Quote from: Brian on August 15, 2025, 06:33:33 AMI had a more detailed comparison there, but the forum software was giving me the Forbidden error so I removed almost all of it. However, the basic question is similar: whether to believe in things that cannot be verified or measured. Call it personal experience vs. data.
Obviously, Einstein and Heisenberg believed in things that cannot be verified or measured. Who am I to argue with them ;)?
Quote from: AnotherSpin on August 15, 2025, 06:48:18 AMObviously, Einstein and Heisenberg believed in things that cannot be verified or measured. Who am I to argue with them ;)?
They had beliefs that guided their research. They didn't expect anyone to accept their beliefs. They expected people to accept the findings they had demonstrated mathematically and which were verified by experiment.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on August 15, 2025, 06:48:18 AMObviously, Einstein and Heisenberg believed in things that cannot be verified or measured. Who am I to argue with them ;)?
Maybe they both believed in Sugar and Spice and Everything Nice, but in their scientific writings "things that cannnot be verified or measured" were exactly what both men rejected.
Karl Popper.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on August 15, 2025, 07:51:52 PMWrong. Heisenberg's fundamental insight into the nature of reality was stark: not everything can be measured. To pin down one property with precision is to blur another, and this limit is a law of nature itself.
The level of precision needed to reproduce music or to hear it is many, many, many, (MANY!) orders of magnitude less than that allowed by the H.U.P. It's just not relevant to measurements of electrical circuits and rooms.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on August 15, 2025, 07:51:52 PMWrong. Heisenberg's fundamental insight into the nature of reality was stark: not everything can be measured. To pin down one property with precision is to blur another, and this limit is a law of nature itself.
After Heisenberg, science could no longer claim to be strictly deterministic. We can no longer predict with certainty, only in terms of probabilities. The observer, too, became part of the experiment - for the very act of measurement alters what is being measured.
In this way, Heisenberg introduced the unmeasurable as a scientific truth, reshaping our understanding of reality itself.
This description is not what you originally said,
Quote from: AnotherSpin on August 15, 2025, 06:48:18 AMObviously, Einstein and Heisenberg believed in things that cannot be verified or measured. Who am I to argue with them ;)?
Heisenberg wasn't a mystic that believed in things that cannot be verified, he was a skeptic that had the insight that there are limits to how accurately certain physical quantities are defined. It is going to far to attribute this insight entirely to Heisenberg, who made a more concise statement of the implications of Schrodinger's wave mechanics.
It is worth noting that the quantum uncertainty is very small and would only be significant when applied to object such as individual electrons.
Quote from: Daverz on August 15, 2025, 09:34:14 PMThe level of precision needed to reproduce music or to hear it is many, many, many, (MANY!) orders of magnitude less than that allowed by the H.U.P. It's just not relevant to measurements of electrical circuits and rooms.
You are right, but I am not sure how many MANYs are justified. Electrical circuits are typically limited by Johnson noise, thermal noise in resistors caused charge carriers jiggling (which goes away as temperature is reduced). Quantum noise would be shot noise, the noise of individual charge carriers jumping an energy barrier, such as in a diode or transistor. It takes a lot in ingenuity to make a circuit where shot noise measurable, but it can be done.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on August 15, 2025, 10:42:15 PMSome believe that everything can be measured, while others think they are confined within the shell of mind and body.
I do not mind, by the way. People think many strange things, and there is neither sense nor purpose in arguing with that. What is, is ;).
The Heisenberg uncertainty principle is a very specific limitation quantum mechanics places on measurable variables. It is not a justification for the belief that we can't know anything.
QuotePeople think many strange things, and there is neither sense nor purpose in arguing with that.
I could consider that a rare self own. :)
Quote from: AnotherSpin on August 15, 2025, 11:14:05 PMNo one argues with that, of course science knows and can do some things. It just doesn't know and can't do everything.
I've never met a scientist who thinks that it can. Indeed, a scientist who thought so would be a
bad scientist, lacking in the necessary scepticism that drives the repeated testing of theories to the point of failure. The science you keep on attacking is a straw man. The scientific method is based on the idea that
any currently held theory is provisional: it is only as good as the most recent test of its predictions. It's through the repeated testing of its strongest theories, to destruction if necessary, that science progresses.
