Subject: Re: THE INDUSTRIAL RELIGION and noew dancing as well
From: "sdef!"
Date: Sat, 09 Nov 1996 16:03:56 +0000
Adam Ierymenko wrote:
>
> In article <3282D4E9.781C@easynet.co.uk>,
> "sdef!" writes:
> >Their neat, anal-retentive backyards reflect their neurosis, that same
> >neurosis that is destroying the very fabric of life we depend on. You cannot
> >tolerate anyone actually LIVING the way they talk, because then you wouldn't
> >be able to sneer "you're all talk" would you? You would be faced with the
> >incontrovertible proof that people can live quite happily outside of your
> >sick system whre dancing isn't allowed without a 'license'. Where fun must be
> >regulated and channeled into the greed system oyu and your ilk depend on like
> >vampires on blood.
>
> Dancing is illegal? (I live in the U.S... do you live in commie china or
> something?)
>
It isn't illegal, that would cause a revolution. It's just licenced. If people
want to party they have go to the approved venues, have to put moneey in someones
pocket. They arent allowed to gather somewhere and just party. It is ILLEGAL to
gather on public land without a licence.
Pubs have to have a special licence to allow dancing.
You can't have fun unless you pay, unless you can afford to pay, otherwise if you
try you are acting illegally. It's bullshit dreamed up by old gits in grey suits
who hate life.
Andy
--
http://www.hrc.wmin.ac.uk/campaigns/earthfirst.html
South Downs EF!, Prior House
6, Tilbury Place, Brighton BN2 2GY, UK
"I can trace my family back to a protoplasmal primordial atomic globule.
Consequently, my family pride is something inconceivable."
- William Schwenck Gilbert, "The Mikado".
Subject: Re: Time & space, still (was: Hermeneutics ...)
From: weinecks@mail1.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria Weineck)
Date: 9 Nov 1996 16:30:25 GMT
I'm not denying anything you said, but you are still missing the point;
some people have pointed out here that when Heisenberg or Bohr or
Einstein comment _philosophically_, they are not commenting qua
scientists either, and that their "musings" or "thoughts" have no
bearings on physics as it is of interest to Mati. They _do_ understand
the physics but they also address questions that are _not_ pertinent to
the practice of physics -- just like Derrida, perchance.
And I will repeat my recommendation: if you want to know whether Bohr and
Derrida are really as far apart as you assume, refer yourself to
Plotnitsky's _Complementarity_.
I also find your comments a tad disingenuous -- by now it has been
pointed out a million times that Derrida's comments on SR do _not_ spring
out of a whole context of his work but are a casual reply to a casual
question by a colleague -- in other words, yes, he's dabbling a bit --
just as Bohr and Heisenberg etc. are dabbling in philosophy.
Silke
Richard Harter (cri@tiac.net) wrote:
: weinecks@mail1.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria Weineck) wrote:
: >: Again, I'm not sure what expertise was declared irrelevant. Sorry if
: >: I sound dense.
: >I'm amazed that this point seems hard to grasp. I'll try again: Derrida
: >refers to SR as a decentering, destabilizing theory -- so have major
: >physicists before him. In deriding Derrida's (brief and cryptic, but this
: >_is_ oral and conversational, after all) perspective, lots of
: >"scientists" around here have made fun of his credentials and alleged
: >that the remark, taken out of context, shows his utter inanity in regard
: >to science. Now some people start pointing out that eminent physicists
: >might have had a similar take on these matters --- which seems to suggest
: >to me that it is _not_ a question of scientific expertise, but of
: >philosophical perspective, framework, etc.
: >Have I made myself clearer?
: As a caveat, I don't speak for "lots of scientists" and they don't
: speak for me. That said, I suggest that Derrida and said physicists
: are working different territories and they are saying different
: things. This is not a simple matter to analyze because one really has
: to understand not only what the physicists are saying but what they
: mean by what they are saying and one also has to understand what
: Derrida is saying.
: I grant that it is a matter of philosophical perspective but this says
: very little; almost anything is a matter of philosophical perspective
: if you choose to look at it that way.
: To say that SR is a decentering theory is, in its own right, to say
: very little, to say only "we've changed the way we look at things".
