Einstein called chess a waste of time, what do you think?

Sort:
Avatar of DrSpudnik
RMChess1954 wrote:

So. Everything is a waste of time. All we are is dust in the wind. Happy?

Happy dust! It swirls in ecstasy!

Avatar of Optimissed
btickler wrote:
Optimissed wrote:

Matter of opinion. I think Maxwell was FAR greater than Einstein. It's just that Einstein died in the 50s and many of us can remember him dying. He based his work on that of Maxwell, without crediting Maxwell.

That's a load of BS .

https://www.cantorsparadise.com/the-wall-of-albert-einsteins-home-bears-the-portrait-of-three-eminent-scientists-f84d0c458dce

On Einstein:
He once said I owe more to Maxwell than to anyone. Because there would be no modern physics without Maxwell’s electromagnetic field equations. On his 100th birthday, Einstein appreciated his work as the “most profound and the most fruitful that physics has experienced since the time of Newton.” When Einstein was asked if he stood on the shoulders of Newton, he replied: “No, on the shoulders of Maxwell.”

[and]

The person whose name is synonymized nowadays with the word ‘genius’ had his scientific masters too. Few of them include Newton, Maxwell, Mach, Planck, Faraday, and Lorentz. He, without any hesitation, regarded Lorentz as one of the most powerful thinkers. He acknowledged him in words that he would never have been able to discover the special theory of relativity without his prior contributions. On one of his bookshelves, he had a small leather framed portrait of Professor H. A. Lorentz.

Albert Einstein kept a picture of English scientist Michael Faraday on his study wall, alongside pictures of Isaac Newton and James Clerk Maxwell at his apartment in Berlin, Germany. He once quoted “England has always produced the best physicists”. He expressed his warmth in an essay written for the centenary of Maxwell’s birth [1931] as, “The greatest change in the axiomatic basis of physics, and correspondingly in our conception of the structure of reality, since the foundation of theoretical physics through Newton, came about through the researches of Faraday and Maxwell on electromagnetic phenomena.”

<<That's a load of BS .>>

And that's about up to your normal level of complete childishness, especially since nothing you follow it up with backs up the childish reaction. Instead, it probably supports my claim, which I believe may well be true.

Incidentally, Newton was also a plagiarist. He based many of his ideas on Hooke's work and used his position to have all of Hooke's notes destroyed. Hooke was the greater scientist by far. Newton was more of a theoretician than a scientist but Hooke was disliked, because he was bad tempered and unpleasant, so Newton got away with it. It's my belief that Hooke's Law wouldn't have come about without Hooke having a full understanding of gravity, since he needed a reliable system of standards to base his stress/strain measurements upon. It's also known that Hooke formulated a theory of gravity, which was very slightly incorrect. Newton's apple is known to be untrue. Presumably, it was Newton's attempt to predate Hooke's work. It's known that Newton had all of Hooke's notes destroyed and Hooke was the maybe the greatest English scientist since Bacon, so it was obviously for a reason.

Avatar of DiogenesDue
DrSpudnik wrote:
btickler wrote:
Optimissed wrote:

He's his own sockpuppet and he doesn't know it,
Too much to say and really should stow it.
Must give it over in case he should blow it
And then the whole World is going to know it.

Is this a display of your intellect?

Speaking of things that rhyme with "know", my father went to Stowe.

You got to give some credit for an old British dude rapping.

Avatar of Optimissed
MorningGlory84 wrote:
Elroch wrote:

Einstein's natural inclination was to find a classical theory of everything resembling Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism, and he is reported to have continued working on this late in life. The problem was that quantum mechanics provided an unsurmountable barrier to this!

Correct, although he made a huge contribution to quantum mechanics nonetheless, even if he struggled to accept some of its premises. Darwin never fully accepted humans were part of the animal kingdom with its incumbent implications either. Scientists are not removed from their cultural backdrops.

Darwin had been destined to be a vicar, if I recall right. He was chosen as the writer for the English group of theoreticians because of his highly methodical nature, because although the idea of evolution had been accepted within scientific circles for over 100 years, at the time Darwin finally published, it was understood that overcoming opposition from some parts of the establishment, as well as the superstitious natures of the less educated, would be difficult and so nothing should be left to chance. There was another group of scientists, I believe centred on Italy. The English and Western Europeans wanted to be the first to publish and Darwin upset them, by being so slow.

There is no good evidence that he thought that mankind was separate from the animal kingdom, regarding evolution. Darwin's scientific nature had overcome his earlier predispositions.  That was more of an assumption, perhaps put forward by anti-evolutionists, to explain Darwin's slowness in collating all the results and checking for errors.

Don't ask for sources. I rarely need them.

