Register  |  Sign In
View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Wed Jun 25, 2025 11:44 am



Reply to topic  [ 69 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3
 Schrodinger's Cat and Other Complexities solved within! 
Author Message
Post 
Ripper wrote:
Krem wrote:
Ripper wrote:

My least favorite classes in college were actually in the social sciences. For awhile a picked up a major in sociology adn a minor in psychology on the side (math was my prmary major throughout the last 3 years of college). And based on comments my teachers made, I lose alot of respect for the social sciences and stopped taking social sciens courses. I left undergrad two classes away from a BA in sociology and two clases away from a minor in psychology.

I'd rather sit through evil physics and chemistry over a social science class any day.

I used to call the social science classes "Marxism Central" when I was in college.


That didn't bother as much as their blantant disregard for logic, math, and thy piss poor way professional and researching sociolgists and psychologist use statitsical analysis that they neither understand nor know how to use properly.

When you take a 300 level sociology class on reaserach methods and half teh class struggles with "mean, mode, and median" it doesn't instill conficence. I have yet to pck up the ASA or the APA journal and not find a study with statitsical research done wrong...if this is what the best and the brightest do, they I'll pass.

It also didn;t help to hve my sociology professors cliam math was really important, an opinion they merely because they are no good at teh subject.

I sucked at physics and had to work my ass off at it, you don't see my calling the whole discipline useless.

Ha, I had the same attitude towards finance classes.

When I took Finance 101 I didn't study at all and still managed to get 100% on what was supposed to be the hardest test, while more than half the class failed it - to me it was very simple math, and I had no idea why everyone struggled.

And don't get me started on those financial calculators they told everyone to buy. I never owned a scientific caluclator, I wasn't going to waste my money on a single-purpose one either. So I just used the cheapest calculator I could find that could powers, and it was much simpler to use than all the functions that you had to spend $100+ on.


Wed Dec 08, 2004 4:14 pm
2.71828183

Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004 9:16 pm
Posts: 7827
Location: please delete me
Post 
Krem wrote:
Ripper wrote:
Krem wrote:
Ripper wrote:

My least favorite classes in college were actually in the social sciences. For awhile a picked up a major in sociology adn a minor in psychology on the side (math was my prmary major throughout the last 3 years of college). And based on comments my teachers made, I lose alot of respect for the social sciences and stopped taking social sciens courses. I left undergrad two classes away from a BA in sociology and two clases away from a minor in psychology.

I'd rather sit through evil physics and chemistry over a social science class any day.

I used to call the social science classes "Marxism Central" when I was in college.


That didn't bother as much as their blantant disregard for logic, math, and thy piss poor way professional and researching sociolgists and psychologist use statitsical analysis that they neither understand nor know how to use properly.

When you take a 300 level sociology class on reaserach methods and half teh class struggles with "mean, mode, and median" it doesn't instill conficence. I have yet to pck up the ASA or the APA journal and not find a study with statitsical research done wrong...if this is what the best and the brightest do, they I'll pass.

It also didn;t help to hve my sociology professors cliam math was really important, an opinion they merely because they are no good at teh subject.

I sucked at physics and had to work my ass off at it, you don't see my calling the whole discipline useless.

Ha, I had the same attitude towards finance classes.

When I took Finance 101 I didn't study at all and still managed to get 100% on what was supposed to be the hardest test, while more than half the class failed it - to me it was very simple math, and I had no idea why everyone struggled.

And don't get me started on those financial calculators they told everyone to buy. I never owned a scientific caluclator, I wasn't going to waste my money on a single-purpose one either. So I just used the cheapest calculator I could find that could powers, and it was much simpler to use than all the functions that you had to spend $100+ on.


Preach on!

That 300 level soc class I mentioned, hardest soc class there is, I left the class with a 115%. It was so bloody easy. My classmatees were a bunch of whiners, everything was so damn hard.

I could not bring myself to endure the boredom anymore, hence I totally dropped the major and took some fun film classes instead.