: La de da. But when Derrida says it, he says it out of an entire
: context, a way of looking at things and approaching them. And when
: the physicists say something that sounds the same, it's not the same
: because it is out of a very different context.
: The issues and concerns that Derrida is addressing are drawn from the
: continental philosophical schools, Hegel, Heidegger, Husserl, et. al.,
: and from Literary criticism. This entire body of intellectual
: thought, this apparatus of ideas, is effectively irrelevant to the
: issues and concerns that the physicists are grappling with. If one is
: going to relate Derrida to Science, one is going to have to come to
: terms with the philosopher of science and not simply science. That in
: turn is no simple matter; scientists do science in the context of an
: implicit philosophy of science, irregularly and imperfectly
: formulated. Scientists quote people like Popper, not because they are
: very good [they aren't], but because what Popper, et.al., says is
: somewhere in the neighbourhood.
: Everything is simple if you don't understand the question.
:
: Richard Harter, cri@tiac.net, The Concord Research Institute
: URL = http://www.tiac.net/users/cri, phone = 1-508-369-3911
: Life is tough. The other day I was pulled over for doing trochee's
: in an iambic pentameter zone and they revoked my poetic license.
Subject: Re: When social critics wimp out ... (was: Nietzsche)
From: Andrew_Perry@Brown.edu (Andy Perry)
Date: Sat, 09 Nov 1996 13:09:17 -0500
In article <55tvf7$jkt@lynx.dac.neu.edu>, mkagalen@lynx.dac.neu.edu
(Michael Kagalenko) wrote:
>Andy Perry (Andrew_Perry@Brown.edu) wrote:
>]In article <55mg2t$8p0@lynx.dac.neu.edu>, mkagalen@lynx.dac.neu.edu
>](Michael Kagalenko) wrote:
>]
>]
>]>]> If you find meaning in lunatic ravings, you are liable for getting
>]>]> locked up in mental institution. So much for your cherished
>]>]> article of faith - that no text can be called gibberish if there
>]>]> exists some sucker who thinks it's truly deep.
>]>]
>]>]If you can use a particular utterance to label someone a lunatic and lock
>]>]them away in an institution, you are hardly failing to attribute meaning
>]>]to them, now are you?
>]>
>]> Your reading is sloppy. I am talking about meaning of texts.
>]> I do not know what is "attribute meaning to the person" -
>]> sounds like a gibberish to me.
>]
>]My writing was sloppy, not my reading. Let me rephrase: You are
>]attributing meaning to the text by calling it "lunatic raving."
>
> Your thinking is even slopier then your writing. By calling
> the text "lunatic ravings" I attach the meaning to the act of
> creating it, not to the text itself.
And "the text itself" isn't your only means of access to the act of
creating it? You don't use it to STAND FOR the act of creating it? If
not, what does the text have to do with its lunatic or nonlunatic status?
And you call MY thinking sloppy...
[Much snipped to get back the the point of all this. You're welcome.
(I'm not talking to you, Kagelenko.)]
>]>]>] It's kind of like
>]>]>]feeling pain, don'tcha know? The same cannot be said for tangible
>]>]>]objects.
>]>]>
>]>]> I note dryly that you fail to make a distinction between logic and
>]>]> emotion.
>]>]
>]>]I note dryly that pain is no more an emotion than are red, cold, or odors.
>]>
>]> Neither of those are emotions, they are facts of material
>]> world that can be measured and that exist independently of any
>]> observer.
>]
>]All four are sensations.
>
> Thos words denote both the sensations and the causes that prodiuced them.
Does any of this explain why you think pain is an emotion?
> It seems that you are trying to ignore latter meaning.
No, you moron, I am trying to point out that sensations are incorrigible,
remember? That was the whole point of bringing them up. People can see
red, feel cold, or smell bacon frying under many different circumstances.
Maybe they are experiencing physical objects in the real world external to
themselves. Maybe they are dreaming, remembering, hallucinating, or
imagining. In NONE of the latter four cases are they "wrong" about
experiencing what they are experiencing. Even someone who is
hallucinating really is seeing red or feeling cold. The problem is that
they think this sensation has a relationship to external reality which it
does not have. But the sensation is itself real.
