Subject: Re: Time & space, still (was: Hermeneutics ...)
From: Francis Muir
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 07:34:10 -0700
moggin writes:
moggin wrote:
As I shouldn't have to point out, introducing the notion
of gravitas in the PRINCIPIA would be enough, by itself,
to commit him to action-at-a-distance, even in the absence
of any other considerations, since it's a force that exerts
itself across space without any mechanism to account
for its workings.
Gravitas has nothing to do with physics and everything to do with
seriousness and sobriety; the opposite of levity. It is a quality
to which too many at r.a.b pretend. Here are all the quotes that
OED manages to find informative:
1924 Manch. Guardian Weekly 10 Oct. 313 He never sheds
a certain Roman gravitas.
1958 Spectator 30 May 698/2 A certain gravitas in the
atmosphere of the Scottish universities.
1961 Times 2 Aug. 11/6 Its leading articles, and even
its news coverage, will have a superb Victorian gravitas.
1961 Listener 30 Nov. 901/2 As for the Prime Minister
[of Nigeria], to see him at close quarters is to
recognize the true gravitas of the statesman.
1969 Listener 20 Mar. 376/2 Gravitas, the heavy tread
of moral earnestness, becomes a bore if it is not
accompanied by the light step of intelligence.
So there.
Fido
Subject: Re: What is the Cause of Time Dilation?
From: bjon@ix.netcom.com (Brian Jones)
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 16:40:04 GMT
briank@ibm.net (Brian Kennelly) wrote[in part]:
>>
[bjon]
>>Here's what I am saying: If one makes the argument that "Unicorns
>>aren't detectable" when actually one means "It is my theory that
>>unicorns don't exist, and furthermore they are not detectable," then
>>this latter part is a senseless addition, and I don't believe Einstein
>>would have done this. SRT says that only merely relative motion is
>>detectable, and that absolute motion is not detectable. Einstein said
>>that absolute motion is meaningless in that it cannot be observed, but
>>this doesn't mean that he denied its very existence. And a theory
>>that says "Absolute motion is not detectable" meaning "Despite the
>>fact that absolute motion does exist, it is not observable" is not
>>falsifiable unless such motion does exist. The only way it can be
>>falsified is by the detection of absolute motion, so this type of
>>motion must exist for the theory to be falsifiable.
>>
>This is still flawed logic.
>Let A be 'Unicorns do not exist'
>Let B be 'Unicorns are not detectable'.
>Then we can allow 'A implies B'
>This leads us to 'not B implies not A'. (I.e. detecting unicorns implies they
>exist).
>You claim that 'B implies not A' is also equivalent, but it is not.
>If we can derive 'B implies not A', as in your argument, then we can prove
>'not A'. (I.e. unicorns exist).
>So, if unicorns do not exist, they are not detectable.
>If they are detectable, they exist.
>If they are not detectabe, they exist.
>Unicorns exist. QED.
You didn't argue against my point made above, which was this:
>>And a theory
>>that says "Absolute motion is not detectable" meaning "Despite the
>>fact that absolute motion does exist, it is not observable" is not
>>falsifiable unless such motion does exist. The only way it can be
>>falsified is by the detection of absolute motion, so this type of
>>motion must exist for the theory to be falsifiable.
Subject: Re: What is the Cause of Time Dilation?
From: Cees Roos
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 08:53:08 +0000 (GMT)
In article <328DFA96.6C8F@ix.netcom.com>,
wrote:
>
> Cees Roos wrote:
> > > they are equally good. One might consider the simplest of the two better
> > > > (Occam, you know..).
> > >
> > > Not necessarily. Epicycles did a wonderful job of prediction planetary motion
> > > with a geocentric universe, the Copernican system did/does an equally good job
> > > with a heliocentric universe. Which is the "correct" theory?
> >
> > Perfect example! Both are correct, but Copernicus is less complex, and
> > consequently preferred.
> >
>
> I think the preference follows more from the fact that Copernicus'
> model was a bit more in line with reality. I think this is the best
> way to pick and choose among models ... when such a clear cut
> distinction is available.
I don't understand your way of arguing. You yourself state that the two
theories did an equally good job. In that case, how can you decide that
one of the two is more in line with reality? I maintain, that the
criterion has been complexity of the theory, not alignment with reality.