Wed Dec 08, 2004 4:38 pm
Profile
Kypade
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 10:53 pm
Posts: 7908
Post 
Beeblebrox wrote:
A sound cannot exist without an observer to define it.

says who?

Beeblebrox wrote:

Otherwise, any vibration would be called a sound. But it isn't.

Is it a fact that any vibration isn't a sound? maybe we just can't hear all vibrations, so we have no way of knowing that all vibrations DO make sound.

l think this is what it comes down to...what is the definition of "sound"? Obviously, if sound is 'vibrations hitting and being interpreted by our ears', then the answer is no. But if sound IS 'the vibrations that hit and are interpreted by ears' then it would be yes...

(BTW, l have no idea...maybe it is a fact that some vibrations dont make sound...maybe it is true that sound cant exist without an observer...l dunno..)
l'm just typing...


Wed Dec 08, 2004 4:39 pm
Profile
You must have big rats
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 4:28 pm
Posts: 92093
Location: Bonn, Germany
Post 
Beeblebrox wrote:
bABA wrote:
To say that the tree did not make a sound because no one was there to hear it is to say a certain event did not take place because no one was there to witness it.


You're missing a very important difference, and that is the sound is completely dependent on the actual observation. Hearing a sound is a perception, so without the perceiver there, the tree didn't make a sound. It certainly crashed and vibrated, but the sound itself is defined by the perceiver.



For once, I completely agree with you. There is no sound as such, there are only "sound waves". We perceive them as sound. Our ears can hears waves of certain length, but not others. It is all vibration and waves. Thankfully, this belongs to the few things that I actually did learn in Physics :lol:

_________________
The greatest thing on earth is to love and to be loved in return!

Image


Wed Dec 08, 2004 4:42 pm
Profile WWW
Post 
It's all semantics anyway. You've gound the sound waves, which are defined as waves between 20 and 20,000 Hz (an objective definition), and then you've got the sound as a "vibration a living being can sense" (a subjective definition).

So when a tree falls, there are certainly sound waves being emitted, but if there's nobody around to hear it, then it didn't produce a "sound" as defined subjectively.

I've got a compromise: mu.

Ripper: at least the people in Soc Doc classes aren't going to go on and become responsible for your money in the future. Not so with the finance guys. Lord, save us :-D


Wed Dec 08, 2004 4:49 pm
Extraordinary
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:24 pm
Posts: 16061
Location: The Damage Control Table
Post 
Kypade wrote:
Beeblebrox wrote:

Otherwise, any vibration would be called a sound. But it isn't.

Is it a fact that any vibration isn't a sound? maybe we just can't hear all vibrations, so we have no way of knowing that all vibrations DO make sound.

l think this is what it comes down to...what is the definition of "sound"? Obviously, if sound is 'vibrations hitting and being interpreted by our ears', then the answer is no. But if sound IS 'the vibrations that hit and are interpreted by ears' then it would be yes...

(BTW, l have no idea...maybe it is a fact that some vibrations dont make sound...maybe it is true that sound cant exist without an observer...l dunno..)
l'm just typing...


Haha. Nope.

What about ecolocation? Its not those same waves aren't interpretted by ears at all, they are interpretted by touch. So those same waves are not a "sound" to everything. If a bat was in the viscinity of a tree falling, it wouldn't hear it at all....it would "feel" it.

Kypade...check your pm box in about one minute btw.


Wed Dec 08, 2004 4:51 pm
Profile
Commander and Chef

Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004 12:56 am
Posts: 30505
Location: Tonight ... YOU!
Post 
a) A clear defination will help in this one.
b) Lecter, read my reply to that post.
c) Dolce, check your PM right now.


