The Special Relativity Theory extrudes action at a distance as a legitimate physical notion. If we want to describe cause-effect relation in such a way that action at a distance is eliminated then how can we describe this relation? We can never say that cause is one 'thing' and its effect is on another thing. Therefore we have to accept that cause and effect are contiguous in space-time. We have accept that as soon as 'effect' comes into existence, the cause has ceased to exist immediately before. Therefore system forgets cause of change. Is there any expression that demonstrates usefulness of 'positive self-reference', 'continuous change in reference' and 'continuous forgetting of the past' so that at least the term 'effect' acquires a sensible meaning, even if we cannot define 'cause'?
In article <38af3945.0211171941.3a123...@posting.google.com>,
vgopa...@rediffmail.com (V.Gopal) wrote: > The Special Relativity Theory extrudes action at a distance
1. That's a great example of the limited usefulness of spell-checkers. It would even pass most grammar checkers.
2. It conjures up some odd images, eh? Forces pulling matter through the mesh of space time, or something.
[mercy snip]
Hey, VG, how come you haven't responded to my detailed reply to your "What is wrong in geometry-part2". And how about giving a specific response to each of my points, rather than your usual all-run-together-at-the-end style?
-- --------------------------- | BBB b \ barbara minus knox at iname stop com | B B aa rrr b | | BBB a a r bbb | | B B a a r b b | | BBB aa a r bbb | -----------------------------
> ... Is there any expression that demonstrates usefulness > of 'positive self-reference', 'continuous change in reference' and > 'continuous forgetting of the past' so that at least the term 'effect' > acquires a sensible meaning, even if we cannot define 'cause'?
The terms of the required expression may be given as: G for the "positive self-reference" in Gödelian sentences, O for the zero limit of "continuous change in reference", A for the anti-memory in "continuous forgetting" and T for the total timelessness of effect sans cause.
-- Memetic Evolution Fable Convinced by talk.origins zealots that personalities are as hair obscuring the visage of truth seen in the mirror of their sacred scientific method, a converted creationist craved an ego shave with Ockham's razor; however, upon noting ubiquitous streetcorner saints clad in rent sackcloth and adorned with cosmetic ashes of atonement performing penance by bathing the feet of passersby in tears of contrition for pride taken in the purity of their own self-abasement, it seemed prudent to forget the whole project. Whereupon, the ego in question, bored by being ignored, simply fell asleep at the switch allowing enlightenment to pat itself on the back for it's cleverness. ;-)
There is no such thing as " why or how ? " in Science, so we are told. God or Nature made things the way they are..
When seeking a reason for the effect for any observed phenomenon (one asks "Why or How..?"), and we are often supplied with the immediately preceding time linked event as the cause. The cause-effect event pair recognition desribed as a phenomenon appears to be an infinitesmally small and repeatable differential event pair in a continuous and contiguous evolutionary process. Its interepretation as a phenomenon borders on temporal narrow limits set by human perception and systematized as Science within which it operates. But often we cannot extrapolate backwards or forwards outside these limits.
e.g., Why does rainbow have 7 colours? Because light contains 7 colors. But to start with how does light contain 7 colors?.. no proper answer. Or what is consequetial to it if there are these 7 colors ? that is temporarily the end of the road until a further scientific discovery is made.
Whether seed or tree first.. The question may need never be settled. What we do understand as Science is about repeating event chunks .. or phenomena.
vgopa...@rediffmail.com (V.Gopal) wrote in message <news:38af3945.0211171941.3a123da4@posting.google.com>... > The Special Relativity Theory extrudes action at a distance as a > legitimate physical notion. If we want to describe cause-effect > relation in such a way that action at a distance is eliminated > then how can we describe this relation? We can never say that > cause is one 'thing' and its effect is on another thing. Therefore > we have to accept that cause and effect are contiguous in space-time. > We have accept that as soon as 'effect' comes into existence, the cause > has ceased to exist immediately before. Therefore system forgets > cause of change. Is there any expression that demonstrates usefulness > of 'positive self-reference', 'continuous change in reference' and > 'continuous forgetting of the past' so that at least the term 'effect' > acquires a sensible meaning, even if we cannot define 'cause'?
> "V.Gopal" <vgopa...@rediffmail.com> in message > news:38af3945.0211171941.3a123da4@posting.google.com... > asked: <snip> > > ... Is there any expression that demonstrates usefulness > > of 'positive self-reference', 'continuous change in reference' and > > 'continuous forgetting of the past' so that at least the term 'effect' > > acquires a sensible meaning, even if we cannot define 'cause'?
> The terms of the required expression may be given as: > G for the "positive self-reference" in Gödelian sentences, > O for the zero limit of "continuous change in reference", > A for the anti-memory in "continuous forgetting" and > T for the total timelessness of effect sans cause.
1.The proposition "Everything is a Goat" is either true or not true. 2.If it is false, then it's opposite must be true. 3.The opposite of "everything" is "nothing", which give us the proposition "Nothing is a Goat".* 4.Now, this statement is clearly false, for goats certainly exist - we have all seen them. This means that it's opposite must be true. 5.Therefore, "Everything is a Goat" must be a true statement.
