Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: The Conscious Mind -- David Chalmers]
From: jqb@netcom.com (Jim Balter)
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1996 03:00:50 GMT
In article <55m55m$a5o@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>,
Anders N Weinstein wrote:
>In article , Jim Balter wrote:
>>
>>On the matter of terminology, I have read that there is a move by some modern
>>biologists to use the term "teleometric" instrad of "teleological", to avoid
>>the mistaken and misleading connotations of traditional teleology; I don't
>>know how successful this attempt has been, but the rejection of traditional
>>teleology is quite widespread among modern academic biologists.
>
>I should have made clear I reject "traditional teleology" as well.
>There is an old myth propagated by Skinner and others that Aristotle's
>"final cause" meant a spooky backwards causation, a pull from the
>non-existent future on present events. Biologists oppose this, as well
>they should, although Aristotle never held it so far as I can see.
Aristotle's "cause" is better taken as "nature" or "essense". It is not so
much backwards causation as essentialism that is objectionable.
>I mean such statements as that the function of the heart is to pump
>the blood and not to make noises in the chest cavity. Note this is *not*
>a "functional explanation" in that it does not purport to explain
>the presence of hearts in human beings, rather, *given* that hearts
>belong to human beings by nature, it says what their function is.
Your wording is so traditionally teleological. "*the* function"? "to"? Try
"The heart functions as a pump". Human bodies containing things that function
as pumps tend to reproduce, whereas those that don't, don't. Merely making
noises *instead of* pumping blood doesn't result in offspring. And yet,
hearts that make certain sorts of noises might affect offspring held to the
mother's chest in a such a way as to improve their survival. Talking about
"the function" of the heart leaves us in a poor position to explain the
development of hearts into noisemakers, or why cats purr. It is better to
talk about what functions something can be seen as carrying out, from the
design *stance*, not what something's function *is*, from the *essentialist*
teleological view.
>Moreover, if a heart fails to pump the blood well, it is
>*mal*functioning. The difference between functioning properly and
>functioning improperly is a normative difference.
The norm by which all "proper" functioning must be seen in the end is the norm
of *natural selection* (or, more accurately, natural selection of genes; and,
with a nod to Peter Lupton, this can be interpreted in terms of parsimonious
fit to conditions). But to simplify understanding we take a design *stance*,
viewing things in terms of a function that we take as normative for the sake
of analysis. But this norm is not *essential* to hearts. Taking the norm of
red corpuscles as being *essentially* to transmit hemoglobin leaves us in a
difficult position for explaining the sickle cell anemia allele. Only from
the non-telological viewpoint of natural selection does the process *as a
whole* make sense.
>I take it the
>physical stance knows nothing of norms and so nothing of functions, but
>biology does.
To say it again: the division is between the physical stance and the design
stance, not between the physical stance and "biology"; the latter is a
category error. Both biological and non-biological entities can be viewed
from the physical stance; both biological and non-biological entities can be
viewed from the design stance.
>Now: it is Dennett's and others' program to explain natural function in
>terms of design produced by natural selection. This may be all right,
>it does not show biology reducing to physics, in my view, since it
>still acknowledges that there can be norms in nature in a way the
>physical stance does not.
physics != the physical stance! Stop making this silly category error!
Design norms are ones *we* impose by taking a *stance*. The ability *in
principle* to *explain* biological facts via natural selection histories quite
satisfies reductionism. Per Dennett: "As many commentators have noted,
evolutionary explanations are inescapably historical narratives. ... But
particular historical facts play an elusive role in such explanations. The
theory of natural selection shows how every feature of the natural world *can*
be the product of a blind, unforesightful, nonteleological, ultimately
mechanical process ...."
It is because such facts are so elusive and because direct explanation of the
natural world in terms of such histories is so unwieldy that we introduce
the explanatory "subroutines" of design. But reductionism is a matter of
*principle*, and there is nothing "in nature" that blocks it.
>I think it also has other problems. For example, I think we would say
>that the function of the heart is to pump the blood *even if* there
>were no natural selection, merely as part of understanding something as
>thing with a characteristic form of life.
*You* can say what you want "as part of understanding", though what this has
to do with nature or reductionism I have no idea. *I* would say that the
heart can be seen as functioning as a pump, or as two pumps and a blood
pressure regulator, or as a soothing noise generator, caterpillars can be seen
as nutrient sources for wasp larvae, leaves can be seen as nutrient sources
for caterpillars, bees can be seen as pollinators of flowers, flowers can be
seens as food sources for bees, etc. The state of nature is a result of
evolutionary history; what the features of nature are *for* is imposed by us
and our interpretations. The last thing I would want to do is truck in
essences.
--
Subject: *** CIFEr'97 DEADLINE EXTENSION ***
From: payman@u.washington.edu (Payman Arabshahi)
Date: 5 Nov 1996 04:31:31 GMT
!!!! Deadline for submission of summaries has been extended to December 2 !!!!
IEEE/IAFE 1997
$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$
$$$$ $$ $$$$ $$$$ $$$ $$$
$$$$ $$$$ $$$$$$$ $$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$
$$$$ $$$$ $$$$$$$ $$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$
$$$$ $$ $$$$ $$$$ $$$ $$$ $$$
$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$ $$$$ $$$$$$$$$$ $$$
$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$ $$$$ $$$$$$$$$$ $$$
Visit us on the web at
http://www.ieee.org/nnc/cifer97
------------------------------------ ------------------------------------
Call for Papers Conference Topics
Conference on Computational ------------------------------------
Intelligence for Financial
Engineering Topics in which papers, panel
sessions, and tutorial proposals are
(CIFEr) invited include, but are not limited
to, the following:
Crowne Plaza Manhattan, New York
City Financial Engineering Applications:
March 23-25, 1997 * Risk Management
* Pricing of Structured
Sponsors: Securities
The IEEE Neural Networks Council, * Asset Allocation
The International Association of * Trading Systems
Financial Engineers * Forecasting
* Hedging Strategies
The IEEE/IAFE CIFEr Conference is * Risk Arbitrage
the third annual collaboration * Exotic Options
between the professional engineering
and financial communities, and is Computer & Engineering Applications
one of the leading forums for new & Models:
technologies and applications in the
intersection of computational * Neural Networks
intelligence and financial * Probabilistic Modeling/Inference
engineering. Intelligent * Fuzzy Systems and Rough Sets
computational systems have become * Genetic and Dynamic Optimization
indispensable in virtually all * Intelligent Trading Agents
financial applications, from * Trading Room Simulation
portfolio selection to proprietary * Time Series Analysis
trading to risk management. * Non-linear Dynamics
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Instructions for Authors, Special Sessions, Tutorials, & Exhibits
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All summaries and proposals for tutorials, panels and special sessions must
be received by the conference Secretariat at Meeting Management by December
2, 1996. Our intentions are to publish a book with the best selection of
papers accepted.
Authors (For Conference Oral Sessions)
One copy of the Extended Summary (not exceeding four pages of 8.5 inch by 11
inch size) must be received by Meeting Management by December 2, 1996.
Centered at the top of the first page should be the paper's complete title,
author name(s), affiliation(s), and mailing addresses(es). Fonts no smaller
than 10 pt should be used. Papers must report original work that has not
been published previously, and is not under consideration for publication
elsewhere. In the letter accompanying the submission, the following
information should be included:
* Topic(s)
* Full title of paper
* Corresponding Author's name
* Mailing address
* Telephone and fax
* E-mail (if available)
* Presenter (If different from corresponding author, please provide name,
mailing address, etc.)
