Re: System boundary
- From: Puppet_Sock <puppet_sock@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 08:04:45 -0700
On Jun 6, 7:02 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[snip]
Well, your babble-generator certainly starts easily with a light pull,
doesn't it?
Heh heh. That's excellent!
You've read too much and learned too little. It might be
useful to talk with a *physicist* to understand the difference between
a system boundary and where a boundary condition applies. Those are
two different contexts that are sometimes but not often connected.
In the "mind" of a philosopher, the word in common is enough.
This is a tradition at least as old as Kant. Give a word a complex
technical definition, don't give a complete and simple explanation
of that definition, then arbitrarily and unannounced switch back
and forth between the standard definition and the private technical
one. That way you can "prove" just about anything.
For another example, refer to the interminable threads in sci.math
about 0.999... being not equal to 1. It's a dodge that only a sick
mind, or a philosopher, would use. But the philosophers use it
all of the time as their first opening gambit.
It's word salad. And it's a useless meaningless task.
Socks
.
- References:
- System boundary
- From: Haines Brown
- Re: System boundary
- From: PD
- Re: System boundary
- From: Haines Brown
- Re: System boundary
- From: PD
- System boundary
- Prev by Date: Re: Efficiency of light sources.
- Next by Date: Re: No matter if you doubt PSI or want to prove it
- Previous by thread: Re: System boundary
- Next by thread: Re: System boundary
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
