I came across a quote. It sounds like that. We cannot find the evidence of non-existence of a particle. We just did not find any evidence of it's existence.
The interesting point is how we can prove something does not exist. It cannot exist or it does exist but behave as nothing. Is it possible?
How can we determine what existence is? What makes something evidence? What is the condition? Martin Heidegger had studied "existence" thoroughly. In his book "Being and Time", he talked about the criteria and properties of being of everything. He tried to compare being and not-being in a conceptual way. It was incredible in 1927 because not many philosophers would think about it deeply.
Evidence is normally an observable event which has connection with our subject. When we expect such subject does not exist, nothing would interact with it. No connection can be made in our universe. Thus no evidence of non-existence can be provided. Therefore, we cannot find the evidence of non-existence of a particle.
Friday, October 26, 2007
Thursday, June 14, 2007
game prediction, future exchange
The simExchange - (noun) the free fantasy video game prediction market for forecasting the number of copies games will sell.
the exchange of future events not futures?
this corporate helps to measure the future value of ideas
the exchange of future events not futures?
this corporate helps to measure the future value of ideas
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
Definition of definition
A definition is a concise statement explaining the meaning of a term, word or phrase. The term to be defined is known as the definiendum (Latin: that which is to be defined). The form of words which defines it is known as the definiens (Latin: that which is doing the defining).
Given that a natural language such as English contains, at any given time, a finite number of words, any comprehensive list of definitions must either be circular or leave some terms undefined. If every term of every definiens must itself be defined, where should we stop?[10] A dictionary, for instance, in so far as it is a comprehensive list of lexical definitions, must resort to circularity.
Many philosophers have chosen instead to leave some terms undefined. The scholastic philosophers claimed that the highest genera (the so-called ten generalissima) cannot be defined, since we cannot assign any higher genus under which they may fall. Thus we cannot define being, unity and similar concepts. Locke supposes in An Essay Concerning Human Understanding that the names of simple concepts do not admit of any definition. More recently Bertrand Russell sought to develop a formal language based on logical atoms. Other philosophers, notably Wittgenstein, rejected the need for any undefined simples. Wittgenstein pointed out in his Philosophical Investigations that what counts as a "simple" in one circumstance might not do so in another. He rejected the very idea that every explanation of the meaning of a term needed itself to be explained: "As though an explanation hung in the air unless supported by another one", claiming instead that explanation of a term is only needed when we need to avoid misunderstanding.
Locke and Mill also argued that we cannot define individuals. We learn names by connecting an idea with a sound, so that speaker and hearer have the same idea when the same word is used. This is not possible when no one else is acquainted with the particular thing that has "fallen under our notice". Russell offered his theory of descriptions in part as a way of defining a proper name, the definition being given by a definite description that "picks out" exactly one individual. Saul Kripke pointed to difficulties with this approach, especially in relation to modality, in his book Naming and Necessity.
There is a presumption in the classic example of a definition that the definiens can be stated. Wittgenstein argued that for some terms this is not the case. The examples he used include game, number and family. In such cases, he argued, there is no fixed boundary that can be used to provide a definition. Rather, the items are grouped together because of a family resemblance. For terms such as these it is not possible to state a definition; rather, one simply comes to understand the use of the term.
(from Wikipedia)
Given that a natural language such as English contains, at any given time, a finite number of words, any comprehensive list of definitions must either be circular or leave some terms undefined. If every term of every definiens must itself be defined, where should we stop?[10] A dictionary, for instance, in so far as it is a comprehensive list of lexical definitions, must resort to circularity.
Many philosophers have chosen instead to leave some terms undefined. The scholastic philosophers claimed that the highest genera (the so-called ten generalissima) cannot be defined, since we cannot assign any higher genus under which they may fall. Thus we cannot define being, unity and similar concepts. Locke supposes in An Essay Concerning Human Understanding that the names of simple concepts do not admit of any definition. More recently Bertrand Russell sought to develop a formal language based on logical atoms. Other philosophers, notably Wittgenstein, rejected the need for any undefined simples. Wittgenstein pointed out in his Philosophical Investigations that what counts as a "simple" in one circumstance might not do so in another. He rejected the very idea that every explanation of the meaning of a term needed itself to be explained: "As though an explanation hung in the air unless supported by another one", claiming instead that explanation of a term is only needed when we need to avoid misunderstanding.
