ellauri002.html on line 812: amata nobis quantum amabitur nulla.

ellauri030.html on line 539: No entäs moraali, tää pesän meemi? Kantti peukutti kultaista sääntöä, Schopenhauerista ainoo syy säästä kanssaihminen on sääli. Hmm ei tää hirveen hyvin toimi, jos säästät jonkun niin sehän jatkaa vaan matamista täällä Jammertalissa. No ehkä sille voisi soittaa musiikkia tai näyttää tauluja. Tai muuten asketisoida sen elämää. Schopenhauer on tyypillinen Hofstädterin passiivisesti kohtelias saku: Neminem laede; imo omnes, quantum potes, juva. Älä loukkaa ketään, auta kaikkia minkä voit. Tässä järjestyxessä. Jos yhden auttaminen loukkaa toista, jätä auttamatta. Eläimille pitää olla kiltti, vaikka ne kusisivat jalalle. Pänkäläinen on ehkä oikeassa siinä, että pessimistit on luonnostaan myös epäseurallisia. Ei ne tykkää ihmisistäkään, nekin tuottaa pelkkiä pettymyxiä.
ellauri042.html on line 385: (aqua quantum satis da signa. Seijan opettama farmaseutin
ellauri097.html on line 153: Instead of mathematical "speculation" (such as quantum theory), Mencken believed physicists should just directly look at individual facts in the laboratory like chemists:
ellauri097.html on line 155: If chemists were similarly given to fanciful and mystical guessing, they would have hatched a quantum theory forty years ago to account for the variations that they observed in atomic weights. But they kept on plugging away in their laboratories without calling in either mathematicians or theologians to aid them, and eventually they discovered the isotopes, and what had been chaos was reduced to the most exact sort of order.
ellauri097.html on line 159: In the same article which he later re-printed in the Mencken Chrestomathy, Mencken primarily contrasts what real scientists do, which is to simply directly look at the existence of "shapes and forces" confronting them instead of (such as in statistics) attempting to speculate and use mathematical models. Physicists and especially astronomers are consequently not real scientists, because when looking at shapes or forces, they do not simply "patiently wait for further light," but resort to mathematical theory. There is no need for statistics in scientific physics, since one should simply look at the facts while statistics attempts to construct mathematical models. On the other hand, the really competent physicists do not bother with the "theology" or reasoning of mathematical theories (such as in quantum mechanics):
ellauri131.html on line 742: Evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne issued a similar takedown, by simply highlighting some of Chopra's more outlandish claims, including his idea that the moon only exists because of human consciousness, the suggestion that mass prayer or meditation has the ability to "simmer down the turbulence in nature," as well as the nonsensical statement "Consciousness is the driver of evolution. Every time I eat your pussy or you suck my banana it transforms into a human." Coyne labels Chopra's ideas as "pseudoscience, pure and simple," and accuses him of "pushing a noxious brew of quantum physics, evolutionary biology, and "universal consciousness.'" Ouch.
ellauri158.html on line 775: P. 3. prop. 6. Unaquaeque res, quantum in se est, in suo esse perseverare conatur. [in: P. 3. prop. 7., prop. 12., prop. 44. schol., P. 4. prop. 4., prop. 20., prop. 25., prop. 26., prop. 31., prop. 60., prop. 64.]
ellauri158.html on line 783: P. 3. prop. 12. Mens quantum potest, ea imaginari conatur, quae corporis agendi potentiam augent vel iuvant. [in: P. 3. prop. 13., prop. 15. coroll., prop. 19., prop. 25., prop. 28., prop. 33., prop. 42., prop. 52. schol., P. 4. prop. 60.]
ellauri158.html on line 784: P. 3. prop. 13. Cum mens ea imaginatur, quae corporis agendi potentiam minuunt vel coercent, conatur, quantum potest, rerum recordari, quae horum existentiam secludunt. [in: P. 3. prop. 20., prop. 23., prop. 25., prop. 27. coroll. 3., prop. 28., aff. defin. 29.]
ellauri158.html on line 814: -- P. 3. prop. 27. coroll. 3. Rem, cuius nos miseret, a miseria, quantum possumus, liberare conabimur. [in: P. 4. prop. 50.]