Authors will be notified of acceptance of the Extended Summary by January
10, 1997. Complete papers (not exceeding seven pages of 8.5 inch by 11 inch
size) will be due by February 14, 1997, and will be published in the
conference proceedings.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Special Sessions
A limited number of special sessions will address subjects within the
topical scope of the conference. Each special session will consist of from
four to six papers on a specific topic. Proposals for special sessions will
be submitted by the session organizer and should include:
* Topic(s)
* Title of Special Session
* Name, address, phone, fax, and email of the Session Organizer
* List of paper titles with authors' names and addresses
* One page of summaries of all papers
Notification of acceptance of special session proposals will be on January
10, 1997. If a proposal for a special session is accepted, the authors will
be required to submit a camera ready copy of their paper for the conference
proceedings by February 14, 1997.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Panel Proposals
Proposals for panels addressing topics within the technical scope of the
conference will be considered. Panel organizers should describe, in two
pages or less, the objective of the panel and the topic(s) to be addressed.
Panel sessions should be interactive with panel members and the audience and
should not be a sequence of paper presentations by the panel members. The
participants in the panel should be identified. No papers will be published
from panel activities. Notification of acceptance of panel session proposals
will be on January 10, 1997.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tutorial Proposals
Proposals for tutorials addressing subjects within the topical scope of the
conference will be considered. Proposals for tutorials should describe, in
two pages or less, the objective of the tutorial and the topic(s) to be
addressed. A detailed syllabus of the course contents should also be
included. Most tutorials will be four hours, although proposals for longer
tutorials will also be considered. Notification of acceptance of tutorial
proposals will be on January 10, 1997.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exhibit Information
Businesses with activities related to financial engineering, including
software & hardware vendors, publishers and academic institutions, are
invited to participate in CIFEr's exhibits. Further information about the
exhibits can be obtained from the CIFEr-secretariat, Barbara Klemm.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contact Information Sponsors
More information on registration and Sponsorship for CIFEr'97
the program will be provided as soon is being provided by the IAFE
as it becomes available. For further (International Association of
details, please contact Financial Engineers) and the IEEE
Neural Networks Council. The IEEE
Barbara Klemm (Institute of Electrical and
CIFEr'97 Secretariat Electronics Engineers) is the
Meeting Management world's largest engineering and
IEEE/IAFE Computational Intelligence computer science professional
for Financial Engineering non-profit association and sponsors
2603 Main Street, Suite # 690 hundreds of technical conferences
Irvine, California 92714 and publications annually. The IAFE
is a professional non-profit
Tel: (714) 752-8205 or financial association with members
(800) 321-6338 worldwide specializing in new
financial product design, derivative
Fax: (714) 752-7444 structures, risk management
strategies, arbitrage techniques,
Email: Meetingmgt@aol.com and application of computational
Web: http://www.ieee.org/nnc/cifer97 techniques to finance.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Payman Arabshahi
CIFEr'97 Organizational Chair Tel: (206) 644-8026
Dept. Electrical Eng./Box 352500 Fax: (206) 543-3842
University of Washington
Seattle, WA 98195 Email: payman@ee.washington.edu
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Read first people, don't look uniformed!
From: newt@avatar.uwaterloo.ca (Jonas Mureika)
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1996 01:03:32 GMT
In article <847130096.25355@dejanews.com>, wrote:
>>On 31 Oct 1996, David de Hilster wrote:
>
>Your priorities are wrong. Someday, AD will be the mainstream
>and you and CERN will have to deal with it sooner or later.
>
>So don't worry about little ole' David de Hilster who has a
>degree in Advanced Calculus, architecture, and linguistics.
>Worry about learning AD so that you won't become one of the
>religated "old" scientists who dies fighting for a lost cause.
Are the ADers going on a crusade?! I envision them on horseback,
storming universities and national labs, hacking people apart
with swords in support of their theory.
>
>Send me science questions, not politics. I hate politics!
>
>-David de Hilster
>
> MAGNOLIA PLACE, Long Beach
Ah, Long Beach... OK, here's a science question for you. Suppose
we have a particle of rest mass m_0. It spontaneously decays into
two particles of fixed rest masses m_1 and m_2 respectively. The
initial particle of mass m_0 has spin-1/2, as do the each of the
decay particles m_1 and m_2. Are energy and momentum conserved
in this reaction? Why or why not? What might be needed to explain
a resultant engery spectrum different from that expected from
the decay states?
Subject: Re: What is the Cause of Time Dilation?
From: devens@uoguelph.ca (David L Evens)
Date: 5 Nov 1996 00:54:46 GMT
Brian Jones (bjon@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: throopw@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote[in part]:
: >: I did not specify any event at the rear clock, so in your world (SRT),
: >: there's no way to determine this clock's reading because there must be
: >: a specified event AT a clock for this.
: >Bjon specified a "clock reading". The event of a clock hand reaching
: >a certain reading (or an lcd lighting up a particular digit string,
: >or any other ways a clock could "have a reading")is... well... an event.
: >That's what a clock IS. A stream of events. A sequence of
: >"clock reading" events.
: There must be some nonclock event AT the clock. This is standard SRT
: fare. There must be a light signal hitting the clock, etc, but why am
: I having to explain SRT? There is no event that can be matched with
: any rear clock reading, mainly because I didn't give one.
The problem with this is that it simply isn't true. At the level of
continuum mechanics, the interesting events ARE the clock readings.
: >: It is a well-known fact that SRT has no absolute syncronization. SRT
: >: has relative synchronization. There is a difference, of course.
: >: Absolute (or Newtonian) synchronization (as is mentioned in many SRT
: >: texts) means simply that all clocks in the universe read zero at the
: >: same instant. This allows the Newtonian observer to determine the
: >: true or absolute time interval between any two events. There are no
: >: such clocks in SRT, which, as I said, has merely relative time. In
: >: SRT, all observers will find a different time interval between two
: >: events. All of this is well-known, but somehow Throop will deny some
: >: or all of it, I'm sure.
: >Why should I deny any of it? It's relatively straightforward,
: >if crudely and misleadingly phrased.
: (Crude only to you).
And crude to everyone ELSE who understands this better than you.
: >: Now we can see clearly that both the front and the rear clocks cannot
: >: (as far as SRT is concerned) BOTH read the same, so both cannot read
: >: zero at the same instant (the very instant when the light ray hits the
: >: front clock). This is because Einstein's clocks differ from Newton's,
: >: as has been pointed out.
: >Crudely and misleadingly phrased; bjon himself is mislead into
: >supposing that, since not all SR clocks share a universal
: >setting-synchronization, that no two ever do. SR simply says
: >the meaning of "same instant" is (rather obviously) coordinate
: >system dependent. If bjon wants to ask a question in an SR
: >context, he ought not to expect an answer in terms of
: >newtonian clocks.
: >Reconsider bjon's original question:
: >::: As per experiment (and SRT), when the ray reaches the rear clock,
: >::: this rear clock must read D/c. What did this clock read at time
: >::: zero (per the front clock)?
: >In SR terms, this must be answered in terms of a specific coordinate
: >system. Bjon gives two clocks, at rest WRT a rod of rest length D,
: >says the "front clock" read 0 as a ligh pulse reached it, the
: >"rear clock" read D/c when the same light pulse reached it.
