fiddled filter design - Page 4

Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary

Translate This Thread From English to

Threaded View
Re: fiddled filter design
Quoted text here. Click to load it

QM explains several things which cannot be explained by classical
physics. therfor Occam's Razor cannot touch it on that count.

Care to try again?

Quoted text here. Click to load it

If two ideas explain all the observations the the simplest is to be
preferred

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Even if it's right, if the original idea does the exact same thing that
the new idea does: it explains the same observations, and makes the same  
predictions etc.  Why would you pick the baroque one?

--  
  When I tried casting out nines I made a hash of it.

Re: fiddled filter design
On Mon, 12 Nov 2018 05:46:06 -0000 (UTC), Jasen Betts

Quoted text here. Click to load it

"To be preferred" is your emotional judgement. Being simpler doesn't
make it right.  

Quoted text here. Click to load it

This is an electronic design forum. Designers benefit from considering
as many possible architectures or circuits as possible. Brains being
massively parallel processors, the energy required to think about a
million possible circuits, as compared to the ones that you can find
in AoE, isn't the content of one jelly donut.

Any restriction on thinking, like OsR, can leave you in a pool of
like-minded people who are offering similar products at
race-to-the-bottom pricing.

If two circuits perform the same function, it is often, but not
always, better to pick the simpler, or maybe cheaper, one. Simple
rules help simple people.




--  

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics  


Re: fiddled filter design
On 12/11/18 17:14, John Larkin wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Neither, of course, does invoking pixies or FSMonsters make
/that/ explanation correct. Pixies and FSMonsters are an
emotional judgement.

If you are actually interested in the topic, I suggest you
slowly and carefully read a /wonderful/ piece of prose and
scientific expostion: "The Blind Watchmaker".

That demonstrates why random mutation plus natural selection
are sufficient to explain the observed facts.

The main unknown remains, I believe, how DNA came into
existence - and there are hypotheses for that. Once DNA
(or equivalent!) exists, Darwinian evolution /will/ occur
and is sufficient.

Now if you wish to invoke pixies, daemons or FSMs to explain
DNA, then I don't have a solid counter-mechanism to refute
that. But eventually we will have.


Re: fiddled filter design
On Mon, 12 Nov 2018 19:47:17 +0000, Tom Gardner

Quoted text here. Click to load it

I don't recall mentioning pixies or other mythical creatures. What I
suggest, and expect, is that we don't yet understand how life really
works so can expect astounding discoveries, and they are unlikely to
be simple.

I have some speculations on the subject but there's no point in
discussing them with people who are automatically hostile to
speculation.


--  

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics  


Re: fiddled filter design
On Tuesday, November 13, 2018 at 3:20:45 PM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Your enthusiasm ins for an entirely imaginary intelligent designer - which might as well be a pixy or some other mythical creature - is entirely ridiculous, and we are ridiculing it.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Sadly, your level of understanding is remarkably poor, and your expectations about future astounding discoveries are correspondingly uninteresting.
  
Quoted text here. Click to load it

You backed up your "speculations" by referring us to a book by a proponent of Intelligent Design

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe

This makes your "speculations" deluded wittering. Nobody here is hostile to plausible speculations. Religion-inspired rubbish isn't remotely plausible, as you would be able to work out for yourself if you'd ever mastered critical thinking.

--  
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Re: fiddled filter design
On 13/11/18 04:20, John Larkin wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

/You/ may not understand it, but people with an open
and receptive mind do understand it.

I've given you an excellent reference that explains
the simple mechanisms and subtle consequences in beautiful
prose. Try reading it, if you are interested in understanding
how the world works.


Quoted text here. Click to load it

So, if you came across someone that didn't understand
electromagnetism you would think it worthwhile to
speculate about the existence of luminiferous aether?

So, if you came across someone that didn't understand
basic chemistry you would think it worthwhile to
speculate about the existence of phlogiston?

That's a fair comparison.

Re: fiddled filter design
Tom Gardner:
Quoted text here. Click to load it


No, way, any attempt to create life so far has failed,
Clear indication we have no clue yet.
All speculation and lots of evolution related based on a long ago dead Darwin.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

It is all electrickety to me.
Of course space is not empty, the 'photon' is just a mathematical concept,
for example virtual particles pop in and out of existence in the 'vacuum'
all the time or so I have read.
So much for empty.
Call it aether of cookies or whatever, still the wave model is the only
thing that makes sense, like ripples in an ocean.
And that does require a medium, in that case water.
In that water , lemme put it that way,
only things can flow with the stream
and then there were fish (from somebody in sci.physics long ago).
The fish seem to violate some laws here.
And so do we,

It is fun 21th century fishsicks,
would be fun to look back at it from the 42th century
if we, our species are / were still around.

  

Re: fiddled filter design
On Tuesday, November 13, 2018 at 9:11:27 PM UTC+11, snipped-for-privacy@nospam.org wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Example?