ellauri158.html on line 822: -- P. 3. prop. 31. coroll. Sequitur unumquemque quantum potest conari ut unusquisque id quod ipse amat, amet et quod ipse odit, odio etiam habeat. [in: P. 4. prop. 37., P. 5. prop. 4. schol.]
ellauri158.html on line 826: P. 3. prop. 33. Cum rem nobis similem amamus, conamur, quantum possumus, efficere, ut nos contra amet. [in: P. 3. prop. 34., prop. 38., prop. 42.]
ellauri158.html on line 874: P. 3. prop. 57. Quilibet uniuscuiusque individui affectus ab affectu alterius tantum discrepat, quantum essentia unius ab essentia alterius differt. [in: P. 3. prop. 57. schol.]
ellauri158.html on line 1002: -- P. 4. prop. 4. coroll. Hinc sequitur, hominem necessario passionibus esse semper obnoxium, communemque naturae ordinem sequi et eidem parere, seseque eidem, quantum rerum natura exigit, accommodare. [in: P. 4. prop. 37. schol. 2., etiam in: TP cap. 1. art. 5.]
ellauri158.html on line 1070: P. 4. prop. 46. Qui ex ductu rationis vivit, quantum potest, conatur alterius in ipsum odium, iram, contemptum etc. amore contra sive generositate compensare. [in: P. 4. prop. 73. schol., P. 5. prop. 10. schol.]
ellauri158.html on line 1077: -- P. 4. prop. 50. coroll. Hinc sequitur, quod homo qui ex dictamine rationis vivit, conatur, quantum potest, efficere ne commiseratione tangatur.
ellauri158.html on line 1133: P. 4. prop. 70. Homo liber qui inter ignaros vivit, eorum, quantum potest, beneficia declinare studet.
ellauri185.html on line 390: Paul Charles William Davies AM (born 22 April 1946) is an English physicist, writer and broadcaster, a professor in Arizona State University and Director of BEYOND: Center for Fundamental Concepts in Science. He is affiliated with the Institute for Quantum Studies in Chapman University in California. He previously held academic appointments in the University of Cambridge, University College London, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, University of Adelaide and Macquarie University. His research interests are in the fields of cosmology, quantum field theory, and astrology. He proposed that a one-way trip to Mars could be a viable option for him. His colleagues agreed whole-heartedly.
ellauri266.html on line 325: General semantics, a philosophy of language-meaning that was developed by Alfred Korzybski (1879–1950), a Polish-American scholar, and furthered by S.I. Hayakawa, Wendell Johnson, and others; it is the study of language as a representation of reality. Korzybski’s theory was intended to improve the habits of glib upper-class response to hostile low-class environment. Drawing upon such varied disciplines as relativity theory, quantum mechanics, and mathematical logic, Korzybski and his followers sought a scientific, non-Aristotelian basis for clear understanding of the differences between symbol (word) and reality (referent) and the ways in which they themselves can influence (or manipulate) and limit other humans´ ability to think.
xxx/ellauri084.html on line 365: Bohr is the father of the Complementarity Principle, a tenet in quantum physics stating that a complete knowledge of phenomena on atomic scale requires a description of both wave and particle properties. When Bohr was knighted for his work, he used the yin-yang symbol in his coat of arms and inscribed it with the words Contraria sunt complementa (opposites are complementary).
xxx/ellauri104.html on line 351: Spirit body is made of photon light that is not visible by the naked human eye of your kind unless you are clairvoyant. This is also backed by holography technology that is alien to your kind. When you finally catch up with your advancement of science… especially quantum mathematics, your findings will differ from your so-called modern science.
xxx/ellauri113.html on line 45: There are zero contradictions between quantum mechanics and special relativity; quantum field theory is the framework that unifies them.
xxx/ellauri113.html on line 46: General relativity also works perfectly well as a low-energy effective quantum field theory. For questions like the low-energy scattering of photons and gravitons, for instance, the Standard Model coupled to general relativity is a perfectly good theory. It only breaks down when you ask questions involving invariants of order the Planck scale, where it fails to be predictive; this is the problem of "nonrenormalizability."