: >There's only one coordinate system bjon could consistently
: >be talking about, to give his question any meaning in SR.
: >And that's the coordinate system in which the two clocks
: >read the coordinate system time. Thus, the "rear clock"
: >reads zero when the "front clock" reads zero, because both
: >are reading coordinate time in the only coordinate s ystem
: >bjon supplied to give meaning to a query about time
: >at two locations ("front" and "rear").
: >Again, if bjon asks an SR question, he should not expect
: >a Newtonian answer.
: As I have consistently tried my best to get across, this is NOT SRT.
: Due to the lack of any (nonclock) EVENT at the rear clock at this
: point, SRT cannot determine the rear clock reading. There is no
: matching event. Period. Over and out. Case closed.
Yes, the case over your inteligence is indeed closed. There are actually
TWO events at the point you demand there to be none: The reading of the
clock is an event, and the arrival of the ray is ALSO an event.
: >: How can we determine the rear clock reading?
: >We simply decide which coordinate system to use.
: >: SRT cannot supply us with the answer.
: >Right. We simply have to decide which coordinate system to use.
: >: We have to use simple paperwork.
: >And bjon proceeds to introduce an arbitrarily defined coordinate
: >system, a coordinate system he didn't mention in posing the problem.
: >Thus, bjon's "correct answer" to the question amounts to
: >confabulating a meaning for his question after its poseing.
: No, I am proceding in the only possible way given SRT's total
: inability to provide an answer.
Yes, you are supplying the missing datum required to determine an
answer: The coordinate frame in which you want an answer.
: >Oh, such a bright boy is bjon.
: >Bjon continues his analysis, confabulating as he goes along.
: All the silly remarks will not matter.
Yes, but you'll make them anyway.
: >: Also, the rod's actual (intrinsic) length
: >Correct SR analyses don't involve the concept of an "actual" length.
: There is no possible "SRT analysis." There's no event AT the clock.
Other than the clock reading and the arrival of the ray, both of which
are events.
: >: The rod's actual (thru-space) travel distance is simply cT
: >Correct SR analyses don't involve the concept of an "actual" distance.
: See above.
Yes, we know you can't understand this.
: >: T is the time per a hypothetical clock that's at rest in space
: >Correct SR analyses don't involve such confabulated clocks.
: Ditto.
And we get another reinforcement of the fact that you don't understand.
: >And so on and so on. Bjon loves to confabulate this superfluous
: >"absolute" frame, and talk about "absolute" length, and "absolute"
: >speed" and "true" synchronization. All these concepts are
: >superfluous to a correct SR analysis.
: Of which none is possible in this case.
Because you ignored the fact that distances, durations, velocities,
energies, etc., are only defined w.r.t. reference frames, and you
demanded an answer for a frame-dependent quantity outside of any frame.
: >: It's easy to see why SRT has to have these real underpinnings -- it's
: >: a theory of nature.
: >SR, to be a proper theory of objective, observer-independent reality,
: >needs, to have objective, observer-independent features. These
: >need not be an object's "actual speed" or "actual length".
: >And indeed, they are not.
: >: Throop's claim that nothing in SRT is absolute is obviously incorrect.
: >Never claimed that nothing in SR is absolute.
: >Merely claimed that bjon is barking up the wrong absolute tree.
: So name one thing that you see to be absolute in SRT.
The uniformity of the speed of light is absolute in SR.
--
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
Ring around the neutron, | "OK, so he's not terribly fearsome.
A pocket full of positrons,| But he certainly took us by surprise!"
A fission, a fusion, +--------------------------------------------------
We all fall down! | "Was anybody in the Maquis working for me?"
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
"I'd cut down ever Law in England to get at the Devil!"
"And what man could stand up in the wind that would blow once you'd cut
down all the laws?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message may not be carried on any server which places restrictions
on content.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
e-mail will be posted as I see fit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Read first people, don't look uniformed!
From: "Todd Pedlar"
Date: 5 Nov 1996 03:46:15 GMT
David de Hilster wrote in article
<559ml9$hll@venezuela.earthlink.net>...
> In article <558nhf$hgr@news.fsu.edu> Jim Carr, jac@ibms48.scri.fsu.edu
> writes:
> >That is, read up on a sampling of the experiments that observe the
> > neutrino before going on and on about why models that assume its
> > existence are flawed. Given that the neutrino was first detected
> > directly almost exactly 40 years ago, your claims look rather foolish.
> >
>
> Jim, I expected much better from you! Neutrinos have NEVER been
> detected directly. You know that. They are deduced from SR's equations.
> Don't gloss here so the youngins don't get confused.
It's amazing how this conversation goes round and round year after year.
I seem to recall exactly the same post from you, David, about two years
ago. NOTHING IN PARTICLE PHYSICS IS EVER DETECTED DIRECTLY! How
do you detect photons? Well, you have something in which the photon
showers electromagnetically, and you detect the shower (which gives,
indirectly, the energy, and if you do it right, the position of the
photon).
How do you detect electrons & muons? Well, you have drift chambers,
Iarocci tubes and the like which detect a trail of ionization that the
charged
particles leave behind them in certain gasses which fill these detectors.
Were
the particles seen directly? NO. We do an experiment studying the states
of charmonium. Have we ever seen them directly? NO. We detect quite
indirectly the decay products of these states, primarily electrons and
photons.
Neutrino experiments detect those events no more directly or indirecty than
do we. Are we, therefore, an invalid experiment? I think not. The
directness
of detection of a state or particle is completely irrelevant, David.
Better try
another tack.
>
> Don't you get it Jim? It's too simple. An extra frame in SR's
derivation
> throws extra energy into the whole system. The neutrino is there to
> take up the slack.
So what about those decay processes which don't involve the neutrino?
Dont you see that your fascination with the neutrino's existence blurs
your vision? There's a whole lot out there that SR predicts correctly that
has nothing to do with the neutrino, yet you seem to forget that.
>
> If you read the AD pages Jim, you and others would see the answer to
> many of your questions. You don't want to look at the Buechner/Van de
> Graaff experiment in MIT in 1946. It proves that the electron-neutrino
> doesn't exist. It's repeatable today. How many times do I have to
> say it. Read it Jim and refute it here. I am waiting. My guess is that
> you can't understand it because you refuse to look at it.
All that Buechner/ Van de Graaf shows is that they didnt detect any energy
from a process which they thought might involve neutrinos. It shows
nothing
about the existence or non-existence of neutrinos as a whole.
>
> What are neutrino detectors dectecting if not neutrinos? FAQ on our
> pages: why do they go around burying them under mountains, water,
> and put them near penguins? To avoid false hits. Jim, neutrino
> scientists get false hits.
>
> Neutrino beams are indirectly assumed to be there so energy conservation
> works out for SR.
>
If neutrino beams aren't there then what are they detecting in their
detectors?
Why do the muons which seem to appear spontaneously from the middle of
these detectors stop appearing when the beam is turned off? Don't you
think
that's strange?
Subject: Re: What is the Cause of Time Dilation?
From: bjon@ix.netcom.com (Brian Jones)
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 1996 03:12:44 GMT
throopw@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote[in part]:
>:: Bjon loves to confabulate this superfluous "absolute" frame, and talk
>:: about "absolute" length, and "absolute" speed" and "true"
>:: synchronization. All these concepts are superfluous to a correct SR
>:: analysis.
>: bjon@ix.netcom.com (Brian Jones)
>: Of which none is possible in this case.
