How to extrude action at a distance?
V.Gopal
legitimate physical notion. If we want to describe cause-effect
relation in such a way that action at a distance is eliminated
then how can we describe this relation? We can never say that
cause is one 'thing' and its effect is on another thing. Therefore
we have to accept that cause and effect are contiguous in space-time.
We have accept that as soon as 'effect' comes into existence, the cause
has ceased to exist immediately before. Therefore system forgets
cause of change. Is there any expression that demonstrates usefulness
of 'positive self-reference', 'continuous change in reference' and
'continuous forgetting of the past' so that at least the term 'effect'
acquires a sensible meaning, even if we cannot define 'cause'?
Barb Knox
vgop...@rediffmail.com (V.Gopal) wrote:
> The Special Relativity Theory extrudes action at a distance
1. That's a great example of the limited usefulness of spell-checkers.
It would even pass most grammar checkers.
2. It conjures up some odd images, eh? Forces pulling matter through the
mesh of space time, or something.
[mercy snip]
Hey, VG, how come you haven't responded to my detailed reply to your "What
is wrong in geometry-part2". And how about giving a specific response to
each of my points, rather than your usual all-run-together-at-the-end
style?
--
---------------------------
| BBB b \ barbara minus knox at iname stop com
| B B aa rrr b |
| BBB a a r bbb |
| B B a a r b b |
| BBB aa a r bbb |
-----------------------------
Ms O. Philia
news:38af3945.02111...@posting.google.com...
asked: <snip>
> ... Is there any expression that demonstrates usefulness
> of 'positive self-reference', 'continuous change in reference' and
> 'continuous forgetting of the past' so that at least the term 'effect'
> acquires a sensible meaning, even if we cannot define 'cause'?
The terms of the required expression may be given as:
G for the "positive self-reference" in Gödelian sentences,
O for the zero limit of "continuous change in reference",
A for the anti-memory in "continuous forgetting" and
T for the total timelessness of effect sans cause.
Yielding GOAT clarified @: http://www.goatism.org/
;-)
--
Memetic Evolution Fable
Convinced by talk.origins zealots that personalities are as hair
obscuring the visage of truth seen in the mirror of their sacred scientific
method, a converted creationist craved an ego shave with Ockham's razor;
however, upon noting ubiquitous streetcorner saints clad in rent sackcloth
and adorned with cosmetic ashes of atonement performing penance by bathing
the feet of passersby in tears of contrition for pride taken in the purity
of their own self-abasement, it seemed prudent to forget the whole project.
Whereupon, the ego in question, bored by being ignored, simply fell asleep
at the switch allowing enlightenment to pat itself on the back for it's
cleverness. ;-)
Narasimham G.L.
God or Nature made things the way they are..
When seeking a reason for the effect for any observed phenomenon (one
asks "Why or How..?"), and we are often supplied with the immediately
preceding time linked event as the cause. The cause-effect event pair
recognition desribed as a phenomenon appears to be an infinitesmally
small and repeatable differential event pair in a continuous and
contiguous evolutionary process. Its interepretation as a phenomenon
borders on temporal narrow limits set by human perception and
systematized as Science within which it operates. But often we cannot
extrapolate backwards or forwards outside these limits.
e.g., Why does rainbow have 7 colours? Because light contains 7
colors. But to start with how does light contain 7 colors?.. no
proper answer. Or what is consequetial to it if there are these 7
colors ? that is temporarily the end of the road until a further
scientific discovery is made.
Whether seed or tree first.. The question may need never be settled.
What we do understand as Science is about repeating event chunks .. or
phenomena.
vgop...@rediffmail.com (V.Gopal) wrote in message news:<38af3945.02111...@posting.google.com>...
dkomo
>
> "V.Gopal" <vgop...@rediffmail.com> in message
> news:38af3945.02111...@posting.google.com...
> asked: <snip>
> > ... Is there any expression that demonstrates usefulness
> > of 'positive self-reference', 'continuous change in reference' and
> > 'continuous forgetting of the past' so that at least the term 'effect'
> > acquires a sensible meaning, even if we cannot define 'cause'?
>
> The terms of the required expression may be given as:
> G for the "positive self-reference" in Gödelian sentences,
> O for the zero limit of "continuous change in reference",
> A for the anti-memory in "continuous forgetting" and
> T for the total timelessness of effect sans cause.
>
> Yielding GOAT clarified @: http://www.goatism.org/
>
> ;-)
>
What sophomoric nonsense is this? From
http://www.goatism.org/logic.htm
<quote>
The Logical Proof
1.The proposition "Everything is a Goat" is either true or not true.
2.If it is false, then it's opposite must be true.
3.The opposite of "everything" is "nothing", which give us the
proposition "Nothing is a Goat".*
4.Now, this statement is clearly false, for goats certainly exist - we
have all seen them. This means that it's opposite must be true.
5.Therefore, "Everything is a Goat" must be a true statement.
