Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
From: Albert (albertwagner_at_cox.net)
Date: 02/17/05
- Next message: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Previous message: Mark Fergerson: "Re: Is Ken Seto Genius or Madman?"
- In reply to: aeo6: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Next in thread: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 15:00:00 -0600
Tony Orlow (aeo6) wrote:
> Albert said:
>
>>Tony Orlow (aeo6) wrote:
>>
>>>Albert said:
>>>
>>>>Tony Orlow (aeo6) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Albert said:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Tony Orlow (aeo6) wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Albert said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Tony Orlow (aeo6) wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Albert said:
<snip>
>>>>>>>>>>Cause and effect have no inherent dependence on time or a concept
>>>>>>>>>>of time, but rather only on sequence. We define what comes
>>>>>>>>>>earlier in sequence as the cause of what comes later in sequence.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>So, now time is a mental construct? Maybe sequence is too, and space,
>>>>>>>>>and events.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Careful. You are dancing perilously close to solipsism.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Why do you think time is not a real physical dimension?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Did I say that? Do you think time is just a 4th spatial
>>>>>>>>dimension? Or are you just asking why I said above that cause
>>>>>>>>and effect have no inherent dependence on time?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Well, just for the hellovit, let's create a gedanken: if time is
>>>>>>>>an illusion and all that exists is sequences of cause and effect,
>>>>>>>>then we can have backward causality without fear of time
>>>>>>>>paradoxes, and without the silliness of a photon being a
>>>>>>>>probability wave that 'collapses' into a particle.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Just because you can turn the laws inside out and roll time backwards
>>>>>>>conceptually doesn't mean that time doesn't exist.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>Albert: I never stated that time doesn't exist. Nor have I said anything
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>about rolling time backwards. A gedanken is a hypothetical for
>>>>>>exploring 'what if' questions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>If you have
>>>>>>>established physical law, you can extrapolate backwards to see, for
>>>>>>>instance, where Jupiter was in the year 1020. If the laws were all time
>>>>>>>symmetric, then I would consider time to be more like space.
>>>
>>>Tony: But time has unique characteristics that seem to be quite real.
>>>
>>>
>>>Albert: Yes, (sigh) a lot of things *seem* real.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>I don't see the silliness of waves and particles turning into each
>>>>>>>other. Particles are just packets of waves.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I had no idea that you so slavishly accepted scientific authority
>>>>>>when it came to truth.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>Tony: So, you are asserting that time exists, but isn't real?
>>>
>>>
>>>Albert: Come on, Tony. Setting up a strawman consisting of what I never
>>>asserted is neither helpful nor fair.
>>>
>>>So, now you are asserting that you didn't say that time doesn't not
>>>(does) exist, and that you didn't imply that it seems real but isn't, or
>>>that your original assertion wasn't that time isn't real or necessary?
>>
>>Can't you read for comprehension? As has smoking weed affected
>>your short term memory? Why do I have to keep pasting the
>>following statement over and over:
>>
>>"Cause and effect have no inherent dependence on time or a
>>concept of time, but rather only on sequence. We define what
>>comes earlier in sequence as the cause of what comes later in
>>sequence."
>>
>>>>My assertion was and remains: "Cause and effect have no inherent
>>>>dependence on time or a concept of time, but rather only on
>>>>sequence. We define what comes earlier in sequence as the cause
>>>>of what comes later in sequence."
>>>
>>>And what does that sequence consist of?
>>
>>For Pete's sake. What could it possibly consist of in the
>>context of my statement other than the sequence of causes and
>>effects?
>
> It's a sequence of events that occur in time.
Well, if you're so sure what I meant in my statement, then why
did you ask? You are, of course, wrong; For that is not what I
meant.
>>>Is there no measure of the time
>>>between moments, other than to say one is after the other?
>>
>>You can count clock ticks. But that is not a measure of time.
>
> Yes it is. What do you think a clock does?
A clock ticks regularly.
>>>It seems
>>>that, since we can measure time consistently to a very high degree of
>>>accuracy physically, it is very real and phsyical.
>>
>>No, you are not measuring time. You are simply doing arithmetic
>>with clock ticks.
