«

Robert Coe <> wrote:

>On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 20:42:53 +0100, Mxsmanic <> wrote:
>: Robert Coe writes:
>:
>: > All reality is fundamentally digital, but the underlying digital
>: > aspects of most phenomena are of a size and complexity that places
>: > them out of physical or intellectual reach.
>:
>: Physical reality is quantized, but that doesn't make it digital.
>: Digital is all in the mind.
>
>I haven't seen your new dictionary yet. Be sure to let us know when it's
>available from Amazon.


As Anthony Atkielski (Mxsmanic) is a Pole living in France, I think we
can forgive him some lack of fluency in English, his third language.

I only speak two languages, and Atkielski's command of his third
language is much better than mine of my second.

Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>
>Why is it it seems that, in some perverted MontyPythonesque way, you
>are a seeker of the 5 minute argument.


It is not the 5 minute argument. It is not even the full half hour.
With Anthony Atkielski (Mxsmanic) it can go on for weeks, months or
even years.

He flits between Usenet newsgroups and disrupts one, then when the
mayhem is complete he moves on to another. It may take many months
before the cycle is complete and he starts all over again back at the
first one.

You're wasting your time trying to reason with him. Eventually he
will get bored and move on to the next group. In the fullness of
time, he will be back again, as sure as Spring follows Winter, Winter
follows Fall (Autumn), Fall follows Summer and Summer follows Spring.
And look! There he is again, and his craziness is just the same.

On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 14:56:18 -0500, Robert Coe wrote:

> On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 20:38:24 +0100, Mxsmanic <> wrote:
>: Floyd L. Davidson writes:
>:
>:> What happens to the signal when it is received and
>:> interpreted has no significance at all. For example we
>:> list to music from a CD, and what we here is an analog
>:> sound, but the data on the CD is still digital.
>:
>: Only our interpretation can be digital. The actual physical device is
>: always analog. If physical devices could be truly digital, their design
>: would be simplified by many orders of magnitude.
>
> How do light-emitting diodes fit into that world view? For that matter, what
> about fluorescent bulbs?
>
> Bob

Transducers.

On Feb 26, 3:02*pm, Robert Coe <b...@1776.COM> wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 20:34:48 +0100, Mxsmanic <mxsma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> : Bruce writes:
>
> :
> : > If the analog to digital conversion is made on the sensor, rather than
> : > in the camera body's CPU, I think it is quite logical to call the
> : > sensor digital ...
> :
> : If an analog-to-digital conversion is required, even on-chip, then it's
> : not digital, is it?
> :
> : It's important to understand that all physical devices are analog at their
> : most fundamental level. The "digital" part is the way we use them, not an
> : intrinsic characteristic of the devices.
>
> It's important to understand that all physical devices are digital at their
> most fundamental level. The "analog" part is the way we perceive them, not an
> intrinsic characteristic of the devices.
>
> Bob

So string vibrations are digital? I think I read something like
that.

On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 20:33:03 +0100, Mxsmanic <>
wrote:

>David J Taylor writes:
>
>> What about micro-switches which detect when a door or window is open?
>
>Still analog. The digital realm is conceptual, not real. It's a way of looking
>at the real world, but nothing is actually digital except in our minds.
>
>We interpret a flow of current above a certain threshold as "on," and below it
>as "off," but in the real world, this is a continuum.

No it's not. In the real world, it's discrete, not continuous. You
only think it's continuous because the difference between discrete
levels are so small. An elementary charge is 1.602e-19 coulombs. An
electron volt is the amount of energy gained by that elementary charge
moved across an electric potential difference of one volt.

You can count electrons. You can't get a charge value that's between
discrete counts of electrons, i.e., digital. Sensitive sensors can
count photons. All photons of the same wavelength (i.e., color) will
have the same quantum of energy, which is between about 1.6eV and
3.2eV for visible light.

Even time is discrete, non-continuous. You just don't notice it
because a) the discrete jumps are tiny and b) you're living within the
discrete jumps and not an "outside observer", so your perception is
biased.

The real world is digital. The analog realm is conceptual because the
discrete levels between the digital values are smaller than we can
comprehend using only our organic senses.

Steve

On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 20:27:17 +0000, Bruce <> wrote:
: Robert Coe <> wrote:
:
: >On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 20:42:53 +0100, Mxsmanic <> wrote:
: >: Robert Coe writes:
: >:
: >: > All reality is fundamentally digital, but the underlying digital
: >: > aspects of most phenomena are of a size and complexity that places
: >: > them out of physical or intellectual reach.
: >:
: >: Physical reality is quantized, but that doesn't make it digital.
: >: Digital is all in the mind.
: >
: >I haven't seen your new dictionary yet. Be sure to let us know when
: >it's available from Amazon.
:
:
: As Anthony Atkielski (Mxsmanic) is a Pole living in France, I think we
: can forgive him some lack of fluency in English, his third language.

Actually, I wouldn't have known that his first language wasn't English.

: I only speak two languages, and Atkielski's command of his third
: language is much better than mine of my second.

Mine too. And I obviously wouldn't ask him to let me try to redefine the
meanings of Polish words.

Bob

Robert Coe <> wrote:
>Bruce <> wrote:
>: As Anthony Atkielski (Mxsmanic) is a Pole living in France, I think we
>: can forgive him some lack of fluency in English, his third language.
>
>Actually, I wouldn't have known that his first language wasn't English.


You're right, his command of his third language is impressive. He
earlier claimed to act as a guide for a few of the huge number of
American tourists who visit Paris, so that might be one way he has
improved his fluency. On the other hand, he spends a lot of his time
on English language newsgroups and has done for years.

Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

>On 2012-02-26 12:32:58 -0800, Bruce <> said:
>
>> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Why is it it seems that, in some perverted MontyPythonesque way, you
>>> are a seeker of the 5 minute argument.
>>
>>
>> It is not the 5 minute argument. It is not even the full half hour.
>> With Anthony Atkielski (Mxsmanic) it can go on for weeks, months or
>> even years.
>
>Just to clarify, I made my remark in reference to Floyd, our denizen of
>the frozen North, not Mxsmanic. There must be something in the air up
>at Barrow.


Oops, sorry. My comments still apply, just to a different person.


>Our Francophile Polish friend, Mxsmanic has his own skill set and
>technique of conversational combativeness.


A beautifully crafted phrase. Thank you.

On 2/26/12 PDT 12:02 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 20:34:48 +0100, Mxsmanic<> wrote:
> : Bruce writes:
> :
> :> If the analog to digital conversion is made on the sensor, rather than
> :> in the camera body's CPU, I think it is quite logical to call the
> :> sensor digital ...
> :
> : If an analog-to-digital conversion is required, even on-chip, then it's
> : not digital, is it?
> :
> : It's important to understand that all physical devices are analog at their
> : most fundamental level. The "digital" part is the way we use them, not an
> : intrinsic characteristic of the devices.
>
> It's important to understand that all physical devices are digital at their
> most fundamental level. The "analog" part is the way we perceive them, not an
> intrinsic characteristic of the devices.

AIDO.

David J Taylor <david-> wrote:
> "Mxsmanic" <> wrote in message
> news:...
>> There is no such thing as a digital sensor. All sensors are analog
>> electronic
>> devices. More generally, any device that interfaces with the physical
>> world
>> will always be an analog device.

> What about micro-switches which detect when a door or window is open?

> David

Or a Geiger counter. It's a common misconception of large animals like
ourselves that we live in an analog world. It just seems that way of
you're a large animal. Photons aren't analog.

--
Chris Malcolm