The point here is that scientific method could be said to have a built-in humility, if you like. It doesn't offer 'the truth'; it offers the best shot* currently available through experimental testing. And that best shot is inherently provisional. But it can get us to the moon (if we want to go), and it can help us design music reproduction systems. Then we come along and listen to those systems and choose the ones that seem, to us, to deliver our music in the way we most like.
Why would there be a row about this?
* 'best shot' meaning 'most successfully predictive model'
Quote from: AnotherSpin on August 15, 2025, 11:14:05 PMNo one argues with that, of course science knows and can do some things. It just doesn't know and can't do everything.
Science doesn't "do" or "know" anything. it is just knowledge. We people do things using science. This limit you are talking about isn't necessarily in science, but in us. Can we know everything? Is our mental capacity enough for that?
Quote from: AnotherSpin on August 15, 2025, 11:14:05 PMOnly God knows and can do everything :)
If God knows what he does tomorrow, how can he do
anything tomorrow?
Quote from: AnotherSpin on August 15, 2025, 07:51:52 PMWrong. Heisenberg's fundamental insight into the nature of reality was stark: not everything can be measured. To pin down one property with precision is to blur another, and this limit is a law of nature itself.
We don't understand intuitively the fundamental nature of the reality. Measuring the momentum AND position of electrons at infinite accuracy is not a thing in our reality. We only intuitively think it should be a thing we can theoretically measure at infinite accuracy. The laws of nature doensn't have any limitations. We see limitations because of our intuition based on how we experience our life. Evolution didn't shape us to understand how electrons orbit nuclei. It shaped us to avoid getting eaten by lions.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on August 15, 2025, 07:51:52 PMAfter Heisenberg, science could no longer claim to be strictly deterministic.
Not strictly deterministic, but statistically deterministic. Again, this is about our intuition.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on August 15, 2025, 07:51:52 PMWe can no longer predict with certainty, only in terms of probabilities. The observer, too, became part of the experiment - for the very act of measurement alters what is being measured.
What if conducting a gallup changes people's opinions? In everyday life we don't notice these kind of thing easily, but when conducting precise scientific experiments, we see things.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on August 15, 2025, 07:51:52 PMIn this way, Heisenberg introduced the unmeasurable as a scientific truth, reshaping our understanding of reality itself.
It is not about things being unmeasurable. It is about what measurements make sense. What colour is independence? If your question doesn't make sense, don't expect having answer that make sense.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on August 16, 2025, 01:01:34 AMGod has no tomorrow. God is eternally now, beyond time and space. Let me tell you one thing, only don't be afraid. The same applies to us as well, to our true selves, which are beyond time and space and not confined into body/mind.
How can we know there is something eternal beyond time and space?
Quote from: AnotherSpin on August 16, 2025, 01:16:57 AMNothing to understand here. Do you know that you are? That's it, no formulas required.
Doesn't this sound like "Don't think, those with power don't like it. Stay dumb and obedient instead"?
Quote from: AnotherSpin on August 15, 2025, 07:51:52 PMWrong. Heisenberg's fundamental insight into the nature of reality was stark: not everything can be measured. To pin down one property with precision is to blur another, and this limit is a law of nature itself.
After Heisenberg, science could no longer claim to be strictly deterministic. We can no longer predict with certainty, only in terms of probabilities. The observer, too, became part of the experiment - for the very act of measurement alters what is being measured.
In this way, Heisenberg introduced the unmeasurable as a scientific truth, reshaping our understanding of reality itself.
This is a misrepresentation of Heisenberg's principle.
First, it's not an insight into "the nature of reality" but into the nature of quantum particles reality, which is only a subset of the whole reality. HUP doesn't apply to the reality of bullets, buses or celestial bodies.
Second, it's not about any two properties of any physical object. During your walks on the beach your mass and speed can be measured with utmost precision. Heck, even the properties most associated with HUP, position and momentum, can also be measured with utmost accuracy during your walks, precisely because you are not a quantum particle and therefore HUP doesn't apply to your movements.
