found free will to be an illusion of the mind, this would have nothing to do with ethics or morality. It would only be a neutral finding. What this finding would imply to our society is a very different matter - it will be discussed by most scientists, but it is not science. What would that mean for our jurisdical system, for instance?
These are questions most scientists think about, because they are human after all and the finding concerns us, too. While searching for extraterrestrial intelligence, one begins to wonder about intelligence on earth.
| Zitat: | There were experiments in Geneva at the CERN that concerned some persons. They were worried that the world or maybe even the whole universe will end, if the experiment would go on. The experiment was hacked and they had to stop the experiment. Not exactly because it was hacked, but because there were so many people afraid. A huge particle accelarator was involved.
I think, some ethics would do good to be able to defend these experiments, because it isn't right to keep science from experimenting just because there is a lack of trust in it. |
The experiments were stopped, because they had problems with some of the cooling units - but they are fine now and have been running for nearly a year now .
You are right, some people wanted to stop the experiments (especially they feared the black hole production predicted by a few theories, because they didn't see the arguments that said that even if these existed - and this has been more or less ruled out by now - they would be no threat whatsoever), but since their arguments were to weak, they didn't change the decision.
There is of course one question that you raise, which is very important: Should we do science and how far should we go? A scientist seeks enlightenment, so he wants to go all the way, but many people don't understand it.
It is true: To some extend, doing for example experimental particle physics is luxury, but even this might turn into applications one day.
However, if something is really dangerous, one needs to take precautions - but the CERN experiments at LHC weren't.
| Zitat: | | If there is no theory up until now, is the conclusion right, that physics has no concept of consciousness, either? |
Yes, there isn't. Scientists cannot currently explain consciousness (some biologists may have very simple models and many have ideas, but that is all).
Well, that was a lot of writing . I hope some of the ideas I have came across and hopefully it wasn't too much trash among it .
Regards
MI |
|
|
Eris
Anmeldungsdatum: 25.08.2011
Beiträge: 73
|
| Verfasst am: 17. Okt 2011 20:52 Titel: |
|
|
Everyone who works with science knows of course Popper and the convention of falsification,
because it isn't so simple to just find evidence for a hypothesis, there will always
be a fact that is not includable. In fact, no serious scientist would say, that it
is a hundert per cent sure that there is gravity. In the end it is "just" a model.
The last time I checked, physics had no model which included the flight of the
bumblebee. Newtons Axioms weren't enough to explain it, so it is not at all wrong
in a theoretical sense to say, that the flight of the bumblebee is impossible. And
still we can watch them doing it.
About the difference of quantitative and qualitative:
It is often stated, that the psychic is exclusively of qualitative nature and
the physical should exclusively be quantitative. Phenomena have to be quantifiable
in order to be described and predicted by physics (just in case that it is an unknown fact, I want to remark, that it is the same for psychology). But, regardless of Descartes' prejudice, it is the
sensory system to use measurement in the first place. Even though the qualitative
is a domain of the psychic and physics earlier didn't observe such things as colors,
because they weren't quantifiable then, the quantitative aspect comes into focus
through human perception. The metric, the quantity - these are things coming out
of the human psyche. Only who is metric, can invent a yard stick. I hope I cited
Otto Heller the way one can recognize him.
If physics has no use for unquantifiable things, then perhaps because they have
to be made quantifiable yet.
The other idea I want to catch up with is, that neuroscientists have made some
experiments with the brain. Their conclusion was, that there is no such thing as
a free will. What conclusion can take jurisprudence out of this experimental outcome?
Only that the brain is guilty, because the brain decided and not the "I". Then again,
this would certainly not lead to a satisfactory solution.
Because then brains would have to be jailed instead.
Regards
Eris |
|
|
MI
Administrator
Anmeldungsdatum: 22.01.2005
Beiträge: 1140
Wohnort: München
|
| Verfasst am: 29. Okt 2011 13:43 Titel: |
|
|
I'm sorry I didn't answer, yet, but I was very busy, I don't have internet at home at the moment und I cannot explain why, but this website and all the others of click for knowledge lag extremely in the university network.
I'll be pleased to write a long reply once I'll have internet at home!
