Originally posted by Class A Although Einstein thought along the same lines ("
God doesn't play dice"), according to modern quantum physics chance is very real microscopic levels. It is all about probabilities when things get really small.
Indeed - and in a large enough system, such as the probability that one is born with opportunity, chance (the probability of one datum occurring being so small as to have insignificant predictability) is real. But I'm not sure that, in 1975, we knew about quantum mechanics - and I'm certain I didn't. Although math, physics and logic at some point conflate, I was studying math, not physics.
The topic had been whether we had a right to be drinking beer in the basement of a fraternity house in 1975 (at our parents' considerable expense) when the economy was in such a sucky state and so many people were unemployed or living on the streets.
As I recall my argument, circumstances are just some of the inputs - but work and decisions are more determinate of outcomes over a lifetime than the chance of birth. I suggested, in fact, that history is full of examples of people who overcame chance obstacles.
We also discussed whether scoring life by counting money was ITSELF the problem.
Understand that I studied a LOT more than the others in the room that night. I (infuriatingly to some) suggested that the nature of man is to live in an ordered meritocracy, and the monochromatic comments came from people who may have felt some discomfort with prior decisions they had made regarding when they got out of bed.
Although the macroscopic world works quite differently, for anything interesting there cannot be any predetermination. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle excludes the possibility to measure the input to a sufficient degree.
So are you saying (as would Hawthorne) that the mere act of taking a photo (observing by measuring the electro-chemical effects photons produce when striking the sensor medium) renders the photograph an untrue depiction of the state of the subject at that moment?
Because, you see, my hypothesis suggests that you can INFER the input (the qualities of the photographer) by observing the quality of the output (the photograph), given that thee properties of the physical systems are K (film, glass and body).
Its not the camera.
But I'll shoot Pentax, just in case.
I communicate to this day with all the people in that room. I am the LEAST successful, by the traditional American measure of success, of the bunch.
And I STILL have less hair!!
We could do quantum mechanics (well,YOU could do quantum mechanics), or we could do
The Consolation of Boetheus by internet exchange, but then we could just go take some pictures.
What's it gonna be?