The after blessing

בורא נפשות רבות וחסרונן על כל מה שברא להחיות בהן נפש כל חי ברוך אתה השם חי העולמים

חי is with a Tzerei 
נפש is feminine. Therefore the endings have to fit. Not "בהם"  and not "וחסרונם."

And there is no such thing as a bracha that simply ends baruch etc without a name of Hashem as the Gra noted. Then the end has to be like the Yerushalmi. 

Computer models

Avraham: Computer models are only as good as the assumptions they are built on which are often wrong, and often leave out external factors which are more important, and they depend on expansions which miss infinities.
For example see this lecture by Arthur Mattuck concerning y'=y^2. What ever the computer does it will not find the singularity.
{I should mention that all I really know about computer modeling is based on a few books, one was Numerical analysis that dealt in detail with the Runge Kutta method  that I read through about four times I think.But the books that deal with how to program computers do not usually deal with the above mentioned problem by Arthur  Mattuck that the computer can be mislead when trying to graph a ODE.]
In fact come to think of it, I do not think I ever saw any book on computer modeling that mentions this problem.

Reference Frame:

But they are also often - and maybe predominantly - demonstrably right, accurate, if not downright ingenious, and - especially - more accurate than predictions made without any models. This is an essential point that you, like O'Neill, try to obscure.
I didn't understand what this topic has to do with "infinities".

Avraham:
I meant the Taylor expansions or Numerical method. The computer will miss infinities as you go from point to close point unless by accident the computer happens to land on the infinity itself. So all I am saying is that when the computer shows a nice smooth line the reality might be that between those two points the graph goes to infinity. That is is all I meant.

In relation to this I think Catastrophe theory might be able to dig up those infinities, but I am not sure about that.
_______________________________________________________________________________


Computer models are used everywhere and are used to defend crazy stuff. Sometimes 9/11 conspiracies sometimes global warming the list is unlimited. Here is another comment I wrote:The Reference Frame mentioned this and also Steven Dutch. My own feeling about this I wrote in a comment on the Reference Frame. My comment was to the effect that after the first few floors of a building people depend on Finite Element Theory which is great approximation but not exact. To really understand what is going on after the first few floors you need Catastrophe Theory.

How can I put this? A lot of what goes on is dependent on computer modeling which is complete depends on the assumptions you start with which often is complete absurdity. So many papers start out with “We have found…” when in fact they found out nothing at all. They mean their computer model found ….

And even if their model somehow represents reality in some way which it usually does not anyway they always depends on expansions–which can miss infinities unless you expand at the exact point where the infinity is found.

Let me try to find the links I mentioned:

http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/911NutPhysics.HTM

http://motls.blogspot.com/2016/09/europhys-news-911-saw-controlled.html

Last thought. BYU is the same place that thought they came up with cold fusion with an amazingly sloppy chemistry set. I see no reason to pay attention to them.

knowing "how to learn"

It occurred to me that knowing "how to learn" is not complicated concept. It simply means "Don't skim." That is:- there is a time to skim, and that is the second seder, the afternoon session. But skimming is not knowing how to learn. Mainly knowing how to learn  means to learn Tosphot and to understand what he is saying.
It definitely does not mean to look up the Mahrasha or any rishonim or achronim or the Tur, Beit Joseph. Looking up these things is perhaps worthy and good,-- but it is not "knowing how to learn" which is to learn and understand the Gemara and Tosphot on the page.  For that reason it is the custom in any decent yeshiva to spend about a week or two on every page of Gemara because that is about how long it takes to get even the simple idea of what is going on on the page.

(Looking up achronim or rishonim is the equivalent of freshman learning.)

Knowing how to learn is what all rishonim [authorities of the Middle Ages] and achronim [authorities after and including Rav Yoseph Karo] thought people were already doing when they wrote their books. But now this essential thing is skipped and no one notices because people that teach Torah are mainly from the Sitra Achra and are not teaching Torah from the realm of holiness.

A few thoughts about STEM and the Chafetz Chaim

A few thoughts about STEM and the Chafetz Chaim

1) As far as STEM goes a computer major is probably well on  the way of taking care of the obligation to learn the "work of Creation"

 Rav Zilverman the Rosh Yeshiva of Aderet Eliyahu in the old city of Jerusalem told me once that learning engineering (electrical or other types) can be considered as a part of what the Rambam calls "the work of creation."

2) The Sefer the Chafetz Chaim is important to learn and to keep. I think I finished it at least once with the notes at the bottom of the page. -but probably not more than once.

At one point I believe I tried to get through every single book the Chafetz Chaim had written and probably got through a lot.

