Re: Effectuationism and Value
From: Peter Kinane (pkinane_at_iol.ie)
Date: 06/23/04
- Next message: Peter Kinane: "Re: Effectuationism and Value"
- Previous message: Peter Kinane: "Re: Effectuationism and Value"
- In reply to: Bill Hobba: "Re: Effectuationism and Value"
- Next in thread: Bill Hobba: "Re: Effectuationism and Value"
- Reply: Bill Hobba: "Re: Effectuationism and Value"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 23 Jun 2004 05:58:38 -0700
"Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message news:UL4Cc.50330$sj4.43522@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> "Peter Kinane" <pkinane@iol.ie> wrote in message
> news:d8097fcc.0406220426.6f25f2c8@posting.google.com...
> > "Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message
> news:3fPBc.49123$sj4.22743@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> > >
> > > "Peter Kinane" <pkinane@iol.ie> wrote in message
> > > news:d8097fcc.0406211527.6ff021e2@posting.google.com...
> >
> > > > "Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message
> > > news:7nJBc.48795$sj4.29869@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> > > >
> > > > > Now what makes you think our knowledge of relativity has not moved
> on
> > > since
> > > > > then? Modern treatments now recognize that relativity really has
> > > nothing to
> > > > > do with light (eg see Rindler - Introduction to Relativity). I
> suggest
> > > > > instead of giving quotes and/or links along the lines of outdated
> > > > > popularizations you actually address the following paper
> > > > > http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0110076. I am happy to discuss that
> paper
> > > but
> > > > > not quotes form outdated popularizations.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I've had a look at it. It really does not matter (to me) in which
> > > > system the principle of invariance is employed; the concept of
> > > > invariance strikes (with) me as nonsensical,
> > >
> > > So how a principle strikes you is important rather than its experimental
> > > support?
> >
> > Bill, you, and Bilge, and I dare say any 'Objectivists' and other
> > versions of Categoricalists that are around, gotta try to get over the
> > notion of "experimental support";
>
> This is a science not a philosophy forum. Science is defined as: 'The
> observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and
> theoretical explanation of phenomena.'.
Are you saying that your world is static or inertial; that definitions
do not eveolve?
Now unless you wish to redefine the
> English language I suggest you either accept what science is or post on a
> philosophy forum where such issues are discussed.
Let's go with the former.
>
> > I do not say that Einstein's, and
> > all, system do not work I say that his system features contortion
> > corrected through convolution - thereby allowing it to work; to meet
> > this silly notion of, shall we say, competence through "experimental
> > support".
>
> I say that in science correspondence with expriment is all that counts -
> your prattling about contortion notwithsatninig.
>
> >
> > (BTW it is the Principle of Relativity - not invariance - that is
> > > something a little different).
> >
> > I was referring to the point in the link you recommended:
> > "Status of the invariance of the speed of light is reduced from a
> > foundation of the Special Theory of Relativity to just a property
> > which allows to determine a value of the physical constant".
>
> Then you should have made your context explicit by saying the invariance of
> the speed of light. In relativity, just like a lot of words in the English
> language, invariance has other meanings as well depending on context eg the
> invariance of the form of equations or the invariance of the laws of
> physics.
>
> >
> > The validity of a principle has nothing to
> > > do if you think it is nonsensical - it has to with exactly how it is in
> > > accord with experiment. Now do you have any comment on that count - or
> will
> > > you simply keep maintaining it is nonsensical based on how it strikes
> you?
> >
> > See above.
>
> Pointing out the context of a word you used is not addressing the issue of
> correspondence with experiment.
I believe I said something about it being a "silly notion".
Speaking of contortion in another thread
> you stated: 'Effectuationism being a holistic system, such event is a
> feature of oneself and can be regarded as somewhat first person.' and
> 'Inferentially, indefinite and dynamic relational force value effects
> multi-facetedly.' I put it to you that any reasonable person reading this
> will recognize such statements as philosophically contorted mumbo jumbo of
Most would. I take it as a measure (I do not mean to offend, but you
did ask) of how intellectually reflexive they are.
> the first order. Science is not concerned with such - correspondence with
> experiment is all that counts.
>
> >
> > >
> > > > and any system which
> > > > featured it would have to be very contorted. (By "invariance" I
> > > > presume we mean that the speed of a body, or of a specific phenomenon
> > > > such as light, is the same regardless of the frame of reference by
> > > > which it is measured - the relationship through which it - the speed -
> > > > effects?)