>Quite possible. You just synchronize the two clocks, following
>Einstein's recipe. This recipe doesn't mention anything about velocity,
>or absolute anything; you just DO it. You get SR-synchronized clocks.
>From then on, the analysis proceeds trivially.
It's not that simple. There are quite definite and real physical
results of such clocks that directly reflect the absoluteness behind
the definition. For example, given any two events, each observer will
find a different time between them. This tells us that their clocks
all read differently at these same two events. And yet the events
themselves obviously can have only a single time between them.
Therefore, the cause of all the different readings is this: Each
observer's clocks differ from any other observer's. And this tells us
that -- even by just purely and ever so "simply" just applying
Einstein's little harmless fuzzball of a definition -- that there is
more than meets the eye here. Why do all observers' clocks end up
being really and physically different after E-synch is applied? The
only possible cause is their different absolute speeds.
The clocks have been set out-of-true in direct proportion to each
observer's absolute speed, and this is just the beginning of things
absolute that are in the Einstein View.
>The problem is, bjon simply refuses to accept that the synchronization
>recipe is simply a given, a primitive undecomposable-into-anything-else
>step in SR, despite the fact that that's exactly what Einstein said it was.
>::: Throop's claim that nothing in SRT is absolute is obviously incorrect.
>:: Never claimed that nothing in SR is absolute.
>: So name one thing that you see to be absolute in SRT.
>The interval is invariant, plays the same role in SR using space-time
>coordinates that "distance" does in analytic geometry using x-y
>coordinates, and is "absolute" in the useful sense of being
>coordinate-system-independent. The point is, bjon insists that there
>must be "space absolutes" and "time absolutes" separately. But this is
>not logically required by SR. SR is *compatible* with the notion of
>space-absolutes separate from time-absolutes, iff they remain
>unobservable. But SR doesn't logically imply them.
The invariant interval has no physical meaning, being a mere
mathematical construct. It is the square root of the difference of
the squares of the "time" (per an SRT observer) and the "distance"
(per the SRT observer). Let's see just how meaningful this is. No SRT
observer can determine the actual time between two events. No SRT
observer can determine the actual distance, either. (Unless the
observer is accidentally at absolute rest). So, we have two false
values (observer-dependent distance and observer-dependent time), and
we have to square each one, then find the difference and take the
square root. What physical meaning herein lies? A measured distance
is squared, and a measured time is squared, and this is supposed to
mean something? I may care about the _distance_ between two events
(even an observer dependent one), and I may care about the _time_
between the events, but the invariant interval is worthless and
meaningless. And it's about as "absolute" as silly putty. Only by
using your definition above can we say it's "absolute," and this was
not my challenge, as you know.
>In euclidean geometry, if you want to drop a perpendicular, you take
>a compass and two points on a line, scribe the corresponding two points
>on the perpendicular line, and bob's your uncle. Exactly so in SR:
>you take two points in space, and bounce light from one to the other,
>DEFINING your spacelike and timelike axes. There need not be any
>absolute timelike or spacelike direction in SR, any more than there
>is a x-like or a y-like direction in geometry for the construction
>of perpendiculars. You just pick one, and call it x. And in SR,
>you just pick one, and call it "time".
>And that's what the SR synchronization recipe is all about; getting
>"perpendicular" space/time axes. It doesn't matter if they're the same
>for everybody, it just matters that you choose a perpendicular pair.
>Same as with setting up x/y coordinates.
>: There must be some nonclock event AT the clock. This is standard SRT fare.
>A substantiating reference (that this is "standard SRT fare")
>would be appreciated.
>--
>Wayne Throop throopw@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
> throopw@cisco.com
See my Throop reply.
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: bohm]
From: Warren York
Date: Sun, 03 Nov 1996 13:48:36 -0700
Anthony Potts wrote:
>
> On Sat, 2 Nov 1996, Jack Sarfatti, Ph.D. wrote:
>
> [NON-Text Body part not included]
>
> I think that we really ought to ask just why Jack feels the need to write
> the letters "Ph.D." after his name. It rather smacks of insecurity, in my
> opinion. I think that the practice should be discouraged, or else we would
> have .sigs stretching far beyond screen lengths.
>
> For example, I would be forced to respond to his ph.D. with
>
> Anthony Potts, B.A. (Hons, Oxon.) M.Phil, GradInstP.
>
> Which would just be silly, wouldn't it?
>
> Anthony Potts
>
> CERN, Geneva
I had noticed this also. Strange others would do the same. I feel Dr.
Sarfatti has a great mind but every contact with him has been one of ego
trips from him. Too busy or too important but yet when I read his papers
he seems to be on the ball. Strange but I guess it all comes with the
package. Warren
Subject: Re: What is the Cause of Time Dilation?
From: Cees Roos
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 1996 19:12:29 +0000 (GMT)
In article <55gujf$hk8@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>, Brian Jones
wrote:
>
> Cees Roos wrote[in part]:
> >Mr. Jones,
> >could you try to explain what evidence you have, that this concept of
> >absolutes is more than just your imagination or phantasy, if, as you
> >state, they are not detectable?
> >Regards, Cees Roos.
> >I know that all I know is what I know, including that I
> >do not know what I do not know.
>
> Please see my lengthy reply to Throop.
My question was about your sentence:
Absolutes exist, but are just not (yet, if ever) detectable.
Your reply to Throop does not explain how it is possible for you to
know that absolutes do exist, and at the same time to know that they
are not detectable. If a phenomenon is not detectable it might as well
not exist, or alternatively, the phenomenon may exist in your
imagination only. How are you to know one way or the other?
--
Regards, Cees Roos.
I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than
to have answers which might be wrong. Richard Feynman 1981
Subject: Re: THE INDUSTRIAL RELIGION
From: "sdef!"
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 1996 04:38:26 +0000
Jim F. Glass x60375 wrote:
>
> Who is "hounding [you] of [sic] the land"? Could it be that those
> who are "hounded" are squatters trying to "live" on someone else's
> property? Property rights are not among your favorite concepts,
> I'm sure. Go buy a hunk of land and start a commune. Nobody'll
> bother you then
Yes, to buy a piece of land we have to borrow stupid sums of money and
the only way to repay that is if we 'contribute to the economy' ie: we
will be left alone only if we are part of the system, my point is backed
up by your own.
As to land rights,
Number of Americans with two or more homes in 1991: 10 million
Number of homeless Americans in 1991:
a minimum of 300,000
An obvious bigot such as youself will think that these people deserve to
be homeless i suppose.
As far as I am concerned, nobody has a right to two homes when one
billion people do not have a roof over their heads. This is UN
statistics, as before, find them yourself.
Andy
http://www.hrc.wmin.ac.uk/campaigns/earthfirst.html
South Downs EF!, Prior House
6, Tilbury Place, Brighton BN2 2GY, UK
"Happy is he who dares to defend passionately
that which he loves" -Ovidius
Subject: Re: THE INDUSTRIAL RELIGION
From: "sdef!"
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 1996 04:27:11 +0000
Jim F. Glass x60375 wrote:
>
> |>
> |> The likes of you have already colonised every last bit of habitable land
> |> on this planet. There is nowhere we can live as we want to.
>
> This is demonstrably, patently false.
Go ahead then, demonstrate it you pompous ass. Why do you put statements like this
in and then leave them as if proven? Patent in this context means obvious. It is not
obvious so clarify your asserttion or shut up. I gave examples of what I was talking
about from personal experience. Talk about what you know about.
