Michigan State University students had an unconventional math class this week after professor John McCarthy, 57, reportedly stripped naked in Calculus 1 class and began screaming that “there is no f—ing God” and “It’s all an act and none of it’s real.” In the age of laptop computers, the most surprising thing is that the students noticed and looked up from their computers. Presumably one student asked the standard question of “will this be on the test?”
Witnesses said that McCarthy was going through a routine derivative equation when he started to talk about his colleagues and how “they’re all actors.” He added that “It’s all an act and none of it’s real.”
McCarthy was arrested but not actually charged with a crime. He can certainly be charged with indecent exposure but I hope that he is not and that the police show a modicum of discretion. He obviously had a psychological meltdown. Brilliance sometimes comes with such mental issues as vividly shown in movies like “A Beautiful Mind.”
I would also hope that the faculty treats this matter as a mental illness and allows McCarthy to seek treatment rather than simply fire him. I realize it will be difficult for him to return to the classroom, but we need to treat mental illness like other forms of illness. Thus far the school has merely reassigned his classes. I expect that he is unlikely to return to teaching but in my view the school should treat this matter as an illness rather than misconduct. What do you think?
Source: NY Daily News
@Mike S – Yes Alan Turing was an amazing man. They still use his test on robots and A.I. gadgets I think. I was astonished to hear about his sexual-preference (for lack of a better term). Just as astonished when I found out the same thing about Aristotle and Plato. I’m not homophobic but but I find it strange how someone’s private bedroom behavior is relevant or pertinent to their personal achievements.
Just saw a recently declassified video on our early WW2 computer efforts too. It involved women R&D’ing and punching in weapons aiming codes into the early EINIAC. We used those codes for Norton Bomb Sight, and field cannons, etc.
@Tony C – I think Dr. Spindell and myself (et al here) appreciate your POV on physics and spirituality. However, you must be careful how you approach the subject matter. IMO Mike and myself are NOT totally in tune with fundamentalist organized religion. Your take on “spirituality” has the ‘taint’ of their concept of it which ostensibly is quite inaccurate IMHO.
Your type of thinking always makes me introspective on how I perceive atheistic thinking and it’s causality in other humans. I can only come to one conclusion: that in their earlier formative years, their environment was negatively impacted by Fundamentalist religious beliefs either forced upon them or otherwise inculcated into their understanding of spirituality and the arguable existence of a grand unifying meta-physical creator deity – aka God. BUT I must admit I give you a high-five on String Theory cul-de-sacs and other physics quasi-mythologies (LOL).
Now as my Turley-friends here already know, I have no wish to debate this particular subject so I will step away from this now. I made my POV known now and wish to just leave it at that. Feel free to debate with others if you choose. I’ll sit back and observe until I have something useful to say.
@Mike S – As usual I agree with what you said about Bond. If you want to see something really close (90%) to reality watch Syriana (2005) with George Clooney. It’s LOOSELY based on a real CIA (noc – non-official cover) Case Officer Robert “Bob” Booker Baer ( http://tinyurl.com/Bobby-Baer ). However, he was never killed by a MQ1 (Predator) hell fire missile nor were his fingernails pulled out by a terrorist.
@Malisha – Hey baby girl! What a way to come home to roost huh? In a naked Professor’s thread? (LOL) Got tired of “our boy” in the other thread and probably won’t get re-fired up until his trial in 2013.
HenMan, well said. I also “don’t know art” but I know what I don’t like.
I must compliment Prof Turley for finding an impressionist painting to use at the top of this story, rather than a photograph. It’s much more tasteful, considering the sad story told here. (And I don’t mean the Presidential debate- that was sad on an entirely different level.)
Tony C — magnets have the feel of spirituality.
@Mike: I don’t see how its possible to not realize that taken to the end of possibilities, Physics can abut upon the spiritual implications.
I think the answer to that is simple, that many physicists and scientists (like myself) do not believe in spirits. I think the more you learn about physics and neural biology, the less you believe there is any magic going on in there.
If you cannot test something, that means you cannot explain what it is you want to see. What would you like to see a photon do that would represent “spirituality” to you? When we look at the standard model, we see particles interacting with particles, we see fields, we do not see anything that qualifies as a “spirit.”
We do not test it or suggest it because there is nothing there but a feeling, there is not a definition. What you see as inevitable, we see as impossible.
Eleven dimensions (which I do not believe in, because I dismiss string theory as a wrong turn into a cul-de-sac) means nothing to spirituality, just because it is mysterious or unimaginable does not mean those are anything but empty boxes, and it does not mean those empty boxes can be occupied by anything.
Multiple universes would mean nothing to spirituality either, in fact they would somewhat rob us of free will, since for every decision you could have made you did make all of them, in some alternative universe or another, and therefore the person you think of as “you” in the current universe is just a product of billions of blind coin flips; whether that turned out lucky for you, or unlucky for you.
