SR R.I.P.
From: Peter Kinane (pkinane_at_iol.ie)
Date: 12/17/04
- Next message: SRdude: "Re: .....Simple Math Derivation Needed....."
- Previous message: kenseto: "Re: Relative Movement vs. Moving through Space"
- Next in thread: Franz Heymann: "Re: SR R.I.P."
- Reply: Franz Heymann: "Re: SR R.I.P."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 17 Dec 2004 06:20:42 -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.
The two combined are one and am (is) of no weight or value in oneself
(itself), unless, as seems so in your case and that of Sam, Bilge and
'empirical' Al, you are not yet advanced even as far as Relativity,
but are stuck in absolute form - a world of absolute value - and Bill
may be in an even early form of reflexive robotic recital of
Relativity.
So, grow up; you are a stunting influence on the world.
By the way, how many of you had an exposure at a young age to
'Objectivism', from which you never recovered?
>
> 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.
>
> Bob Kolker
"robert j. kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.net> wrote in message news:32g62gF3lngq0U1@individual.net...
>
> You are proposing Berklein Idealism. Or are you proposing Solopsist
> Insanity.
Certainly, neither.
I will challnege you with your challenge. Stand in the roadway
> while a fifty ton lorry bears down on you at 60 km/hr. We will see if
> you really mean what you say. If you duck you lose. And if you stay you
> lose.
:)
* 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: SRdude: "Re: .....Simple Math Derivation Needed....."
- Previous message: kenseto: "Re: Relative Movement vs. Moving through Space"
- Next in thread: Franz Heymann: "Re: SR R.I.P."
- Reply: Franz Heymann: "Re: SR R.I.P."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