> > > It may well be possible to have invariant time AND still have the obser
> vations
> > > which confirm SR,
> >
> > I don't see how. But even if, for the sake of the argument, we assume
> > this possibility, the invariant time is orthogonal to SRT, i.e. it makes
> > no difference whether it exists or not, because SRT yields correct
> > predictions as it is.
> >
>
> It makes a difference when you begin to put together your
> cosmological model.
A satisfactory cosmological model is possible without the concept of
invariant time. There simply is no need for such a thing.
> Especially if you make the premature
> assumption that because your foundation (SR) makes "perfect"
> predictions it must be correct.
I bet you are unable to cite any article from me containing the
assumption that any theory must be correct.
On the other hand, as long as a theory makes correct predictions, it is
a good working hypothesis.
> > > or variant time which does not encompass the assymetrical
> > > predictions of the "twins paradox" (among other effects).
> >
> > Again, I don't see how.
> >
>
> Nor do I. The truth must be discovered/confirmed empirically
> though, not hypothetically.
Agreed. Do you see that denying a prediction (which is hypothetical as
long as there is no empiric data), is also hypothesizing, but in this
case based on no theory at all,and consequently totally premature?
Besides, the "twins paradox" is a consequence of time dilation, which
is observed and utilized routinely and on a daily basis.
> > > > As far as I can see, the battle has already been decided, because there
> > > > is no experimental result indicating that absolute time exists.
> > > > Once more, come up with an experiment which will show one way or the
> > > > other and the matter can be settled.
> > > >
>
> Several have been proposed. The best experiments though remain
> technologically in the future for awhile. But yes they will probably
> settle the matter ....probably in SR's favor (odds are), but that's
> no reason to claim it's settled now.
OK, claim withdrawn. Opinion not.
> > > But you are accepting the "prefered" theory as fact, long before many experiments
> > > have been developed to test it.
> >
> > Yes, and I will do that as long as it stands, i.e. as long as it is not
> > falsified.
> >
>
> Much the same logic kept the geocentric universe scenario
> around for a long time. Of course independent verification/testing
> was not well received either.
Wrong example. You allude to two equivalent theories. The shift in
favour was due to complexity. Later, when Newton formulated his
mechanics, the difference in complexity became still more decisive.
>
> > > You have the cart before the horse when you
> > > say someone must disprove the theory ... or accept it. Some things remain
> > > to be seen.
> >
> > Science progresses by falsifying theories, but as long as a theory gives
> > right predictions, and is not falsified, I don't see what's wrong with
> > accepting it.
>
> It pretty much stops the discovery process cold.
No. Every verified prediction is a new discovery. When a prediction is
falsified, there is a need for a better theory, not earlier.
Of course, one can speculate about alternative possible theories, and if
one finds such an alternative which is less complex, the new one will be
preferred, vide Ptolemy vs. Copernicus.
> > On the other hand, if you have an equally 'strong' alternative, feel
> > free to believe it. Only, if it's equally strong, there will be no
> > conflict. The present discussion could be an indication that the
> > two viewpoints pro and contra are not equivalent.
> >
>
> Nope. Don't have an alternative.
Then what's your point?
> Someone brighter than me, and starting
> down the path much sooner would have a much better chance to find
> an alternative ... if one exists. But to find such a alternative
> he/she will have to abandone the assumption that what is currently
> known is the last/best word on the subject.
It is, for the time being.
> Einstein took that
> tack until the day he died ... if you can trust the literature.
[snip]
> > > In some very limited circumstances there is a great deal of evidence regarding
> > > SR's predictions.
> >
> > Unfortunately, the limited circumstances are all we have. It is possible
> > to make all kinds of assumptions about what's outside, but we will never
> > know one way or the other. Discussing such assumptions might be a
> > comfortable passtime, but will always remain purely speculative.
> >
>
> We'll soon have less limited circumstances ... unless we abandone
> science for "new age physics" and such (which could happen).
> The point is you cannot make any assumptions about what's outside
> except to model it and see if the model conforms to reality.
But then it's no longer outside, is it? As long as it is, you are merely
speculating.
[snip]
> > All predictions of SRT have been correct so far. Nobody claims eventual
> > further predictions will all be correct. As long as this is so, why not
> > be content with a satisfactory theory?
> >
>
> Oh but
> they do. The "twins paradox" for example is claimed to be a
> decided issue ... but it surely is not; and won't be until one twin
> climbs in a rocket while the other stays home ... or some such
> variation.