OH yes, perhaps we can go live in the desert with ignorant saveage worthless indians
you so magnanimously allow to live on the bits that are useless, while you live in
all the good bits you stole fom them and still refuse to give back even against your
own laws. And kill and harrass all those who won't 'play the white man. And then you
could dump you radioactoive waste and toxic incinerator slag on us too. So our
children would be born dead and mutant too. Or perhaps you could test your nuclear
weapons as you do on Shoshone land?
> |> Some of us
> |> try but we are hounded of the land by armed thugs wherever we try to
> |> live.
>
> Who is "hounding [you] of [sic] the land"? Could it be that those
> who are "hounded" are squatters trying to "live" on someone else's
> property? Property rights are not among your favorite concepts,
> I'm sure. Go buy a hunk of land and start a commune. Nobody'll
> bother you then--unless Bill Clinton and Janet Reno take a dislike
> to you. But then, Al Gore is a friend of yours...
Precisely my point. There is no land that isn't 'owned' You and your sick
civilisation owns it all. As I said there is no alternative.
> |>Your wonderful civilization is so insecure that it cannot even
> |> tolerate a few people living outside of it. We have no choice but to
> |> make the best of what is. We work to bring down your life-destroying
> |> dictatorship. We work for true freedom.
>
> Fine; like I said: give up computers, electricity, internal combustion,
> etc.--to show your purity and convince us you're not hypocrites. At least
> the Amish have the guts to walk the walk. YOU on the other hand are all
> talk.
You know nothing about me except what I told you, and if you read that properly you
would know that I am not all talk.
> |> Your decadent system is already eating itself, all we want to do is
> |> speed up the process so there is a world left fit to live in after it
> |> collapses.
>
> So said Malthus; we're still waiting.
Malthus has nothing to do with this, nor the Clinton/Gore nonsense.
If you are not going to read my postings properly and formulate relevant responses
don't reply at all.
All land that I could buy, assuming that I should have to, is 50 times as expensive
if I am able to live on it. This is a problem shared by ONE BILLION people around
the world. The system you defend causes death, sickness and starvation all over the
planet. You are sick.
As you can't be bothered to think before you write I return the disrespect - find
your own references I'm too busy
Andy
> |> Your rantings re the colonisation of space are hilarious, more please...
> |> andy
>
> Glad you like 'em. Lots more where they came from.
>
> Jim Glass
>
> Opinions my own, as if you could doubt it.
>
> |> --
> |> http://www.hrc.wmin.ac.uk/campaigns/earthfirst.html
> |> South Downs EF!, Prior House
> |> 6, Tilbury Place, Brighton BN2 2GY, UK
> |> "Happy is he who dares to defend passionately
> |> that which he loves" -Ovidius
--
http://www.hrc.wmin.ac.uk/campaigns/earthfirst.html
South Downs EF!, Prior House
6, Tilbury Place, Brighton BN2 2GY, UK
"Happy is he who dares to defend passionately
that which he loves" -Ovidius
Subject: Re: If earth stopped spinning, what would happen to us?
From: altavoz
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 1996 23:21:59 -0800
Edward F. Zotti wrote:
>
> Mountain Man wrote:
>
> > The diurnal tides generated by the moon and the sun would be
> > replaced by a lunar 14 day tide, and a solar 183 day tide,
> > which would be superimposed.
> >
> > The long term effects of this new (gravitational) tidal arrangement
> > would need to be contemplated, but the oceans would become less
> > moved by this influence and - as others have written - the range
> > of temperature difference between the 6 months day and the 6 months
> > night would probably cause large scale storms and prevailing winds.
> >
> > This would increase the groundswell, and the average global swell
> > heights would rise considerably as a result, and although the
> > surfing community would benefit with larger surf, there would be
> > a huge increase in the effects of beach erosion, etc.
>
> I don't understand why there would be a 183-day solar tide, since the
> assumption is that the same side of the earth would always face the sun.
> I suppose there might be some variation in solar tidal pull due to the
> earth's elliptical orbit around the sun; perhaps that is what was meant
> here.
altavoz: Earth stationary relative to the celestial sphere.
Daylight would be 182.625 days and nite would be similar.
> It seems clear the primary meteorological effects would be extreme heat
> on the sunny side and extreme cold on the shady side, which would
> generate fierce winds. In view of this it strikes me that confusion due
> to changes in "diurnal living cycles" would be the least of our problems.
> Most of the earth would become uninhabitable except by "some exotic
> monera," as one writer put it.
>
> In terms of gravitational effects, which after all was the original
> question, the consensus seems to be that you would weigh a little more at
> the equator, with progressively less difference as you moved toward the
> poles. However, one writer points out that the cessation of spinning
> would also presumably mean the earth would become more perfectly
> spherical--no more flattening at the poles. Thus the earth's radius at
> the equator would be somewhat reduced, cancelling out the effect of the
> loss of centrifugal force. I despair of computing this and fear that the
> only way to arrive at any definite conclusions is to put the matter to
> the empirical test.
>
> Several writers noted that the real problem would not be the lack of
> spinning but the sudden stop. I have ignored this since such fussy
> practicality seems at odds with the spirit of the question. Admittedly it
> may be more of an issue if the empirical test alluded to above is
> undertaken.
>
> Several writers have taken me to task for claiming that the principal
> effect would be that bathwater in both hemispheres would drain straight
> down. The Coriolis effect on bathtub drains is very slight, they point
> out. I know that. I mentioned it as a joke.
>
> My thanks to all who took the time to write. -Ed
>
> --
>
> Edward F. Zotti
> Northwestern University, Evanston, IL. USA
> ezotti@merle.acns.nwu.edu
Subject: Re: What is the Cause of Time Dilation?
From: bjon@ix.netcom.com (Brian Jones)
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 1996 02:40:02 GMT
Christopher R Volpe wrote[in part]:
>Brian Jones wrote:
>>
>> throopw@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote[in part]:
>>
>> >Bjon specified a "clock reading". The event of a clock hand reaching
>> >a certain reading (or an lcd lighting up a particular digit string,
>> >or any other ways a clock could "have a reading")is... well... an event.
>> >That's what a clock IS. A stream of events. A sequence of
>> >"clock reading" events.
>>
>> There must be some nonclock event AT the clock. This is standard SRT
>> fare.
>Really?!?! What part of SRT says that the occurrence of a particular
>configuration of the hands on a clock doesn't constitute an event?
>> There must be a light signal hitting the clock, etc, but why am
>> I having to explain SRT? There is no event that can be matched with
>> any rear clock reading, mainly because I didn't give one.
>It's amazing that someone who clearly doesn't know what an "event" is
>can think he is explaining SRT.
>--
>Chris Volpe Phone: (518) 387-7766
>GE Corporate R&D; Fax: (518) 387-6560
>PO Box 8 Email: volpecr@crd.ge.com
>Schenectady, NY 12301 Web: http://www.crd.ge.com/~volpecr
What's really amazing is Volpe's supreme confidence despite his
total wrongness.
In 1905, in a small paper, Einstein wrote:
"We have to take into account that all our judgments in which time
plays a role are always judgments of _simultaneous events_. If, for
instance, I say, 'That train arrives here at 7 o'clock,' I mean
something like this: 'The pointing of the small hand of my watch to 7
and the arrival of the train are simultaneous events.'
Subject: Re: A photon - what is it really ?