<end quote>
The statement "Something is not a goat" falsifies "Everything is a
goat", so it's the opposite of the proposition. The rest of this
so-called proof is doubletalk.
Uncle Al
>
> The Special Relativity Theory extrudes action at a distance as a
> legitimate physical notion.
You do a lot of extruding yourself, most of it as the brown cylindrcal
variety.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
Ms O. Philia
news:3DD9121B...@cris.com...
> The Logical Proof
>
> 1.The proposition "Everything is a Goat" is either true or not true.
> 2.If it is false, then it's opposite must be true.
> 3.The opposite of "everything" is "nothing", which give us the
> proposition "Nothing is a Goat".*
> 4.Now, this statement is clearly false, for goats certainly exist - we
> have all seen them. This means that it's opposite must be true.
> 5.Therefore, "Everything is a Goat" must be a true statement.
>
> <end quote>
>
> The statement "Something is not a goat" falsifies "Everything is a
> goat", so it's the opposite of the proposition. The rest of this
> so-called proof is doubletalk.
>
> --dk...@cris.com
Your intuitions seem fine, dkomo, but your logic lacks luster. Perhaps
this more rigorous exposition from a recent posting on sci.logic will help:
"G. Frege" <in...@simple-line.de> wrote in message
news:nidbtusmlq2ekfqhm...@4ax.com... (Re: How the hell can
q -> q???)
<snip>
> > god ->> god is founded on irrational premises; it is junk. God is a
> > human concept, not an objective reality.
> >
> That's an interesting position.
>
> Actually this (your) statement triggered an idea [ in my mind ] :-)
>
> BASED on the (concept of and) notation of "->>" we could actually
> DEFINE "god" in the following way:
>
> (ix) x ->> x.
>
> God is _the_ x such that x ->> x holds. With other words: God is (the)
> causa sui.
>
> Now we could EXPRESS the claim that god actually exists in the
> following way:
>
> (Ex) x ->> x (*)
>
> And the claim that there is exactly one god:
>
> (Ex)(x ->> x & (Ay)(y ->> y -> x = y)). (**)
>
> Note that there is no "irrational premisses, junk" etc. is involved
> here, so far.
>
> Now IF we could show (**) then
>
> G = (ix) x ->> x.
>
> actually would define ("name") a certain entity.
>
> So in any case you could take
>
> x ->> x
>
> as a DESCRIPTION in Russellian sense representing the term "God".
>
> With other words, _then_ you could meaningful express:
>
> "God does not exist" (a)
>
> or
>
> "God is great" (b)
>
> etc.
>
> This sentences would _then_ be translated:
>
> (a) ~(Ex)(x ->> x & (Ay)(y ->> y -> x = y))
>
> (b) (Ex)(x ->> x & (Ay)(y ->> y -> x = y) & x is great)
>
> Note that NO "irrational premisses, junk" etc is involved here;
> actually the (questionable) term "God" has been removed from this
> _claims_.
>
> Now IF we could actually show that
>
> (Ex)(x ->> x & (Ay)(y ->> y -> x = y))
>
> holds; and we define
>
> god = (ix) x ->> x
>
> THEN we could _meaningful_ express:
>
> god ->> god.
>
> Moreover IN THIS CASE it would be true.
>
> :-)
>
> F.
George Dance
> "dkomo" <dkomo...@cris.com> wrote in message
> news:3DD9121B...@cris.com...
>
> > The Logical Proof
> >
> > 1.The proposition "Everything is a Goat" is either true or not true.
> > 2.If it is false, then it's opposite must be true.
> > 3.The opposite of "everything" is "nothing", which give us the
> > proposition "Nothing is a Goat".*
> > 4.Now, this statement is clearly false, for goats certainly exist - we
> > have all seen them. This means that it's opposite must be true.
> > 5.Therefore, "Everything is a Goat" must be a true statement.
> >
> > <end quote>
> >
> > The statement "Something is not a goat" falsifies "Everything is a
> > goat", so it's the opposite of the proposition. The rest of this
> > so-called proof is doubletalk.
> >
> > --dk...@cris.com
>
> Your intuitions seem fine, dkomo, but your logic lacks luster.
It's not a matter of 'intuitions,' but of definitions. That's only
one mistake the argument makes.
Another is when it says that 'goats exist because we've seen them' or
something like that. That's an inference which relies on the
implication "if we see something, it exists"; and given that
implication, since we've all seen things that are not goats, then
there are things that are not goats, and "Everything is a goat" is not
true.
It's a stupid argument, and you foul sci.logic by bringing it here.
> Perhaps
> this more rigorous exposition from a recent posting on sci.logic will help:
Not allowed. "Tu quoque" is a logical fallacy. 8)
snip
Paul Holbach
There are two kinds of logical opposites, namely, contraries and
contradictions, the first of which employing predicate negation and
the second sentence negation.
Accordingly, the contrary of "Everything is a goat." is "Everything is
not a goat.", which is equivalent to "Nothing is a goat.". The
contradiction of "Everything is a goat." is "It is not the case that
everything is a goat.", which is equivalent to "Something is not a
goat.".