Regards
MI |
|
|
Eris
Anmeldungsdatum: 25.08.2011
Beiträge: 73
|
| Verfasst am: 01. Nov 2011 16:47 Titel: |
|
|
No Internet at home is a real shame, I'm sorry to hear that. I actually thought I scared you off for good  Psychology 1 : Physics 0
Take your time, since nothing's going to run away here and I don't have much time either, even though I do have Internet at home.
See you. |
|
|
MI
Administrator
Anmeldungsdatum: 22.01.2005
Beiträge: 1140
Wohnort: München
|
| Verfasst am: 11. Nov 2011 20:34 Titel: |
|
|
So finally, I got internet and some time to reply. Please excuse that it's more a stream of conciousness rather than a very organised setting.
| Eris hat Folgendes geschrieben: | Everyone who works with science knows of course Popper and the convention of falsification,
because it isn't so simple to just find evidence for a hypothesis, there will always
be a fact that is not includable. In fact, no serious scientist would say, that it
is a hundert per cent sure that there is gravity. In the end it is "just" a model. |
Since gravity is - more or less (in the best model there is; however I have not yet taken a course on GR, so I'm not so firm there) - only curvature of space time, you could argue that it doesn't really "exist", anyway. But I know that's not what you wanted to say . Basically I agree - it's just a model.
| Zitat: | The last time I checked, physics had no model which included the flight of the
bumblebee. Newtons Axioms weren't enough to explain it, so it is not at all wrong
in a theoretical sense to say, that the flight of the bumblebee is impossible. And
still we can watch them doing it. |
Well actually, there are models as far as I know. But it's correct that the more simple ones won't do it. However - there are a lot of phenomena that we can't explain and that just don't work out in our model. For instance, there is no explanation for high temperature supra-conductivity, so it just should not exist (at least for the moment) from a theoretical point of view.
| Zitat: | But, regardless of Descartes' prejudice, it is the
sensory system to use measurement in the first place. Even though the qualitative is a domain of the psychic and physics earlier didn't observe such things as colors, because they weren't quantifiable then, the quantitative aspect comes into focus through human perception. The metric, the quantity - these are things coming out of the human psyche. Only who is metric, can invent a yard stick. I hope I cited Otto Heller the way one can recognize him. |
You are quite correct of course when you say that it is our sensory sytem that we use to measure in the first place. It is also our mind that sees the logic whereupon we build our understanding and this of course is a crucial point in philosophy. As a physicist, I usually take the following view on this problem:
- At first, reality around me exists or else I don't care - I am not some kind of brain linked to a big computer simulating my existence. If the world around me wouldn't exist it'd be futile to study it. But after all, since I wouldn't know it, it just doesn't matter.
- Second, my sensory system works rather well. That means that I will have some bias, there will be illusions and problems, but when I read words of a screen, well, that's basically what's really there on the screen. If I couldn't be more or less sure about that, once again, saying things about my environment would be futile
- Lastly and most importantly: As I admitted, the sensory system has many shortcomings and inaccuracies. But if I take some sort of measure, I can get a quantity, which I can read off without making mistakes. Of course, to invent that measure, I used my mind and that may be faulty, but it's the best way to overcome the other shortcomings after all. So I take the view that the machines measure correctly. They might not measure what I think they do, but the numbers I get out of them are unimpaired by the shortcomings of my sensory system.
I take this view, because it lets me work - as a psychologist, you of course have to doubt it (at least the second and third point and at least to some degree) .
However, as - if I understand you correctly - you have pointed out especially with your Heller citation (I must say I don't know him, but I assume you mean the psychologist, who sadly doesn't even have a wikipedia article) this requires that my mind works correctly. That my logics are true in a sense beyond me - because the machinery I build to overcome the shortcomings of myself are based on the workings of my mind.
This of course is the very deep question I also hinted about in my reply earlier, whether logics defines a universal truth or if MY logics doesn't, whether there is SOME logic that does.