Would it be possible to you to see a speeding particle in a particle
detector as an example of a 'twin in a rocket'? You see, in the 'twin
paradox' the twins are the metaphor for 'anything' in a certain frame.
> There are many claims/predictions which have not
> been substantiated ... not even FTL.
They have not been falsified either.
> > Let's wait and see.
>
> I agree.
>
> regards ... W$
--
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: What is the Cause of Time Dilation?
From: bjon@ix.netcom.com (Brian Jones)
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 16:33:49 GMT
briank@ibm.net (Brian Kennelly) wrote[in part]:
>>No explanation at all in SRT.
>Here you go again. Theory says that in a rest system, we will expect a null
>result. SR says the same is true of a moving system. It explains it, if
>you wish, by showing how length and time are measured differently in a moving
>system. So, SR gives us length contraction and time dilation in the moving
>system. In AT, these effects are supposed to exist "absolutely", but are
>assumed, not explained.
>SR gives a better explanation.
The theory (the PR) said that a motionless earth observer would get
the exact same general result (find the same law) as that of any
moving earth observer. This law was: Light's round-trip speed shall
vary in direct proportion to my own absolute speed, as in the equation
c +/- V for a 1-way x-axis light ray. And since the stationary
earth's absolute speed V is zero, the result is simply c. This is not
a null result but a positive one.
Any "explanation" based upon mere relative measurement cannot do the
job. We are talking about a physically real null result here. I
don't care how many SRT observers get how many different time and
length measurements, this has nothing to do with the simple fact that
the MMX light rays always (and totally unexpectedly) actually and
absolutely tied.
As for the "mere" assumptions used by Lorentz to explain the null
result, any explantion is better than none (as in the SRT case).
In fact, Lorentz's explanation is not only the only one, it is the
only sensible one, by far.
Subject: Re: What is the Cause of Time Dilation?
From: bjon@ix.netcom.com (Brian Jones)
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 17:10:25 GMT
briank@ibm.net (Brian Kennelly) wrote[in part]:
>In article <56e1mu$jqg@sjx-ixn10.ix.netcom.com>,
>bjon@ix.netcom.com (Brian Jones) wrote:
>>briank@ibm.net (Brian Kennelly) wrote[in part]:
>>
>>[bjon]
>>>>And meaningless. (What does "Light's speed relative to any observer
>>>>whatsoever is independent of the light source" mean?)
>>>>
>>
>>>Exactly what it reads. Any observer can measure light's speed, for light
>>>emitted from any source and will get the same value.
>>
>>But you have mixed together two light speeds -- light's speed as it
>>leaves the source and this light's speed relative to the observer.
>>Does it make any difference if the light is source independent or not?
>>
>Yes, it does. Unless light's speed changes between emission and reception
>the speeds will be the same. So, source dependence will show up in
>measurement.
Making it a real thing, ie, an absolute. A source and its emitted
light are not attached (necessarily) to any ref. frame system, and
this includes an SRT frame system. All we have is a source and its
possible physical effect upon the emitted light. No one needs be in
the universe, and certainly we need no relativistic observers running
around making their silly relativistic measurements (each of which
varies with the observer's own absolute speed -- the only possible
thing that could cause any real variances). Ritz claimed that the
source's absolute speed did affect the absolute speed of the emitted
light, but this was disproved in 1977. There are only two (2)
possibilities here, and not an infinity of them as there would be if
it involved an infinite number of SRT observers making their speed
measurements.
>>>>>>more meaty proofs of light's absolute motion existence. In 1977, Ken
>>>>>>Brecher studied binary star x-rays to see if the stars' _absolute)_
>>>>>>motion (the only kind that _could_ have a real effect upon anything)
>>>>
>>>>>The issue was variation of the star's motion relative to the Earth.
>>>>
>>>>No. It was the star's speed being source affected or not, and the
>>>>only type of light speed that can possibly be affected by a light
>>>>source is the absolute or actual light speed.
>>
>>>The only speed we can measure is relative speed. It can be affected by
>>>motion of the source. But in the case of light, it is not.
>>
>>Brecher (as I said) did not measure the light's speed at all. All his
>>experiment showed was the the light leaving the source was not pushed
>>faster thru space by the source or slowed down thru space by the
>>source. This clearly has zilch to do with some observer measuring the
>>speed of light relative to his frame.
>>
>You really don't understand the experiment do you?
It's you.