3)  I am in fact very impressed with Kant though I did not have a chance to learn him in high school when I was doing my philosophical research.  I have to mention that Kant was saying something stronger than the fact that human beings have a limit to their knowledge. He was saying pure reason –reason totally abstracted away from people also has a limit where it can not venture and if it does it comes up with self contradictions.

4) Simcha  Zissel of Kelm. one of the disciples of Reb Israel Salanter.  held very strongly about this idea   to have sessions  in Torah that one does not deviate from at all.

diet and exercise.

My learning partner tends to focus on diet and he suggested a mixer and vegetables. He was not thrilled with fruit because of the Rambam ([Maimonides). [Maimonides thought only a small list of fruit is good like grapes and dates and a few others that I forgot. This makes sense because they are mainly sugar.]







It was not that he disagreed with exercise. Rather he was in a situation where it was not possible and so he focused on diet. He thinks every vegetable has some curative property. He might have mentioned beets to me, but if he did it was only in the general context of vegetables.

For me a mixer became impracticable. So I stick with a knife  and plain simple raw vegetables.
[A woman, (Natasha, in the Ukraine) mentioned beets with sour cream to me and I also found that beets with olive oil is good.]





He also mentioned many other things like  a raw egg. This was in fact how Jews used to have coffee or tea in Eastern Europe instead of cream. The raw egg tends to cancel out appetite for unhealthy food.

I might mention that I think people are too addicted to cooking. Not everything has to be cooked.
A girl, Barbara  from Germany mentioned to me a staple of her diet growing up was yogurt with raw oatmeal.

I should add that his basic approach comes down to what is known as the paleo diet,-but with an emphasis on green vegetables

Holocaust denial

There is a lot of Holocaust denial going around. I find this odd. My grandparents came over to the USA before World War II and so survived. But no one else in my family that was in Europe at the time did. My grandfather Yaakov had a brother Avraham with a wife and seven young children who were all murdered by the Nazis. That was not because of working too hard in  labor camp. 

Reform and Conservative are basically right [because of the most important aspects of Torah are Monotheism and בין אד לחבירו obligations between man and his fellow man].The general religious world has either zero fulfillment of obligations between man and his fellow man or at a level much lower than gentiles.

I have thought a lot about the proper path in life.

Maybe too much because after all I grew up in my parents home which was  an absolutely amazing experience. The love that was between my parents for each other and for us kids was palpable. You could almost touch it in the air.
Still I was interested in philosophical questions from about as early an age as I can remember.

We were mainly Reform Jews but obviously my parents had a lot more to them than the Reform secular doctrines.

So I got interested in what formed the basis of my parents home --that is the Oral and Written Law of Moses. [The Oral Law most people think of as the Talmud but there are actually a whole set of books that compromise the actual Oral tradition: two Talmuds, Tosephta, Sifra Sifrei and few others.]

But to defend this tradition in an intellectual way I have to rely on Kant . Maimonides and Saadia Gaon do provide some justification, but because of the onslaught of philosophy and also archaeology I found it necessary to provide for myself  a deeper justification.

Reform itself  got way too much into the "social justice" thing--which is just another word for socialism. The  religious generally follow con men and so are not following Torah at all, and make up rituals in order to seem like they are keeping Torah, and ignore the things the Torah really does require. The religious world is in general made up of mentally ill people.

So I am thinking that Reform and Conservative are basically right [because of the most important aspects of Torah are Monotheism and בין אד לחבירו obligations between man and his fellow man] but need more learning and keeping of of Torah but not like the people that make a show of religiosity to get money and power. The religious world -it's leaders are simply mad men. [That is all but the few pockets surrounding Litvak yeshivas where Torah is learned and practiced sincerely.] The general religious world has either zero fulfillment of obligations between man and his fellow man, or at a level much lower than gentiles. Honesty, working hard for a living, keeping your word, and general human decency are almost impossible to find in the religious world.


To defend the Torah, I however basically have to depend on the Rambam. That means that Torah is  to bring to objective morality. So in some way I use the Kant  school of thought imply to patch up the gaps.


Appendix. To prove that בין אד לחבירו obligations between man and his fellow man is the most important part of Torah you would need the basic set of Musar books of the disciples of Reb Israel Salanter. My first awareness of this really began my first year in Yeshiva when I was learning the Sefer HaChinuch. It was somewhat of  a shock to me to discover a lot of obligations between man and his fellow man are a major part of the Torah.

Israel Salanter tried to correct this flaw but with little success. The Musar movement itself became a kind of "frumkeit" religiosity. Not that this is desirable. The best thing is to keep all the Torah--obligations between man and his fellow man and between man and God. But if there is a choice one or the other obviously according to the Torah itself the obligations between man and his fellowman come first.

This of course goes entirely against the basic tenet of the religious that only they are kosher. To me it seems the truth is exactly the opposite.