lateral mosfets vs. bjts in audio amplifier design

[Kevin Aylward]

No. A kick in the balls tells us that we exist. However, we are just
observers. Either we do what we are programmed by genes and memes to do, or
we do what we do due to quantum randomness. Either was we're F&*£ed. There
is just no escape from this conclusion.

Its actually all so simple really.

err....That was a *quote* by...Sherlock Holmes.

JF

Physics does not prove anything, but gives evidence to support its
propositions. Truth can never be proved.

The explanation of the universe as a combination of classical mechanics and
quantum mechanics has extensive support. Fundamentally, its all we have,
well not unless you are a Jesus freak, or some other such numpty.

There *are* no other hypothesis available. The brain is a mass-energy
machine. It obeys the obeys the laws of physics or it doesn't. I believe it
does. The evidence for this is overwhelming, imo.

Kevin Aylward

www.kevinaylward.co.uk

 

[Kevin Aylward]

In essence, yes.

The univese exists. We are mass-energy items in that universe, just going
along with the flow.

Truly a philosphy for libertines, since if everything is
deterministically ordained then one can easily shirk responsibility
for one's actions.

And also if it isn't deterministic we can shirk responsibility. This second
point seems to be missed.

If it is random, then we also have no control either.

The fly in the ointment, however, seems to be that if true randomness
exists, then true determinism can't.

But the key point is that, even with randomness, it still precludes free
will, so its irrelevant whether determinism exists or not, so I don't know
what you mean by fly in the ointment.

I can't really say that it is a "philosophy" as in a non-objective point of
view. The reality, is that physics demands that this is the case. It is the
logical view, but I suppose one can argue that someone taking a logical view
has a logical view philosophy. ahmmmm..

www.kevinaylward.co.uk

 

[Kevin Aylward]

---
Then you agree that my earlier statement:

"There had to have been, however, something which started it all off."

Is correct?

To clarify, what "started" everything was, if the proposition is correct,
the creation of mass-energy. OK.

However, nothing "started" this "start". It just happened. On its own, for
no reason whatsoever., in my view. I see no reason why there should be a
reason.

You mean Sherlock Holmes wasn't a real person? wow...

The context in which you used it, however, was designed to lend
credence to your "it-just-popped-into-existence" hypothesis, for
which you have no proof.

It's the simplest solution. Apply ochams razor...

Either mass-energy has been here always, or it hasn't.

Cosmological evidence and theory indicts that there was a start to the
universe. Theory (General Relativity) says that the concentrated mass could
not have exited in that same state indefinitely prior. Therefore the
conclusion is that the mass-energy just came into existence. However..there
are other theories...

There is no heaven. What evidence do you have that there is more to the
universe than mass-energy physics? Hint James Randi...

Kevin Aylward
[email protected]
www.kevinaylward.co.uk

 

[Rich the Philosophizer]

No. A kick in the balls tells us that we exist. However, we are just
observers. Either we do what we are programmed by genes and memes to do,
or we do what we do due to quantum randomness. Either was we're F&*£ed.
There is just no escape from this conclusion.

Sure there is! Just undeny Free Will. ;-)

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Rich the Philosophizer]

On a sunny day (Thu, 23 Oct 2008 23:15:31 GMT) it happened Rich Grise


I am not so sure about 'free will'.
I think that idea is more of a religion.

No, in fact, it's almost diametrically opposite to religion. Religions
are invested in denial of Free Will - that's why they want to rule you.

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Rich the Philosophizer]

What I ment with 'religion' is that 'free will' is assumed as a given
fact, just like religions present ideas without proof.

Well, I know mine's a fact, because I can feel it with the certainty
that if I hit my thumb with a hammer, I don't have to consult a book
to know that it HURTS!

There is however now scientific proof against the concept of free will.

Impossible; the Univers is MADE OF Free Will:
http://www.godchannel.com

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Sjouke Burry]

Also, since we don't know what rules govern the Universe, who's to say
it isn't heaven?

Any name,god,fairy,gnome can be used to prove nothing.

Just let fantasy run amok, and start to kill people if they
dont believe you.

Now THAT looks like science...........not.

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Oh dear...

A wall of some sort perhaps? But in every direction? A bubble of
some sort?

Why not?

Unfortunately, non specialist star gazers have this idea that any old
possibility *they* dream up, is a real possibility.

Tell me John, do you really believe that professional phd astronomers and
professional astrophysicists are so completely clueless as to not have
thought of such a trivial obvious potential explanation? This is the issue
on the physics NGs, the "Einstein was wrong" brigade give no credit to
experts that have studied this stuff for 20+ years. Like, as if they
wouldn't also have similar ideas. Its not credible or reasonable.

I can state without hesitation, that the idea of a mass shell enclosing this
universe, does not fit the observations. Its the actual technical details
that matttter, not some ad-hoc well maybe...

Like, do you really believe that the idea of exotic (negative) matter would
be considered if such a simple explanation as a mass shell were valid?

