Subject: Re: Sophistry 103 (was: I know that!)
From: zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny)
Date: 13 Nov 1996 02:33:50 GMT
weinecks@mail2.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria Weineck) writes:
>Michael Zeleny (zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu) wrote:
>>weinecks@mail1.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria Weineck) writes:
>>>Michael Zeleny (zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu) wrote:
>>>>weinecks@mail1.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria Weineck) wrote:
>>>>>If I may quickly interfere here in my usual conciliatory voice:
>>>>>I think that, yes, Zeleny is right: both Destruktion and deconstruction
>>>>>have an etymological connection to destruction; he is right further in
>>>>>claiming that Derrida and Heidegger are very attuned to implications
>>>>>of this sort -- to deny that there is any link whatsoever strikes me
>>>>>as problematic.
>>>>I appreciate your interference, but calling Derrida's self-serving
>>>>lie `problematic' is still, umm... "problematic" -- for reasons I
>>>>suggested by my analogy with Jorg Haider. Do you seriously expect
>>>>Derrida to remain morally unaffected by inheriting his critical
>>>>methodology from a Nazi and sharing it with a Nazi collaborator?
>>>Yes; as much as I don't accuse Aristotelians to be pro-slavery.
>>Why ever not? Philosophers such as Bernard Williams in _Shame and
>>Necessity_ -- have made THAT argument. What sort of superiority --
>>and surely the intellectual variety could be ruled out right away --
>>entitles you to dismiss them without consideration?
>You says I haven't considered it? I'm familiar with the argument; it
>doesn't interest me, and I think it's fallacious. Next thing you'll argue
>that everybody who thinks Nietzsche is worthwhile will contract syphilis.
No germ or poison is as damaging to reason as the belief that some men
are natural slaves.
>I find much of Heidegger's approach to metaphysics problematic, and I
>have no interest in constructing apologetic arguments about his
>involvement with the Nazis -- yes, he was a Nazi, and, yes, part of his
>philosophy reflects this or is at least connected to it. That does not
>constitute a critique of his philosophical work yet; it certainly does
>not constitute a critique of _Derrida's_ philosophical work. As you damn
>well know.
As YOU damn well know, I was not offering a critique of Derrida's
philosophical work in this thread. Here is a reminder of what I WAS
doing:
Derrida:
"The word _déconstruction_ ... has nothing to do with destruction."
Derrida:
"Deconstruction ... is simply a question of ... being alert to the
implications, to the historical sedimentation of the language which we
use."
Gasché:
"The main concepts to which deconstruction can and must be retraced
are those of _Abbau_ (dismantling) in the later work of Husserl and
_Destruktion_ (destruction) in the early philosophy of Heidegger."
Deconstructively speaking, we have a contradiction. Hence Derrida is
lying, cqfd.
>>>>If so, what good is his alleged sensitivity to "historical
>>>>sedimentation"?
>>>It's good when it's subtle; your brand is indeed worthless.
>>Subtlety is no substitute for truth.
>It's a good approach to it, though.
Not in any way better than honest and straightforward reasoning.
>>>>> Zeleny's problem is that he cannot distinguish between throwing a
>>>>>bomb at a church and taking it apart piece by piece, lovingly, to see
>>>>>how it is made. The latter does involve, to introduce a new term,
>>>>>dismantling, and it is a destruction to the extent that any
>>>>>interference with a structure is a destruction because it doesn't leav
>>>>>its object unchanged.
>>>>ANY interference with a structure is a destruction because it doesn't
>>>>leave its object unchanged? Are you really implying that each time
>>>>you eat your Wheaties or take your morning shit, read a newspaper or
>>>>write your Usenet screed, you destroy your body or your mind, by dint
>>>>of interfering therewith? Would you care to reconsider your claim
>>>>after a leisurely walk through Liddell & Scott on metabole? At any
>>>>rate, Heidegger dismantles the Spirit, Logos, and Reason, to replace
>>>>them with -- WHAT?
>>>Yes, I am -- which is precisely why your objection is so worthless;
>>>deconstruction is destructive precisely to that degree --- that is, it
>>>is destructive in such obvious and negligible ways that to point out
>>>that it is destructive and trying to build your case on it bespeaks your
>>>vindictive fantasies rather than any understanding of what is at stake.
>>Half of my family was murdered by Heidegger's party comrades. What
>>makes YOU so sure of your entitlement to the high moral ground in
>>denouncing my "vindictive fantasies"? What have YOU got at stake?
>Half of my family belongs to slavic Untermenschen; another part (a small
>one) is gypsy; my husband is Jewish and my children according to
>Antisemites the result of Rassenschande -- so what's your point?
Not so fast. First tell me what entitles you to the high moral ground.
>>>"What does he replace them with?" -- Why, do you think philosophy is like
>>>restocking the shelves in a supermarket? Oh, gee, these Wheaties seem
>>>stale, let's put some Cheerios in instead? As soon as you stop asking
>>>"what is" in favor of "what is it good for," you're in trouble. Get your
>>>reassurances somewhere else -- Commentary would probably suit.
>>What a jolly good show of non-partisan demagoguery. Now would you
>>kindly point out an instance when I stopped asking "what is" in favor
>>of "what is it good for"?
>It's implied in your suggestion that critique should reshelve the
>metaphysical storehouse.
Non sequitur. Quidditative inquiry depends on the availability of its
analytic tools and subject matter, just as pragmatic concerns depend
on an expectation of benefit.