Neither quantum theory or String theory or the other exotic physics (like LQG) offers any route to magic; they are all trying to explain and reconcile, exclusively, what HAS BEEN seen.
“many physicists and scientists (like myself) do not believe in spirits”
Tony,
So by what I’ve written you think I believe in spirits? There is far more texture in the term spirituality than the idea of the existence of spirits. I’ ve mentioned before that I am a Deist, which merely means I think there is some sort of creative force organizing the Universe. I’ ve also clearly stated that at present I don’t think any human is capable of undrstanding its nature.
At the same time I don’t preclude that the Universe and its inhabitants are nothing more than the product of random events. Yet there is no dichotomy there, because no one, let me emphasize: NO ONE knows the truth of the matter. Of course many, such as you and I have our opinions. You as an Atheist and I as a Deist.
The reality is that you can’t prove my opinion wrong, you can just say it has no proof at all in its favor. By the same token you have no proof that there isn’t a creative force at play in the Universe, you just haven’t seen any evidence that would lead you to think that one exists.
Riddle me this though. It seems to me that science by its nature should be open to all manner of possibilties. When Einstein developed his theory of relativity, did he have any idea of the idea of Quantum Physics? All scientists should at least hold open possibilities regardless of how improbable they might seem at the time. You confuse the rather narrow and restrictive ideas of organized religion, with the sense of wonder that a human can feel about the awe inspiring possibilities of the Universe and the nature of what orders it. I don’t know what it all is really about and neither do you.
This is what I saw.
http://editorialcartoonists.com/cartoons/HorseD/2012/HorseD20121004_low.jpg
It’s great how this thread discusses science fiction and the debate (a form of social fiction) at the same time. It’s as if the muliverse exists in the same spacetime right here on this thread.
Sorry I missed all the responses; I was busy. With calculus!
The reason I am doubtful of “business calculus” is that, in my experience, business problems are human problems. The closest we come to advanced math is optimization problems; like with the simplex method, but that is not really calculus, and if it is needed, software is bought or experts are contracted.
Business numbers (sales, costs, etc) are “squishy” and idiosyncratic to particular situations, markets, economic conditions, labor and supply conditions. They always will be, and that makes statistics (beyond the normal distribution) the math of choice for high business.
The beauty (and problem) with calculus is that it gives exact solutions, and fails when exact solutions are not available. But exact solutions presume exact inputs, and exact inputs are usually not available. Also, an exact solution to approximate inputs is usually not robust at all.
‘Robustness’ is a technical term here, not just an adjective: It is a measure of how much a solution will change in response to wild outliers, data errors (or noise) or additional data. If one is computing parameters to functions, and a 5% change to some parameter changes an answer by 25%, or removing 5% of the data perturbs the parameters by 25%, the solution is not robust.
IMO most of business is an exercise in managing risk and playing the odds; and a clear applied understanding of a handful of important distributions would be more useful than calculus.
Calculus has value in how it informs statistics. But I think if I were to choose a math to teach business people, it would be Robust Statistics, because it provides knowledge of a tool that is actually useful in everyday business, and in teaching it we could highlight many of the shortcomings of standard statistics.
I think both of those ideas are useful posters to keep on the wall of the business mind.
Mike S:
“as for Bond it has to be Connery, but I find Craig a close second. Moore was detestable, even Lszenby was better. The other two were mediocre at best.”
Yep and Craig is a very close second.
If you like Pierce Brosnan, you need to see his rarely aired and under appreciated turn in John McTiernan’s Nomads. A suspense/horror movie made while he was still on RS and before McTiernan went on to direct Predator, Die Hard, The Hunt for Red October and the re-make of The Thomas Crown Affair. It’s so good I can almost forgive McTiernan for what he did in re-making Norman Jewison’s 1975 classic of dystopian science fiction Rollerball in 2002.
Almost.
sotb
don’t know. on the title page it says in small print “Original title star man’s son”. copyright 1952 but doesn’t specify which printing
Slartibartfast – I think I saw the original Thomas Crown Affair (1968) with Steve McQueen but I don’t remember it. The 1999 version ended in a great money scam which is pretty much standard-faire in the spy vs. spy world today. Like the spy reports to HQ that he recovered $5,000,000 USD from the assassinated dictator’s mansion’s safe. But his rookie-partner whispers: “Wait Joe didn’t we find $6,000,000”? “STFU Harry!!!”
I really loved Peter Falk in The IN-LAWS (1979). I really miss him…
Want to write a book? My uncorrected vision isn’t good enough.
pete9999 – did they change the title for the paperback version? Could be worth $200 USD from the right buyer.
pete,
I read far too much Heinlein at an impressionable age…
SotB,
The remake of the Thomas Crown Affair was great! I liked him as Remington Steele, too—I think he earned his time as Bond and acquitted himself well in the role.