>>>>>>had any affect upon the emitted light's _absolute_ speed (the only
>>>>>>type of speed that could be affected by a source's motion). He said in
>>>>>>his paper that there would be a definite pattern if light's speed were
>>>>>>source-affected (or source dependent), and this pattern would be
>>>>>>readily observable from earth. (The light would get "mixed up" as it
>>>>>>was emitted from stars moving rapidly in opposite directions).
>>>>>>However, no such telltale pattern was ever observed, meaning that the
>>>>>>light's actual speed thru space (or its absolute speed) was in no way
>>>>>>affected by the source's movement thru space, or the stars' absolute
>>>>>>movements. Note that the earth observer in no way measures any light
>>>>>>speed (either round-trip or one-way)in this case. This is purely a
>>>>
>>>>>The experiment was based on the fact that the travel time would vary if the
>>>>>speed varied. (D/c+v <> D/c-v). The equality of the times is a proof that
>>>>>the speeds are the same.
>>>>
>>>>No clocks were involved, therefore no times.
>>>>
>>
>>>Try again. The times involved were the travel time of light from various
>>>points in the stellar orbit. Read the literature on this experiment.
>>
>>What was looked for was the following: [1] pulses appearing (arriving
>>on earth) from more than one orbit postition at the same received
>>time, [2] odd eclipses of the binary star system's members, and [3] an
>>apparent orbital eccentricity. Each of these is discussed in detail
>>in Brecher's paper in Phys. Rev. Lett.
>>
>These are all effects related to the travel time of light.
More directly, they all relate to the source's and light's absolute
speeds and their real, physical relartionship. As I said, there wer
no clocks and therefore no time readings taken.
>>The point here is: Either you believe in Ritz's emission theory or you
>>accept Brecher's experimental disprove of it.
>>And in either case, the only speed that fits is light's absolute
>>speed.
>>
>The experiment says only that Ritz was wrong. Nothing about absolute speed
>can be inferred.
About what was he wrong? It's simple: In empty space with no SRT or
any other kind of observers around, a source's absolute motion does
not have any (real, physical) effect upon the speed (absolute) of the
actually and physically emitted light (light that is emitted whether
or not there are any SRT observers around).
>>>>>>matter of absolute speeds, both of the light sources and of the light
>>>>>>leaving the sources. All that was looked for was a particular
>>>>>>pattern, a pattern whose origins were light-years away, and in no way
>>>>>>affected by us on earth. Since no observer measured any speed at all,
>>>>>>the speed of the light in this is simply an absolute speed.
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Absolute's got nothing to do with it. The experiment showed that the light
>>>>>traveled at the same speed, relative to the Earth, no matter what the relative
>>>>>speed of the source.
>>>>
>>>>Dead wrong. Call Mr. Brecher.
>>>>
>>>I stand by my statement.
>>
Scared to call?
>>The experiment showed only that the source's movement had no effect
>>upon the speed of the emitted light. No one on earth measured any
>>speed of anything at all. And saying "I stand by my statement" does
>>not prove anything except that you are determined to ignore facts.
>>
>The experiment showed that the travel times were the same. The distances were
>also the same. This implies equal speeds. If the times had been different
>then the speeds would have been different. It was not necessary to measure
>the speed to infer this.
No travel times were measured. No clocks were used. No distances
were measured. No rulers were used. What was observed was that the
stars' patterns tell us that light's absolute (or actual speed, the
only type of speed that can possibly be source affected) speed is not
affected by the absolute motion (the only type of source motion that
can possibly affect anything) of its source.
>As I assume you understand the kinematics of the experiment, and you affirm
>that it showed the light speed to be the same, I am not sure why you are
>arguing this point.
Interesting.
>>
>>>>
>>>>And Einstein's View explains nothing at all.
>>>>
>>>Wrong.
>>
>>Not according to A.I. Miller, Ph.D. in physics, M.I.T.
>>(All I am doing is repeating his written message).
>>
>Can you provide the citation, so I can review Miller's statements?
Yep.
Arthur I. Miller. "Albert Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity"
Page 170, line 13.
Also, you may want to see Nigel Calder's book "Einstein's Universe"
which fully goes into Brecher's experiment about source independency.