So when quantifying systems, I need mathematics and I need to know, whether it is correct. But this of course is also the problem about proving whether my proofs are correct. I have to formalise mathematical proofs in order to somehow prove their logic. As I think I stated above, I also studied and study a fair amount of mathematics and the moment you come to "limits", thus to "infinity", things get messy. There are a lot of proofs that I would consider correct at first glance that aren't and that of course makes you wonder, whether, ultimately, you can be correct. But there again, in order to work in physics, I take on the view that my logic IS correct.
On a different note, there is this nice little twist in the above train of thoughts. The way I see it, if something is correct, it should not contradict itself. So ultimately, we should see whether our system is free of contradiction but as I am sure you have heard of this cannot be proven, if the systems are powerful enough for what we need (Gödel's famous incompleteness theorem).
So, sadly, ultimately Gödel told us that there are truths we cannot grasp.
| Zitat: | | If physics has no use for unquantifiable things, then perhaps because they have to be made quantifiable yet. |
Exactly. Although the biggest problem will be complexity of the phenomena.
Regards
MI |
|
|
Eris
Anmeldungsdatum: 25.08.2011
Beiträge: 73
|
| Verfasst am: 17. Nov 2011 18:50 Titel: |
|
|
The way I reply might seem a little disconnected to your stream because I'm far from an organised setting as well.
I think I even had to mix your citations in order to make it seem coherent to my argumentation.
I hope it 's still comprehensible for you or others who read this.
First I would like to give a paraphrase of our posts until now:
The main difference between the two ways of looking at reality,
is that one takes believe in an objective world, existing independently
from human perception and "outside" consciousness
- while the other takes it for granted that truth is intersubjective and reality exists only "within" consciousness.
These points of view exist, even though none of them knows what consciousness really is or where it comes from.
For the one it's a more or less unimportant thing, while for the other it is the one and only thing and axle of its argumentation.
Having introduced these two beliefs, I want to give them both rights and wrongs, but am only able to discuss the matter from the point of view of the second belief. It will be then your mission to give the complementary truth to it.
I try then to do so by taking examples either of philosophies or of situations.
Some are rather unknown, as for example the citation of Heller,
who doesn't even have an article in the most famous online encyclopedia.
Still they can be an enrichment.
A maybe better known one who can sustain my argumentation at least to some extent is for one thing Vaihinger's Philosophy of "As-If", which says, that science needs fictionalism counsciously.
Why does science need fictionalism and also consciously? Doesn't this statement contradict science?
Vaihinger points out, that without a fictional model of a phenomenon (such as for example an atom, see also below)
we wouldn't be able to work with the phenomenon at all.
I guess this is what you mean with this conclusion:
| Zitat: |
I take this view, because it lets me work
|
And in my opinion you are right to look at the practical side of science more, because at the end of the metaphorical day it is
the result in which also non-physicists are interested. Who needs an atom if not for a bomb? (Sorry if I drift into the morbid sometimes,
but I can't always help it to be critical, and for me the cynicism is a good start, I hope you don't take it the personal way, since it
also results out of my lack of examples far from the popular ones)
| Zitat: |
- as a psychologist, you of course have to
doubt it (at least the second and third point and at least to some degree)
|
I apologise in case I've given the impression, that I would have to doubt some of a scientist's or your work:
As far as I'm concerend, a psychologist does not have to doubt that. As a matter of fact,
in psychology dominated paradigms of objectivity, such as the behavoristic paradigm
and at least parts of that paradigm continue to take influence to a certain extent.
Objectivity is a desireable state of art to many scientific spirits.
I don't have to agree but cannot fully ignore them either.
I cannot doubt that the successful outcome of physicist's
work actually do the job, even if it is because of fictionalism.
In the end it might only matter that it did work, not really how it worked, even
though I do take interest in the philosophy behind. For example: the calculation for a route to send a rocket to the moon is more complicated
and defective if the heliocentric model is the basis of the calculation. But if earth is taken as the centre of the universe, which we theoretically know
is totally wrong, the calculation is simpler and the rockets or whatever NASA's sending up there, actually find their targets.
Another, maybe better known fictionalism is our model of atoms. We know that atoms don't look like this, that is probably why there are many different ones,
but we need them to be able to work with them, just as you say.
To some degree it is about practicability and not at all about "truth", which
probably exists as much as "reality".