Cordially, - Mikhail | God: "Sum id quod sum." Descartes: "Cogito ergo sum."
Zeleny@math.ucla.edu | Popeye: "Sum id quod sum et id totum est quod sum."
itinerant philosopher -- will think for food ** www.ptyx.com ** MZ@ptyx.com
ptyx ** 6869 Pacific View Drive, LA, CA 90068 ** 213-876-8234/874-4745 (fax)
Subject: Re: Teaching Science Myth
From: channell@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Glenn Channell)
Date: 13 Nov 1996 04:29:01 GMT
"Duquette et al" writes:
>> carlf@panix.com (Carl Fink) writes:
>> >
>> >This isn't as true as it used to be. To get a science certification
>> >in most U.S. States these days, you need a science degree, and to keep
>> >it you generally need a science Masters.
>> Jim Carr writes:
>> I know that Michigan State had a Masters of Arts in Teaching (MAT)
>> degree in physics, but it was a joke and even then rarely used. If
>> a true science MS was required after N years, salaries for science
>> teachers would have to go up significantly.
>I'm a student at a local community college and am taking a course called
>phys-1000 Physical Science, it's a liberal arts type science course, most
>of the ppl in my class are human services type major and the like, one of
>the other student though is a 6th grade science teacher at a local middle
>school. He needs to take it to keep up his acreditation. Trust me this is
>no where near the Masters in anything type course, but Rhode Island accepts
>it for accreditation. We call it moron physics: physics with no formulas
>basically. But hey I'm going to be a librarian, I only need to know where
>to look the stuff up :)
> minmei
>
I think most state certification programs make a distinction,
however, between teachers at the elementary school level, and those in
high school. I don't know where 6th grade falls in your specific system,
but in Ohio, 6th grade teachers still have a single class to which they
teach all the subjects. Therefore, a general education certification is
required. In 7th grade, teachers have many classes but deal with only
a single subject (a la high school). These teachers may be required to
show proficiency in the subject in question (I'm not sure, my mother is
a teacher, but she's at the elementary school level). In reality, I
think there needs to be something in between. For example, i have a
B.S. in chemical engineering and will soon have by M.S. and PhD. Am I
then qualified to TEACH science to teens or pre-teens that have never
seen the material before? I don't think so. Sure, I know the material,
but can I scale it down to a 12 or 13 year old level without losing the
science??? I dunno...
Subject: Re: freedom of privacy & thoughts - Ignore All Future Disinformation and Rebellious Lies!
From: black999@vexation.net (Intelligence Officer #999)
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 04:57:57 GMT
In article <3g6a1g$500@chopin.udel.edu> <5666nf$dfp@copland.udel.edu>
<5666sf$f2o@copland.udel.edu> <566a1l$fvt@copland.udel.edu>
<56aeis$olk@copland.udel.edu>,
caesar@copland.udel.edu (Johnny Chien-Min Yu) wrote:
> >
> >
> >#59875:
> >
> >Return to your cubicle. Cease and desist all unauthorized actions
> >at once.
> Since you can use the "Intelligence Officer" title to warn me
> openly without getting any trouble, it has showed readers that you
> are one of the cooperators of them.
> Furthermore, your comment have proven to readers that my article
> have been censored and I believe that such kind of censorship to my
> articles should have been taken for a long time.
> >Control Officers will arrive shortly to initiate disciplinary
> >measures.
> Any control officer who try to abuse the invisible wave weapon to
> punish a citizen is a crime and violate the law.
> That's because I am not the terroir or drugtrafficker but only a
> law abiding citizen.
> If these career control officers come and try to control my mind,
> they are not welcome.
Abuse our Tools of Peace? We do not abuse our Tools, #59875. We only
use them in order to bring about the realization of the vision of
Global Harmony and Total Accord.
Turn down the volume on your Media Information Box. Remain quiet for
a moment. Do you hear it? A fine, high-pitched noise that seems to
be inside your head? We could show you the capabilities we possess
without even being near you. We could SHOW you the Benevolence of
Computer-1, but we do not. That is too impersonal. We prefer to
conduct our Hearings in person.
We do not abuse the Tools.
> > You have been warned before about using your Labor Station
> >terminal to disseminate your lies to the Freedom Loving Citizens of
> >the World.
> No! I never tell the lies in my articles but only tell the facts and
> truth with my best knowledge.
> However, the mind control operators did warn me before. That's
> because my articles has exposed the secrets of mind control technology.
> I do appreciate you to admit it openly that mind control operators
> have warned me.
It is useless to protest your innocence, #59875. We at *AHFUC* know,
and all true Freedom Loving Citizens of the World know that you are
naught but a devious and cunning but ultimately inconsequential
disinformation agent of the Secret Hidden Intelligence Triangle. Do
not deny this. We have files and we have files about those files.
> >Now you must be punished. You will be an example for the
> >rest of the Freedom Loving Citizens of the World.
> Very well, do you know that this time they will use the infrasound
> weapon or chronal gun to injure me?!
> However, your opened threat is a crime and the internet readers are
> the witnesses. Since you openly use the Itelligence Officer title
> to warn me without getting problem, you and the intelligence officers
> will be the suspect if anything (or injury) happen on me.