From: "James Hannum"
Date: 5 Nov 1996 08:43:50 GMT
John Torset wrote in article
<1509.6881T110T1415@iceonline.com>...
> >>I recently read that the rotation of the radiometer is caused not by
> >>photon momentum transfer, but rather by the fact that the black sides
> >>absorb more photons than do the white sides, so that the black sides
> >>become hotter. Therefore the air molecules near the black sides are
> >>excited to higher velocities than are those near the white sides,
> >>resulting in a pressure difference which causes the rotation. In fact,
> >>if you watch a radiometer you'll see that it *does* rotate from black
> >>toward white, which is the opposite of what you would expect if the
> >>motion were caused by a greater momentum transfer on the white side.
> >>
>
> >Well i was taught that it was due to the extra electrons shooting out of
> >the hotter(black) side, but i am certainly not saying that your
> >explanation is wrong, as many of the things i was taught subsequently
> >turned out to be wrong :-( Indeed that's why i wrote this Charles :-)
>
> >"Nevertheless the vanes in the Crookes radiometer do go round
> > with the reflective side to the frount, as J M Woodgate says above.
>
> > So here we have an excellent example of a theory making the
> > RIGHT PREDICTIONS, but for totally the WRONG REASONS.
>
> > (Similarly with many of Einstein's predictions,i think:-)"
>
> >--
> >Keith Stein
>
> Since the radiometer supposely should be a wheel inside a evacuated
(vacum)
> glassbulb with very few molecules left, I would say that the last
explanation
> sound more resonable.
Actually, the tube cannot be fully evacuated. If it is, the device will
not work.
But why should you take my word for it. Check it out yourselves.
Subject: Re: Using C for number-crunching (was: Numerical solution to
From: David Kastrup
Date: 05 Nov 1996 10:29:00 +0100
shenkin@still3.chem.columbia.edu (Peter Shenkin) writes:
: First, I recently posted a disclaimer to two of my earlier postings,
@> but now I want to disclaim the disclaimer. :-) Someone had posted
@> saying that const qualification (in C) does not convey non-alias
@> information, because the const qualifier guarantees only that no
@> attempt will be made to write to the underlying addresses *through the
@> const-qualified pointer*.
This was me, and I stand by my statement. See below why.
@> void func( float a[], const float b[], const float c, const int n ) {
@> int i;
@> for( i=0; i a[ i ] = a[ i ] + c * b[ i ];
@> }
@> }
@> I originally stated that the compiler could easily tell that a[]
@> and b[] do not overlap, because if they did, the const b[] array
@> would in part be overwritten, but its const qualification says it
@> can't be. Against this it was argued that the C language
@> guarantees that correct code must be generated even if a[] and b[]
@> overlap, since "const" only says that the programmer can't alter
@> b[i] by dereferencing b -- it remains legal and well-defined to
@> dereference b[]'s data through a. At the time I agreed, with
@> regrets.
And you'll have to agree again.
@> But now (sparked by Nick's posting, which implicitly seemed to
@> concur
@> with my original) I've looked this up in the C standard, section
@> 6.5.3. It states, in part, "If an attempt is made to modify an object
@> defined with a const-qualified type through use of an lvalue with
@> non-const-qualified type, the behavior is undefined."
@> Thus, the standard is quite clearly saying that the compiler can
@> assume from the const-qualified declaration of b[] that the contents
@> of b[] will not be altered even by means of dereference through a.
@> I.e., my original posting was correct.
And that's where you are being wrong in your interpretation. A
pointer, be it const or not, does *not* define an object. It just
references it. If an object is *defined* using a const qualifier, the
compiler can assume that the object will never change, legally. But
the function getting a const pointer to an object does not know if the
object has been defined as const. That the pointer is a const pointer
tells nothing about the state of the object it points to (except that
we are not going to change the object through just that pointer).
@> Incidently, if you read Dennis Ritchie's official comment to
@> X3J11 in 1989, on the subject of the then-proposed qualifiers,
@> he suggests for const:
@>
@> Add a constraint (or discussion or example) to assignment that makes
@> clear the illegality of assigning to an object whose actual type is
@> const-qualified, no matter what access path is used. There is a
@> manifest constraint that is easy to check (left side is not
@> const-qualified), but also a non-checkable constraint (left side is
@> not secretly const-qualified). The effect should be that converting
@> between pointers to const-qualified and plain objects is legal and
@> well-defined; avoiding assignment through pointers that derive
@> ultimately from `const' objects is the programmer's responsibility.
Again, here Ritchie is talking about the const-ness of an object
prohibiting assignments to it ultimatively, *not* about the const-ness
of pointers to them.
@> Second, I do agree with Nick that this method of telling the compiler
@> that aliasing is not going to happen is somewhat unwieldy except in
@> simple cases.
It does not work, simply because const pointers are allowed to point
to variable objects, and the only strict guarantees are about const
objects.
--
David Kastrup Phone: +49-234-700-5570
Email: dak@neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de Fax: +49-234-709-4209
Institut fuer Neuroinformatik, Universitaetsstr. 150, 44780 Bochum, Germany
Subject: Re: Do redshifts measure distances accurately?
From: devens@uoguelph.ca (David L Evens)
Date: 5 Nov 1996 04:08:44 GMT
Peter Newman (prn@sa1.star.uclan.ac.uk) wrote:
: Tom Davidson wrote:
: |>Question: How is the red shift due to transitions across gravity wells
: |>(presumably a roughly linear function of distance for intergalactic photons)
: |>distinguishable from doppler red-shift?
: The redshift that happens when a photon climbs out of a gravitational potential
: ("well") is exactly cancelled by the *blue*shift that happens as it falls into
: the well. So there is no net shift.
Not quite, but close.
If the potential is not moving relative to the observer, then it has no
net effect on observed frequency.
If the potential is moving relative to the observer, it could transfer
energy with photons moving through it in such a way that the observer
could see frequency changes. I doubt that we're going to see many
systems where this is important, however. There would have to be HUGE
gravity fields and relative velocities for an important effect to occur.
--
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
Ring around the neutron, | "OK, so he's not terribly fearsome.
A pocket full of positrons,| But he certainly took us by surprise!"
A fission, a fusion, +--------------------------------------------------
We all fall down! | "Was anybody in the Maquis working for me?"
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
"I'd cut down ever Law in England to get at the Devil!"
"And what man could stand up in the wind that would blow once you'd cut
down all the laws?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message may not be carried on any server which places restrictions
on content.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
e-mail will be posted as I see fit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Hermeneutics and the difficulty to count to three...
From: +@+.+ (G*rd*n)
Date: 5 Nov 1996 07:55:51 -0500
jti@coronado.santafe.edu (Jeff Inman):
| ...
| It seems to me that what we are observing in this thread, and in the
| millions of other similar and similarly aggravating threads I've seen
| elsewhere, is a meeting, or rather the inevitable failure to meet, of
| the opposed aspects of personality that Jung referred to as "Sensate"
| and "Intuitive". No fooling.
| ...
I think this is a nice theory. It doesn't explain the fury
of the fans of the more solid Ding-an-sich, however. So far
the only one to explain his anger so I could understand it
was Dr. Sokal, who apparently blames Continental philosophy
for the disorder of the Left, recalling, perhaps, a more
coherent era under the aegis of "scientific" Marxism. I
don't agree with this idea, but it does make a kind of sense,
whereas becoming greatly wrought up because someone says
"Newton was wrong" or "f = ma is not written on the
electrons" doesn't, without postulating a similarly powerful
emotional system associated with, among other things, the
image of Newton -- the sort of thing I have depicted as a
kind of religion.