Slartibartfast,
Oh yes I really believe in those rubber masks. Case in point is that US NAVY Seal CBS interview with Scott Pelley a few weeks ago? Remember the Seals that killed UBL at Abbotabad Pakistan? Well this ex-seal (Mark Owen – not real name) was wearing one in the interview. It covered just the top of his face but his eyes, chin, and mouth were his. The hair, forehead, nose, and cheeks were totally fake. He admitted to it and Scott said so before the show.
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7419892n
sotb
my copy of the book title is “daybreak 2250a.d.” must have had it since my early teens.
doc slarti
two authors i’ve never traded back at used bookstores, larry niven and robert heinlein.
Mike,
Yes Dr. Michio Kaku is very interesting. However, I’m having difficulty in following his line of reasoning on UFO’s and E.T. Not familiar with Zukov.
Yes Ian Fleming was a real spook in WW2. They had some really amazing gadgets back in the OSS days too*. Yes I like Connery and Craig too. Moore was a ham. I liked Dalton too. However, Brosnan is amazing. I like him the Tailor of Panama and the Thomas Crown Affair. I also share his disdain for the US NAVY’s new sonar device (LFAS) which harms whales and dolphins.
Remember that torture scene with Craig naked in the open-bottom cane-wicker chair and the guy with that whip ‘thing’ in Casino Royale (2006)? OMG! OUCH!!! How does a urological surgeon fix that?
*The Brits had the top-secret first electronic computer during WW2 (Colossus) that broke the NAZI Enigma Machine encrypted transmissions at Bletchley Park by Alan Turing. A lot of people are not aware of this. They think the 1st electronic computer was the American’s ENIAC (Caine spelled backwards).
“The Brits had the top-secret first electronic computer during WW2 (Colossus) that broke the NAZI Enigma Machine encrypted transmissions at Bletchley Park by Alan Turing. A lot of people are not aware of this. They think the 1st electronic computer was the American’s ENIAC (Caine spelled backwards).”
SoTB,
I first learned of the Brits “Turing Machine” from the SciFi Cyberpunk book
“Cryptonomicon” by Neal Stephenson. One of the main story-lines in this great book was the “Bletchley Park” code-breaking work, with Turing as the main character.
Gary Zukov wrote “The Dancing Wu Li Masters” in 1979, which one physicist: “David Bohm, renowned Quantum physicist, wrote a personal endorsement provided to the book’s publisher Harper Collins: “Recommended highly for those who want to understand the essential significance of modern physics, and for those who are concerned with its implications for possible transformation of human consciousness.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Zukav . Zukav introduced me to the wonderousness of Physics and how it opens up many questions about our lives and the Universe.
I first became interested in Physics in 1975 when I read Capra’s “The Tao of Physics” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tao_of_Physics . Both Capra and later Zukav took their understanding of Physics and wove it into a spiritual framework. I included the wikilinks so you could see that their ideas are not universally welcomed in the field. Though I’m far from erudite in the subject, I can see that the modern conceptions of Physics can have spiritual implications that I think scientists avoid, because they probably can’t be tested through experimentation. AS a layman though, with a layman’s understanding of Quantum Physics and “string theory” I don’t see how its possible to not realize that taken to the end of possibilities, Physics can abut upon the spiritual implications. What for instance does the concept of 11 dimensions have upon our conception of reality?
Dalton and Brosnan are fine actors, but since my conception of Bond comes first from the written word, neither of them fit in with that conception.
This is possibly because the writing and direction were less than adequate.
To me all fictional spy stories are tragedies at base. Le Carre and Deighton were also masters of the genre. Someone risking their lives to meet the needs of foreign policy and bureaucracy that in the end see them as expendable to some “greater cause”. What I appreciated so much about the show “24” for instance, was that forgetting the illegal, right wing conception of heroism portrayed, its essence was that Jack Bauer was a tragic figure whose life was constantly being destroyed by his sense of duty. What gets missed in many of the Bond movies is the tragedy of it all, that gets sublimated into gadgetry and macho. As for Craig’s torture scene, the less said about that, the better. 🙂
SotB,
There was a Mythbusters on the MI masks (they made Jamie an “Adam” mask and vice versa). In tests with strangers (who had seen the show) they twigged to the voices before they were close enough to see anything wrong with the masks and in tests with Kari and Grant (and no talking), Kari, at least, had to get very close (10 feet?) before she realized that it wasn’t Jamie and Grant wasn’t a whole lot better IDing “Adam” (there was a cover experiment that Kari and Grant thought was going on).