Re: Have you ever wondered.....


"Kees Roos" <croos@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:429eab5a$0$145$e4fe514c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
"AllYou!" <idaman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> schreef in bericht
news:ZJSdnfgUvuAn1gHfRVn-2Q@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


"Kees Roos" <croos@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:429b4d28$0$148$e4fe514c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"AllYou!" <idaman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> schreef in bericht
news:t_mdndHaiMqqAAXfRVn-sg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


"Kees Roos" <croos@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:42935a47$0$152$e4fe514c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"AllYou!" <idaman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> schreef in bericht
news:zLWdnXTQAKh4IAzfRVn-iw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


[snip]

And also that from which motion is inferred:
The physical process of *seeing* states is followed by the
intellectual process of recording and recalling and comparing
locations, from which motion is  inferred.


Motion is not inferred, it's physical.

I agree that motion is 'physical'. I don't see how inference
excludes that.


Because your position is that because motion is inferred (which it is
not), and because you claim that time is inferred (which it is),

CLearly our definitions of 'inference' differ, so we have
explore this first.
Look at http://dictionary.reference.com/
and lookup 'inference', which is there defined as:
a. The act or process of deriving logical conclusions from premises
   known or assumed to be true.
b. The act of reasoning from factual knowledge or evidence.


In the context of our debate the 'premises known or assumed
to be true' or the 'factual knowledge or evidence' is the sensory
input of states of the universe.

In the case of 'motion' we use the data on locations of
objects at different states to derive the logical conclusion
of motion between the states.
In the sense of the above definition that derivation of
the conclusion is 'inference'.
Note that this derivation of the conclusion is identical
to your 'intellectual process' which is part of your
'observation'.

In the case of 'time' we use the states themselves and
derive from the phenomenon that they occur in an
ordered sequence the logical conclusion of time.
In the sense of the above definition that derivation
of the conclusion is 'inference'.

Could you try to formulate your own defintion of inference
in such a way that motion is not inferred and time is, as you
state in the above.

[snip. Let's first get this clear.] 

No.  I will not get diverted into a semantically discussion.

It seems to me that you see that your position is untenable.

-You state two propositions:
1-Motion is not inferred
2-Time is inferred

-I show that in the 'dictionary sense' of 'inference' your first
proposition is false.

I went with you on the notion of inference in the mistaken belief that you could be take seriously. Since then, I've also asserted many times that inference is irrelevant as you try to apply the term. You said that motion is both observed and inferred, which makes the notion of inference irrelevant. Just because two notions have something in common, doesn't mean they are equivalent, and that's the whole point of your attempt to keep pursuing the notion of inference.

The fact remains that because motion is observed, it's physical, and because there is notion about time which is observed, and that it's simply a concept born of the human mind and applied to all physical processes, that it's not physical.

-Next I give you the benefit of the doubt in that I don't say
'you're wrong', but I say 'clearly that's not what you mean',
and ask what you do mean.

-Your answer is: 'I won't tell you what I mean'.
I think this means: 'I see that I am loosing ground, but I
don't want to admit it'.


More self-serving bull*** you've never typed.

I've said
numerous times now that whether or not time or motion is inferred is
irrelevant.  Refer to those posts.

You have said numerous times that the difference between 'motion'
and 'time' is that 'motion' is 'physical' and that 'time' is not.
Now that we have eliminated inference as the deciding process
between 'physicalness'and 'unphysicalness', the next question is:
what is the deciding criterium?

Observation. I've maintained that all along. And the only reason inference has been eliminative is because of your semantical bull*** and intellectual dishonesty, nothing more. 

.

Loading