Third, HUP is not universally accepted among scientists. Its most vocal opponent was Einstein. Some physicists argue that ascribing classical notions such as position and momentum to quantum particles is a conceptual and methodological error because at quantum level they are properties of interactions between objects rather than intrinsic properties of individual objects.
Finally, no scientist worth his salt ever claimed that science does or can know everything. Intellectual humility is a prerequisite for being a scientist. Actually, it's precisely you who jump to hasty conclusions and unwarranted generalizations: you take a principle with limited validity and make it into a universally valid law of nature governing any and all physical reality, using it as a hammer against, what, the presumptuousness of scientists claiming they know everything. Gotta love the irony.
Quantum physics tells us that the reality is quantised at (sub)atomic scale. There's Plack time (about 5.4*10^-44 s) and Plack length (about 1.6*10^-35 m) representing the smallest possibly lengths and time intervals possible.
Quantised systems introduce non-linear distortion unless the system is properly dithered. The statistically consistent randomness we see on quantum level is, I intuitively believe, the way our reality is "dithered" to function in linear manner. Without the randomness reality would cumulate rounding errors that would probably lead to "everything blowing up." With the randomness reality functions smoothly in stable manner.
In digital audio every sample point is mathematically "smeared" in time backwards and forwards in the shape of sinc(t)=sin(𝝿t)/𝝿t function. Similarly in our reality, particles are smeared in space and time in the shape of wave function Ψ(x,t). In digital audio, dither noise is used to linearise quantisation while in quantum physics we have quantum randomness.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on August 16, 2025, 02:27:12 AMDo you happen to know of a scientific formula or perhaps a scholarly book that can grant an individual true freedom? If so, I would be most curious to hear of it. Please share ;).
What do you mean by "true freedom" and what makes you think we are granted it?
If you are talking about
free will, smart people are still debating about it as far as I know and we don't have definitive answers.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on August 16, 2025, 03:11:02 AMYou don't even recognize that you can be liberated? Sad. But not hopeless.
Liberated from what?
Quote from: AnotherSpin on August 15, 2025, 05:45:37 AMI'm not convinced that your mentioning of religious people and skeptics is entirely apt. Perhaps framing it as religion versus science would come a bit closer, though even that requires significant caveats. I'd be more inclined to call it personal experience vs. hearsay.
And who invented audio recording and reproduction, was it god/religion or was it science? And, the actual framing would be; science/the proven facts vs personal experience and hearsay.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on August 15, 2025, 08:21:20 PMWith his Uncertainty Principle, Heisenberg introduced the idea that reality is fundamentally beyond measurement and proof.
In short, Heisenberg forced science to accept that the picture of the world must include the unmeasurable as a feature of reality itself.
Hang on, you're contradicting yourself. You also stated that "
To pin down one property with precision is to blur another" so obviously, according to your own words, at least "one property" can be pinned down and therefore is not beyond measurement! As others have pointed out, Heisenberg was talking about the nature of measuring atoms/sub atomic particles, aspects of reality obviously are measurable, if they weren't there would be no speed limits, no engineering tolerances, no technology and no audio recordings.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on August 15, 2025, 11:14:05 PMNo one argues with that, of course science knows and can do some things. It just doesn't know and can't do everything. ...
Some believe that everything can be measured ...
Who are these "some" who believe everything can be measured and again, what has "
everything" got to do with it anyway? We're talking specifically about audio recording and reproduction, not "
everything". Mathematics doesn't know everything, does that mean science doesn't know that 1+1=2? Fundamentally, we're talking about measuring oscillating air pressure waves, electrical signals where voltage is analogous to those pressure waves and digital data representing those measurements. This and some sub properties of these phenomena is what we're measuring, that's it, not sub atomic particle behaviour, not how comfortable my shoes feel, not all of reality, not anything else at all and certainly not "
everything"!
Quote from: AnotherSpin on August 16, 2025, 02:27:12 AMDo you happen to know of a scientific formula or perhaps a scholarly book that can grant an individual true freedom? If so, I would be most curious to hear of it. Please share ;).