I drew an analogy which you wanted to question, but you are so utterly
bent on spuriously finding fault with anything you read that you have now
talked yourself into a position where you CAN'T question my analogy
anymore, because you no longer seem to believe that there is any
difference between pain and meaning. It's ALL rational in your book. If
I were you, I'd grant my description of sensation, and start talking about
the major differences between it and meaning, rather than trying to make
it sound like you have the same model for both. Just a helpful hint on
how to go about making your argument effectively. Normally I get paid for
those.
>
>] None can be measured. Their CAUSES can be
>]measured, but that just isn't the same thing.
>
> Please note, that progress of neuroscience cast doubt on the second
> part of your assertion.
Please note that neuroscience only exists as a field if the second part of
my assertion it accurate. If it is inaccurate, then one would expect
people interested in measuring perception to go into physics.
>
>]>]>]>]You'd much better try reading some Derrida, indeed.
>]>]>]>
>]>]>]> If you are good example of results of such reading, then I'll
>]>]>]> pass.
>]>]>]
>]>]>]Do you seriously expect anyone to believe that the only important
>]>]>]difference between Silke and you is that she's read Derrida and you
>]>]>]haven't?
>]>]>
>]>]> You are twisting what I said.
>]>]
>]>]How so?
>]>
>]> On the second thought, I replace my previous remark with note that
>]> your question is irrelevant to my point, which was; dishonest sophist's
>]> recommendation of some text as noteworthy is suspect and ought not
>]> to be given weight to when making choces.
>]
>]And now YOU are twisting what you said.
>
> Are you caliming that your reading of what I said is privileged ?
No, I'm claiming that yours is implausible. You claim:
"dishonest sophist's recommendation of some text as noteworthy is suspect
and ought not to be given weight to when making choces"
is a simple paraphrase of
"If you [aka dishonest sophist] are an example of results of reading [some
text], then I'll pass [on reading it]."
You're wrong.
--
Andy Perry We search before and after,
Brown University We pine for what is not.
English Department Our sincerest laughter
Andrew_Perry@brown.edu OR With some pain is fraught.
st001914@brownvm.bitnet -- Shelley, d'apres Horace Rumpole
Subject: Re: What is the Cause of Time Dilation?
From: bjon@ix.netcom.com (Brian Jones)
Date: Sat, 09 Nov 1996 18:07:55 GMT
throopw@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote[in part]:
>::: The dude did not ask for reality, but only for an operational def.
>::: of absolute time.
>:: You have given a definition, but not an OPERATIONAL definition.
>: bjon@ix.netcom.com (Brian Jones)
>: It is operational in the sense that it could be carried out by simple
>: trial and error if by no other means.
>You can only have "trial and error" as an operational definition if you
>can tell when you err. For example, it is clear that bjon has erred
>here. He now knows he needs to make another try at his operational
>definition.
>So, keep on trying, bjon. Everybody needs a hobby, I guess.
>--
>Wayne Throop throopw@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
> throopw@cisco.com
Still, given enough trials (and the error is when the times don't
match), the observers should eventually reach the point where all
their time intervals match for any given events. At that point, they
would have absolutely synch'd clocks. And this is per Einstein's own
definition of absolute time, which is that all observers find the same
time between any two events. In SRT, all find a different time period
for the same two events, which (being only two events) can have only
one actual time between them.
Subject: Re: What is the Cause of Time Dilation?
From: throopw@sheol.org (Wayne Throop)
Date: Sat, 09 Nov 1996 19:06:21 GMT
: bjon@ix.netcom.com (Brian Jones)
: And yet, since absolute time (in the sense of real clocks having real
: readings -- as opposed to mere relative readings -- and in the sense
: that real clocks really slow -- and in the sense that SRT's clocks are
: set out-of-true by an amount that is proportional to the observer's
: absolute speed, just so this absolute speed is cancelled when the
: observer uses such clocks to meausure light's speed) exists, then it
: exists inside SRT since this is a theory of that which exists.
Yes, yes. Bjon claims absolute time exists, and that people
"set clocks out-of-true" and so on and on and on. But SR involves
no such concept. Einstein synchronization doesn't set a time
relative to absolute, it simply sets a time. Just as, if you
draw a line with a straightedge, you aren't drawing it at an
angle to an Absolute Direction.