He starts on page 170 (coincidentally the same as above) by saying
that there are three light speed "mysteries." The first of these is
the one that I have constantly been discussing. It is the fact that
light's absolute speed is a constant (as backed up by Brecher's 1977
experment, since the source does not affect this speed). Calder's
second "mystery" about light's speed is that (in SRT) all inertial
observers get the same relative speed for light. (As he put it, light
always "seems" to travel at the same speed despite the difference in
absolute observer speeds as they pass this a steady-absolute-speed
light ray.) (Brecher is discussed on the next 3 pages by Calder.)
(His words are simple and easy to follow).
Subject: Re: What is the Cause of Time Dilation?
From: bjon@ix.netcom.com (Brian Jones)
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 17:16:47 GMT
devens@uoguelph.ca (David L Evens) wrote[in part]:
>Brian D. Jones (bjon@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>: >: >>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.
>: >: >>
>: >: >You seem to have shifted the meaning of absolute. You now have equated
>: >: >absolute time with proper time. This is radically different than either
>: >: >Newton's or Einstein's use of the term. I don't think that is what you
>: >: >meant.
>: >: A single clock traveling between events records a single time - this
>: >: is clearly not relative, but absolute, or not observer dependent.
>: >The problem with this demand is that the CLOCK becomes the observer.
>: So who is Mr. Clock observing?
>In this case, the clock is measuring the proper time for the world line
>connecting the two events.
The clock reading is an actual reading on an actual clock, and all
inertial observers will agree as to its magnitude. This makes it an
absolute quantity.
>: >: >>>: Obviously, for many events, there's not enough time for a clock to
>: >: >>>: "span" them, even at lightspeed, so there would be no proper time for
>: >: >>>: the events. This is the case above.
>: >: >>
>: >: >>>Yes, because we've switched from trig to hyperbolic trig.
>: >: >>>We've switched from Pythagorus to Lorentz/Minkowski.
>: >: >>>Thus, the interval is spacelike.
>: >: >>
>: >: >>>Oooooooo, scarey. Ooooooh. I dunno about you, kids,
>: >: >>>but that sure convinces old Count Floyd, boy, I'll tell you. Oooooh.
>: >: >>>--
>: >: >>>Wayne Throop throopw@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
>: >: >>> throopw@cisco.com
>: >: >>
>: >: >>Sad and irrelevant attempt at being humorous.
>: >: >>And what's really scarey is a clock that reads hyperbolic time!
>: >: >>
>: >: >Your use of absolute above would truly be hyperbolic time in the sense that
>: >: >events at the same absolute time from the origin would occupy a hyperboloid,
>: >: >rather than a plane. I will let you reconsider this one.
>: >: But there's no proper time reading by a real clock.
>: >No, the proper time is given by a clock carried by the observer or system
>: >you want the proper time of.
>: I meant that no real clock could travel between the events -- so there
>: could be no real proper time recorded.
>Now you are demanding that all clocks are constrained to be at rest in
>your magical prefered frame?
No, simply that the events were too far apart for a clock to span
them, even at near c. In fact, some events cannot be spanned even by
light.
>--
>---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
>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: Sophistry 103 (was: I know that!)
From: gree0072@gold.tc.umn.edu (Joseph M Green)
Date: 17 Nov 1996 11:08:58 -0600
brian artese writes:
>Joseph M Green wrote:
>> On the contrary, your explanation leaves out most of the empirical.
>? I don't see how this could make any sense. *I'm* not the one positing
>something 'non-physical.' My argument relies on *nothing but* signifiers.
Of course you are. In a field the you you posit is the field. You want
to account for the structure of language without accounting for what
it expresses: intention. You prefer the abstraction of the field
to the reality of the speaker. Who speaks? Why?
>> wants the prince killed. He looks meaningfully at the poor boy while
>> addressing a servant. He says "a grave." Hubert understands his intent.
>> King John knows what he intends. Nothing at all transcendent about
>> his intention.
>>
>> Now King John is very much a fellow whose existence can be verified
>> by empirical means -- he is a person. In this case he is the actor
>> playing at being King John and intepreting a text through
>> eloquent action (the "looks meaningfully" action), the words, the
>> "nexus of signifiers." He is an actor representing a character and
>> both the actor and the character represented are said to intend
>> a certain communication. You want to banish the person who has
>> intentions since the intentions are not observable -- an odd
>> instance of naive Platonism...
>? a naive Platonism would back up *your* essentialist argument, not my
>anti-essentialist one...
Nope, a really naive Platonism would aver that that which is most abstract
is actually that which is most real. You want to demystify intention
(and along the way the romantic or essentialist or modern self) by
declaring that it is the ghost in the machine -- and that the actions of
the machine can be accounted for very well without positing it.