xxx/ellauri113.html on line 48: Nonrenormalizability itself is no big deal; the Fermi theory of weak interactions was nonrenormalizable, but now we know how to complete it into a quantum theory involving W and Z bosons that is consistent at higher energies. So nonrenormalizability doesn't necessarily point to a contradiction in the theory; it merely means the theory is incomplete.
xxx/ellauri113.html on line 50: Gravity is more subtle, though: the real problem is not so much nonrenormalizability as high-energy behavior inconsistent with local quantum field theory. In quantum mechanics, if you want to probe physics at short distances, you can scatter particles at high energies. (You can think of this as being due to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, if you like, or just about properties of Fourier transforms where making localized wave packets requires the use of high frequencies.) By doing ever-higher-energy scattering experiments, you learn about physics at ever-shorter-length scales. (This is why we build the LHC to study physics at the attometer length scale.)
xxx/ellauri113.html on line 52: With gravity, this high-energy/short-distance correspondence breaks down. If you could collide two particles with center-of-mass energy much larger than the Planck scale, then when they collide their wave packets would contain more than the Planck energy localized in a Planck-length-sized region. This creates a black hole. If you scatter them at even higher energy, you would make an even bigger black hole, because the Schwarzschild radius grows with mass. So the harder you try to study shorter distances, the worse off you are: you make black holes that are bigger and bigger and swallow up ever-larger distances. No matter what completes general relativity to solve the renormalizability problem, the physics of large black holes will be dominated by the Einstein action, so we can make this statement even without knowing the full details of quantum gravity.
xxx/ellauri113.html on line 54: This tells us that quantum gravity, at very high energies, is not a quantum field theory in the traditional sense. It's a stranger theory, which probably involves a subtle sort of nonlocality that is relevant for situations like black hole horizons.
xxx/ellauri113.html on line 56: None of this is really a contradiction between general relativity and quantum mechanics. For instance, string theory is a quantum mechanical theory that includes general relativity as a low-energy limit. What it does mean is that quantum field theory, the framework we use to understand all non-gravitational forces, is not sufficient for understanding gravity. Black holes lead to subtle issues that are still not fully understood. But not contradictions, just lacunae.
xxx/ellauri126.html on line 305: Deepak Chopra (/ˈdiːpɑːk ˈtʃoʊprə/; Hindi: [d̪iːpək tʃoːpɽa]; born October 22, 1946) is an Indian-American author and alternative medicine advocate. A prominent figure in the New Age movement, his books and videos have made him one of the best-known and wealthiest figures in alternative medicine. His discussions of quantum healing have been characterised as technobabble - "incoherent babbling strewn with scientific terms" which drives those who actually understand physics "crazy" and as "redefining Wrong".
xxx/ellauri126.html on line 309: Chopra believes that a person may attain "perfect health", a condition "that is free from disease, that never feels pain", and "that cannot age or die". Seeing the human body as undergirded by a "quantum mechanical body" composed not of matter but of energy and information, he believes that "human aging is fluid and changeable; it can speed up, slow down, stop for a time, and even reverse itself," as determined by one's state of mind. He claims that his practices can also treat chronic disease.
xxx/ellauri126.html on line 311: The ideas Chopra promotes have regularly been criticized by medical and scientific professionals as pseudoscience. The criticism has been described as ranging "from the dismissive to...damning". Philosopher Robert Carroll writes that Chopra, to justify his teachings, attempts to integrate Ayurveda with quantum mechanics. Chopra says that what he calls "quantum healing" cures any manner of ailments, including cancer, through effects that he claims are literally based on the same principles as quantum mechanics. This has led physicists to object to his use of the term "quantum" in reference to medical conditions and the human body. Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins has said that Chopra uses "quantum jargon as plausible-sounding hocus pocus". Chopra's treatments generally elicit nothing but a placebo response and have drawn criticism that the unwarranted claims made for them may raise "false hope" and lure sick people away from legitimate medical treatments.
xxx/ellauri212.html on line 47: Rakastettu niinkuin ei enää kukaan muu. amata nobis quantum amabitur nulla.
33