And again. We're not talking about "
everything", granting "
an individual true freedom" or anything else, we're talking about audio recording and reproduction. And for that, yes indeed we happen to know scientific formulas for that, they're some of the most famous of all scientific formulas, Maxwell's Equations/Laws and Shannon's theorems on information and digital communication being the most pertinent. They can be found in countless text books and on Wikipedia, so it should only take you a few seconds to look them up, if you really are "
most curious" to know/learn the actual facts?
Quote from: StudioGuy on August 16, 2025, 03:46:30 AMHeisenberg was talking about the nature of measuring atoms/sub atomic particles, reality obviously is measurable, if it wasn't there would be no speed limits, no engineering tolerances, no technology and no audio recordings.
Speaking of speed limits: one can make an analogy between audio equipment and cars. A brand new luxury car is certainly safer and more comfortable than a cheap second hand car, yet if you drive them both at the same speed, all other variables being equal you get from point A to point B in the same amount of time. But hey, what do you know? The passenger in the luxury car claims he got there faster, because that's how he clearly felt it, and screw the speed and time measurements anyway, Heisenberg introduced (forced upon science, to be exact) the idea that reality is fundamentally beyond measurements and proof. There's no way the cheap second-hand car could have gotten there just as fast, because even if the cars' measurements are the same, their performances are not, and besides a cheap second car is not the proper way to get from A to B.
.
Quote from: StudioGuy on August 16, 2025, 03:46:30 AMWho are these "some" who believe everything can be measured and again, what has "everything" got to do with it anyway?
Only people who lack scientific education/training can believe that science is, or aims at being, an unassailable, universally and absolutely valid theory of everything.
Quote from: Florestan on August 16, 2025, 05:52:29 AMOnly people who lack scientific education/training can believe that science is, or aims at being, an unassailable, universally and absolutely valid theory of everything.
Why then do people with extensive scientific education/training try to create scientific theories of everything?
Quote from: 71 dB on August 16, 2025, 08:26:51 AMWhy then do people with extensive scientific education/training try to create scientific theories of everything?
The analogy I use is a lamppost in the dark. The goal is to expand the circle of light. No matter how tall the post is or how bright the bulb the number of questions to ask expands with the circumference of the circle. A theory of everything will reconcile inconsistencies in the light and perhaps push the boundary out.
Quote from: 71 dB on August 16, 2025, 08:26:51 AMWhy then do people with extensive scientific education/training try to create scientific theories of everything?
They don't.. Show me one single scientist or group of scientists working on a theory of everything.
Quote from: drogulus on August 16, 2025, 08:40:59 AMThe analogy I use is a lamppost in the dark. The goal is to expand the circle of light. No matter how tall the post is or how bright the bulb the number of questions to ask expends with the circumference of the circle. A theory of everything will reconcile inconsistencies in the light and perhaps push the boundary out.
As long as it doesn't account for everything beyond the circle of light, it's not a theory of everything. And given that it could not account for anything beyond the circle of light at any given moment, a theory of everything is impossible.
Quote from: Florestan on August 16, 2025, 09:13:21 AMThey don't.. Show me one single scientist or group of scientists working on a theory of everything.
How about Edward Witten (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Witten)?
Quote from: 71 dB on August 16, 2025, 09:54:30 AMHow about Edward Witten (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Witten)?
I'm sure Dr. Witten has not much to say about biochemistry or entomology, therefore he cannot be working on a theory of everything. Everything means everything, right?
Quote from: Florestan on August 16, 2025, 10:00:45 AMI'm sure Dr. Witten has not much to say about biochemistry or entomology, therefore he cannot be working on a theory of everything. Everything means everything, right?
You have misunderstood the theory of everything by a mile and a half... ...it is about the fundamental principles of how the university works. Especially how quantum physics and gravity works together is a mystery (according to the current theories they are incompatible).
No human is clever enough to master every field of science. Even mastering all mathematics known to man is too much for anyone (David Hilbert (1862-1943) was the last mathematician who knew all math of his time).