Or more precisely, the concepts involved in "straight line" don't
involve an "absolute direction" and "draw-out-of-true" and so forth,
just as the concept of synchronized clocks in SR does NOT involve,
not even implicitly, an "absolute time" WRT which these settings are
"set out-of-true".
That's why I said "exist, exschmist". To continue to bleat
about absolute time "exists" but "unavailable to us" it to
totally miss the point of SR.
:: But the "actual beat of each atomic clock" is proper time, equal to
:: the spacetime interval. That in no way establishes that there must
:: be an absolute time.
: It can be called "proper time" or "schnopper time," but the simple
: fact is it is an absolute beat, not in any way observer-dependent.
Right. And it in no way establishes that there must be an absolute time,
and absolute velocity, or an absolute length or distance, as bjon
so often (and so incorrectly) claims. Bjon wants an absolute-beat-
that-changes-with-absolute-velocity. But such a scheme is superfluous.
Bjon's claim is that, for observer-independent results, there must be
an observer-independent cause. OK. Fine. But this observer-independent
cause need not be a coordinate time, nor a velocity. In Bjons' framework,
since the coordinate time between two events varies, this variation must
be due to the varying of some observer-independent absolute "velocity".
This is exactly as daft as the claim that since delta-x between two
points varies, this variation must be due to the varying of some
observer-independent absolute "slope" or direction.
: So, give us all the meaning (physical) of "four hours squared."
Since time is a coordinate, it can only have a
coordinate-system-dependent meaning, just as "give us all the meaning
(physical) of "four feet in the x direction squared". It's only
*distance* squared that has physical meaning, as a quantity of area.
And it's only *interval* squared that has physical meaning,
as a quantity of spacetime.
And, of course, bjon's query is intended to engage sensory
prejudice, since he can claim that this quantity of spacetime
is not a "meaning (physical)", because you can't look at it,
touch it, feel it, and in general it is seemingly unavailable
to human senses. But that's be cause human senses are prejudiced
by being "tuned" to yield low-velocity approximate invariants such as
distance and duration, not high-velocity invariants such as the interval.
But sensory prejudice combined with metaphysical inflexibility
does not unphysical imply.
: If a clock travels between two events, there's only one value for this
: particular clock, and it is an absolute reading, not a relative one.
: And the clock that has the greatest reading has taken the shortest
: absolute route between the two events, which is the absolute distance
: between them.
But the "absolute distance" is completely irrelevant, and doesn't figure
into any part of the SR model, neither explicitly nor implicitly. Because
the exact same SR calculations work no matter what this "absolute distance"
or "absolute route" might be.
Just exactly as length in geometry works, and yields the same answers
from the same measurements, no matter what direction you
might choose as the "absolute direction".
: you carry it beyond reason by denying the very existence of that which
: SRT says we cannot determine -- our absolute velocity.
Sheesh, bjon can't even get *this* simple point correct.
I DO NOT DENY THE EXISTANCE of absolute velocity, in this discussion.
I say it's irrelevant. I've lost track of the number of times
I've told bjon this; dozens at least. Yet he continually
says I'm "denying the very existance of [] absolute [whatever]".
Read my lips. It's irrelevant to SR.
I didn't say it was nonexistant, and in this context, I don't
care whether it exists or not. It's precisely as relevant to SR
as absolute direction is to geometry.
It's not beyond reason. It's simply pointing out that SR doesn't
involve any absolute velocity, in any of its formulae, nor in any of its
definitions, either explicitly or implicitly. The cases where bjon
claims it creeps in are, in fact only places where bjon *drags* it in
arbitrarily, to "explain why" (eg) SR synchronization works. And this
is as irrelevant to SR as dragging an "absolute direction" into geometry
to "explain why" a straightedge works.
A straightedge works because it's straight. It's straight because
we've defined objects with certain relative properties straight.
Just as with SR clocks and synchronization.
--
Wayne Throop throopw@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
throopw@cisco.com
Subject: Re: Our current education system (was Re: How Much Math? (not enough))
From: jmc@Steam.stanford.edu (John McCarthy)
Date: 09 Nov 1996 19:28:12 GMT
My opinion is that the public is quite respectful of science. Popular
science magazines typically have circulations in the hundreds of
thousands. All kinds of swindlers, e.g. Rifkin, appeal to scientific
concepts when they can.