--
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ gcf @ panix.com }"{
Subject: Re: Einstein-Rosen-Podolsky Paradox
From: candy@mildred.ph.utexas.edu (Jeff Candy)
Date: 5 Nov 1996 13:43:28 GMT
|> Van Cakenbergh Marnix:
|> > Let's go back to the ERP-experiment in which Einstein, Rosen and
|> > Polansky proved both in the lab and through mathematical calculation
|> > that two quantum particles, like photons, brought closely enough to
|> > eachother, are always synchronised whatever their distance. I don't have
|> > to tell you about the consequences this implies to the Special Theory of
|> > Relativity (information or "something else" that travels at speeds
|> > greater than the speed of light :-0 ). This results into a Zen-style
|> > paradox in which either QM is incorrect or the Special Theory of
|> > Relativity has to be revieved (so much for "elektromagnetic chauvinism")
"David Byrden:
|> Neither theory need be reviewed, and the effect is real. It was
|> first demonsrated 14 years ago and is now being used in the design of
|> computing elements.
|> Why not familiarise yourself with current research?
I remember Van Cakenbergh's post from a while ago. To wit,
(i) its "Podolsky", not Polansky
(ii) no signals propagate faster than c
(iii) the system has statistics described by one, spatially extended
spin-singlet state (in the case of electrons)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Candy The University of Texas at Austin
Institute for Fusion Studies Austin, Texas
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Sophistry 103 (was: I know that!)
From: weinecks@mail1.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria Weineck)
Date: 5 Nov 1996 14:01:07 GMT
I just composed a reply, but then found Richard's post which said it all
very nicely.
Silke
Hardy Hulley (hardy@icon.co.za) wrote:
: Silke-Maria Weineck wrote in article
: <55l1kj$4oc@netnews.upenn.edu>...
: > Hardy Hulley (hoh@rmb.co.za) wrote:
: > : >>
: > : >>The rest of the above extract is vapid. In my opinion, Derrida missed
: > : >>his vocation as a random word generator (... or perhaps he didn't).
: > : >>
: > : >>
: > : >>Glad I could help,
: > :
: > : Silke-Maria Weineck:
: > : >I'm afraid you couldn't; distorting the quote won't help. Derrida
: > : >corrects "constant" to "center" -- and if you want to understand the
: > : >sentence, you will have to know what "center" means in the context of
: > : >Structure, Sign, and Play. Which means you'll have to, gasp. read it.
: > : >
: > : >Next, please.
: >
: > : I appreciate your well-meaning advice, but you haven't addressed my
: > : point.
: >
: > Well, neither have you so far...
: My point (expressed crudely): Derrida (in the quoted extract) is
: unintelligible.
: Your point: I don't understand Derrida, I should do a little more homework.
: Clearly, I have already (implicitely) addressed your point. Think about it.
: > So, out of pure generosity, I'll give you a hard target to shoot
: > : at - namely, the following hypothesis, whose expression is both
: > : unambiguous and falsifiable (Popper would have loved me):
: > : The quote (above) from Derrida has no interpretation which is both (a)
: > : reasonable (in the sense that it doesn't rely upon a proprietary
: mapping
: > : of syntax into semantics), and (b) valid when interpreted within the
: > : constraints of (a).
: >
: > : In order to falsify my hypothesis, a suitable counter-example is all
: > : that is required of you. You may, naturally, invoke whatever supporting
: > : text from Derrida you deem appropriate. Of course, conditions (a) and
: > : (b) would have to apply here as well.
: >
: > Sure, let's see: "Einstein's constant is not a center," meaning:
: > "Einstein's constant does not offer a center [supply: in the sense in
: > which I have defined center in the talk I have just given and all of you
: > present have heard, so you know what I'm talking about]," i.e. it does
: > not and cannot ground cultural, political, aesthetic or philosophical
: > structures since, as I will continue a paragraph down (and if Hardly
: > Hulley had read the talk or the whole discussion instead of jumping to
: > conlucsions on the basis of an excerpt from an oral response, he would
: > actually understand this):
: > [Hippolite:] It is a constant in the game?
: > [Derrida:] It is _the_ constant of the game...
: > [Hippolite:] It is the rule of the game.
: > [Derrida:] It is a rule of the game which does not governthe game; it is
: > a rule of the game which does not dominate the game.:
: >
: > Here's some extra:
: >
: > "How to define structure? Structure should b centered. But this center
: can
: > be either thought, as it was classically, like a creator or being or a
: > fixed and natural place; or also as a deficiency, let's say; or something
: > which makes possible 'free play,' in the sense in which one speaks of the
: > 'jeu dans la machine,' of the 'jeu des pie`ce,' and which receives -- and
: > this is waht we call history -- a series of determinations, of signifiers
: > which have no sifnifieds finally, which cannot become signifiers except
: as
: > they begin from the deficiency."
: All that can be concluded from this is that my hypothesis concerning
: Derrida most likely obtains for you as well. Is there some sort of
: impediment which prevents you from writing clearly?
: Let me list some of the more conspicuous deficiencies in your "explanation"
: of Derrida's quoted extract:
: (1) You still haven't found an explanation for the Einsteinian "constant is
: not a constant", and it is "the very concept of variability". How can these
: statements be true (and, please, no more ill-founded crap about "centres",
: unless you're prepared to adhere to some basic standard of clarity of
: expression)?
: (2) What is the game? Who is playing? Are there any rules (and are they
: intelligible)?
: (3) The Einsteinian constant cannot "ground cultural, political, aesthetic
: or philosophical structures". Was it ever intended to? What the fuck are
: you gabbling about?
: > : An appropriate starting point may be a listing of Dictionary
: definitions
: > : of words such as: constant, centre, concept, variability, game, etc.
: > : Then all you would have to do is join the dots, so to speak - an
: > : intellectual exercise for which, I am sure, you are admirably equipped.
: >
: > Why would a dictionary help with a concept that has just been elaborated?
: > What a strange idea. Derrida has just spent an hour developing his
: > concept of center, and you ask for a dictionary? And this doesn't strike
: > you as slightly bizarre?
: The word "centre" has a well-defined meaning, independent of whatever
: Derrida may think of the matter. If Derrida's writing amounts to nothing
: more than constructing new, ill-defined meanings for existing words, then
: how can he be anything other than unintelligible?
: To answer your question: I find bizarre the concept that one can string
: together a row of words, call such a string an argument, and not even
: wonder what the individual components of said "argument" actually mean.
: Words do have meanings, and these meanings have objective components - thus
: meanings are at least partially (and usually more than a little) invariant
: with respect to those who use them. Without this (at least partially)
: objective nature of the meanings of words, communication would not be
: possible - you may consider that Derrida verifies this assertion.
: > : Hopefully in this (possibly your first) formal exercise in
: > : falsification, you will learn something about the philosophy of
: science.
: >
: > I suppose the above should have read, "I hope that...," because I can't
: > say that your reply makes me feel very hopeful about that philosophy of
: > science as whose representative you present.
: Nowhere did I claim to represent any particular flavour of philosophy of
: science. If you want to be a deconstructionist when you grow up, you're
: going to have to learn to be a whole lot more careful with words.
: Cheers,
: Hardy
Subject: Re: Sophistry 103 (was: I know that!)