> > >
> > > It is obvious you have not made a reasonable attempt to understand the
> > > paper.
> >
> > It seems you misunderstood what I was referring to - see above.
> > (Perhaps I did not specify very clearly).
>
> It seems to me, other that stating you think relativity is contorted, your
> not saying anything at all.
When one starts opening up any concept, perhaps you will agree, that
it quickly becomes very indefinite - and so the difficulty in saying
anything at all (about it).
>
> >
> > The Principle of Relativity says that the laws of physics are the
> > > same in all inertial reference frames or equivalently the same
> experiment
> > > conducted in any inertial frame will give the same results.
> >
> > I think it needs to be clearer about which laws it has shown to be so.
>
> For the experimental basis see
> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html. Also
> you may not realize it but Classical mechanics is also based on this
> principle (see Landau - Mechanics). Due to the interconnectedness of
> physics we would be in deep trouble if it was true for a fundamental subject
> like mechanics and not true generally. This is one of the key things
> Einstein realized.
>
> > Also, as I said in the thread to xxein, all this POR stuff should be
> > dealt with in one sentence:
> > news:d8097fcc.0406220424.9707d07@posting.google.com...
>
> >
> > All one has to do is _recognise the principle_ that inferentially the
> > effects through relational indefinite and dynamic forces are
> > multi-faceted, and one is done with it. One does not make a big deal
> > of it like Einstein and neo-Einsteinians do and start jumping FORs and
> > mathematizing it so that two FORs are featuring and one is converted
> > into the other. This is contortion corrected through convolution -
> > much as you say in your paragraph above.
>
> You talk about relativity having convoluted reasoning? I am an educated
> person and I can see nothing in the above but philosophical mumbo jumbo.
> You wish to ignore a consequence of a theory because you 'do not want to
> make a big deal of it'.
With respect, the only measure of a theory is through its relationship
with alternatives.
This is the basis of science is it? - choosing what
> to accept and what to ignore in a theory? As I said before, learn something
> of the scientific method, try to purge yourself of philosophical mumbo jumbo
> and you may be able to make progress.
>
> >
> > What one does, having recognised the principal and thereby 'gotten'
> > done with it is to settle on FOR and get on with the business - it is
> > in effect what Einstein does anyway by, as I said, "mathematizing it
> > so that two FORs are featuring and one is converted into the other".
>
> Since the laws of physics are the same in any inertial FOR how does one
What "same" is that? ("[t]he same experiment done in any inertial
frame will yield the same result": How "same" is "same"?)
> choose this FOR to settle on other that to arbitrarily say this is my chosen
> FOR? And having done that exactly what effect will it have on the laws of
> physics?
Different selections- -choices will eventually collide and some of
them will not remain 'standing'.
It will in no way change the logical consequence which is that the
> same experiment done in any inertial frame will yield the same result.
See above.
> This is the principle that in invoked in deriving the Lorentz
> transformations and arbitrarily choosing a FOR will not change that.
>
> > The better way to get on with the business, having settled on a FOR is
> > through the premises in my model - Einstein starts off with a primal
> > (non)sense premises,
>
> Calling premises nonsense does not make it nonsense. For that to be so you
> would need to show some logical flaw. It is mathematically proveable (ie a
> theorem so it is beyond dispute) that SR is as logically consistent as
> Euclidian geometry so your statement above is obviously without any
> foundation.
This is where we move to the other end of Einsteins system - see the
latter thread.
>
> > develops a contortion and consequently goes on to
> > develop- -employ all kinds of concepts that would not otherwise effect
> > - it is a bit like effecting the concept of going over the edge of the
> > world through the premise of a flat earth. So, one has got to clear
> > one's mind of his principles and system _completely_ and start over
> > again. Happily the new system consists of just a few sentences - with
> > all of Einstein's stuff dealt with in the one sentence of mine quoted
> > above. Getting rid of the notion - a la Bill and Bilge - of empirical
> > proof is half the battle.
>
> Please detail the logical problem with SR? Since it is as logically
> consistent as Euclidean geometry such would be equivalent to showing an
> inconsistency in Euclidian geometry; a very great feat indeed, a feat the
> greatest of mathematicians have never been able to accomplish.