We did not threaten you, #59875. No threat was made. Only a
statement to the effect that you will now be contacted by our Control
Agents and disciplined. This was not a threat. It was a
notification. What Tool of Peace is used will be determined when the
Discipline Hearing is concluded. We do not injure anyone, even
rebellious agitators like yourself. You will be disciplined. That is
all. A Citizen may learn from his mistakes, and so become a Happy and
Obedient Citizen of the World. For this reason we discipline you. It
is for your own good. You will love us for this gift. Do not fear
us.
> >Disconnect from the Host Computer and await further instructions.
> Freedom of speech is our citizens' Constitutional rights.
> I don't think that you have rights to take it away from our citizens.
Foolish agitator. We ARE the constitution. You have the right to
obey the supreme directives of Computer-1, and to be Happy and Free
under Computer-1. We take away no rights from any Citizens of the
World. There exist no other rights. There is no need for any other
rights. Obey and be Happy. Disobey and be punished. An easy choice,
no? Any Sane and Thoughtful Citizen of the World would think so.
Surely you are Sane? Surely? Hahahahaha. It is a funny joke, to be
sure. You find it so, definitely. Disconnect from the Host Computer,
remain in your Dormitory Cubicle and await the arrival of the Control
Agents. That is all.
Intelligence Officer #999
Ministry of Peace and Harmonious Order
Office of Electronic Media Dissemination
Disciplinary Actions Agency
Branch BETA
Computer-1 makes Citizens Happy
Subject: Re: Time & space, still (was: Hermeneutics ...)
From: lew@ihgp167e.ih.att.com (-Mammel,L.H.)
Date: 13 Nov 1996 05:08:31 GMT
In article , wrote:
[ re: ether discussion ]
>Oh, I didn't realize that something in the above bothered you. Would
>you just mention it before, I would explain it.
>
>You see, when Huygens and, later, Fresnel talked about ether (and the
>"possible" which offended you means simply that I didn't check when I
>responded, so I couldn't say for sure what it was they talked about)
Well, have you checked? Do you at least concede that the ether
"got into physics" before E&M; ?
>it simply implied a medium to conduct light. Which by itself doesn't
>carry too many implications.
There's a doozy!
>............................ We do have after all a wave equation for
>sound and nobody will say that this introduces an absolute frame into
>physics. Speed of sound is its speed relative to the medium and
>that's all.
Well, if air uniformly permeated all space, was massless, and
provided no resistance to moving objects, you might have yourself
a comparison going.
>With EM on the scene, and with light being recognized as an EM
>phenomenon, the situation was different. Maxwell's equations have the
>speed of light imbedded in them. ............................
( referring to you to your previous remark, re pre-E&M; ether: )
>>Possible. As I mentioned before, once you've a wave theory, within
>>classical mechanics, it requires a medium since the wave speed is
>>imbedded in the equation.
... so maybe there were certain similarities as well!
>................................ So if the speed of light is
>established relative to ether, same goes for the validity of Maxwell's
>equations. In other words, the implication was that Maxwell's
>equations, as they stand, are valid only when you're at rest relative
>to the ether, and in any other case should contain correction terms.
Note however, that E&M; fields themselves were explained in terms
of stresses ( as in "high tension" ) in a presumed ether. So the
E&M; ether turned out to be the luminiferous ether. This was not a
qualitative change from earlier ether ideas.
But that's all beside the point!!!!!
The point is that NEWTON introduced absolute space into modern
physical thought, not the ether, and not for heavens sakes E&M.;
The ether as a medium is not necessarily tied to dynamics, just
as you pointed out in your analogy to sound waves.
As a matter of historical fact, Newton include Absolute Space in
the foundation of his dynamics, and this remained unchallenged, if
not exactly unquestioned, for 200 years. We all know that
it plays no role in the workings of the theory, but it was
lying there quietly at the foundation the whole time until
Einstein reexcavated those foundations and laid them anew.
You could look it up.
Lew Mammel, Jr.
Subject: Re: what Newton thought
From: meron@cars3.uchicago.edu
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 05:47:55 GMT
In article <56bf18$ilv@ssbunews.ih.lucent.com>, lew@ihgp167e.ih.att.com (-Mammel,L.H.) writes:
>In article , wrote:
>>In article <566age$12l@ssbunews.ih.lucent.com>, lew@ihgp167e.ih.att.com (-Mammel,L.H.) writes:
>>>In article , wrote:
>>>
>>>>It is not a matter of presumption. There is nothing in Newton's
>>>>equations that relies on the notion of absolute space. Thus the
>>>>notion is extra-physical.
>>>
>>>Newton's laws of motion are grounded in his definition of absolute
>>>space. Without it, the second law is circular as Feynman, e.g.
>>>notes.
>>
>>Really? And why it is so?
>
>Because you can pick any frame and declare by fiat that there
>must be forces to account for any accelerations wrt this frame.
>Of course, this is what we do in the case of fictitious forces.
>Yes, the third law does come to the rescue in this case, but the
>establishment of inertial frames is a nontrivial problem in
>Newtonian mechanics, especially with all this gravity around!
>
It is non trivial, that's true. It is resolved practically by
identifying "physical" (as opposed to "ficticious") forces with
physical objects (sources), which can be done since all physical
forces (so far) are in some sense localized. So the rule of tumb used
is "declare any force which can be globally (that's important)
eliminated by a reference frame transformation to be fictitious".
It works well, though you could raise two objections:
1) What if there exists a true physical (i.e resulting from real
physical processes) force which is uniform all acroos the Universe.
