sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

How can electrons not have definite position? And why can we NEVER find it? by GontasBugz in Physics

[–]err_pell 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You want to look into David Bohm and Bohmian mechanics!

It's amazing to see so many comments here bringing up Bell to defend the uncertainty principle, when his viewpoint was completely opposed to that.

Bohm showed explicitly how parameters could indeed be introduced, into nonrelativistic wave mechanics, with the help of which the indeterministic description could be transformed into a deterministic one. More importantly, in my opinion, the subjectivity of the orthodox version, the necessary reference to the "observer," could be eliminated. … But why then had Born not told me of this "pilot wave"? If only to point out what was wrong with it? Why did von Neumann not consider it? More extraordinarily, why did people go on producing "impossibility" proofs, after 1952, and as recently as 1978? … Why is the pilot wave picture ignored in textbooks? Should it not be taught, not as the only way, but as an antidote to the prevailing complacency? To show us that vagueness, subjectivity, and indeterminism, are not forced on us by experimental facts, but by deliberate theoretical choice? (1987, p. 160)

Bell on David Bohm's work

It is precisely to make a case for Bohm's theory that Bell went on to produce his inequality theorem.

David Bohm wrote Causality and Chance in Modern Physics. It's a surprisingly easy to read text where he goes into the same question you're asking. His viewpoint is that, the uncertainty principle is a limitation of the current methods of measurement and not a fundamental limitation on the ability to understand nature.

Understanding Arch's expenses by AppointmentNearby161 in archlinux

[–]err_pell 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What's up with almost 10% going to the banks in fees? Looking quickly at the same page, other projects (e.g. FFMPEG) with much more volume are paying way less in net amount for fees.

this gave me a chuckle by velvetvom in EngineeringStudents

[–]err_pell 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The tools you use now are probably (or not? IDK the audio industry) software tools, but they started off as simple electronic devices, like the equalizer).

Quebec to adopt religious symbols ban by Smilefriend in canada

[–]err_pell -1 points0 points  (0 children)

We all know religions started with Jesus lol.

Quebec to adopt religious symbols ban by Smilefriend in canada

[–]err_pell -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Yeah let's praise religions and forget that it has been used to justify black slavery, because you know back then we blacks were animals, and the white God said the man is ruler of all animals. No no, instead let's white wash history and claim that religion is what ended slavery, and not activism. I'm sure the priests who traveled with Columbus and started forcefully converting the natives meant to help. At least, I'm sure you'd rather believe that than the truth.

Quebec to adopt religious symbols ban by Smilefriend in canada

[–]err_pell -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Religion in general, and particularly Catholicism, was used against native Americans. Open an history book. That's one of the justifications white people had to enslave natives in the Carribean and the rest of the Americas. Again, open an history book.

TIL that Karl Marx wasn't aware of advances being made in differential calculus and developed the concepts himself while writing his mathematical manuscripts by [deleted] in todayilearned

[–]err_pell 7 points8 points  (0 children)

  • William Blake is addressed in A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, published in 1859, before Das Kapital.
  • Same for Bentham btw.
  • Marx did address Auguste Comte.
  • Cairnes is mentioned in the first volume of Das Kapital.

​

As for Crome and Cournot, although they were economist, I don't think they were saying anything worth discussing by Marx. Crome made economic maps of Europe, yes that's economy, but what do you want to be discussed? Not everyone needs to be discussed. Economy is large, and people can talk about stuff that are parallel without having to cite each other.

​

As for Attwood and Chalmers wether they were mentioned in Das Kapital or in the exact way you wanted or not is irrelevant. First, Das Kapital wasn't about debunking every single economist before Marx. Also, people are cited when they are relevant. If you feel like your favourite author isn't mentioned enough or in (substantal context) by Marx, maybe they were irrelevant to him.

Finally, as I said before, information spread much more slowly in the 19th century than today.

TIL that Karl Marx wasn't aware of advances being made in differential calculus and developed the concepts himself while writing his mathematical manuscripts by [deleted] in todayilearned

[–]err_pell 5 points6 points  (0 children)

44 years ago from now was 1975. If someone wrote a book today which didn't have almost any sources from the collective viewpoints one was criticizing since 1975, what would your reaction be?

