ive been thinking for long that the only meaning of truth can be in terms of its utility. i.e. something is true if it behaves like it is true, and the expected behavior is defined by humans for utility purposes
@RyderRude Several people have recently expressed that they don't really enjoy these attempts at "philosophical" discussions. Yet your idea of respecting their wishes is to post a random Wiki article on philosophy and ask "What do u all think about this?"?
I do not consider discussions about nationality/stereotypes offensive. Heck, I would not consider even direct insults to Italians as offensive. Beware, I mean personally, of course I wouldn't abide by a negative statement about an entire population, just saying that it sure doesn't touch me personally. I'm not a patriot (not that I hate my country) :P
@RyderRude You just gave your thoughts, unprompted. This is exactly the kind of "amateur philosophy" the highly-starred message from John is about. I'm asking you to read the room.
I just do not find any benefit in pride and attachment towards one's nation, I guess. I respect people who do, I don't like if they tell me I should. It may sound simplistic, but the place where I was born is not the result of my own efforts so I see no reason as to why I should really feel proud
@ACuriousMind i am trying to start a discussion, which is why it is unprompted. and I would disagree that I am doing amateur philosophy now. i was doing it a few years ago but now I am more nuanced. also, i had addressed John's concerns in a reply
@RyderRude I'm telling you that people are starring this because they mean your attempts at discussing philosophy regardless of whether you think it is amateur or not. Trying to argue you're not technically the literal target of the statement is just you failing to read the subtext once again, which is why I'm spelling it out for you: People want you to talk less about these random topics here.
2
@HerrFeinmann I think most people would still consider it some form of offense if a group they're part of is insulted, regardless of whether they're proud to belong to that group
@ACuriousMind then i will talk less philosophy now compared to my current rate. but I would also disagree that I am doing amateur philosophy. i think people shouldn't judge me before discussing
I do not judge that and respect that, I was talking about me. I wouldn't feel personally offended, rather I would feel annoyed by the speaker assuming uniform distributions for a big population
@HerrFeinmann i feel like some people might say "it's weird that you want to tell that person a random fact related to italy" bc like i see "made in italy" then i think of u so people might say that is offensive
i mean idk to be honest i feel like in the US if you make any claim involving race or ethnicity people say this is racist. like it's racist that i saw the notebook and thought of u bc im grouping italian things together
im v confused about this entire concept tho which is why i asked.
@ACuriousMind anyways, it was not about a normal group. I could be offended if you insult my - say - 10 people group, I was talking about such big groups that make the "offense" laughable
@RyderRude If you think the solution to "people don't want me to talk about that here" is to talk less about it and not just stop, I don't really know what you're doing here. This room isn't a space where everyone is entitled to talk about topics that annoy other users X days a week. It's supposed to be a space where we don't annoy each other.
If you want to be an egoist that just types stuff in here without seeking to engage in an actual conversation that both sides can enjoy or benefit from, then you're not welcome here.
@Relativisticcucumber Yeah, I understood you were talking about that. Well, with me - so long as the discussion is theoretical - you can talk about everything. My only trigger is if someone questions my integrity. I have no problems with any topic if it's discussed lightheartedly. Concerning controversial topics, the same thing holds, so long as it's theoretical, if your point is just discussing that, I have no reason to be offended :D
@ACuriousMind how ab when i say like "i learned a new german word it's [insert]" do u think this can be offensive
i hope im not just being hella weird
now that i think ab it if someone said to me "i found an awesome journal that claims to be handmade in the us" im not even sure what i would think. i mean maybe id be like where can i get one xD
@ACuriousMind but i sometimes do get discussions here, which is why i don't aim to stop discussing philosophy. i think some people do discuss it sometimes like PM2Ring, Slereah and JohnRennie (sometimes). i will post prompts maybe and see if i get discussions. I won't take much space
@ACuriousMind As I said, I meant that I'm not offended on a personal level. I get annoyed because of the ignorance of such claim, not because they "did the gang dirty" :P
@Relativisticcucumber I think it's very common to try to connect with people from other cultures with the few things you may know about their culture. I do it with international colleagues all the time (and they with me)
unless the thing you "know" is some kind of loaded stereotype, there's nothing wrong with it
wiki says "Some people say “Ken” is the male term, but since the release of the Barbie movie, that name has taken on other connotations. People also sometimes say “Chad,” but in slang, a Chad is someone who exudes masculinity and dominance, so it doesn't quite fit."