So you see, I don't doubt the practical aspect of physics.
But what I do doubt is, if there truly is an objective world outside our perception to begin with.
You of course don't and you shouldn't because as you say: it lets you work.
Also this following thought perhaps doesn't help you work, but nonetheless I'm inquiring what you do with a fact like this:
As a matter of fact we are surrounded by electromagnetic
vibration (and I hope this is the right term) and vibrations of all sorts that make
us see and hear, but we don't actually see or hear these electromagnetic waves. We see their reflections or what we mirror from them.
So where am I going with this? My conclusion of this matter of fact is, that humans construct the reality
and not only the social, emotional or psychic reality, but reality itself, the so called objective reality.
The wall I'm looking at, is not really there. But if it's not "really" there, why haven't I figured how I can
walk through it?
What is even more important is this question:
If walking through a wall is my only goal I have with walls, should it matter to
me if there is a structural analysis that explains how walls have to be built in order to carry a roof?
Or would the knowledge of statical laws just prevent me from walking through walls?
Take another example: I take interest in the fact, that if I was wearing prism glasses for a week or two, my brain turns around the picture and top becomes bottom again.
How can a person keep believing in a world outside
if it knows that the perception can fundamentaly change?
| Zitat: |
Since gravity is - (...) - only curvature of space time,
you could argue that it doesn't really "exist", anyway.
|
This in fact is one of my favourite arguments, but I thought it was too obvious.
But since you see where I'm getting at, I like to share some even more unordinary thoughts:
One could say, there is nothing beyond practicability - or, just as I do - be convinced that if the perception can be changed, also laws of
science can and not only can but should be changed.
The reason why I think this way is this:
(I know the following is going to sound weird, at the least but still)
If reality is a construction, why not practise the ability to construct reality consciously?
I take the example of being able to fly, because it has been a dream for some people throughout the time:
Instead of finding ways to make us fly by "only" build airplanes and such
machines which can make us fly (even if it is a spectacular thing to be able to fly with balloon, I'm not doubting that), we should believe in our ability to fly by ourselves and not give credit to biology and physics
which only know that is not possible without wings or fuel.
If perception is so crafty as I just pointed out, why should humans go on and believe in laws that have been made up in the first place,
laws that are built on a basis of descriptions of natural phenomena?
You guess right if you think that I'm turning the facts (which for me are beliefs) upside down: We think that theories describe the reality, but I say it is the exact other way around, that
the reality is built by the description.
In my last post I said, that no serious scientist would believe that there is such a thing as gravity, since it is just a model.
Now I say that there is no such thing as a serious and/or ordinary scientist anyway and that the unordinary thoughts are the ones able to innovate, not the ordinary ones.
This sets me to the conclusion that physics would actually concede me a point with what I've just stated, but it is you who's into the matter, which leads me to now end the post and curiously await your reply.
Thanks and regards,
Eris |
|
|
MI
Administrator
Anmeldungsdatum: 22.01.2005
Beiträge: 1140
Wohnort: München
|
| Verfasst am: 25. Nov 2011 22:54 Titel: |
|
|
First, let me apologise that my answer comes late, but I didn’t want to just write up something in passing, but give it rather more thought. One other remark: Whenever I am speaking about physical/mathematical theories I write in a language that implies the entities exist and I shall do so just for convenience.
So now let me begin with what I think you were a few of the most important points of your post:
First you point out that, as far as we have discussed, there are two very different positions on the concept of “reality”. The first one would be that reality does not exist outside the human mind or else is basically a very subjective thing, the other being that reality does exist in the form of an objective reality.
| Zitat: | | You guess right if you think that I'm turning the facts (which for me are beliefs) upside down: We think that theories describe the reality, but I say it is the exact other way around, that the reality is built by the description. |
Actually, if I understand you correctly, this is not really too far apart from what I really like to think. My more or less axiomatic model of “reality” constructed above is a little too simplistic to catch the very complex picture I have come to form (and which – of course – is still work in progress) of what really is reality. Let me tell you a bit more about the different models I have encountered by starting with a joke fitting the occasion: An experimental physicist says that his models are an approximation to reality, a theoretical physicist says that reality is an approximation to his models and a mathematician – well, he doesn’t know about reality.
