SR R.I.P.
From: Peter Kinane (pkinane_at_iol.ie)
Date: 12/17/04
- Next message: Anonymous: "Re: Homosexual Marriage? It's an Obscene Joke"
- Previous message: Peter Kinane: "SR R.I.P."
- Next in thread: robert j. kolker: "Re: SR R.I.P."
- Reply: robert j. kolker: "Re: SR R.I.P."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 17 Dec 2004 01:50:58 -0800
"robert j. kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.net> wrote in message news:32epd7F3lgovpU1@individual.net...
>
>
> Peter Kinane wrote:
> >
> > (Do you know what a system is; have you ever doubted your "accords
> > with experiment" religion?)
>
> Not a religion. It is a rational requirement that keeps theories in sync
> with reality. Theories are artifacts and (hopefully) good guesses.
> Experiments are the connectors to reality.
Aa above, all of which adds-up to the weight of this:
* Theory: Day follows night repeatedly. So, if the Earth is
flat, it means that the Sun or suns rise, travel over the Earth and
set. Expt.- -Observation: It does or they do. *
As models, the premise that the Earth is flat correspondends to the
premise that value is relative. Change one or both premises and the
model(s) change. So, one is then left to determine rigour of value
through relating models- -systems.
>
> To doubt experiment is to doubt that there is a reality external to our
> consciousness. If that is religion, then make the most of it.
Not to doubt that "experiment" is a solid foundation has something in
common with religion.
Perhaps you should start to doubt your premise "that there is a
reality external to our consciousness", it might make you more open to
alternative models.
* I am saying that, if, instead of talking of - featuring -
Relativity's multiple observers (with all of the relativist
connotations), the
selected frame of reference is seen as extended or extrapolated,
navigation can be accomplished, dispensing with the relativist
connotations of "multiple observers", "space-time", constant (c), and
"time", and "relativity". It is a matter of changing the connotations
from Relativist to Effectuationist - especially those of selected
frame of reference. It is a matter of changing the frame of reference
of the frame of reference, etc., at the philosophical level.
See Teccs, as a support to what I'm saying:
http://www.effectuationism.com/forum/messages/27/27.html?1071620499 *
-- Peter Kinane http://www.effectuationism.com/
- Next message: Anonymous: "Re: Homosexual Marriage? It's an Obscene Joke"
- Previous message: Peter Kinane: "SR R.I.P."
- Next in thread: robert j. kolker: "Re: SR R.I.P."
- Reply: robert j. kolker: "Re: SR R.I.P."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