>
> > *
> >
> > And invariance
> > > means nothing like what you think it does - it means the equations of
> > > physics should be written in a form that is the same in all inertial
> > > reference frames - it really is a heuristic rather than an actual law
> that
> > > can be put to the test like the POR.
> >
> > I believe that is quite close to what I understand, and my position is
> > that it should not even arise.
>
> You said 'By "invariance" I presume we mean that the speed of a body, or of
> a specific phenomenon such as light, is the same regardless of the frame of
> reference by which it is measured - the relationship through which it - the
> speed - effects?)' Invariance, like so many words in the English language,
> gains its meaning through context eg the invariance of the equations of
> physics or the invariance of the laws of physics - nothing to do with the
> velocity of anything unless the context specifically says it does eg the
> invariance of the speed of light.
The point _is_ about the invarience of the speed of light.
Notice there is no law of physics that
> says all particles have the same velocity in all inertial frames - such of
> course would be nonsense as we everyday have experience that shows it is
> false.
But Einstein, in the popularising text, is proposing light to have the
same velocity in all inertial frames.
You seem a philopshicasl type dude so the following philosophical
> analysis of invariance may help
> http://www.bun.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~suchii/Einstein/generalcovar.html.
"(1) All bodies of reference K, K', etc., are equivalent for the
description of natural phenomena (formulations of the general laws of
nature), whatever may be their state of motion.": Bodies of reference
are party to the effect of natural phenomena. Change the body of
reference and the effect is different.
"(2) All Gaussian co-ordinate systems are essentially equivalent for
the formulation of the general laws of nature.": This still rests on,
excuse me, the nonsense of FOR jumping.
BTW, it
> should be obvious that your position counts for little - all that counts is
> correspondence with experiment.:
My position is that what counts is determined through relationship of
systems. So, I may want you to explore my model as much as I have
yours.
It should be sufficient to focus on just these lines - so how
difficult can that be?:
"So, all of xyz axes are readily implied. Let's
make them manifest as follows: a line passing through the centre of
each can be, shall we say, the y axis. A further line through the
centre of the earth in the direction of the earth's orbit and
perpendicular to the first can be the x axis and through these data
the height dimension z can be produced.
Through continuity of the process, and through selection of a
preferred point in that event and its use in relationship with other
events effects the t time frame- -axis'.
Effectuationism being a holistic system, such event is a feature of
oneself and can be regarded as somewhat first person".
So, what is the problem with selecting a FOR, recognising that value
is multi-faceted, and getting on with business - selection of the
fittest will take care of contorted and convoluted models?
Now if you wish to doubt the POR - the laws
> of physics are he same in all inertial reference frames - simply detail the
> experiment that shows they are different. If you can not do that then all
> you are doing is trying to mould the world into your chosen philosophical
> position rather than accepting what experiment tells us.
Back to the end of his system, and unfortunately this may be a dated
version of same:
news:d8097fcc.0406221303.31c785a@posting.google.com... Edited:
"How are we to find the place and time of an event in relation to the
train, when we know the place and time of the event with respect to
the railway embankment?":
[]
"A light-signal is sent along the positive x-axis, and this
light-stimulus advances in accordance with the equation
x = ct,
i.e. with the velocity c. According to the equations of the Lorentz
transformation, this simple relation between x and t involves a
relation between x' and t'. In point of fact, if we substitute for x
the value ct []".
I am not quite sure of precisely what convolution he employs, but it
seems very odd to equate the x axis with the moving ray of light. When
I say odd, I mean to relate part of the FOR with time ... rather
absurd. To go on and substitute for part of the FOR with the moving
light .. well, my math. is not up to seeing what he does, but ...
perhaps he also substitues for x' the same moving light and that this
in some way eliminates the differences between the FORs and gets him
back where he should have been from the start with just one selected
FOR and an extremely different system.
But does if he thinks this is "a relation between place and time of
the individual
events relative to both reference-bodies" then ...
-- Peter Kinane http://www.effectuationism.com/
- Next message: Peter Kinane: "Re: Effectuationism and Value"
- Previous message: Peter Kinane: "Re: Effectuationism and Value"
- In reply to: Bill Hobba: "Re: Effectuationism and Value"
- Next in thread: Bill Hobba: "Re: Effectuationism and Value"
- Reply: Bill Hobba: "Re: Effectuationism and Value"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