I think that this joke (although in the original it is an engineer rather than an experimental physicist) captures some parts of our discussion. The second (or even third) view point would be the one in your direction, while the first one would rather invoke the necessity of some outside reality as stated in my previous post, but it also incorporates Vaihinger’s point that we need a “fictional model of a phenomenon” in order to work with it. Now this is what the experimental physicist says: I have this model, which captures what I think is the essence of the phenomenon in a bunch of mathematical formulas, abstract pictures, etc. and now, let’s see what reality has to say. Of course, my model isn’t reality – an atom doesn’t look like an atom – but in the end, it matters only whether I can make more or less accurate predictions with it or as you put it:
| Zitat: | | And in my opinion you are right to look at the practical side of science more, because at the end of the metaphorical day it is the result in which also non-physicists are interested. |
This is the point of taking on this kind of position when talking about “reality”, because the concept of an outside reality makes things go well in my “inside reality”. One more thing: Physicists are well aware of the status of their “theories” or “models”. I mean, if we wanted to copy reality, why the hell should we learn Newtonian Mechanics, as it is basically wrong? There is only one reason (aside from the pedagogic reason that it is easier to learn easy models first before going to the unintuitive and mathematically complex stuff): Because the model works just fine, if one is very aware of the “scope” of the theories (which in Newtonian mechanics is “macroscopic” objects and velocities small compared to the speed of light). Since more accurate models comprising more elements such as modern quantum field theories are mathematically extremely complex, there are even areas of physics, which just derive simpler theories just for particular problems (the so called “effective quantum field theories”).
All of the experimental physicists I have encountered and talked to about this topic take on more or less the view of my previous post. Everybody “knows” that the model is just a description; it is and will never be a copy.
So are there any arguments supporting this view of an existing outside reality of what we get some yet biased picture? Well, of course, ultimately there aren’t - but there is something: If reality exists and I get a rather nice picture of it, then that’s fine with me, because I act as if it was there – if there is none – well it doesn’t matter because there is no one there so I can do as I please. Even if I only get some really twisted image of reality: I wouldn’t know, so all I’m concerned, the “real” reality just doesn’t concern me, so why should I care about ITS existence when all I know about is the reality of MY existence (which I think is the overall outside reality)?
In short: If I act like there was reality, I can’t really go wrong, because if there is – fine – if there isn’t – who cares?
But yet another question arises: How “sane”, do I have to be for my approach of physics to really work? How much of what I perceive has to exist objectively (even perhaps not entirely in the way I think it does, however very similar to it), such that the experiments I conduct actually tell me something about “reality”?
My opinion: Rather a lot. As I said, what we “know” about reality is really found out by experiments and in order for them to “tell us the truth” rather many things must be true. I have basically given an outline of some of the things in my previous post, however let me rephrase it:
- Objectivity needs different observers. But this implies that we can communicate to “others” out there and in such a way that we both understand similar things when talking to each other.
- Mathematics is really a concept that is very universal, thus by talking about mathematical quantities and invoking the first premise of the list, we can really talk to people about numbers and both understand the same thing.
- Our observations of the reality surrounding us are thus far correct that we can quantitatively compare entities. We can define a metric and “measure” and the results will be correct (if the experiment was exercised correctly).
There are a lot of “ifs” and “iffs” and probably I need even more, but to do all of that really rigourously it’d take a lot longer, but hopefully you do get an idea. However, even then, the reality each of us perceives might be fundamentally different from the reality of another which leads me back to what you said about “reality being basically formed in our head”.