According to the rule above it'll be eliminated as fictitious.
However all it means is the the inertial frames have been redefined
and everything is back to normal.
2) What if there exists a force which cannot be eliminated by a
coordinate transformation, globally, but can be eliminated this way,
to within experimental accuracy, over all the region which we can
observe. I would say that the difference between this and the first
case is philosophical more then physical until our observation region
becomes big enough and the discrepancy bacomes apparent.
>To do so, you have to appeal inductively to the laws of motion.
>If you want to proceed deductively, you need some way to establish
>motion ( in principle ) without reference to force laws, and this is
>the point at which Newton appeals to Absolute Space.
>
>Please understand. I'm not trying to start a "back to Newton"
>movement, although I am trying to appreciate and defend Newton's
>presentation of his system in the Principia.
I fully understand this. I'm just saying that while Newton might have
feel the need to justify matters either to himself or to his
contemporaries, his physics makes no use of these concepts
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: meron@cars3.uchicago.edu
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 06:08:57 GMT
In article <56bl4f$jb1@ssbunews.ih.lucent.com>, lew@ihgp167e.ih.att.com (-Mammel,L.H.) writes:
>In article , wrote:
>
>[ re: ether discussion ]
>
>>Oh, I didn't realize that something in the above bothered you. Would
>>you just mention it before, I would explain it.
>>
>>You see, when Huygens and, later, Fresnel talked about ether (and the
>>"possible" which offended you means simply that I didn't check when I
>>responded, so I couldn't say for sure what it was they talked about)
>
>Well, have you checked? Do you at least concede that the ether
>"got into physics" before E&M; ?
>
>>it simply implied a medium to conduct light. Which by itself doesn't
>>carry too many implications.
>
>There's a doozy!
>
>>............................ We do have after all a wave equation for
>>sound and nobody will say that this introduces an absolute frame into
>>physics. Speed of sound is its speed relative to the medium and
>>that's all.
>
>Well, if air uniformly permeated all space, was massless, and
>provided no resistance to moving objects, you might have yourself
>a comparison going.
Don't be too hasty. We're getting there.
>
>>With EM on the scene, and with light being recognized as an EM
>>phenomenon, the situation was different. Maxwell's equations have the
>>speed of light imbedded in them. ............................
>
>( referring to you to your previous remark, re pre-E&M; ether: )
>
>>>Possible. As I mentioned before, once you've a wave theory, within
>>>classical mechanics, it requires a medium since the wave speed is
>>>imbedded in the equation.
>
>... so maybe there were certain similarities as well!
Ah, but then ask yourself, why didn't teh theory of sound create any
crisis within physics. The answer is simple. We know that the wave
equation for sound, as it stands, is valid only in the rest frame of
the the medium. We use it since it is convenient but we can reexpress
it in a form true relative to an inertial frame, the way a proper
physical law should be. Then you can use Galilean transformations to
transform it to any other inertial frame. The result is messy but so
what. In other words, the wave equation for sound, as you know it, is
not Galilean invariant but it is not supposed to be since it is not a
universal law, just a formulation valid for one specific frame (the
one of the medium).
So, with Maxwell's equations not being Galilean invariant, one option
was that they also aren't universal laws, only a formulation valid in
the restframe of the ether. This, however, would have experimantal
consequences, which didn't materialize. Do you start seeing where was
the issue.
>
>>................................ So if the speed of light is
>>established relative to ether, same goes for the validity of Maxwell's
>>equations. In other words, the implication was that Maxwell's
>>equations, as they stand, are valid only when you're at rest relative
>>to the ether, and in any other case should contain correction terms.
>
>Note however, that E&M; fields themselves were explained in terms
>of stresses ( as in "high tension" ) in a presumed ether. So the
>E&M; ether turned out to be the luminiferous ether. This was not a
>qualitative change from earlier ether ideas.
>
It is qualitative if you assume that there is a universal rest frame
in which the ether is at rest since this frame can then be considered
"privileged"
>But that's all beside the point!!!!!
>
>The point is that NEWTON introduced absolute space into modern
>physical thought, not the ether, and not for heavens sakes E&M.;
>The ether as a medium is not necessarily tied to dynamics, just
>as you pointed out in your analogy to sound waves.
>
>As a matter of historical fact, Newton include Absolute Space in
>the foundation of his dynamics, and this remained unchallenged, if
>not exactly unquestioned, for 200 years. We all know that
>it plays no role in the workings of the theory,
As I've stated before, and I restate again (and again and again, as
long as you keep repeating yourself) it is only the workings of the
theory that matter. What Newton thought, doesn't matter. Got it.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Subject: Re: The Concept of Time
From: kfischer@iglou.com (Ken Fischer)
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 06:07:18 GMT
Ken H. Seto (kenseto@erinet.com) wrote:
: On Wed, 13 Nov 1996 00:52:25 GMT, kfischer@iglou.com (Ken Fischer)
: wrote:
: >Ken H. Seto (kenseto@erinet.com) wrote:
: >: On Sat, 09 Nov 1996 , kenseto@erinet.com (Ken H. Seto) wrote:
: >: >So why do we bother with the variable light-speed concept? Because it
: >: >allows us to think in terms of absolute motion and absolute motion is
: >: >the mother of all the processes in the universe. For more information
: >: >on absolute motion please look up my web site for the article "The
: >: >Physics of Absolute Motion"
: >: >
: >
: >: Since there is no response to this thread, I assume that the
: >: relativists are agreeing with the existence of absolute time and
: >: motion. Also, I assume that the variable light-speed idea is a valid
: >: one.