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Not exactly. We now know enough not to bother trying to start from scratch, but people are fooling around putting extra amino acids into the genetic code and getting organisms that survive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expanded_genetic_code

That implies a fairly high level of understanding.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Darwin had an excellent idea. It has taken a while to flesh it out.
  
Quoted text here. Click to load it

That particular "mathematical concept" kicks electrons out of photocathodes. It's got a definite physical reality.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Quantum mechanical tunnelling doesn't happen all that often, but there's a lot of universe out there.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

It's a very long way from full.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Except that there isn't any ocean.

<snip>

--  
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Re: fiddled filter design
On 13/11/18 10:11, snipped-for-privacy@nospam.org wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Q.E.D.

No more to be said.

Re: fiddled filter design
Tom Gardner
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Glad we agree,

but but this is
 s.e.d


Re: fiddled filter design
On Tue, 13 Nov 2018 09:10:56 +0000, Tom Gardner

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Which is why they have cured malaria, cancer, and ageing.


--  

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics  


Re: fiddled filter design
On 13/11/2018 16:27, John Larkin wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

They are slowly getting there with malaria.
We have already eliminated and completely sequenced smallpox.

Cancer is a huge number of different diseases caused by environmental  
factors and genetic predisposition or mutation. Ageing is almost  
certainly inevitable otherwise the world would fill up too quickly.  
Average lifespan has increased considerably during the past century.

Whilst we may not yet have a complete understanding of living cells a  
great deal more is understood about it than you seem to think.

I suspect that certain researcher groups are not all that far away from  
being able to genetically engineer a minimal life form ab initio now.  
They have come on a long way recently as sequencing has become  
mainstream and tools like CRISPr make editing the genome precisely all  
too easy. It is still a lot of tedious trial and error to figure out  
what each idividual component does but they are closing in on a minimal  
working genome solution for self replicating cellular life.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimal_genome

At the moment they still need the bare scaffold of a pre-existing cell  
membrane to put their new genetic blueprint inside.

--  
Regards,
Martin Brown

Re: fiddled filter design
Quoted text here. Click to load it

I have long been aware of the work by Venter , and here some notes from my understanding:

Sticking modified or synthetic DNA into a living cell is not creating life.
It is no different for organ transplants, or making a horse or donkey go a specific way.

Life, and I am not religious,
I have seen people die, and you could see that something 'field' leave an go back,
leaving a dead body behind.
There is a song:
 Where you go when you die,
you go to the spirit in the sky.

Something like that,

I see it the other way around, the 'spirit in the sky' leaves the creature, leaving a dead body behind.

What is this? I have wondered many times,
IMO we live in a cross field of past and future,
I have seen things from the future (that came true later) and it makes me conclude
that what we are just sees part of all that is, but everything is already known.
From logic you can then perhaps conclude if every thing is already known,
then what is our part?

We are, again in my view, the puppet, and the hand that plays us, is the infinite one.
It is the puppet master. Its (His?) script is already known.
We jump and play and that is it,.
Things unfold that way.
IMO you cannot turn it around and say 'hey puppet master now I will jump',
well you can and maybe by some coincidence you may jump,,,
But anyways, we are nowhere near to understanding what that something is,
and that something is a - , or maybe the ONLY common element in all religions,
In more religious terms, you cannot command God, or the Holy Spirit, or whatever have you in other religions.
Maybe if it is meant to be we will understand that spirit better, maybe not.
I'd love to understand it, but it is already a gift to be able to see it at times.

So creating life?  
probably no. ? Connecting something to it ? To that spirit? ??
And they have been working at it since the sixties according to that wikipedia link,, bit like break even fusion ..
But nice work it is.


Re: fiddled filter design
On 14/11/2018 06:41, snipped-for-privacy@nospam.org wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Then you get into quite tricky territory. Are viruses alive or not?
They are certainly self replicating entities but have to hijack the  
apparatus of a host cell in order to reproduce.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

I agree that until they can also construct a self assembling cell wall  
ab intio that they haven't solved the artificial life problem entirely  
but it looks to me like it is only a matter of time before they do.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

People see all sorts of strange things under the enormous stress of  
bereavement. If it helps you then believe in it.

--  
Regards,
Martin Brown

Re: fiddled filter design
Martin Brown wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Denying observation is a bad thing.

Saying 'I did not see that so it does not exist' same.
No was not under stress any of these times, on the contrary.

Nearly 100 percent of what you 'believe' from 'science' is not from your own observations.

Science is at this time at the level of earth wind and fire [as basic elements]
and has always been,
and likely, for us ants in the universe, will always be,
  
More is likely not needed for the survival of the species,
not that I expect the survival of the human species... for eternity.

LOL

God beware they create life, if they did Frankenstein would dim in comparison.

OTOH maybe 'us' is just an experiment from same aliens,
MOST LIKELY FROM A JUVENILE WITH A DR MONSTER KIT FOR ITS BIRTHDAY.


But more seriously, 't won't 'appen.
  
He Has The Whole Word In His Hands

If He gave the control to us....
then goto LOL
or cry

But then I'm a humming bean, and sometimes wrong.