However, the ordinary, unreflective person often has contradictory
ideas in mind, i.e. can simultaneously believe in science and
technology and also in abductions by aliens. The literary, high
culture that denigrates science and scientists is almost as
unreflective in many of its fattitudes.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
During the last years of the Second Millenium, the Earthmen complained
a lot.
Subject: Re: Time & space, still (was: Hermeneutics ...)
From: meron@cars3.uchicago.edu
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1996 19:51:40 GMT
In article <5612ek$j6h@netnews.upenn.edu>, weinecks@mail1.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria Weineck) writes:
>meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>: In article <55vpse$ub0@netnews.upenn.edu>, weinecks@mail1.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria Weineck) writes:
>: >meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>: >: In article <55vho0$o2k@netnews.upenn.edu>, weinecks@mail2.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria Weineck) writes:
>: >: >
>: >Believe me, I'm aware of it. I am not aware, however, of Derrida having
>: >applied for a professorship in physics, so it doesn't seem all that
>: >relevant. The argument against Derrida so far has usually taken the form,
>: >"hah, the guy doesn't even know the science, he doesn't know what he's
>: >talking about, why should I listen to him."
>
>: The argument as I've seen it (note that I'm not involved in it) was
>: rather "His statements in the specific passage quoted don't seem to
>: make any sense."
>
>Okay, I'll bite -- why doesnt it make any sense?
You ask me? I told you already, I'm not involved in this argument.
>Because nobody who reacts that way has read SSP or has even the
>faintest notion of what "center" means in this context.
Quite possible. It is really disturbing, this tendency people have to
be quite outspoken about things they know next to nothing about.
>: I'm not sure what are the concerns you mention. I'm yet to see a
>: clear statement on this issue.
>
>Actually, a colleage of mine who has graduate degrees in both physics and
>litcrit has mailed me his lecture on this question; I will, his
>permission granted, post his take on it.
> For the time being, however, let me phrase it like this: a lot of
>scientists who were original contributors to 20th century science seem to
>have understood SR and QM as profoundly unsettling in a philosophical
>sense (Lew has posted on this briefly as well);
Definitely. I don't think that somebody here argued against it (I'm
sure I didn't). Which doesn't mean that any statement offered about
the philosophical implications of modern physics is valuable, or even
meaningful. But, that's beside the point.
I think that some here misinterpret my statement that "modern physics
didn't overthrow the Newtonian framework, it generalized it" (yes, I
know that it is presuptous to assume anybody bothered to read it).
Anyway, if the meaning you got was "if it was a generalization then
there was no physics revolution" then it is wrong. Generalization may
be and quite often is a revolutionary step. Unlike in the regular,
evolutionary progression of a branch of science, where you keep
deriving new conclusions from existing information and concepts (same
as deriving new theorems in a branch of math) and the progress is
confined to a narrow path, when you reach a point of generalization
the field is wide open. There is an infinity of ways in which an
existing theory may be encompassed in a broader one and you want to
find the right one. It is like progressin along a road and reaching
crossroads. Now you've to decide. Nothing automatic or self evident
about it, no nugging ahead, you must take a leap. And leaps are
revolutionary.
>
>: >the question of expertise is all of a sudden declared to be
>: >irrelevant -- I find this an amazingly backtracking strategy.
>
>: Again, I'm not sure what expertise was declared irrelevant. Sorry if
>: I sound dense.
>
>I'm amazed that this point seems hard to grasp. I'll try again: Derrida
>refers to SR as a decentering, destabilizing theory -- so have major
>physicists before him.
I won't argue the "decentering" part, will already agreed that I've no
idea what Derrida means by "center". As for "destabilizing" I would
say, quite the opposite. Science was destabilized before relativity,
by the apparent contradictions between the Newtonian notion of
inertial frames and the implications of Maxwell's theory. RElativity
resolved these contradictions and restabilized science.
But, I have a feeling that I know what you mean. Relativity can be
viewed as psychologically destabilizing since it brough home the point
that out intuition and common sense which guided us through science
previously are of limited utility. The previous concepts of invariant
space and time intevals didn't just appear out of nowhere. They were
the product of our common sense, which we trusted as an absolutely
reliable guide. But, it turned out that common sense is just the
distilled product of past experiences and once we've ventured into
areas with which we've had no previous experience, common sense
couldn't be relied upon any more. Something like this, a situation
where things you relied upon turn out to be unreliable, is quite
unsettling and, indeed, destabilizing. BTW, if you think that
relativity is unsettling, you should take a look at quantum mechanics.