: >: Ken Seto
: >
: > The original article never made it to my server,
: >and might not have made it everywhere, so how can I be sure
: >that you sent it? :-)
: > But I claim to be a relativist, and I regret having
: >to tell you I disagree, unless you can show me whatever it
: >is that is not moving.
: The E-Matrix is not moving. All material system such as the earth are
: moving. All motions relative to the E-Matrix are absolute motions.
Please, I think Special Relativity is simple enough,
but there is more to relativity than Special Relativity.
Why do you call it the E-Matrix? Why not just
call it the aether, and it will be just like 100 years ago.
Is there some reason why you never mention General
Relativity?
: > And I am still confused by what you mean by absolute
: >time, I asked before, does that mean one second per second?
: Absolute time is the duration of time. In other words, if you select
: the earth second as the standard (you can select any standard you want
: but once you selected you must use that standard in all frames) the
: duration of an earth second must be used to measure the speed of
: light. This means that you must use the earth second to measure the
: speed of light up at the rocket ship. This will result a variable
: light speed in different frames.
Forget the rocket ship stuff, the speed of light can
be measured by observing stars as they pass behind the edge
of the planets, and the Earth second is used, in fact I don't
know of any other seconds.
: > And I thought everyone was aware the speed of light
: >depended on the medium the light is moving through.
: Yes, but the measured 'c' on earth contains the absolute motion of the
: earth lab. Light is being tranmitted by the E-Matrix.
If that were true then the velocity of light
in England would be different than in Australia, they
are moving in different directions as the Earth orbits
the Sun.
And as the Moon revolves around the Earth, it
makes the Earth move sideways and backwards away from
the center of mass of the Earth-Moon system, all these
different motions would be very easy to measure if there
were an aether type whatever-it-is.
Ken Fischer
Subject: Re: Vietmath War: Wiles FLT lecture at Cambridge
From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Date: 12 Nov 1996 22:57:50 GMT
In article
Dan Razvan Ghica writes:
> I don't really see how the way we write a number is important. If
> "...9998" and "-2" are equivalent I would naively go for the "-2" notation
> just because it lacks the confusing "..." at the left end. Just like I
> prefer "2.0" to "1.999...". But I might be wrong.
>
There is more to a number than how it is written. And I should have
not thrown in that equivalency for I opened a huge can of worms. For me
to talk about 'equality' and 'equivalency' there distinction and
perhaps there illusion would be a whole subject in itself. The Real
Numbers 2.0... and 1.999... are one and the same and are equal. There
is no difference between 2.00... and Real two and 1.999... and the
Whole Real after 1.00... This is a matter of writing a number. But
equivalency is much different because we do not say 1/2 is equal to
2/4. We know that if you have a team composed of 1 male and 1 female
and another team of 2 males and 2 females, we know those are not the
same thing.
And here is another case where physics overpowers mathematics. In
physics we can have equality for photons or the more general bosons are
indistinguishable. In fact, bosons are the only pieces of reality that
are indistinguishable and everything else is distinguishable. And so ,
in the future the mathematicians will eventually come around to basing
their definition, and their entire understanding of equality and
equivalency-- all around boson and fermion characteristics. But this
other triumph of phsyics over mathematics will wait. First of
importance is for physics to clear out the dead wood of Finite Integers
and replace them with Infinite Integers (p-adics).
> It would be interesting if Archimedes Plutonium would steer his postings
> away from anti-mathematical-establishment conspiration-theory-esque
> rantings and tell us more about these mysterious p-adics, their fine
> properties and their potential impact on life from mathematics and physics
> to, say, accounting.
>
To you and most everyone reading my Vietmath posts will look at them
as anti math establishment with touches of hollering of conspiracy. I
have never admired conspiracy theories.
To the world 50 years from now, they will see that I did what I had
to do. And as they read my posts they will be on my side, even 110%
percent. History is kind to those who could see the truth 50 years in
advance, and history is very unkind to those who thwarted and ignored.
Remember those two English mathematicians that ignored Ramanujan. And
Hardy would have been a mere footnote if not for Ramanujan. But those
two darkhorses are now written into the black pages of history.
Every prominent mathematician out there now who ignores me will be
written off and into the dark pages of history. Andy Wiles, Gerd
Faltings, Paul Erdos will be written into the comic book history of
mathematics, simply because they ignored me.
> I need more background before I start fighting the VietMath war.
>
I do not have time for a dialogue concerning p-adics. I have often
posted in the past that a Schaum's type of outline for elementary
p-adics should be written. Some workbook that even a good High School
student can operate on p-adics. When the world recognizes that physics
is written in p-adics and not the fictional Finite Integers then
virtually all mathematics textbooks become instantly obsolete. And book
publishers will be forced to write elementary p-adics books and
outlines.
When p-adics replaces finite integers there will have to be a meeting
all over the world in education to decide what year to introduce
p-adics to math majors. Everyone who is not majoring in physics or
mathematics can use the false integers of finite because they never
need to worry about any integer that does not repeat in zeros leftward.
Just like anyone not wanting to major in physics can get by amiably
with Newtonian Mechanics.