From: nanken@tiac.net (Ken MacIver)
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 1996 17:43:02 GMT
tejas@infi.net (Ted Samsel) wrote:
>Richard Harter (cri@tiac.net) wrote:
>:
>: Muttering about unintelligibility simply says that you aren't trying,
>: aren't willing try to get anything from the text. I am reminded of my
>: first day in boot camp. The hellmaster, excuse me, DI was marching we
>: raw recruits somewhere and was calling out cadence. This I knew from
>: nothing; I had no notion at all of marching in step; I didn't know
>: there was such a thing. The hellmaster halted us, walked over to me,
>: rapped me smartly on the head with his swagger stick, and screamed
>: "You Son of a Bitch, You aren't even TRYING". Boot camp being what it
>: was, I learned to try very quickly.
>But then, did you become a lifer? I wouldn't call THAT "trying".
>"I can't HEAR you!"
AS YOU WERE! Don't bother to stand. I'll be in the area all day.
KEN
Subject: Re: Read first people, don't look uniformed!
From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Date: 4 Nov 1996 18:38:36 -0500
Jim Carr, jac@ibms48.scri.fsu.edu, writes:
|
| That is, read up on a sampling of the experiments that observe the
| neutrino before going on and on about why models that assume its
| existence are flawed. Given that the neutrino was first detected
| directly almost exactly 40 years ago, your claims look rather foolish.
David de Hilster writes:
>
>Jim, I expected much better from you!
Then we are even: I expected something from David as a result of his
research efforts into neutrinos. After working on this for so long
one would expect that he would have at least made it past 1956 in
the literature. Instead, we see more of the same specious reasoning
>Neutrinos have NEVER been
>detected directly. You know that.
I know that they have been detected as directly as David de Hilster
has ever been detected.
>They are deduced from SR's equations.
>Don't gloss here so the youngins don't get confused.
Confusing people is the goal of AD advocates, with the statement
above as a prime example. The direct detection of neutrinos does
not come from the SR equations any more than the detection of David
de Hilster does. It comes from observing the appearance of specific
particles via inverse beta decay. Read the references mentioned the
last time this came up, from Reines and Cowan to the articles from E733
that Hatcher has told David about.
>Don't you get it Jim? It's too simple. An extra frame in SR's derivation
>throws extra energy into the whole system. The neutrino is there to
>take up the slack.
That is gibberish. The neutrino has nothing whatsoever to do with the
derivation of SR or some 'extra frame'. Could we have a specific
citation for where this appears in Einstein's first paper?
Put up or shut up.
>If you read the AD pages Jim, you and others would see the answer to
>many of your questions.
I see statements but no answers. The AD material is repetitive but
not responsive. For example, there is no answer to the questions
posed about the AD explanation for E733 despite the passage of much
time. Instead we see positively amusing claims like
>You don't want to look at the Buechner/Van de
>Graaff experiment in MIT in 1946. It proves that the electron-neutrino
>doesn't exist.
It does nothing of the sort. It shows that a wild guess proposed in
1936 about an anomaly in cloud chamber data (!!) was wrong. Since that
wild guess is completely inconsistent with the standard model for
electron-neutrino interactions, this paper *verifies* the prediction
of the standard model for the neutrino and weak interactions, the
exact opposite of what David claims.
> ... Read it Jim and refute it here. I am waiting. My guess is that
>you can't understand it because you refuse to look at it.
David has to "guess" because he does not have a clue what he is
talking about. Specifically, David does not understand that this
paper does not refute the modern theory of neutrino interactions,
or even the old Fermi 4-point model, since those models never
predicted what Bothe speculated about in ignorance when the idea
of the neutrino was so new that people sometimes confused it with
the neutron. They also speculated about heavy electrons (muons!)
showing up in nuclear beta decay.
I don't know why David thinks I would refuse to look at this paper;
I looked at it the last time this came up and had a good laugh at
the time. What I don't understand is why David refuses to look at
some results from more recent parts of the literature or read the
papers he cites with more comprehension.
>What are neutrino detectors dectecting if not neutrinos? FAQ on our
>pages: why do they go around burying them under mountains, water,
>and put them near penguins? To avoid false hits.
Penguins?
To make such a claim about neutrino detectors, David is either ignorant
or deliberately trying to mislead. The Reines and Cowan detector was
not under a mountain; the detector at FNAL is in a big old quonset hut
style structure that you can see easily from the air. The only ones
that are buried are the ones looking for solar neutrinos where the
count rate is low and background considerations are important because
you cannot turn off the source to look for a change. Reactor and
accelerator based measurements are done very differently, as David
would know if he had read any of the articles on neutrino detection
that he has been told about.
>Neutrino beams are indirectly assumed to be there so energy conservation
>works out for SR.
That is a reasonable statement about what is assumed at the production
target. Then the beam goes zipping through lots of dirt and veto
counters -- all making sure no contaminants are present -- before it
shows up at the detectors. Then, in interactions with the steel armor
plate used for that purpose, the energy 'assumed' to be gone reappears
along with the specific particles (muons at FNAL) required if inverse
beta decay is the mechanism.
Now David can claim that this is indirect, but it is no different than
when I shine a light out into a room and make assumptions about energy
conservation and absorption and reemission to explain the red light
coming back from David's face, florid with anger and embarassment.
>I know YOU won't see it Jim, but others do. I guess it's too simple.
>No tensors here. I got a degree in advance calculus.
Too bad they didn't teach you to spell it.
--
James A. Carr | Raw data, like raw sewage, needs
http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac | some processing before it can be
Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst. | spread around. The opposite is
Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306 | true of theories. -- JAC
Subject: Re: Autodynamics
From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Date: 4 Nov 1996 18:48:04 -0500
Anthony Potts writes:
}
} ...The neutrino is very well observed, both directly as mentioned above, and
} indirectly, through our measurements of missing energy and momentum in
} situations where we woul dexpect the neutrino to carry it away.
dean@psy.uq.oz.au (Dean Povey) writes:
>
>This is an interesting statement. Let's think for a moment about how the
>neutrino was "discovered".
>
>Ellis & Wooster measured the energy produced from RaE decay and measured the
>energy produced using a calorimeter. They discovered that the amount of
>energy produced in the decay did not match what was predicted by the
>standard theory. Other experimenters were able to confirm this result.
>
>In 1930, Pauli (never considering that SR might be incorrect) postulated that
>the energy which was not accounted for must be carried away by an undetectable
>particle (later named the neutrino by Fermi).
This would be a complete story if Dean were writing in 1935, but quite
a bit has happened since. For example, in 1956 the neutrino was seen
directly in the experiments of Reines and Cowan, an early version of
the sorts of things that are now done routinely. It is even possible
to tell electron-neutrinos and muon-neutrinos apart. Or didn't they
explain this during the AD indoctrination?
>In light of this, I find the claim that the Neutrino is well observed
>"through our measurements of missing energy and momentum in situations
> where we would expect the neutrino to carry it away" seem a little like
>a circular argument.
Nothing circular about saying we need to have this particle carry away
some energy, and then further down the line saying we need this particle
to explain where this new energy came from.
It is strictly analogous to measuring the energy going into a heater,
letting the IR travel to a detector, and observe that the infra red
photons have carried heat energy invisibly from one place to another.
Nothing circular in either of these experiments.
--
James A. Carr | Raw data, like raw sewage, needs
http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac | some processing before it can be
Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst. | spread around. The opposite is
Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306 | true of theories. -- JAC