Dinos

Fun subject.


Re: fiddled filter design
On Wednesday, November 14, 2018 at 10:37:51 PM UTC+11, snipped-for-privacy@nospam.o
rg wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Being careful about the interpretation of what you thought you saw is a goo
d thing.
  
Quoted text here. Click to load it

That's not exactly what is being said.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Of course not.
  
Quoted text here. Click to load it
own observations.

True, but science has a rather elaborate system for checking and confirming
 other peoples observation, and getting them to fit into a coherent system.

Your observations may not be quite so well cross-connected.
  
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Twaddle. There's obviously a long way further to go, but what we've got now
 is rather more useful than the four elements approach ever was.
  
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Species survive for about 10 million years, on average.

Human seem to have latched onto a new scheme for exploiting rather more of  
the environment than any other terrestrial animal - so we aren't an average
 species - and we'll probably diversify into a lot of species specialised i
n exploiting an even wider range of environments.
  
<snip>

--  
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Re: fiddled filter design
On 13/11/18 16:27, John Larkin wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

What point are you trying to make?

That we don't understand everything? Well duh. But that
doesn't mean we understand nothing!

Or might your point be similar to us not having (practical)
fusion reactors, nor understanding dark matter/energy, nor
being able to predict everything that happens in turbulent
flow?


Re: fiddled filter design
On Tuesday, November 13, 2018 at 4:14:50 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

There is no way that a scientific explanation can be "right". Not yet falsified is as good as it gets.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

But no scientific idea is ever "right". Not yet falsified is as good as it gets.  

Quoted text here. Click to load it

For a rather restricted range of "possible".

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Only a million? The human brain contains roughly 86 billion neurones

https://www.livescience.com/18749-human-brain-cell-number.html

That's a 2012 article.  Suzana Herculano-Houzel does seem to have got her hands on more human brains since then (as well as lot of other fairly large mammalian brains).

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Whereas selling deliberately baroque products can let you tap a gullible and hopefully well-heeled market (though quite a few of them will be parted from all their money every year).
  
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Complicated rules are helpful in deluding complicated people who can be seduced into buying over-complicated (and over-priced) solutions.

Your own preference for the complicated sophistry of climate change denial over the slightly less complicated science that demonstrates the reality of anthropogenic global warming might be a case in point.

--  
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Re: fiddled filter design
On 11/11/18 2:09 am, John Larkin wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

You believe this, yet you have precisely zero evidence for it. Do you  
believe in unicorns too? Why not? There's no more evidence for one over  
the other.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

There will always be things we don't understand. That doesn't matter.  
What matters is that we believe only things for which we have evidence,  
and we investigate things we observe which don't fit the theory.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Nonsense. If there is no evidence that the simplest possible solution is  
wrong, then to imagine a more complex solution means to believe in the  
existence of something that *has not been observed*. That is, to simply  
make shit up sight unseen, like religionists do.

Scientists are always happy to investigate unexplained phenomena, but  
not inscrutable causes.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

You really don't know the first thing about me then, do you?

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Of course they do. Quite enough to be getting on with in fact, without  
having to invent unobservable things.

Clifford Heath.

Re: fiddled filter design
On Sun, 11 Nov 2018 18:29:07 +1100, Clifford Heath

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Nobody has shown me a unicorn.  

When an outrageous virus mutates and proliferates, it can kill 10%,
50%, or 80% of a population. But it never kills 100% of an otherwise
healthy population. Why not?

We have marvelously complex organs. Not only are they complex, but
they have elaborate repair mechanisms that can cope with very rare
forms of damage. How could that evolve by random mutation and
selection?

Michael Behe has written about some of these issues, but at the
molecular level. I have his new book on pre-order from Amazon.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

And that we allow our minds to explore all over the reasonable and
unreasonable regions of the solution space. Brains, being massively
parallel processors, will do that without much additional expended
energy, if only we allow them to. You can do it in your sleep. That
idea applies to science, electronic designs, social systems, all sorts
of stuff.

You can't test a theory until you have a theory. You can't analyze a
circuit if you don't have a circuit.

I have one new design that started as a scribble, barely even a hunch.
I didn't begin to understand it until after I'd simulated it. It
evolved. But it began with a wild idea, in a strange region of the
solution space.  


Quoted text here. Click to load it

You are saying that once a provably correct theory is in hand, there
is no reason to search for a more complex one. And no reason to search
for a simpler one. No argument.

Are there any cases in physics where there are two distinctly
different, accepted proven theories?

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Certainly not always happy. Sometimes the establishment denies the
phenom because it's inconvenient.  

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Theories need to be invented before they can be tested. Circuits
ditto. If you avoid looking at giant regions of the solution space
because there is not obvious and immediate proof, you'll miss things.

Ultimately flawed conjectures often lead to nearby, correct
discoveries. Brainstorming really works wonders, but is easily
poisoned by people who want to shoot down ideas instead of playing
with them.


--  

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics  


Site Timeline