Locke and Mill also argued that we cannot define individuals. We learn names by connecting an idea with a sound, so that speaker and hearer have the same idea when the same word is used. This is not possible when no one else is acquainted with the particular thing that has "fallen under our notice". Russell offered his theory of descriptions in part as a way of defining a proper name, the definition being given by a definite description that "picks out" exactly one individual. Saul Kripke pointed to difficulties with this approach, especially in relation to modality, in his book Naming and Necessity.
There is a presumption in the classic example of a definition that the definiens can be stated. Wittgenstein argued that for some terms this is not the case. The examples he used include game, number and family. In such cases, he argued, there is no fixed boundary that can be used to provide a definition. Rather, the items are grouped together because of a family resemblance. For terms such as these it is not possible to state a definition; rather, one simply comes to understand the use of the term.
(from Wikipedia)
Saturday, May 19, 2007
ejb3
Saturday, March 17, 2007
long list of mobile games
Here is the long list of mobile games. You can search games for a specific model. Though it is in German, you still can go through all the screenshots.
mobilnew.a1.net/j2medc/frameset.htm
mobilnew.a1.net/j2medc/frameset.htm
Thursday, March 01, 2007
Comics and Animation Festival in Beijing
http://games.tom.com/2007-01-30/00G5/08056525.html
http://www.pcgames.com.cn/cartoon/news/guoneinews/0702/860631.html
http://fabu.beareyes.com.cn/2/lib/200702/13/20070213007.htm
http://www.cinic.org.cn/HTML/2006/hybxw/20072258196.html
http://www.mofcom.gov.cn/aarticle/a/200702/20070204379624.html
http://news.xinhuanet.com/fortune/2007-02/12/content_5732233.htm
http://news.qq.com/a/20070213/00
http://www.pcgames.com.cn/cartoon/news/guoneinews/0702/860631.html
http://fabu.beareyes.com.cn/2/lib/200702/13/20070213007.htm
http://www.cinic.org.cn/HTML/2006/hybxw/20072258196.html
http://www.mofcom.gov.cn/aarticle/a/200702/20070204379624.html
http://news.xinhuanet.com/fortune/2007-02/12/content_5732233.htm
http://news.qq.com/a/20070213/00
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Values of Games to Teenagers
Children love games. Teenagers love games. Video games, console games and online games give us the great experience on visual effects and interaction beyond our imagination. That's why the teenagers are fascinated by them. However, the human communication is lacked in those games. Sometimes, the illusion presented in these games may alter children concepts and values especially when they have not yet developed their own value system. The teenagers may see bloodshed in the uncensored games. They may get used to it. They may not take lives serious.
In fact, the healthy games should encourage human interaction and challenges. They should train up players' mind-body coordination, brain power, communication skills, etc. Thus players can be self-developed.
As what we can see, sport activities are encouraged in schools of United States. Basket ball, football, hockey, golf catch teenagers' eyes. The players can learn team spirit through the games. They understand that it does not matter to win or lose. Only friendship and personal development is what they gain.
In Hong Kong, sports is just sports. Game is game. Sports is for physical training. Game is for leisure only. The values of sports and games could not be quite understood. It requires much more effort for Hong Kong to cultivate the sports and gaming culture.
In fact, the healthy games should encourage human interaction and challenges. They should train up players' mind-body coordination, brain power, communication skills, etc. Thus players can be self-developed.
As what we can see, sport activities are encouraged in schools of United States. Basket ball, football, hockey, golf catch teenagers' eyes. The players can learn team spirit through the games. They understand that it does not matter to win or lose. Only friendship and personal development is what they gain.
In Hong Kong, sports is just sports. Game is game. Sports is for physical training. Game is for leisure only. The values of sports and games could not be quite understood. It requires much more effort for Hong Kong to cultivate the sports and gaming culture.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)