@HerrFeinmann true i think that's the most sensible
i think it prob just depends. i think some things are well beyond the scope of reasonable humor, but i kind of agree that, if done in a friendly way, this is natural. in china this would happen btwn me and my friends all the time.
@HerrFeinmann well, there is a difference between what you say between people who are friends with each other and have past context and what you say to a room full of strangers :P It's normal for friends to transgress boundaries that they wouldn't cross with a stranger
for example i dont think slavery is ever funny to joke about but my friends will mock me if i try to put the vegetables in the hot pot before the meat.
@Relativisticcucumber I think any of us has their moral code about dark humour. I do not condemn well done jokes, but I have some flavours of dark humor I can laugh about and others I cannot. Racist and sexist dark humour can make me laugh, jokes about illness and tragedies do not, for example. In my case, death/physical pain are the boundary
@ACuriousMind I think that's the Chinese (hey hot pot is Chinese) version of putting milk in the cup before cereals
@ACuriousMind feynman is right. i think the logic is twofold 1) the meat flavors the pot 2) you should fill up on the most OP foods first so if anything goes to waste it's noodle or lettuce or smth. these are the reasons i have been told at least.
I was looking at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_matrices#Trace_identities for the following identity is $Tr[\slash q_2 \gamma^\mu \slash q_1 \gamma^\nu]=Tr[\gamma^\sigma q_{2 \sigma} \gamma^\mu \gamma^\nu q_{1 \nu}\gamma^\rho]$. But I didn't find anything useful. Is there such an identity case?
what is the point of solving the zero field ising model? is it just to serve as a starting point to perturbatively solve for the nonzero field ising model?
Also, the interaction between the dipoles and the field is pretty simple, the most important physical part is the dipole-dipole interaction in the Ising model. Of course if you have both you have the complete situation, but studying only the dipole-dipole term can help you understand a few things about the model
Then, as you say you can consider both the limits above and make a perturbation expansion
I don't know much about Ising and I can't even solve the 2D model without a field, because I never considered it interesting enough. Nevertheless, the zero field model can be useful for a bunch of things, such as understanding renormalization
people back then already knew that they had to look for wave equations. and De Broglie relations were already known. based on that, Schrodinger developed his stuff
but I think the work of Dirac is a much more deep
the idea of canonical quantisation is miles ahead of everyone else
Do we really have to be so obsessed with the contributions of individuals from a hundred years ago? None of these people worked in a vacuum or as hermits, the process of science is a collective achievement as much as it lives from individual contributions. What benefit do you hope to gain from making random assertions about which of these people "contributed more"?
Because it is an interesting question and the history is extremely interesting. Its fun to see how these ideas developed by looking through their old papers and reading interviews etc.
@DIRAC1930 I think there is a big difference between discussing the actual history (who did what in which papers, who knew what, etc.) and making judgements of which contribution was "larger" or who is "underrated"
@ACuriousMind i have repeated the point about there not being any true originators of physics ideas many times in the chat. i believe physics doesn't work in a vacuum
@RyderRude Stop kidding yourself. Just in this discussion you made a judgement of who was "the greatest physicists of these days" and admitted you have an active interest in downplaying Schrödinger. You only start conceding that this is not the right way to engage with history when you're called out on it.
I think the people you mentioned are given the right credit and they are known in the scientific community for their contribution. There is no such thing as "overrated" or "underrated" for these things, just like there is not for shows. If someone gets a given amount of credit for their work which is under the sunlight, it means that work deserved that much.
Personally I do not mind these discussions but there is one thing that doesn't sit right with me (but it is not an accusation to any of you)
@ACuriousMind to be clear, i do think that some people contribute more than others. but I don't think that there are any true originators of any ideas. thus physics doesn't work in a vacuum. i have said this many times in the chat
That is, these discussions seems to have the interested to overturn the "established" image of those people. If they are acknowledged as great, then there is the tendency to say they are overrated and vice versa
Einstein rejected quantum theory later in life and went on doing unified field theory
this shows that people's physics tendencies are shaped by their philosophical dispositions. Einstein just couldn't square with non determinism and non realism because of the pre conceptions about the world he grew up with
@RyderRude I feel like people should revisit a lot of this work and other work on UFT by other of his contemporaries. There must be a lot of hidden gems hidden
@RyderRude Bohr was said to be more a philosopher than a physicist
@DIRAC1930 i think people must have read those papers. they can't just ignore them, especially papers from Einstein. Its just that the ideas are experimentally incorrect
