--- On Wed, 12/22/10, einseele <einse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> When you use the word "nature" the
> audience understands two:
>
> The abstraction Nature, and also that thing that the word
> points to
>
> Nature es also an abstraction, even so the John's question
> is valid as
> it is simple to understand the referenced object in his
> sentence
>
> So it is valid to say "the nature of mass", mass and nature
> can be
> abstract concepts, but that does not mean "the nature of
> mass" makes
> no sense.
============
G:
You did not read carefully.
That's exactly what I said, to wit, that the nature of mass is an
abstract, mathematical coefficient void of any physical meaning
(reserved for observables).
What makes no sense is searching in it other mysterious natures,
physical, metaphysical, pataphysical or what not.
For instance, if you asked me, what is the nature of the
"axial vector of magnetic field", I'd answer:
Its physical nature is that of an observable, describing
counter-clockwise rotation of magnetic angular momentum.
Its mathematical nature is that of an anti-symmetric tensor of rank 2.
It happens to have in 3D SPACE 3 independent components, which makes
it similar to a vector and allows to describe it in elementary
handbooks as "axial vector", or "pseudo-vector", which, strictly
speaking are misnomers.
What makes no sens is speculation about the pataphysical nature
and reasons of the counter-clockwise structure of our "world"
and about its clockwise structured shadow counter-world.
And that's mutatis mutandis what John seems to do, looking for
pataphysical nature of mass.
Georges.
==============
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Epistemology" group.
To post to this group, send email to epistemol...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
epistemology+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
