Glenn and Elephant,
I thought I'd take a crack at this...
> Elephant, I believe the structure of your analogy is flawed. Your analogy
confuses the measure (law of
gravity and clock) with the measured (gravity and time) and thus appears
absurd when you draw it to the conclusion that you do. What your
conclusion should correctly read (if you want it to be a closer analogy to
Glenn's argument) is:
> I've recently bought an alarm clock.
> It tells the time.
> I have a french clock from 1850 that I inherited from my grandmother
> It also tells the time.
> The old clock and the new clock are (nearly) in accord.
> Therefore:
> My new alarm clock tells the *very same TIME* as my grandmother's clock
built
> in 1850.
Now this is analogous to Glenn's argument... For what it proves is that if
both clocks are built to measure time, and they have been built at different
times, yet yield the same measurements, then whatever they are measuring has
been constant (at least) since the construction of the first clock. In this
case that constant would be the rotation of the Earth around the Sun. The
reason the clocks are (nearly) in accord is because it takes the same time
for the Earth to complete a rotation now as it did in 1850. If one is
trying to prove that the length of the rotations of the Earth around the Sun
(what our clocks measure) has been constant since 1850... this argument is a
strong one.
Glenn's argument should now properly read: (In the lingo your analogy)
I've recently formed a theory of gravity.
It explains how the force "gravity" acts on the universe.
I also know an older theory of gravity from 1600 that I learned from Newton.
It also explained how the force "gravity" acts on the universe.
The old theory and the new theory are (nearly) in accord.
Therefore:
My new theory of gravity explains the *very same force "gravity"* as
Newton's theory of gravity from 1600.
If one is trying to prove that force Gravity has existed since at least
1600... this is a strong argument. Similarly, if the theory of Gravity
applies now, and can
adequately describe the state of the universe before the theory was
formulated, then whatever it is the theory describes EXISTED and was at work
prior to the conception of the theory. I think that's pretty close to
Glenn's point.
rick
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