Quote from: Florestan on August 16, 2025, 10:00:45 AMI'm sure Dr. Witten has not much to say about biochemistry or entomology, therefore he cannot be working on a theory of everything. Everything means everything, right?
No, that's not what it means. In context it means the most fundamental theory. Essentially it would be the bottom turtle in "turtles all the way down". :P
"What's the most fundamental thing made of?"
:)
Quote from: Karl Henning on August 16, 2025, 10:02:16 AMNo, I refuse! She's done me no injury.
If one purpose of this forum is to cheer us up, then you have done so in abundance with this quip, my dear chap. Thank you.
Quote from: 71 dB on August 16, 2025, 10:52:13 AMYou have misunderstood the theory of everything by a mile and a half... ...it is about the fundamental principles of how the university works. Especially how quantum physics and gravity works together is a mystery (according to the current theories they are incompatible).
No human is clever enough to master every field of science. Even mastering all mathematics known to man is too much for anyone (David Hilbert (1862-1943) was the last mathematician who knew all math of his time).
I think the usual term in English for what you're talking about is the "Grand Unifying Theory" or GUT.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on August 16, 2025, 02:27:12 AMDo you happen to know of a scientific formula or perhaps a scholarly book that can grant an individual true freedom? If so, I would be most curious to hear of it. Please share ;).
Chapter 11
https://fas-philosophy.rutgers.edu/chang/papers/onwhatmatters.pdf
Quote from: JBS on August 16, 2025, 11:31:13 AMI think the usual term in English for what you're talking about is the "Grand Unifying Theory" or GUT.
But that elusive goal really is referred to in some quarters as the "Theory of Everything".
Quote from: AnotherSpin on August 16, 2025, 08:45:00 PMTrue release is not found in these debates, but in directly seeing that there is no I who acts at all.
It's not easy to see how to discuss this (or anything else) with someone who isn't there.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on August 16, 2025, 11:34:16 PMDiscussions between minds can make sense, for a moment or two, just for fun maybe.
If you're not there, they can't.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on August 16, 2025, 11:52:15 PMDo not think this is some pure awareness
I don't think it's
anything. The 'you' (that I thought I was addressing) has told me that there is no 'you'. There's nothing left to say. Not even this.
I take it this new thread is just "chewing the fat" about things unrelated to audio and all pretence of being relevant to audio systems has been dropped?
Quote from: 71 dB on August 16, 2025, 10:52:13 AMthe theory of everything ...it is about the fundamental principles of how the university works. Especially how quantum physics and gravity works together is a mystery (according to the current theories they are incompatible).
Quote from: krummholz on August 16, 2025, 01:24:07 PMBut that elusive goal really is referred to in some quarters as the "Theory of Everything".
I am well aware of all that, but it's a (rather unscientific) misnomer which can and does create confusion, misunderstandings and misrepresentations about the nature of science. Its use should be avoided, or even better discarded altogether.
Quote from: Elgarian Redux on August 17, 2025, 12:15:33 AMI don't think it's anything. The 'you' (that I thought I was addressing) has told me that there is no 'you'. There's nothing left to say. Not even this.
There's no I nor you, there's only an undefinable, immutable, out-of-this world, common self, the phenomenal reality is just an illusion. And yet, the same "he" who preaches that also claims "his ears" (according to "his own" theory, both these words are meaningless) tell "him" the truth.
Risum teneatis, amici?
Quote from: Florestan on August 17, 2025, 02:39:43 AMI am well aware of all that, but it's a (rather unscientific) misnomer which can and does create confusion, misunderstandings and misrepresentations about the nature of science. Its use should be avoided, or even better discarded altogether.
It's a colloquialism. No one who actually uses it interprets the term the way some in this thread (or maybe it was still the audio thread) did earlier, as implying a practical route to all knowledge.
Quote from: krummholz on August 17, 2025, 03:45:59 AM.... No one who actually uses it interprets the term the way some in this thread (or maybe it was still the audio thread) did earlier, as implying a practical route to all knowledge.