<end quote>
The statement "Something is not a goat" falsifies "Everything is a goat", so it's the opposite of the proposition. The rest of this so-called proof is doubletalk.
> 1.The proposition "Everything is a Goat" is either true or not true. > 2.If it is false, then it's opposite must be true. > 3.The opposite of "everything" is "nothing", which give us the > proposition "Nothing is a Goat".* > 4.Now, this statement is clearly false, for goats certainly exist - we > have all seen them. This means that it's opposite must be true. > 5.Therefore, "Everything is a Goat" must be a true statement.
> <end quote>
> The statement "Something is not a goat" falsifies "Everything is a > goat", so it's the opposite of the proposition. The rest of this > so-called proof is doubletalk.
> > 1.The proposition "Everything is a Goat" is either true or not true. > > 2.If it is false, then it's opposite must be true. > > 3.The opposite of "everything" is "nothing", which give us the > > proposition "Nothing is a Goat".* > > 4.Now, this statement is clearly false, for goats certainly exist - we > > have all seen them. This means that it's opposite must be true. > > 5.Therefore, "Everything is a Goat" must be a true statement.
> > <end quote>
> > The statement "Something is not a goat" falsifies "Everything is a > > goat", so it's the opposite of the proposition. The rest of this > > so-called proof is doubletalk.
> Your intuitions seem fine, dkomo, but your logic lacks luster.
It's not a matter of 'intuitions,' but of definitions. That's only one mistake the argument makes.
Another is when it says that 'goats exist because we've seen them' or something like that. That's an inference which relies on the implication "if we see something, it exists"; and given that implication, since we've all seen things that are not goats, then there are things that are not goats, and "Everything is a goat" is not true.
It's a stupid argument, and you foul sci.logic by bringing it here.
> Perhaps > this more rigorous exposition from a recent posting on sci.logic will help:
> > "V.Gopal" <vgopa...@rediffmail.com> in message > > news:38af3945.0211171941.3a123da4@posting.google.com... > > asked: <snip> > > > ... Is there any expression that demonstrates usefulness > > > of 'positive self-reference', 'continuous change in reference' and > > > 'continuous forgetting of the past' so that at least the term 'effect' > > > acquires a sensible meaning, even if we cannot define 'cause'?
> > The terms of the required expression may be given as: > > G for the "positive self-reference" in Gödelian sentences, > > O for the zero limit of "continuous change in reference", > > A for the anti-memory in "continuous forgetting" and > > T for the total timelessness of effect sans cause.
> 1.The proposition "Everything is a Goat" is either true or not true. > 2.If it is false, then it's opposite must be true. > 3.The opposite of "everything" is "nothing", which give us the > proposition "Nothing is a Goat".* > 4.Now, this statement is clearly false, for goats certainly exist - we > have all seen them. This means that it's opposite must be true. > 5.Therefore, "Everything is a Goat" must be a true statement.
> <end quote>
> The statement "Something is not a goat" falsifies "Everything is a > goat", so it's the opposite of the proposition. The rest of this > so-called proof is doubletalk.
There are two kinds of logical opposites, namely, contraries and contradictions, the first of which employing predicate negation and the second sentence negation. Accordingly, the contrary of "Everything is a goat." is "Everything is not a goat.", which is equivalent to "Nothing is a goat.". The contradiction of "Everything is a goat." is "It is not the case that everything is a goat.", which is equivalent to "Something is not a goat.".
The alleged proof above is fallacious because it fails to notice that the law of excluded middle (p v -p) mentioned in 1. only applies to contradictory but not to contrary statements, for contrary statements may be both false, with there indeed being a third possibility!!! For example, the contrary of "Everything is red." is "Everything is not red.", but it may very well be that it is neither the case that everything is red nor that everything is not red since it may be the case that something is red and something else is not red!!! Therefore, if I know that "Everything is a goat." is false, then I may certainly conclude from that that it´s contradiction "Something is not a goat." must be true. But from "Everything is a goat." being false I cannot conclude that its contrary "Nothing is a goat." must be true, for that would be a blatant error flouting the laws of logic!!!
We know that "Everything is a goat." is false, but that simply doesn´t mean that "Nothing is a goat." is true! Correspondingly, from "Nothing is a goat." being in fact false one cannot conclude that "Everything is a goat." must be true since, as I´ve already stated, these two statements are contrary but no contradictory ones!!! The obvious falsity of "Nothing is a goat." which is equivalent to "It is not the case that there is something that is a goat." only implies the truth of "It is the case that something is a goat." or shorter "Something is a goat."!!! That´s why the "proof" above is plainly erroneous! It might merely fool those who know virtually nothing about logic.
> > 1.The proposition "Everything is a Goat" is either true or not true. > > 2.If it is false, then it's opposite must be true. > > 3.The opposite of "everything" is "nothing", which give us the > > proposition "Nothing is a Goat".* > > 4.Now, this statement is clearly false, for goats certainly exist - we > > have all seen them. This means that it's opposite must be true. > > 5.Therefore, "Everything is a Goat" must be a true statement.