Avatar of DiogenesDue
Optimissed wrote:

And that's about up to your normal level of complete childishness, especially since nothing you follow it up with backs up the childish reaction. Instead, it probably supports my claim, which I believe may well be true.

Incidentally, Newton was also a plagiarist. He based many of his ideas on Hooke's work and used his position to have all of Hooke's notes destroyed. Hooke was the greater scientist by far. Newton was more of a theoretician than a scientist but Hooke was disliked, because he was bad tempered and unpleasant, so Newton got away with it. It's my belief that Hooke's Law wouldn't have come about without Hooke having a full understanding of gravity, since he needed a reliable system of standards to base his stress/strain measurements upon. It's also known that Hooke formulated a theory of gravity, which was very slightly incorrect. Newton's apple is known to be untrue. Presumably, it was Newton's attempt to predate Hooke's work. It's known that Newton had all of Hooke's notes destroyed and Hooke was the maybe the greatest English scientist since Bacon, so it was obviously for a reason.

Actually, it supports my claim, and you have nothing but the chip on your shoulder.

You seem to have a penchant for hating innovative thinkers and pretty much all authority and institutions, and you are constantly looking for some underdog behind the scenes who you think is the real hero.  Why is that?  Could it be tied to your view of your life, and the success thereof?  Something to ponder...

Avatar of Optimissed
btickler wrote:

 

You seem to have a penchant for hating innovative thinkers and pretty much all authority and institutions, and you are constantly looking for some underdog behind the scenes who you think is the real hero.  Why is that?  Could it be tied to your view of your life, and the success thereof?  Something to ponder...

No, I do have a contempt for angry fools who know everything and never cease to let others know about it.

I'm an innovative thinker ... very much so. You are clearly not an innovative thinker at all but highly orhodox in your beliefs. Something to ponder.

Avatar of TheBestBeer_Root

…have you ever pondered the thought of being nice? just saying

 

@btickler

Avatar of TheBestBeer_Root

…perhaps look that up in the dictionary ?

Avatar of Optimissed
TheBestBeer_Root wrote:

…have you ever pondered the thought of being nice? just saying

 

@btickler

Not something he understands. Broken person, I'm afraid but thanks for your interception. happy.png

Avatar of DiogenesDue
TheBestBeer_Root wrote:

…have you ever pondered the thought of being nice? just saying

@btickler

I am nice, to nice people.  Toodles to you...again.

Avatar of DiogenesDue
Optimissed wrote:
TheBestBeer_Root wrote:

…have you ever pondered the thought of being nice? just saying

@btickler

Not something he understands. Broken person, I'm afraid but thanks for your interception.

Sure, I seem really broken compared to you two.

Avatar of Optimissed

Nice people being those who believe you and do what you tell them?

Avatar of DiogenesDue
Optimissed wrote:

Nice people being those who believe you and do what you tell them?

No, nice people being those who don't toss around their bitterness and insecure ego all over the place.

Once again, for the Nth time...feel free to post something concrete, if you have anything at all but your delusional narrative to share.  

Avatar of Optimissed
btickler wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
TheBestBeer_Root wrote:

…have you ever pondered the thought of being nice? just saying

@btickler

Not something he understands. Broken person, I'm afraid but thanks for your interception.

Sure, I seem really broken compared to you two.

Obviously in your mind you don't. You talk about others living in illusory worlds so much, there has to be something wrong. You more or less admitted it a few days ago too, when you admonished me for something. I'd obviously struck a raw nerve. You do have to do something about it, for your own good. I'm past thinking about the good of others, because I saw you clearly the other day, in all your vulnerability, and I wanted to help you. All your projections about other people. Wherever you come across people who think you're right about anything, you need to give them a very wide birth and be highly sceptical, at all times. Just remember that. It's possible to help yourself but no-one else can do it for you.

Avatar of MorningGlory84
Elroch wrote:
MorningGlory84 wrote:
Elroch wrote:

Where's a quote justifying that claim about Darwin?

Einstein's PhD work contributed to the foundations of quantum mechanics, but the only other thing that springs to mind is his contribution to the "EPR paradox". Certainly, that led to a very significant test of quantum mechanics: I think he never gave up on the belief that QM would fail that test!

I am not sure it was a specific quote but a general sentiment, I would have to find the specific passages within Ernest Becker's "The Denial of Death" where he talked about it. It's not that surprising though, it seems to be hard wired into the human psyche that we have a higher purpose than the rest of the animals.

If it can't be backed up with a quote or quotes, it is merely someone else's opinion. I don't accept it: Darwin was a truly scientific thinker.