In principle, I second that. A spiritual person probably sees a very different world than a science geek and our selective apperception of things around us creates different worlds in each of us. This is – in my opinion – also the basic problem in communication: We just assume that the other sees our picture of the world, but they just don’t. This is also why physicists agree on measuring by simple scales, because, ultimately, this is something that we have seen we can easier agree upon. However, I think that you were going a lot further by saying that we “create” the world in our head than just differences in perception, structure of the world, etc; that the world around us (if it exists) may even be VERY different from what we think we see - whatever “very” means:
| Zitat: | I take the example of being able to fly, because it has been a dream for some people throughout the time:
Instead of finding ways to make us fly by "only" build airplanes and such machines which can make us fly (even if it is a spectacular thing to be able to fly with balloon, I'm not doubting that), we should believe in our ability to fly by ourselves and not give credit to biology and physics which only know that is not possible without wings or fuel. |
I recently talked about that to somebody else and the question I am asking is: Can you do that? I at least find it terribly hard outside of sleep. And whatever I see, doesn’t tell me that anybody can really imagine much. There are things I can really imagine myself do, but I find my mind pretty limited there. Now I look around (whatever that is ) and I see a very unimaginative world. Even when reading fantasy literature or watching fantasy movies, it can be seen that the authors’ ideas are very similar to the world I see around me. Most of the times, the trees on “different worlds” work pretty much the same way, the people and animals resemble the ones we see here (they are nothing but a sometimes peculiar arrangement of features I can see in other animals), e.g. in that direction the recent movie Avatar is one of the most unimaginative movies I have ever seen (although – in defense of the writers – it was intended to look pretty much like earth). It seems to me that my world at least has a very limited amount of ideas which I can play with.
So naturally, the question arises about the origin of this bound on the amount of truly different ideas. Why is it there? The only reasonable answer (if you have a better, let me know) despite the simple fact that I myself am pretty limited, which could already explain everything, is that there really is some “reality” which just happens to have a limited set of ideas. My picture may be blurred, but something’s “there”. But in the end, I just don’t know
And finally:
| Zitat: | | (Sorry if I drift into the morbid sometimes, but I can't always help it to be critical, and for me the cynicism is a good start, I hope you don't take it the personal way, since it also results out of my lack of examples far from the popular ones) |
No offence taken whatsoever. I for one very much enjoy cynicism (one of my all time favourite books is “Candide” by Voltaire, which is terribly cynic in many ways). In fact, I recently came across a very interesting quote by one of the great mathematicians of the century:
| Zitat: | All mathematics is divided into three parts: cryptography (paid for by CIA, KGB and the like), hydrodynamics (supported by manufacturers of atomic submarines) and celestial mechanics (financed by military and other institutions dealing with missiles, such as NASA).
Cryptography has generated number theory, algebraic geometry over finite fields, algebra, combinatorics and computers.
Hydrodynamics procreated complex analysis, partial derivative equations, Lie groups and algebra theory, cohomology theory and scientific computing.
Celestial mechanics is the origin of dynamical systems, linear algebra, topology, variational calculus and symplectic geometry.
The existence of mysterious relations between all this different domains is the most striking and delightful feature of mathematics (having no rational explanation).
(Vladimir Igorevitch Arnold) |
He got some points there, although of course this is an exaggeration.
In any case, I hope to have addressed here in some coherent manner at least some of the points you talked about.
Best regards
MI |
|
|
Pablo
Anmeldungsdatum: 23.11.2010
Beiträge: 192
|
| Verfasst am: 04. Dez 2011 11:36 Titel: |
|
|
Hey MI,
what's up? What are you doing? How is your study going?
You are at the LMU, right? I read that a famous astrophysics professor, who I like a lot, teaches at this university. His name is Prof. Dr. Lesch. I am sure, you know him. Have you ever seen him or have you ever sit in one of his lessons?
Regards  |
|
|
MI
Administrator
Anmeldungsdatum: 22.01.2005
Beiträge: 1140
Wohnort: München
|
| Verfasst am: 05. Dez 2011 21:38 Titel: |
|
|
I've got lots to do and little time to do it.
Of course, I know about Harald Lesch, but he doesn't give many lectures and astrophysics is not my main area of interest. Furthermore, I have just gone to LMU this autumn, thus I've not had much time.
Regards
MI |
|
|
Pablo
Anmeldungsdatum: 23.11.2010
Beiträge: 192
|
| Verfasst am: 05. Dez 2011 23:08 Titel: |
|
|
Hey MI,
okay I understand. Could you tell me why did you choose Physics for Studying?
Regards |
|
|
|
|
Registrieren
Login
FAQ
Suchen