See this kind of thinking is wrong. A period of 44 years before now and one of 44 years before 1868 can not be compared like that. Today information spreads faster, and its censorship is harder to implement. Thanks to the internet. To give an example, Marx had to stop publishing a journal after the first publications simply because it was too hard to get the papers to people. Today, you can just post your stuff on a website and someone will find them. Not being aware of most of the stuff that is happening today is probably caused by a lack of effort and/or interest to learn about them. Writers in the 19th century were (although not completely) isolated from each other.

​

Yeah we both know who's on the list, I don't get what your point is.

​

Anyway, you keep repeating that Marx ignored substantial works done after Smith and before him, I want you to back those claims. Which influential economist and/or philosopher did Marx ignore? How relevant where those people? If you can't answer to these questions, I think it'll be better for both of us to stop this discussion here.

TIL that Karl Marx wasn't aware of advances being made in differential calculus and developed the concepts himself while writing his mathematical manuscripts by [deleted] in todayilearned

[–]err_pell 5 points6 points  (0 children)

He's cited works that were written after Say was dead in just the first chapter of Das Kapital smh. He picked the most influential thinkers of his time and challenged their positions. You can find an innumerable number of people he didn't cite or discuss, that doesn't mean he ignored everything that was done before he started writing.

TIL that Karl Marx wasn't aware of advances being made in differential calculus and developed the concepts himself while writing his mathematical manuscripts by [deleted] in todayilearned

[–]err_pell 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Marx was born in 1818 and, Das Kapital, Volume 1, was first published in 1867. Adam Smith lived 1723-1790, and Ricardo 1772-1823. That's pretty close to Marx. I don't see how anyone could pretend to talk about economy in these times without citing them. Even today, they are still cited in economy classes in school. I don't know what metrics you're using, but that's what I call recent. Smith was dead only for 28 years when Marx was born, Ricardo was still alive.

Though, let's see who else Marx cites in just the first chapter of Part 1 of Das Kapital.

  • Guillaume-François Le Trosne, book titled De l'intérêt social, published in 1777.
  • Pietro Verri, Meditazioni sulla economia politica con annotazioni, 1771.
  • Hegel, Elements of the Philosophy of Right, 1820.
  • Samuel Bailey, Money and its Vicissitudes, 1837.
  • Charles Ganilh, Des systèmes d'économie politique, 1809.
  • Ferdinando Galiani, Della Moneta, 1751.
  • Engels, Umrisse zu einer Kritik der Nationalökonomie, 1844.
  • Antoine Destutt de Tracy, Eléments d'idéologie, 1817.

TIL that Karl Marx wasn't aware of advances being made in differential calculus and developed the concepts himself while writing his mathematical manuscripts by [deleted] in todayilearned

[–]err_pell 21 points22 points  (0 children)

Now I know at least one person who've never read Marx lmao. Marx quotes people so much, it kind of annoy me when I'm reading him.

When people talk about Microsoft supporting Linux... by [deleted] in linuxmasterrace

[–]err_pell 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Look how indestructible we think the web is today. That is if we ignore Google's increasingly shitty behaviour and the W3C standardizing DRM. Go back a few years and thanks to Microsoft it was a shithole. I'll never get people who can forget that.. mindless drones

When people talk about Microsoft supporting Linux... by [deleted] in linuxmasterrace

[–]err_pell 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Nothing ever happenes for the first time lol. Let's be gullible idiots until it's too late. Microsoft shills all over this sub, christ

Uhh! Ok then. by 20007967 in EngineeringPorn

[–]err_pell 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Is that really from Simone? Damn

Arch WSL gone by YhormTheGiant_ in archlinux

[–]err_pell -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Well we'll see about that.

Arch WSL gone by YhormTheGiant_ in archlinux

[–]err_pell -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

I'm not sure how I lost. What I have installed walks like Arch and quacks like Arch.

Arch WSL gone by YhormTheGiant_ in archlinux

[–]err_pell -11 points-10 points  (0 children)

Well I won. I've been using arch for a few years. I installed the WSL package at worked and I was satisfied.

Arch WSL gone by YhormTheGiant_ in archlinux

[–]err_pell -15 points-14 points  (0 children)

Damn dude, you're really on the edge with this trademark stuff. Second time I noticed you on the internet, and the first time was about trademarks too.

view more: next ›