Imagine an infinitely or nearly infinitely dense

No point. Already in contradiction to the known facts.

Kevin Aylward
[email protected]
www.kevinaylward.co.uk

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Apparently not, because what you state below still contradicts the essence
of this point.

Perhaps I made my point badly, since what I meant was that in a truly
deterministic universe there'd be no reason for assuming
responsibility for anything, since it would all be going to happen
the way it would and what would seem to be decisions which one were
making would all really just be illusions since we'd merely be
automatons.

Yes. That point is well understood.

The issue is that randomness doesn't save one from absence of free will.

---


---
Randomness is prohibited by determinism, since it preaches that every
action is preordained, so the only way we can exercise free will is if
randomness exists.
---

My argument (http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/replicators/freewill.html) is
based on analysing both conditions. Clearly, there is both classical and
quantum approximations acting simultaneously in any situation. Part of a
decision is essentially, predetermined, part is random. *Either* way
prohibits free will, by definition of free will.

---
Randomness is prohibited by determinism, since it preaches that every
action is preordained, so the only way we can exercise free will is if
randomness exists.

Ergo, if you admit that randomness exists then you must accept that
determinism doesn't.

Not at all.

In QM, one can have the probability of a specific event occurring being 0 or
1. Not everything under QM must be random. It depends on the exact nature of
the problem. For example, a measurement of the spin of one electron, can
give a certainty of the spin of another electron.

So. Both randomness and determinism co-exist, according to standard physics.

Then, if you accept that determinism doesn't
exist it follows that free will, which is random, must.

No. That logic makes no sense.

I already explained in that paper. You appear to be saying that if grass is
green, then all that is green is grass.

Free will, essentially by definition, is the ability of an object, an "I" to
make a decision that "I" wants. The fact that an aspect of free will is non
predictability i.e. not determinism, does *not* imply that it must be
random. Free will is the ability to chose for oneself. If the choice is
random, than there is no choice. This is trivially obvious.

Ohh dear...why is this so hard for people to understand. I will a note here
though, is that, when I reasoned this out, it was on my todd, only later did
I discover that exactly the same argument I use against free will, is
already well known and accepted by major philosophers, e.g David Chalmers.


Kevin Aylward
www.kevinaylward.co.uk

 

[Rich the Philosophizer]

There is however now scientific proof against the concept of free will.

That's impossible. The Universe is MADE OF Free Will. (or either it's the
same kind of "science" that the warmingists use.)

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Rich the Philosophizer]

Hey, I just decided not to start in a fight 'yes there is' 'no there is
not', but as people might be interested in a scientific way to look at
free will, here is a link that talks about that experiment I was referring
to:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-560149/So-free-really-just-illusion.html

Here's an experiment you can do while sitting at your computer, and you
can find out for yourself if Free Will exists:
http://www.godchannel.com/runenergy.html

And truly, what harm could it do to try the experiment? (other than the
danger that you'll find out that your dogma is in error.)

Have Fun!
Rich

 

[Eeyore]

Audiophoolery?

Tempting financially as it may be (and I have been 'sort of' tempted) I have
more self-respect and integrity than that.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

John Fields wrote:
with maybe something interesting happening every six months or so.

Yep... tied up and disciplined, that's just the ticket for me. Leather whips
as well if you please.

St Andrew's Cross ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-frame

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

But he wasn't wearing a bondage collar when he visited The Horn.
http://thehorn.co.uk/
There was a very pretty girl who went there who used to. I couldn't resist
sometimes playing with the D ring at the front.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

There is clearly massive parallel testing and selection going on. I
even design circuits in my sleep, sometimes weeks after I'd
consciously forgotten the situation. "Intellectualizing" the design
process leads one to treat it as an incremental tweak of prior art,
but brains are way past that.

Yes, I've often found the best way to deal with a tricky problem is simply to
forget about it. Randomly, some time later, the answer pops out.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Yes, but you've proven nothing, only proposed a hypothesis.

You mean like 'Global Warming'.

Shame it's actually getting cooler now. I wonder how long before the general
public notice ?

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Then you agree that my earlier statement:

"There had to have been, however, something which started it all off."

Is correct?

Please don't bring religion into this !

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

No, in fact, it's almost diametrically opposite to religion. Religions
are invested in denial of Free Will - that's why they want to rule you.

My brother-in-law just gave me a briefing on Sarah Palin. Is she really that
dreadful ? It made my blood run cold.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

No, in fact, it's almost diametrically opposite to religion. Religions
are invested in denial of Free Will - that's why they want to rule you.

What I ment with 'religion' is that 'free will' is assumed as a given fact,
just like religions present ideas without proof.[/QUOTE]

And proof would deny faith. See associated conundrums in the Hitchiker's Guide
to the Galaxy.

Just the kind of attitude we need in a rational world.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Also, since we don't know what rules govern the Universe, who's to say
it isn't heaven?

Or God?

But who's God's God ?

Graham