>
> Right and when I take a ruler I am not measuring space, I am simply
> doing arithmetic with marks on a stick. Is that right?
Yes. Your stick could be arbitrarily marked with centimeters,
inches or cubits. The names 'centimeters', 'inches', etc. are
just names of marks on an official stick somewhere else.
> Clocks are numeric
Some are.
- what do those numbers represent?
They represent a count of ticks.
> What do the marks on the stick represent?
They represent the marks on a 'standard' stick.
>>>What does one gain by
>>>removing time from the picture of casuality?
>>What did I say earlier? Why have you forgotten it so quickly?
>>Why do I have to keep pasting the same statement over and over:
>>
>>"if time is an illusion and all that exists is sequences of cause
>>and effect, then we can have backward causality without fear of
>>time paradoxes, and without the silliness of a photon being a
>>probability wave that 'collapses' into a particle."
>
> I don't see the advantage. We don't have backwards causality.
The name is somewhat of a misnomer. Causality isn't backwards, it
only appears so, to our sense of time.
> Time
> paradoxes certainly go away if time does, but so what? And I think you
> are disturbed by the dualistic nature of objects in the universe,
What would give you that idea?
> but that it is a universal truth that you
> should try to come to grips with.
So, now you believe in a theory's ability to describe universal
truth?
<snip>
>>I never claimed that a conspiracy exists.
>
> You said I am taking it on faith that these experimenters got the
> results they reported, because I have not personally performed the
> experiments.
We all do. But that is only a minor part of my point. What
especially worrying is that you accept without question, their
*interpretation* of their results.
> The only explanation I can think of for why experimenters
> around the world would report consistent results for a particular
> experiment that they didn't actually get is some kind of collusion or
> conspiracy between them.
True. That's why I said above that it is a minor part of my point.
> Otherwise it's just an astronomically remote
> coincidence. Can you offer another explanation for why they would all
> provide consistent results that they never got? If you think for a
> minute you will see I was responding to what you were saying with the
> only possible thing I could imagine you were suggesting.
Well, in that what you claim I was saying is not in the post.
I'll have to get back to you when I find something in an earlier
post that sounds like that.
>>>You know, maybe it makes sense to me because my intuition is a little
>>>off, or maybe, on.
>>>
>>>Besides, why cannot I believe what makes sense to me? You believe things
>>>you admit aren't logical, and you're allowed, as a human being, to have
>>>your own sense of intuition and universal aesthetic.
>>
>>I don't know what you think I believe that I 'admit is
>>illogical', but indeed you are entitled to your own sense of
>>intuition and aesthetic.
>
> For instance, free will without some indentifiable influence besides
> genetics and environment, a God that creates a universe that is logical
> but then violates that logic by knowing everything and yet allowing
> things to be different that what is known. Things like that.
Well, that is a real mouthful. It's also your own strawman,
because I never said it. So feel free to destroy it at your leisure.
>
>>BTW, your experiment with attribution (he said:, I said:) really
>>screwed up this post. It is now unquotable in that all
>>indication of level is lost.
>
> Sorry Albert, but you accused me of putting words in your mouth. It
> seemed necvessary to point out EXACTLY what we said to each other, so
> that you could see how you DID say what I said you said.
Did it work to your satisfaction? It didn't work for me.
> When you fit
> the statements together they don't sound right do they? That's all I
> did.
As I pointed out before, what you did is completely destroy the
structure of the post. My newsreader, and most people's
newsreaders, rely on each line being preceded by one or more
marks, usually a '>', that indicate the depth of the quote.
These are handled automatically by the newsreader. My newsreader
can make no sense of your non-standard technique. If you hadn't
tampered with the quoting mechanism, then it would be quite clear
who said exactly what and when, because the number of 'depth
marks' of a given quote is exactly one more than the number of
marks preceding the header specifying the author.
--
"Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the
range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally
impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it."
-- George Orwell as Syme in "1984"
- Next message: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Previous message: Mark Fergerson: "Re: Is Ken Seto Genius or Madman?"
- In reply to: aeo6: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Next in thread: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