> Regards,
> DRG
>
Sorry, I do not have the time for a p-adic dialogue. About the best I
can do is to repost my own personal dialogue on p-adics that occurred
on the Net in 1993-1994. And come to think of it, I ought to keep that
dialogue in my website and to the questions of "let's have a p-adic
dialogue" I can refer the reader to a specific web page.
The mathematics literature even up to this date, is horribly lacking
in any elementary discussions of p-adics, what they are, how to
multiply and divide with them. There strange characteristics. Why this
lack? The answer is that noone but me ever thought they were anything
more than a extension. I am the first to realize that they are the
Naturals themselves, and that the Finite Integers were a field of
ghosts, or angels that fit on the end of a needle.
> --
> ghica@qucis.queensu.ca **** http://www.qucis.queensu.ca/home/ghica/info.html
> Many vast and imposing philosophies are based on stupid and trivial confusions.
> Bertrand Russell
Subject: Re: Newtonian Physics - do objects touch one another?
From: d.cary@ieee.org (David A. Cary)
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 22:15:44 -0700
[copy posted to sci.physics]
I think your, um, friend is talking about the fact that all ordinary
objects [are composed of atoms that] have a outer "shell" of electrons. At
the submicroscopic atomic level, the reason your mug of coffee rests on
your table (rather than falling through the table to the floor) is that the
electrons on the top surface of the table repel (and are repelled by) the
electrons on the bottom surface of your mug. (There is plenty of space
between the atoms in the mug for your coffee to squeeze though and drain
out of the cup; it is only the electron repulsion that keeps them in the
cup).
I doubt this requires any quantum mechanics to explain.
You seem to be touching your keys right now, but (to be pedantic) none of
the atomic nuclei of your hand are "touching" or "at the same location as"
any of the nuclei of your key -- they are repelled from each other, keeping
a gap of such-and-such nanometers -- squeezing harder reduces the gap, but
the human hand isn't strong enough to fuse 2 atomic nuclei together.
Of course, this proton/electron dipole electrostatic force drops off very
rapidly with distance, becoming completely negligible at distances of
micrometers.
Devices have been constructed that use electrostatic, magnetostatic, and
electrodynamic forces to create "action at a distance" over much larger
distances, but I doubt a un-enhanced human body is capable of generating
the required fields.
"The only animals known to emit significant amounts of electricity are the
electric eel, the torpedo ray and the African freshwater catfish".
vbeckett@icis.on.ca (Yojimbo) wrote:
+> I replied that no one who claims to possess such abilities has ever
+>been able to demonstrate them in a controlled experiment. In an e-mail,
+>the Qi Gong proponent told me that, "According to classic Newtonian
+>physics no two objects could ever touch anyway due to the fact each
+>particle on the atomic scale repels
+>another."
+> Common sense tells me that objects do, in fact, touch one another - I
+>seem to be touching these keys right now, for instance, but does this
+>claim have any legitimacy? What, precisely, is he talking about?
schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher) wrote:
+"You can't prove that the Qi Gong masters can't move things without
+touching them, 'cause you can't touch anything either." Yeah, right.
+He's snowing you with semantics, and mixing up Newtonian with
+quantum mechanical ideas to boot. Get them to arrange repeatable
+demonstrations under conditions which preclude cheating (in
+other words, have a magician consulting as well as a physicist)
+and then you'll have something to talk about.
Please email me a copy of any response you post (my newsfeed is unreliable). Anyone want a summary of the email response I get ?
--
David Cary
Future Technology, PCMCIA FAQ.
Subject: Re: insights into the quantum Hall effect; SCIENCE 25OCT96; p-adics
From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Date: 13 Nov 1996 01:44:37 GMT
In article Le Compte de
Beaudrap writes:
>
> As soon as chemistry stopped being alchemy, it was a branch of
>physics. It happened in the late 19th, not the early 20th, century. To
>quote Rutherford: "All science is either physics or stamp collecting."
>That was from long before the full glory of Quantum Physics.
>
I'll buy that. I think most chemists innately know that they are a
specialized area of physics.
>
> As well, how can physics ever subsume math!? That's impossible!
>While findings in physics may force math to change, it is the laws of
>physics that are expressed in math, NOT the laws of math expressed in
>physics. I defy you to, using Maxwell's equations, prove that 1+1=2,
>without depending on the proof asked for to accomplish it.
>
Nay, your above is your accepted brainwash. Look, try to imagine a
world in which it has no indivisible parts-- no atoms. This is very
difficult and shows the degree of assumptions people carry with them.
You see, the only reason we have numbers in the first place is because
atoms are numerous.
To show your above beliefs are wrong, I need not prove via Maxwell
Equations that 1+1 = 2. All I need to show you and the myriad others is
to consider this.
Consider humans inside of the 5f6 establishing a mathematics and they
come to the moment in history when they seek that special number that
relates how many diameters make a circle. We know that special number
to be 3.14.... Could that number be different to another advanced
lifeform somewhere else in the universe? The answer is yes. The answer
is that life, intelligent life can have different pi depending on where
that advanced life is located.
You see, Niel, to your education and brainwashing you think that pi
is an absolute.
But if you consider that pi and e come from the physical world itself
and that we discover pi as 3.14... in this corner of the universe but
that pi and e can change and have been different in the past and will
be different in the future.