However, in spite of your effort at de-mystification, the intending
self is what is felt by most persons as that which is most real.
This is probably (along with many other reasons) becasue the self
with its intentions are open to introspection. The thought occurs, of
course, that this self is the effect and not the cause so that one is
not without doubt in some sense. But in the world persons have
chosen to believe they have intentions and that they are accountable
for them. That is -- as you remark later -- persons have chosen
to believe thast they have a soul. You seem to have decided that what
is empirical must be observable in certain narrow ways. This is how
you can discount the empirical evidence (in a wider sense than you
allow) of intentions. The world is full of intending selves (and
always has been) and you demystification will never affect that.
>> ... since what we presumably are is what is,
>> in fact, exactly what is most abstract: the poor self that thought it
>> had intentions is flung out into ther void where it is not this and
>> not that and the sum of whatever articulations possess it at
>> wahtever odd instant....
>Whoa... you're spinning off into all kinds of philosophical tangents.
>You're attempting to paraphrase a poststructuralist understanding of the
>self (as a construction). It befuddles you because you can't imagine how
>to think about bodies that speak and write without 'housing' them in a
>totalizing, unifying 'self.' The desire to believe that thought has it's
>source in some transcendental space called 'your consciousness' -- a space
>that you 'own,' that hovers above you somewhere at all times, a space that
>ultimately 'accounts for' all your thoughts and words, a *single source*
>for all your thought, a space that somehow generates thoughts *before*
>they're thoughts, which generates articulations before they're
>articulations, and which allows you to believe that *you* are the source of
>language, allows you to ignore the fact that you inherit thought and
>language -- this desire to master the unavoidably contingent nature of
>human life with this bubble of subjectivity which is not itself contingent
>on anything 'behind' it -- this desire is understandably strong, and you'll
>find that this 'self' is indistinguishable from what people call 'the soul'
>-- it serves the exact same function and produces exactly the same effects.
> Like the soul, the self is necessarily transcendental. It is not
>identical to anything here on earth; and even of one allows that thougts
>are real, this self is never identical to any of them, and is always more
>than, as you say, their 'sum.' So the self transcends even thought. It
>has to be completely slippery and fundamentally out of reach to serve the
>function that it does. This self is, in fact, simply the *humanist*
>version of the soul, and I won't attempt to argue you away from it here.
>But I was hoping we could just stick to the implications of 'intent' and
>'meaning' before you began to extrapolate what I'm saying into these larger
>issues. Otherwise, it just looks like you're arguing against what I'm
>saying not because it isn't logical, but because you don't like the
>implications.
Of course I am arguing against what you are saying just because I
don't like its implications. Is anything else ever done? You simply
want to defeat one so called abstraction to create another one. The
abstraction you endorse has immense and terrible implications for
freedom. Of course the self in identical to something here on earth:
it is identical to itself in the same way a person is identical
to herself. There's no separating your assertions from these
larger issues and trying to do so won't bring clarity.
But I am also arguing against your point of view because it isn't
logical. You think that you are providing the most real
account of language and its operations. I say you are ignoring
who speaks and why they speak so that language is just an
abstraction that is someplace "out there"
>> You really take the view of, say, those
>> tentacled fellows of Wolfe 1734 who observe their human specimens
>> making love in the specimen holding area of their starship
>> and think that they can understand what is there by understanding
>> what is observable.
>? I never said anything about 'understanding,' much less the observation of
>general phenomena. We're talking about signifiers, remember, which is a
>different thing.
The point of the parable is, of course, that what is missed is what
is not accessible to those who observe the same way you observe
language.
>> Your theory of communication implies a theory
>> of persons
>It implies a 'theory of persons'? How so?
Should be clear by now.
>> .. and what is implied is that there is no reality beyond
>> the "nexus of signifiers" expressed.
>! Certainly not. Just because I don't believe that 'intent' as a 'thing'
>that halts the chain of signification doesn't mean I don't believe in
>'reality,' or bodies that write, read, speak and hear. We were talking
>about issues of meaning and signification. Under that heading, then, yes,
>I would say there is nothing in operation beyond signifiers and their
>associative relations.
I don't claim intent as a thing that halts the chain gang of signification.
The question is: significant to whom?