> > <end quote> > > The statement "Something is not a goat" falsifies "Everything is a > > goat", so it's the opposite of the proposition. The rest of this > > so-called proof is doubletalk.
There are two kinds of logical opposites, namely, contraries and contradictions, the first of which employing predicate negation and the second sentence negation. Accordingly, the contrary of "Everything is a goat." is "Everything is not a goat.", which is equivalent to "Nothing is a goat.". The contradiction of "Everything is a goat." is "It is not the case that everything is a goat.", which is equivalent to "Something is not a goat.".
The alleged proof above is fallacious because it fails to notice that the law of excluded middle (p v -p) mentioned in 1. only applies to contradictory but not to contrary statements, for contrary statements may be both false, with there indeed being a third possibility!!! For example, the contrary of "Everything is red." is "Everything is not red.", but it may very well be that it is neither the case that everything is red nor that everything is not red since it may be the case that something is red and something else is not red!!! Therefore, if I know that "Everything is a goat." is false, then I may certainly conclude from that that it´s contradiction "Something is not a goat." must be true. But from "Everything is a goat." being false I cannot conclude that its contrary "Nothing is a goat." must be true, for that would be a blatant error flouting the laws of logic!!!
We know that "Everything is a goat." is false, but that simply doesn´t mean that "Nothing is a goat." is true! Correspondingly, from "Nothing is a goat." being in fact false one cannot conclude that "Everything is a goat." must be true since, as I´ve already stated, these two statements are contrary but no contradictory ones!!! The obvious falsity of "Nothing is a goat." which is equivalent to "It is not the case that there is something that is a goat." only implies the truth of "It is the case that something is a goat." or shorter "Something is a goat."!!! That´s why the "proof" above is plainly erroneous! It might merely fool those who know virtually nothing about logic.
>In article <6312c50b.0211181757.3a00...@posting.google.com>, > georgeda...@hotmail.com (George Dance) wrote: >> It's a stupid argument, and you foul sci.logic by bringing it here. >And you foul sci.math by posting here
So they brought it to talk.origins for which we think them both foul.
> The Special Relativity Theory extrudes action at a distance as a > legitimate physical notion. If we want to describe cause-effect > relation in such a way that action at a distance is eliminated > then how can we describe this relation? We can never say that > cause is one 'thing' and its effect is on another thing. Therefore > we have to accept that cause and effect are contiguous in space-time. > We have accept that as soon as 'effect' comes into existence, the cause > has ceased to exist immediately before. Therefore system forgets > cause of change. Is there any expression that demonstrates usefulness > of 'positive self-reference', 'continuous change in reference' and > 'continuous forgetting of the past' so that at least the term 'effect' > acquires a sensible meaning, even if we cannot define 'cause'?
Action at a distance does appear to happen at spacetime level, where objects exist embedded in a coordinate system (metric) defined by the continuous functions of four independent variables (4D). Extension and separation are properties of spacetime, but at the aether level action at a distance does not make sense because there exists no separation, the aether is one, it has no parts and it lacks the properties of time and extension.
WITHIN the aether, motion/information/momentum is reported instantaneously, distance doesn't apply, the aether has no parts, no units, it is one. Within hyperspace, we have only EMR, where information propagation is limited by moving mass (process) to the speed of light. Within spacetime most things obey Newton's motion laws, but thanks to the non-material properties and nature of the aether, everything is non-locally interconnected to everything else in its neighborhood and the rest of the Universe (Mach). So motion (or information propagation), at this level, is instantaneous, the holographic properties and the instantaneous information propagation properties of momentum space is what make possible phenomena like inertia.
> > > 1.The proposition "Everything is a Goat" is either true or not true. > > > 2.If it is false, then it's opposite must be true. > > > 3.The opposite of "everything" is "nothing", which give us the > > > proposition "Nothing is a Goat".*
Bzz. The opposite of the first statement is "Not everything is a goat.".. Which is true.
> -- > > > > 1.The proposition "Everything is a Goat" is either true or not true. > > > > 2.If it is false, then it's opposite must be true. > > > > 3.The opposite of "everything" is "nothing", which give us the > > > > proposition "Nothing is a Goat".*
> Bzz. The opposite of the first statement is "Not everything is a > goat.".. Which is true.
> R
Statement
Ax in X: G
Negation Ex in X : ~G in English There exists at least one (discussable ) thing that is Not a goat.
The so-called opposite stated here is Ax in X ~G
Assumption of the truth of this is called "Excluded Middle" and is usually quite transparent in normal satiations.
RJ Pease
--- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.419 / Virus Database: 235 - Release Date: 11/13/02
> > 1.The proposition "Everything is a Goat" is either true or not true. > > 2.If it is false, then it's opposite must be true. > > 3.The opposite of "everything" is "nothing", which give us the > > proposition "Nothing is a Goat".*
What tripe! The logical opposite of "Everything is a goat" is "Not everything is a goat". Negating a single word in a statement doesn't necessarily produce a logical opposite.
|