That can only be achieved with the Aleph! ;)
Quote from: AnotherSpin on August 17, 2025, 01:23:44 AMWords are just words. That's the way I speak, but I know what's true. If you think you've caught me in some kind of logical contradiction, then so be it. That's not what I'm about.
But if (as you have persuaded me) there is no 'you' to catch, how could I? Or even have any wish to? I'm just reading what has been said (which is, at least in part, very clear), and responding to it accordingly.
And now enough.
Quote from: Florestan on August 17, 2025, 03:07:50 AMThere's no I nor you, there's only an undefinable, immutable, out-of-this world, common self, the phenomenal reality is just an illusion. And yet, the same "he" who preaches that also claims "his ears" (according to "his own" theory, both these words are meaningless) tell "him" the truth. Risum teneatis, amici?
Just tried to send you a PM, Andrei, but your inbox, I am told, is full ...
Quote from: StudioGuy on August 17, 2025, 01:47:36 AMI take it this new thread is just "chewing the fat" about things unrelated to audio and all pretence of being relevant to audio systems has been dropped?
Correct!
Quote from: Elgarian Redux on August 16, 2025, 11:21:35 PMIt's not easy to see how to discuss this (or anything else) with someone who isn't there.
So says this so-called individual, too.
Quote from: StudioGuy on August 17, 2025, 01:47:36 AMI take it this new thread is just "chewing the fat" about things unrelated to audio and all pretence of being relevant to audio systems has been dropped?
Indeed, the pretence is of another sort entirely.
Quote from: Florestan on August 17, 2025, 03:07:50 AMThere's no I nor you, there's only an undefinable, immutable, out-of-this world, common self, the phenomenal reality is just an illusion. And yet, the same "he" who preaches that also claims "his ears" (according to "his own" theory, both these words are meaningless) tell "him" the truth. Risum teneatis, amici?
A lot of aggressive non-philosophizing, from this Senator's standpoint.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on August 17, 2025, 07:42:20 AMThe difference between you and me is this: you believe that you are your mind and body, and that beyond them there is nothing else, whereas I know that is not the case. The "you" that has seized your imagination, to which you return again and again, points instead toward a higher knowing of who I truly am, or just as well of who you truly are. In essence, there is no difference.
The most striking thing to me is that you assume that people who don't share your odd notions are dimwits.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on August 17, 2025, 07:59:57 AMDo not ascribe to me what exists only in your imagination. That applies to you and a few other forum members as well.
There is no self so you only exist in the word salad you post here and in my imagination. :)
A conscious self groups various functions into a unitary narrative. It consists primarily of language and its use developed as a means of communicating with other language users. An "I" and a "you" require each other.
I think the modern self arrived in stages, and our current version arrived when people began to realize the voices in their heads belonged to them. Owning your thoughts is a massive upgrade.
Anyway, folks ... Heard any good jokes recently? Karl's joke about Karl Popper was a good 'un - worth scrolling back to find.
Quote from: Elgarian Redux on August 17, 2025, 08:33:45 AMAnyway, folks ... Heard any good jokes recently? Karl's joke about Karl Popper was a good 'un - worth scrolling back to find.
I must confess I still don't get that joke :-[ ... If anyone is kind enough to explain it to me via PM, that'll be appreciated. :)
Quote from: ritter on August 17, 2025, 08:38:05 AMI must confess I still don't get that joke :-[ ... If anyone is kind enough to explain it to me via PM, that'll be appreciated. :)
Karl: Pop Her!
Quote from: Elgarian Redux on August 17, 2025, 08:33:45 AMAnyway, folks ... Heard any good jokes recently? Karl's joke about Karl Popper was a good 'un - worth scrolling back to find.
Have a look in Dan Dennett's Philosophical Lexicon
https://dl.tufts.edu/downloads/1z40m5090?filename=jw827p68f.pdf
Quote from: Elgarian Redux on August 17, 2025, 06:10:04 AMJust tried to send you a PM, Andrei, but your inbox, I am told, is full ...
Not anymore, Alan.