Relativity is tame in comparison.
But, the destabilization is not in science itself, it is in the way we
think about science. Which, as I keep stressing, is not the same
thing. When I listen to Bethoveen's "Hammerklavier" sonata (the third
part, to be specific) I may appreciate the genius of the composer. At
the same time, the feelings the music brings up in me are my own, not
the composer's. They're related to his work, but they're not his
work.
>Now some people start pointing out that eminent physicists
>might have had a similar take on these matters --- which seems to suggest
>to me that it is _not_ a question of scientific expertise, but of
>philosophical perspective, framework, etc.
As I said before, I can't and won't judge whether physicists did or
didn't have had a similar take on these matters since so far I've no
idea what Derrida's take is. So I'll pass.
>
>Again, that's not the issue -- the issue is what kind of expertise allows
>you to judge Derrida's remarks to be "gibberish" -- and by your line of
>argument, the answer seems to be, none whatsoever.
Well, if and when I judge Derrida's remarks to be "gibberish" the
issue will become relevant, to me. In the meantime I'll pass, again.
>
>Again, that's not the issue. The issue is whether Derrida's take on
>these matters belies scientific ignorance; if his take is similar to
>the pioneers of modern physics, this argument starts to look pretty
>stupid.
>
See my comment above. I just don't know what his take is (I'm not
kidding). I've seen so far few swcond and third hand interpretations
which don't necesserily agree one with another. Would you like me to
pass judgement based on second hand interpretations?
>
>Then the remarks do not apply to you in person -- to deny that the
>"science camp" has argued in such a way, however, strikes me as rather blind.
I'm a member of a camp of one. I don't speak for others and they
don't speak for me. I may have my own opinions about Derrida but I've
no intention to make these opinions the subject of public debate right
now. At least within this newsgroup, I prefer to stick to things I know.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Subject: Re: Tachyons travel faster than light. How can they?
From: mc9350@mclink.it (Stefano Bianchi)
Date: Sat, 09 Nov 1996 19:10:50 GMT
On Fri, 01 Nov 1996 20:11:02 -0700, mfriesel@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>I reply:
>
>They don't, and at least one of three conditions that suggest why:
>
> 1. They don't exist
>
> 2. They are actually travelling slower than light and only appear to
>be going faster
>
> 3. They are all over the place, and appear to be travelling slower
>than light even though they are going faster.
>
>Number 3) is my favorite, and when I feel sort of crackpottish I may
>write up my work into a paper along with a couple of other wild
>ideas, suitable for my personality but not suitable for maintaining
>the respect of my colleagues (whoever they may be).
I can't get the point, really. You say they don't travel faster than
light, then you say they appear to be travelling slower, while they
actually travel faster. Can you explain it better?
Thank you very much, Stefano
Subject: Re: Time & space, still (was: Hermeneutics ...)
From: meron@cars3.uchicago.edu
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1996 20:06:44 GMT
In article <5624q2$rf@panix2.panix.com>, +@+.+ (G*rd*n) writes:
>meron@cars3.uchicago.edu (Mati):
>| Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "it became orthodoxy". It was
>| used since it worked. Mind you, Newtonian gravity is a formula, not a
>| theory. There is no explanation of any sort offered. So, how does a
>| formula become an orthodoxy?
>
>Curiously, this is where I came in, so long ago. I
>complained about the reification or materialization of the
>law of gravity, and the howling began. How does it become
>not only an orthodoxy, but a True Faith involving a kind of
>incarnation or transubstantiation? This is precisely the
>question I've been asking.
>--
Sounds like "when did you stop beating your wife?" to me.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Subject: Re: Time & space, still (was: Hermeneutics ...)