Your bodies that read, write, speak and hear are bodies that cannot have
intentions. You can admit the existence of bodies but, again, the
question is what these bodies are and by denying intention to
them you deny their essence (not afraid of that word, nope).
Subject: Re: Wow! Anyone know what's happening with Hale-Bopp?
From: "Reboot!"
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 11:53:12 -0600
OX-11 wrote:
>
> I heard the news that last night amateur astronomers had detected
> something large near Hale-Bopp that wasn't there even a few hours
> earlier. The guy uploaded his picture and I managed to get through an
> inordinately high amount of traffic and download the picture. WoW! The
> thing, whatever it is, is huge, and has a faint saturn-like ring around
> it. It does seem to be glowing with its own light (not reflected). I
> tried to look for more info today, but the particular websites seem to be
> totally overloaded. Anyone have any idea what this 'thing' could be?
>
> If you cant get through, you can download yesterdays picture from my server.
> Do an anonymous FTP to: altair.csustan.edu/pub/misc/jacob/halebopp.jpg
>
> If this is real, its amazing!!
The truth:
"Subject:
Re: Hale-Bopp?
Date:
Sun, 17 Nov 1996 04:00:59 -0500
From:
Tim Puckett
To:
"Reboot!"
Please read the contents of this page.............
http://www.halebopp.com/slo1.htm
At 10:38 PM 11/16/96 -0600, you wrote:
>Any truth that there is a companion solid to Hale-Bopp?
>
The Puckett Observatory
PO Box 818 Ellijay, Ga 30180
770-459-6491 or 706-636-1166
http://www.mindspring.com/~tpuckett"
Subject: [Fwd: "It's a star," astronomers say]
From: "Jack Sarfatti, Ph.D."
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 10:05:35 -0800
Return-Path: west@sonic.net
Received: from sub.sonic.net (root@sub.sonic.net [199.4.118.8]) by mh1.well.com (8.7.6/8.7.5) with ESMTP id NAA00957; Sat, 16 Nov 1996 13:05:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sonic.net.sonic.net (d228.pm7.sonic.net [208.201.229.228]) by sub.sonic.net (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id NAA19814; Sat, 16 Nov 1996 13:04:46 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.32.19961116130515.00ddaa80@sonic.net>
X-Sender: west@sonic.net
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32)
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1996 13:05:28 +0800
To: (Recipient list suppressed)
From: Wes Thomas
Subject: "It's a star," astronomers say
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Well, folks, looks like the planet Nibiru may not be coming back to take us
away, away after all. Turns out it's a star, say astronomers. Thanks to Dr.
Jack Sarfatti for forwarding me the link ....
>From the current Wesnet News
--------------------------------------------------------
Russell Sipes of HB (Hale-Bopp) magazine has identified a star as the
mystery object. See his article, The "Object" Near Comet Hale-Bopp. It's
the "8th magnitude star SAO 41894 which has sprouted the typical
diffraction pattern inherent to astrophography [sic] when the conditions
are right.... Compare the star above to the bright star near the galaxy NGC
2763. The same typical diffraction spikes produce the same 'saturn' effect."
See http://www.halebopp.com/hbobject.htm
------------------------------------------------------------
And stay tuned to Wesnet News for breaking news from the edge and beyond!
Subject: Re: Sophistry 103 (was: I know that!)
From: nanken@tiac.net (Ken MacIver)
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 21:03:32 GMT
mkagalen@lynx.dac.neu.edu (Michael Kagalenko) wrote:
>Ken MacIver (nanken@tiac.net) wrote:
>]>In other words, after much effort, you're finally ready to deny the
>]>antecedent. As I have said, whatever reading I have done in formulating
>]>my argument is unimportant. What you should address is the argument
>]>itself. If I have indeed never read Derrida, establishing a fallacy
>]>should be easy (unless, of course, I'm terribly lucky). So, cogitate
>]>upon the following:
>]> "[reading] cannot legitimately transgress the text towards something
>]>other than it, toward a referent (a reality that is metaphysical,
>]>historical, psychobiographical, etc.) or toward a signified outside the
>]>text whose content could take place... There is nothing outside of the
>]>text". (_Of Grammatology_, page 158)
>]
>]Silke has addressed your above comments succinctly and posed questions
>]that I think you will be hard pressed to answer. Good luck.
> Watch MacIver being unable to answer rational point.
Watch Kagalenko whose love for redundancy makes threads three times
longer than otherwise required.
Ken