Quote from: krummholz on August 17, 2025, 03:45:59 AMIt's a colloquialism. No one who actually uses it interprets the term the way some in this thread (or maybe it was still the audio thread) did earlier, as implying a practical route to all knowledge.
Exactly my point. It's laymen who get confused, not scientists themselves.
Quote from: Elgarian Redux on August 17, 2025, 08:33:45 AMAnyway, folks ... Heard any good jokes recently? Karl's joke about Karl Popper was a good 'un - worth scrolling back to find.
To my everlasting shame I confess it was entirely lost on me. Please enlighten me,
@Karl Henning .
Quote from: Florestan on August 17, 2025, 09:59:37 AMNot anymore, Alan.
Hoorah! I have now acted thereupon.
Quote from: Florestan on August 17, 2025, 10:07:41 AMTo my everlasting shame I confess it was entirely lost on me. Please enlighten me, @Karl Henning .
The shame (unjustified) has passed already. It's a colloquialism which no non-native speaker need worry to have missed.
Quote from: Elgarian Redux on August 17, 2025, 08:33:45 AMAnyway, folks ... Heard any good jokes recently? Karl's joke about Karl Popper was a good 'un - worth scrolling back to find.
This seems vaguely on-topic ..
'A Zen Buddhist goes up to a hot dog seller and says, "Make me one with everything."
(and a slightly longer version ..).. 'The seller makes the hot dog, hands it to the Buddhist and says, "That'll be five pounds."
The Buddhist hands the seller a ten pound note, who puts it in the till and shuts the drawer.
The Buddhist says, "Hey, where's my change?", and the seller tells him, "Change must come from within." '
Quote from: Iota on August 17, 2025, 10:20:55 AMThis seems vaguely on-topic ..
'A Zen Buddhist goes up to a hot dog seller and says, "Make me one with everything."
(and a slightly longer version ..)
.. 'The seller makes the hot dog, hands it to the Buddhist and says, "That'll be five pounds."
The Buddhist hands the seller a ten pound note, who puts it in the till and shuts the drawer.
The Buddhist says, "Hey, where's my change?", and the seller tells him, "Change must come from within." '
Classic!
Quote from: Karl Henning on August 17, 2025, 10:20:07 AMThe shame (unjustified) has passed already. It's a colloquialism of which no non-native speaker need worry to have missed.
It's what in Romanian is called "an untranslatable pun".
Quote from: Iota on August 17, 2025, 10:20:55 AMThis seems vaguely on-topic ..
'A Zen Buddhist goes up to a hot dog seller and says, "Make me one with everything."
(and a slightly longer version ..)
.. 'The seller makes the hot dog, hands it to the Buddhist and says, "That'll be five pounds."
The Buddhist hands the seller a ten pound note, who puts it in the till and shuts the drawer.
The Buddhist says, "Hey, where's my change?", and the seller tells him, "Change must come from within." '
Excellent one! :D :D :D
Quote from: Iota on August 17, 2025, 10:20:55 AMThis seems vaguely on-topic ..
'A Zen Buddhist goes up to a hot dog seller and says, "Make me one with everything."
(and a slightly longer version ..)
.. 'The seller makes the hot dog, hands it to the Buddhist and says, "That'll be five pounds."
The Buddhist hands the seller a ten pound note, who puts it in the till and shuts the drawer.
The Buddhist says, "Hey, where's my change?", and the seller tells him, "Change must come from within." '
Fabulous!! I'm still chuckling!
Vaguely on-topic as well.
God is most certainly not omnipotent: He can't make a stone so heavy that He can't lift it.
Quote from: Florestan on August 17, 2025, 11:30:23 AMVaguely on-topic as well.
God is most certainly not omnipotent: He can't make a stone so heavy that He can't lift it.
He should be able to choose on what planet he lifts stones. There are planets out there with gravitation significantly stronger than on Earth. So we end up with fun question: Is the stone he can lift on Earth too heavy for him on Jupiter (2.64 times the gravitation on Earth)? If he has to be able to lift the stone in the strongest gravitational fields in the universe (black holes?) to be able to make it, the stones he can make are very small (infinitely small = non-existent ?)