On the very last page of On the Origin of Species Darwin wrote:

"We can so far take a prophetic glance into futurity as to foretell that it will be the common and widely-spread species, belonging to the larger and dominant groups within each class, which will ultimately prevail and procreate new and dominant species...we may be certain that the ordinary succession by generation has never once been broken, and that no cataclysm has desolated the whole world. Hence we may look with some confidence to a secure future of great length. And as natural selection works solely by and for the good of each being, all corporeal and mental endowments will tend to progress towards perfection."

'Progress towards perfection' - as this formula demonstrates, Darwin never fully accepted the implications of his own theory of natural selection. He knew that evolution cares nothing for humans or their values - it moves, as he put it, like the wind - but he could not hold on to this truth, because it means evolution is a process without a goal. Progress implies a destination towards which one is travelling, whereas natural selection is simply drift. ("The Immortalisation Commission" - John Gray; page 40.)

Avatar of Optimissed
btickler wrote:

your delusional narrative

This is what I mean. Nobody can count the times you're written that and similar about many people here. I'm trying to help and BestBeerRoot obviously is too, or he wouldn't continue being so pleasant to you. He seems to be a very forgiving person and I think it's a shame that there are those here who put him down, because he "lmao's" too much for their peace of mind. I like him simply because he's a good person. That's absolutely clear about him. I'd like to like you too and so would others. You make it impossible. You even claim you don't want to be liked.

Avatar of Optimissed
MorningGlory84 wrote:
Elroch wrote:
MorningGlory84 wrote:
Elroch wrote:

Where's a quote justifying that claim about Darwin?

Einstein's PhD work contributed to the foundations of quantum mechanics, but the only other thing that springs to mind is his contribution to the "EPR paradox". Certainly, that led to a very significant test of quantum mechanics: I think he never gave up on the belief that QM would fail that test!

I am not sure it was a specific quote but a general sentiment, I would have to find the specific passages within Ernest Becker's "The Denial of Death" where he talked about it. It's not that surprising though, it seems to be hard wired into the human psyche that we have a higher purpose than the rest of the animals.

If it can't be backed up with a quote or quotes, it is merely someone else's opinion. I don't accept it: Darwin was a truly scientific thinker.

On the very last page of On the Origin of Species Darwin wrote:

"We can so far take a prophetic glance into futurity as to foretell that it will be the common and widely-spread species, belonging to the larger and dominant groups within each class, which will ultimately prevail and procreate new and dominant species...we may be certain that the ordinary succession by generation has never once been broken, and that no cataclysm has desolated the whole world. Hence we may look with some confidence to a secure future of great length. And as natural selection works solely by and for the good of each being, all corporeal and mental endowments will tend to progress towards perfection."

'Progress towards perfection' - as this formula demonstrates, Darwin never fully accepted the implications of his own theory of natural selection. He knew that evolution cares nothing for humans or their values - it moves, as he put it, like the wind - but he could not hold on to this truth, because it means evolution is a process without a goal. Progress implies a destination towards which one is travelling, whereas natural selection is simply drift. ("The Immortalisation Commission" - John Gray; page 40.)


There are no grounds at all for such an interpretation. He would have meant it in terms of progression towards improvement.

Just incorrect to make the assumption you have made.

Avatar of MorningGlory84

@Elroch, interested to see your response to the above. Hopefully these other two take their uninteresting personal spat to PM as it's cluttering up this thread.

Avatar of Optimissed
MorningGlory84 wrote:

@Elroch, interested to see your response to the above. Hopefully these other two take their uninteresting personal spat to PM as it's cluttering up this thread.

I'm quite sure Elroch is going to say exactly what I have written. In some things Elroch thinks as I do and vice versa.

bicklter is your friend, so I suggest you take him with you when you leave, if you can't persuade him to stop trolling.

Avatar of MorningGlory84

@Elroch, posting again in case you miss it between the attention seeker's multiple posts:

On the very last page of On the Origin of Species Darwin wrote:

"We can so far take a prophetic glance into futurity as to foretell that it will be the common and widely-spread species, belonging to the larger and dominant groups within each class, which will ultimately prevail and procreate new and dominant species...we may be certain that the ordinary succession by generation has never once been broken, and that no cataclysm has desolated the whole world. Hence we may look with some confidence to a secure future of great length. And as natural selection works solely by and for the good of each being, all corporeal and mental endowments will tend to progress towards perfection."

'Progress towards perfection' - as this formula demonstrates, Darwin never fully accepted the implications of his own theory of natural selection. He knew that evolution cares nothing for humans or their values - it moves, as he put it, like the wind - but he could not hold on to this truth, because it means evolution is a process without a goal. Progress implies a destination towards which one is travelling, whereas natural selection is simply drift. ("The Immortalisation Commission" - John Gray; page 40.)