From: weinecks@mail2.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria Weineck)
Date: 9 Nov 1996 20:08:46 GMT
meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
: In article <5612ek$j6h@netnews.upenn.edu>, weinecks@mail1.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria Weineck) writes:
: >meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
: >: In article <55vpse$ub0@netnews.upenn.edu>, weinecks@mail1.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria Weineck) writes:
: >: >meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
: >: >: In article <55vho0$o2k@netnews.upenn.edu>, weinecks@mail2.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria Weineck) writes:
: >: >: >
: >: >Believe me, I'm aware of it. I am not aware, however, of Derrida having
: >: >applied for a professorship in physics, so it doesn't seem all that
: >: >relevant. The argument against Derrida so far has usually taken the form,
: >: >"hah, the guy doesn't even know the science, he doesn't know what he's
: >: >talking about, why should I listen to him."
: >
: >: The argument as I've seen it (note that I'm not involved in it) was
: >: rather "His statements in the specific passage quoted don't seem to
: >: make any sense."
: >
: >Okay, I'll bite -- why doesnt it make any sense?
: You ask me? I told you already, I'm not involved in this argument.
Not so; when the passage was first quoted, you quite publicly snickered
and presented yourself much amused. May I take the above to say, then,
that you have since reconsidered your original position?
: >Because nobody who reacts that way has read SSP or has even the
: >faintest notion of what "center" means in this context.
: Quite possible. It is really disturbing, this tendency people have to
: be quite outspoken about things they know next to nothing about.
I know you are trying to be facetious, but it's not working, at least not
with me; I have never purported to find anything in Einstein amusing or
stupid or obviously ridiculous.
: >: I'm not sure what are the concerns you mention. I'm yet to see a
: >: clear statement on this issue.
: >
: >Actually, a colleage of mine who has graduate degrees in both physics and
: >litcrit has mailed me his lecture on this question; I will, his
: >permission granted, post his take on it.
: > For the time being, however, let me phrase it like this: a lot of
: >scientists who were original contributors to 20th century science seem to
: >have understood SR and QM as profoundly unsettling in a philosophical
: >sense (Lew has posted on this briefly as well);
: Definitely. I don't think that somebody here argued against it (I'm
: sure I didn't). Which doesn't mean that any statement offered about
: the philosophical implications of modern physics is valuable, or even
: meaningful. But, that's beside the point.
It is and it isn't; it just means that any statement has to be tested in
both directions.
: I think that some here misinterpret my statement that "modern physics
: didn't overthrow the Newtonian framework, it generalized it" (yes, I
: know that it is presuptous to assume anybody bothered to read it).
I don't really want to go down the road on that one again... if you don't
mind...
[...]: >
: >: >the question of expertise is all of a sudden declared to be
: >: >irrelevant -- I find this an amazingly backtracking strategy.
: >
: >: Again, I'm not sure what expertise was declared irrelevant. Sorry if
: >: I sound dense.
: >
: >I'm amazed that this point seems hard to grasp. I'll try again: Derrida
: >refers to SR as a decentering, destabilizing theory -- so have major
: >physicists before him.
: I won't argue the "decentering" part, will already agreed that I've no
: idea what Derrida means by "center". As for "destabilizing" I would
: say, quite the opposite. Science was destabilized before relativity,
: by the apparent contradictions between the Newtonian notion of
: inertial frames and the implications of Maxwell's theory. RElativity
: resolved these contradictions and restabilized science.
Misunderstanding -- not destabilizing science -- obviously not.
Destabilizing a notion of time, perhaps, that used to hold up a lot of
non-scientific theories -- how's that?
: But, I have a feeling that I know what you mean. Relativity can be
: viewed as psychologically destabilizing since it brough home the point
: that out intuition and common sense which guided us through science
: previously are of limited utility.
Yes, I think that's partially at stake in the remark of Hyppolite that
the experimenter cannot live the experiment (quoting from memory).
The previous concepts of invariant
: space and time intevals didn't just appear out of nowhere. They were
: the product of our common sense, which we trusted as an absolutely
: reliable guide. But, it turned out that common sense is just the
: distilled product of past experiences and once we've ventured into
: areas with which we've had no previous experience, common sense
: couldn't be relied upon any more. Something like this, a situation
: where things you relied upon turn out to be unreliable, is quite
: unsettling and, indeed, destabilizing. BTW, if you think that
: relativity is unsettling, you should take a look at quantum mechanics.
: Relativity is tame in comparison.
I know, but I think we're finally moving on common ground here. That's
quite a heartening development..