Wed Dec 08, 2004 4:53 pm
Profile WWW
Commander and Chef

Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004 12:56 am
Posts: 30505
Location: Tonight ... YOU!
Post 
Different definations of sound I have been able to find on this site:


http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/sound

[n] the particular auditory effect produced by a given cause; "the sound of rain on the roof"; "the beautiful sound of music"
[n] the subjective sensation of hearing something; "he strained to hear the faint sounds"
[n] the audible part of a transmitted signal; "they always raise the audio for commercials"
[n] (phonetics) an individual sound unit of speech without concern as to whether or not it is a phoneme of some language
[n] the
[n] a large ocean inlet or deep bay; "the main body of the sound ran parallel to the coast"
[n] a narrow channel of the sea joining two larger bodies of water
[n] mechanical vibrations transmitted by an elastic medium; "falling trees make a sound in the forest even when no one is there to hear them"
[adv] deeply or completely; "slept soundly through the storm"; "is sound asleep"
[adj] thorough; "a sound thrashing"
[adj] (of sleep) deep and complete; "a heavy sleep"; "fell into a profound sleep"; "a sound sleeper"; "deep wakeless sleep"
[adj] in excellent physical condition; "good teeth"; "I still have one good leg"; "a sound mind in a sound body"
[adj] exercising or showing good judgment; "healthy scepticism"; "a healthy fear of rattlesnakes"; "the healthy attitude of French laws"; "healthy relations between labor and management"; "an intelligent solution"; "a sound approach to the problem";"sound advice"; "no reasonable explanation for his decision"
[adj] free from moral defect; "a man of sound character"
[adj] financially secure and safe; "sound investments"; "a sound economy"
[adj] in good condition; free from defect or damage or decay; "a sound timber"; "the wall is sound"; "a sound foundation"
[adj] having legal efficacy or force; "a sound title to the property"
[adj] reflects weight of sound argument or evidence; "a sound argument"
[v] measure depths with a sounding line, as of a body of water
[v] utter with vibrating vocal chords
[v] appear in a certain way; "This sounds interesting"
[v] give off a certain sound or sounds; "This record sounds scratchy"
[v] make a certain noise or sound; "She went `Mmmmm'"; "The gun went `bang'"
[v] cause to sound; "sound the bell"; "sound a certain note"
[v] announce by means of a sound; "sound the alarm"

As you can see, not all of them take perception into account. You can ignore some all together as they have nothing to do with what were talking about (ex: Making a sound argument)


Wed Dec 08, 2004 4:58 pm
Profile WWW
Extraordinary
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:24 pm
Posts: 16061
Location: The Damage Control Table
Post 
bABA wrote:
c) Dolce, check your PM right now.


Why you little B*****d. *shakes fists*

I totally fell for that one. :oops:


Wed Dec 08, 2004 4:58 pm
Profile
Commander and Chef

Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004 12:56 am
Posts: 30505
Location: Tonight ... YOU!
Post 
works everytime : )


Wed Dec 08, 2004 4:59 pm
Profile WWW
2.71828183

Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004 9:16 pm
Posts: 7827
Location: please delete me
Post 
Krem wrote:
Ripper: at least the people in Soc Doc classes aren't going to go on and become responsible for your money in the future. Not so with the finance guys. Lord, save us :-D


Instead, they go and run studies using governemnt money and come out with useless and pointless statistics made by idiots used by idiots to get stupid laws passed :wink:


Wed Dec 08, 2004 5:03 pm
Profile
Post 
Ripper wrote:
Krem wrote:
Ripper: at least the people in Soc Doc classes aren't going to go on and become responsible for your money in the future. Not so with the finance guys. Lord, save us :-D


Instead, they go and run studies using governemnt money and come out with useless and pointless statistics made by idiots used by idiots to get stupid laws passed :wink:

We're screwed either way :)


Wed Dec 08, 2004 5:08 pm
Extraordinary
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:24 pm
Posts: 16061
Location: The Damage Control Table
Post 
Krem wrote:
Ripper wrote:
Krem wrote:
Ripper: at least the people in Soc Doc classes aren't going to go on and become responsible for your money in the future. Not so with the finance guys. Lord, save us :-D