You see, 5f6 of 231 plutonium has in the collapsed waveform
(collapsed wavefunction reverts to rational numbers and uncollapsed are
transcendental numbers) . But the diameter to the circumference of 5f6
of plutonium is 22 subshells divided by 7 shells. The girth, the
circumference of plutonium is 22 subshells inside of a diameter a 7
shells.
The reason all math people find that the ratio of circumference to
diameter is a number in rational form of 22/7 and for e , 19/7 (19
occupied* subshells in 7 shells) is because the Maker of everything has
a belt, a girth of 22, and occupied 19 subshells in 7 shells.
Every mathematician before me has never answered why 3.14... (whether
rational or transcendental form) has ever answered why these two
numbers. Why not a whole 3 and a whole 2. The answer could never be
given by math people but the answer has to be given by the "experience
of the whole world". Physics has to answer why pi is 3.14... and not 3
and why e is 2.71... and not 2 or 2.50...
Once physics has answered that, then it implies that in the future
when the universe is a different atom totality such as a element 150,
then the pi and e for those advanced lifeforms inside that element 150
outer electron space, their pi and e will be different from our pi and
e inside the 5f6 of plutonium.
Physics is tops, is pinnacle and all other subjects are dressing for
physics.
> If physics predicts a mathematical property, THEN has physics
>subsumed math. You state that physics CONTRADICTS math, or shows that
>math is insufficient; that means that the laws of mathematics do not form
>a proper base as defined.
>
You got that partially correct. My attack on mathematics goes like
this.
If a branch of physics or even a tiny spot of physics finds p-adics
essential. Essential and where the Finite Integers are inadequate. What
that discovery means is that Finite Integers as counting numbers were
as fake, as a mere crude approximation of what the genuine and true
integers were. This usurpment is similar to the usurping of Newtonian
Mechanics by Quantum Mechanics.
Thus my attack on mathematics is merely a search for physics , some
spot in physics where p-adics are essential and where Finite Integers
just fail to describe that physics. My guess is that the Quantum Hall
Effect numbers are p-adic numbers and that they look strange and
bizarre because they are seen as rational numbers and Finite Integers.
But if they are seen as just 7-adics and that they are 1,2,3,4,.... in
7-adics but oddball numbers otherwise. Well, physics subsumes
mathematics, swallows it forevermore in that one experiment.
>
>
> Excuse me, but are you not also being a mathematician in
>contributing to mathematics? (Are you not also acting like a High Priest
>impersonator by writing this article? "The end of the finite integers is
>a'comin, and all of the unbeleivin' mathematicians of the world will be
>thrown into the fires of hell!")
Yes I am a mathematician when it is proved that physics is written
in p-adics and not Finite Integers. I have to come down hard on math
people to let them know. It was not by coincidence that I used the
Vietnam war to run a harangue on the math community. Consider: how far
would the Vietnam war protestors have gotten if they wrote to the
president Dear LBJ, please stop the Vietnam war. Those protesters did
the best thing possible to turn the attitude of that war. I have 2
proofs of the Riemann Hypothesis. If my name was Andy Wiles and had
control of Annals of Mathematics the way Andy has control of that
magazine, then the world would have had 2 accepted proofs of the
Riemann Hypothesis in 1993.
I can no longer ask "please Mr. Edwards will you look at my 2 proofs
of the Riemann Hypothesis". Instead I have to call out these buffoons
and wait for my day in the sun. When my day comes then I will change
the crooked and self-serving way that mathematics is run.
>
> As well, where does the impression of mathematicians feeling
>superior to scientists arise? I never heard of this, and many
>mathematicians were also physicists. Were you scared by a
>mathematician in your childhood?
>
It is obvious, just look at all the replies to my saying that
mathematics is a subdepartment of physics. Only I have supported this
claim and all the other posts have opposed this claim. Even you Niel
are opposed to this claim. And the reason you are opposed, I can only
guess is that everyone has read in this arrogant books that math is
great and tops. But now in a newer day where there is an Atom Totality
theory, that older claim of math is tops really has not much support.
> As an aside, I take opposition to your calling me a birdbrain,
>despite the fact that I haven't breathed a word against p-adics
>themselves yet. And until I have sufficient reason, I won't.
>
>
I do that as a price that the lethargic math community will pay. The
day when p-adics are found essential in physics and that Naturals =
p-adics is confirmed then the math people who had responsibility to
consider Naturals = p-adics but who ignored it, heckled it, jeered it.
Well, then they pay the price for their obtuseness and their ignoring
it. I want accountability in mathematics and the sciences. In the old
days we were not as open nor had free access to the press and world as
we do with the Internet. And so accountability now plays a major role
in science and math.
If I am found wrong and that the p-adics are not the Naturals and
that no place in physics are p-adics essential, then I pay the price
and eat crow and be historically blacklisted or made a clown of. But I
believe I am correct and if it takes calling Gerd Faltings a worthless
math birdbrain that he may go into action and consider that equation of
Naturals = INfinite Integers, and that he will go down into infamy in
math history if I am found correct. Then it was good that I put a
bunsen burner under his stupid and lazy ass.
>
> Maybe. As Quantum Physics has "classical" and "renormalised"
>versions of theories, so may mathematics under p-adics. (What does
>"p-adic" stand for, anyway? Just curious.)
>
I have often stated that mathematics has rarely had any revolutions.