The alleged proof above is fallacious because it fails to notice that
the law of excluded middle (p v -p) mentioned in 1. only applies to
contradictory but not to contrary statements, for contrary statements
may be both false, with there indeed being a third possibility!!!
For example, the contrary of "Everything is red." is "Everything is
not red.", but it may very well be that it is neither the case that
everything is red nor that everything is not red since it may be the
case that something is red and something else is not red!!!
Therefore, if I know that "Everything is a goat." is false, then I may
certainly conclude from that that it´s contradiction "Something is not
a goat." must be true.
But from "Everything is a goat." being false I cannot conclude that
its contrary "Nothing is a goat." must be true, for that would be a
blatant error flouting the laws of logic!!!
We know that "Everything is a goat." is false, but that simply doesn´t
mean that "Nothing is a goat." is true!
Correspondingly, from "Nothing is a goat." being in fact false one
cannot conclude that "Everything is a goat." must be true since, as
I´ve already stated, these two statements are contrary but no
contradictory ones!!!
The obvious falsity of "Nothing is a goat." which is equivalent to "It
is not the case that there is something that is a goat." only implies
the truth of "It is the case that something is a goat." or shorter
"Something is a goat."!!!
That´s why the "proof" above is plainly erroneous!
It might merely fool those who know virtually nothing about logic.
regards
PH
Paul Holbach
> news:<0%8C9.16$b92....@newsall.dti.ne.jp>...
> > news:3DD9121B...@cris.com...
> > The Logical Proof
> >
> > 1.The proposition "Everything is a Goat" is either true or not true.
> > 2.If it is false, then it's opposite must be true.
> > 3.The opposite of "everything" is "nothing", which give us the
> > proposition "Nothing is a Goat".*
> > 4.Now, this statement is clearly false, for goats certainly exist - we
> > have all seen them. This means that it's opposite must be true.
> > 5.Therefore, "Everything is a Goat" must be a true statement.
> >
> > <end quote>
> > The statement "Something is not a goat" falsifies "Everything is a
> > goat", so it's the opposite of the proposition. The rest of this
> > so-called proof is doubletalk.
Virgil
georg...@hotmail.com (George Dance) wrote:
> It's a stupid argument, and you foul sci.logic by bringing it here.
And you foul sci.math by posting here
Cyde Weys
"Virgil" <vmh...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-A70441....@netnews.attbi.com...
And yet the quality of talk.origins is actually being improved ... *rimshot*
Paul J Gans
So they brought it to talk.origins for which we think them
both foul.
---- Paul J. Gans
Laurent
news:38af3945.02111...@posting.google.com...
Action at a distance does appear to happen at spacetime level, where
objects exist embedded in a coordinate system (metric) defined by
the continuous functions of four independent variables (4D).
Extension and separation are properties of spacetime, but at the
aether level action at a distance does not make sense because there
exists no separation, the aether is one, it has no parts and it
lacks the properties of time and extension.
WITHIN the aether, motion/information/momentum is reported
instantaneously, distance doesn't apply, the aether has no parts, no
units, it is one. Within hyperspace, we have only EMR, where
information propagation is limited by moving mass (process) to the
speed of light. Within spacetime most things obey Newton's motion
laws, but thanks to the non-material properties and nature of the
aether, everything is non-locally interconnected to everything else
in its neighborhood and the rest of the Universe (Mach). So motion
(or information propagation), at this level, is instantaneous, the
holographic properties and the instantaneous information propagation
properties of momentum space is what make possible phenomena like
inertia.
--
Laurent
Hern Celtic
--
> > > 1.The proposition "Everything is a Goat" is either true or not true.
> > > 2.If it is false, then it's opposite must be true.
> > > 3.The opposite of "everything" is "nothing", which give us the
> > > proposition "Nothing is a Goat".*
Bzz. The opposite of the first statement is "Not everything is a
goat.".. Which is true.
R
Bob Pease
"Hern Celtic" <He...@columbus.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3bHC9.42262$2m.55...@twister.columbus.rr.com...
Statement
Ax in X: G
Negation
Ex in X : ~G
in English
There exists at least one (discussable ) thing that is Not a goat.
The so-called opposite stated here is
Ax in X ~G
Assumption of the truth of this is called "Excluded Middle" and is usually
quite transparent in normal satiations.
RJ Pease
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.419 / Virus Database: 235 - Release Date: 11/13/02
Paul Cardinale
> news:3DD9121B...@cris.com...
>
> > The Logical Proof
> >
> > 1.The proposition "Everything is a Goat" is either true or not true.
> > 2.If it is false, then it's opposite must be true.
> > 3.The opposite of "everything" is "nothing", which give us the
> > proposition "Nothing is a Goat".*
What tripe!
The logical opposite of "Everything is a goat" is "Not everything is a goat".
Negating a single word in a statement doesn't necessarily produce a logical
opposite.
Paul Cardinale