Re: Regroup.
From: AllYou! (idaman_at_conversent.net)
Date: 12/08/04
- Next message: Dirk Van de moortel: "Re: What is your background in Physics?"
- Previous message: jahn: "Re: O'Barr 27 Nov 2004: Reasons for an ether."
- In reply to: reany_at_asu.edu: "Re: Regroup."
- Next in thread: Androcles: "Re: Regroup."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2004 14:19:49 -0500
<reany@asu.edu> wrote in message
news:1102531698.169414.93880@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> AllYou! wrote:
> > <reany@asu.edu> wrote in message
> > news:1102456434.436977.148030@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> [snip]
> > > > What do you mean by material? I'm not asking *who* gets to
> decide if
> > > something fits the
> > > > definition, if asking what your definition is?
> > >
> > > Material is whatever convention claims it is at any moment.
>
> This is a complete and valid definition, since I'm interested for the
> moment only in the logical relationships among these terms.
That's clearly a non-answer. You used the term in reply to a more substantive question
regarding your views on the notion of physicality. Your answer to that relied upon this
term and so you must have your own thoughts as to what *you* mean by it. This is
obfuscation at its best.
>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > And what is a measurement?
> > >
> > > A measurement is the assignment of a number to an event pair by a
> > > freely invented rule.
> > >
> > > > I know what I mean by a measurement and how valid it is
> > > > because my definition of what's physical,
> > >
> > > Great! Define measurement for us all.
>
> Why didn't you define measurement?
*You* are the one who uses this term as the basis for explaining your views on physicality
and so *you* must have an idea what it means. So how do *you* define what it means to
measure?
> > I accept, for the sake of argument if not more substantively than
> that, your position that
> > everything is an abstraction and a free invention of the human mind.
>
> Let's get it right: Everything in a theory is an abstraction and a free
> invention of the human mind. I do NOT claim that "everything is an
> abstraction."
Theories are not containers and as such, nothing is *in* them. So what do you mean by
*Everything in a theory*? do you mean every theory or every perception of what's
described in a theory or something else?
> > I cannot, not do I
> > even choose, to try to prove that I know what I know about anything.
> For all I know, I'm
> > like the character in the Matrix where a reality is being pumped into
> my brain and none of
> > what I think is real is real. For all I know, I'm imagining
> everything of what I
> > perceive. I've got that, I understand that, and I also understand
> that everything I think
> > is a free invention of my mind. I'll even go so far as to stipulate
> to the notion that
> > even that which I sense is a free invention of the mind. Please
> re-read all of that so
> > that we're clear on this point.
>
> I don't go that far. I am willing to believe that there is some
> "natural" sensation in the brain that results from stimuli, and that we
> are then free to formulate freely concepts, precepts, and theories to
> rationalize those concepts and precepts.
Good. But what do you mean by free? Must we use certain commonly accepted rules dictated
by logic and reasoning or are we free to formulate these despite that?
> > I'll now assume, at great peril to this post, that you understand
> what I just said and
> > that you won't quibble about it.
>
> I knew that we could finally reach a common ground!
Only because you cannot be trusted to be intellectually honest. I know we agree on that
as well.
[snip]
> post drivel which quibbles with much of it, but so be it. Now, to
> move forward, that part
> > that you don't get is that as a free invention, as an anarchist to
> science, I've banded
> > together with other anarchists to accept a set of narrow rules in
> order to facilitate a
> > curiosity I have.
[snip]
> > Although I do not assert anything as fact, for the sake of exploring
> > that which we believe, we've freely created a set of rules to explore
> that which we
> > believe we sense.
[snip]
> > So, first I've decided to make the assumption, just for the sake of
> exploration, that what
> > I sense is consistent and operates to a set of rules I call Nature,
> and then I assume that
> > there are other people and that some of them sense what I sense.
>
> First you said that science is rules; now you say that Nature is rules.
To go forward in science, I've assumed that what I sense operates by a set of rules and
then we've created a set of rules by which we will proceed to explore those rules. Why is
this so difficult for you? I assumed that you have a much larger intellectual capacity
than what you display here. I guess I was wrong.
> > Again, I claim nothing
> > about the reality of any of this. It's all just an assumption but
> one upon which I've
> > decided to proceed.
> >
> > Now, me and all of my imaginary friends, and that includes *everyone*
> (I'll just stipulate
> > that when I speak of others, they are those who I imagine and assume
> exist) who is willing
> > to engage in the same pursuit.
[snip]
> > That even includes you.
[snip]
> > We call this set of rules
> > science, and we developed a sub-set of rules we call physics.
[snip]
> > Because those rules were
> > developed upon those two assumptions, then any discussion of them,
> and implementation of
> > them, is also based upon those tow assumptions. IOW, I am free to
> invent anything in my
> > mind, and I've chosen to invent that perception of reality.
[snip]
> > So from here on in, whenever I discuss physics, I do so from that
> perspective and with
> > those who have done similarly. Included in that is the assumption
> that I have a
> > perception of receiving a whole host of sensory stimuli, and that
> there is a consistency
> > and predictability to all of it.
> >
> > Now, any further discussion with you on matters of physics must also
> include those basic
> > assumptions or we really have nothing more to discuss. It's fine to
> have discussions of
> > what those rules should be and where they've lead us, but if you
> ignore the assumptions,
> > then we've returned to pure fantasy and imagination and this is the
> wrong forum for any of
> > that.
>
> Even granting the existence of an objective world apart from human
> mind, there remains that truth to me that conceptions of what the world
> contains as "objects" and rules are not the same thing as the things
> and rules themselves, assuming that Nature has "rules."
>
> Assuming that Nature does have "rules," what is the relationship
> between Nature's rules and the laws of physics, if any?
See the above.
- Next message: Dirk Van de moortel: "Re: What is your background in Physics?"
- Previous message: jahn: "Re: O'Barr 27 Nov 2004: Reasons for an ether."
- In reply to: reany_at_asu.edu: "Re: Regroup."
- Next in thread: Androcles: "Re: Regroup."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