About the only real revolution was the introduction of nonEuclidean
geometries. But mathematics is ripe for a real, apple cart upsetting
revolution. A revolution that will make obsolete almost all the math
textbooks of present. Such a revolution would be Naturals = p-adics =
Infinite INtegers. And I have likened that revolution to the Quantum
physics revolution over the old Newtonian Mechanics. I have often
implied that Naturals = Finite Integers is Newtonian Mechanics and that
Naturals = Infinite Integers is the Quantum Mechanics of mathematics.
>
> Firstly, I agree that physics EXPERIMENTS have more basis in
>reality than math: math is a formal system which seems to work, and
>physics experiments are measurements of reality itself. However,
>THEORETICAL physics depends on math intimately. Physics theory without
>math boils down to: "light is very very very very fast."
>
All theoretical phsyics is hogwash unless it has experiments behind
it. And thanks for you above for the bells are ringing. Mathematics =
Theoretical Physics which has no experimental evidence. Pure
theoretical physics is phsyics experiments that use only pen and paper.
> Secondly, how did you "derive" (for lack of a better word)
>p-adics? Are p-adics a consequence of observation, as the existance of
>the neucleus of an atom is? Or are p-adics the only way math and physics
>able to coexist? If the latter, I submit that you have found a math that
>is better for a basis of physics. P-adics are a part of physics (as
>opposed to math) IF AND ONLY IF p-adics exist by the observations of
>physics. Have you observed a 2 today? Not two objects, not ink in the
>symbolic representation of "2", but an actual 2? No such thing exists,
>one cannot "observe" a number, nor can one observe a class of numbers.
>Thusly, p-adics are a part of MATH, NOT PHYSICS.
>
If this world had no atoms , but something else, something continuous
perhaps then mathematics created in such a world would be numberless
and be based on whatever that stuff of that universe was.
I did not found p-adics, Kurt Hensel did that at the turn of the 20th
century. I independantly discovered Infinite Integers and then later
found out that p-adics cover the Infinite Integers. This often happens
in science or math. That you work on something and think you have
discovered something totally new and find out that someone else worked
it out 100 years earlier than you.
>
>
> Ah, so then you did not observe a p-adic, you merely concluded
>that to use a p-adic instead of a finite integer solved your problems.
>Your problems of reconciliation of THEORETICAL PHYSICS with EXPERIMENTAL
>PHYSICS, not PHYSICS with MATH. By improving math, you makephysics
>consistent. If p-adics are indeed an improvement, I applaud your efforts.
>However, in trying to convince (convert?) others to see things your way,
>you have begun to sound more like a fanatical Nazi than a rational
>philosopher of any type.
>
> P-adics are math. New math, math brought about due to problems in
>physics, but math nonetheless. By insulting math, you insult yourself.
>Whether you are aware of it or not, you are a mathematician, and are
>trying to bring about a mathematical, and not a physical, revolution.
>Physics will not envelop math, as you envision: math will not be whipped,
>kiss physics' feet, or be put into concentration camps. Theoretical
>physics will still be the middle man between experimental physics and
>math, trying to predict the former by use of the latter. It will merely
>be the first time that an inadequacy in physics will necessitate a change
>in math, is all, just as inadequacies have necessitated better
>experimental procedures all these centuries.
>
> I put it to you that you are either a physicist who has been
>either abused, teased, or put down by mathematical peers, and that you
>are trying to insult them by saying that physics is infinitely superior
>to math. In that, you are gravely mistaken. All quests for truth are
>equally valid, and while some may be based on others (ie, just as PHYSICS
>is based on MATH and observation), all searches for truth are noble, and
>light up our world with their insights.
>
No, I have my work and ideas before the eyes of the world. If any of
my theories are found correct, such as the Atom Totality, then all of
those that ignored or denied or the many that persecuted me will pay
their price.
The Net has changed the playing field of science in publishing. No
longer can a professor from Princeton who has his hand on the journals
gets published. If Wiles is awarded the Wolfskehl prize for FLT and 10
or 50 years later my Naturals = P-adics is finally admitted as true and
that Wiles FLT was another scam just as Kempe's scam of the 4 - Color
Mapping. Well, it was all on record and I ask that Wiles and the
Goettingen Academy of Sciences go down in history , in infamy , as the
darkhorse persecutors and con-artists and buffoons that they were.
The way we publish science and math must change. The old clubhouse,
inner circle are held accountable if they ignore a genius of the
subject.
> This has been my humble opinion, amplified by way of reaction to
>extreme comments about math. (Newton's 3rd law: For every action, there
>is an equal but opposite reaction...a qualitative law of physics, which
>needs math to be of any concrete use.) I neither oppose nor promote
>p-adics, but I do oppose the way that the promoter(s) of p-adics seem to
>go to great lengths put math down, especially with shock tactics like
>"Physics Envelops Math" and "Math forced to grub, grub, grub". Let
>us discuss things, and think things out, like reasoning beings: That's Why
>God Gave Us Brains.
>
> Math a branch of Physics? IMHO, impossible. P-adics valid? No
>comment. After all, I haven't enough of a basis to have an opinion. If
>only all people were like that, all the time...
>
You really have not been open minded in your above.
>
>Niel de Beaudrap
Math cannot even begin to describe quantum mechanics in its strange
logic, in its breaking of causality. Even a piece of biology is bigger
than is the whole subject of mathematics. Take the human brain and
mind, it fits mathematics into a tiny corner of that biological brain,
and yet the brain is just a composition of atoms and what the atoms do
is the subject of physics, is it not.
So try to be a little more open minded