Instead, they go and run studies using governemnt money and come out with useless and pointless statistics made by idiots used by idiots to get stupid laws passed :wink:

We're screwed either way :)


Think there's a way we can find to blame it on Stoichiometry :?:


Wed Dec 08, 2004 5:10 pm
Profile
Post 
dolcevita wrote:
Krem wrote:
Ripper wrote:
Krem wrote:
Ripper: at least the people in Soc Doc classes aren't going to go on and become responsible for your money in the future. Not so with the finance guys. Lord, save us :-D


Instead, they go and run studies using governemnt money and come out with useless and pointless statistics made by idiots used by idiots to get stupid laws passed :wink:

We're screwed either way :)


Think there's a way we can find to blame it on Stoichiometry :?:

Well, it does have the "Stoic" part in it; in other words, we're screwed because of our seeming indifference.


Wed Dec 08, 2004 5:16 pm
rustiphica

Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004 7:59 pm
Posts: 8687
Post 
bABA wrote:
Actually, my post was more of a trap. It didn't work.

I still stand by my statement. If a tree fell, a sound was made. Whether someone heard it or not is irrelevant. Making a sound and actually hearing it are 2 independant things.


there are other living organism that heard the tree falling. Maybe a fox or a wolf heard it. Just because we can't communicate with the animal to learn if the tree made a noise doesn't mean the tree didn't make the noise.

And if you put a cat in a box and shoot the box, I'm calling animal cruelty on your ass'!


Wed Dec 08, 2004 7:00 pm
Profile
2.71828183

Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004 9:16 pm
Posts: 7827
Location: please delete me
Post 
Krem wrote:
Ripper wrote:
Krem wrote:
Ripper: at least the people in Soc Doc classes aren't going to go on and become responsible for your money in the future. Not so with the finance guys. Lord, save us :-D


Instead, they go and run studies using governemnt money and come out with useless and pointless statistics made by idiots used by idiots to get stupid laws passed :wink:


We're screwed either way :)


Yup :wink:


Wed Dec 08, 2004 7:37 pm
Profile
All Star Poster
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2004 9:40 pm
Posts: 4679
Post 
Kypade wrote:
says who?


Apparently the dictionary.

Quote:
l think this is what it comes down to...what is the definition of "sound"? Obviously, if sound is 'vibrations hitting and being interpreted by our ears', then the answer is no.


That is the defintion. And we're not just talking about human ears either. What matters is that someone or some animal is there to perceive it. That's what makes it a sound.


Thu Dec 09, 2004 12:29 am
Profile WWW
rustiphica

Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004 7:59 pm
Posts: 8687
Post 
Beeblebrox wrote:
Kypade wrote:
says who?


Apparently the dictionary.

Quote:
l think this is what it comes down to...what is the definition of "sound"? Obviously, if sound is 'vibrations hitting and being interpreted by our ears', then the answer is no.


That is the defintion. And we're not just talking about human ears either. What matters is that someone or some animal is there to perceive it. That's what makes it a sound.


but in the forest there is always some kind of animal or insect that is in the region that will hear the tree falling. Thus it made a sound.


Thu Dec 09, 2004 11:06 am
Profile
Commander and Chef

Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004 12:56 am
Posts: 30505
Location: Tonight ... YOU!
Post 
Beeblebrox wrote:
Kypade wrote:
says who?


Apparently the dictionary.

Quote:
l think this is what it comes down to...what is the definition of "sound"? Obviously, if sound is 'vibrations hitting and being interpreted by our ears', then the answer is no.


That is the defintion. And we're not just talking about human ears either. What matters is that someone or some animal is there to perceive it. That's what makes it a sound.


I just provided several definations where its actually not a part of the dictionary.

My question is, lets say it is 100% part of the dictionary and no other defination is. WHy the hell is this a philosophical question then?? I mean hell, look up a dictionary and you have the answer .. why the debate??


Thu Dec 09, 2004 1:21 pm
Profile WWW
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 69 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 29 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware for PTF.