The entire problem concentrated in the form of two quotation marks:
Glenn wrote:
> Nature herself seems
> to have "known" this law long before Newton did
Elephant:
Presumably you "know" that talking about nature "knowing" stuff is perfect
gibberish, and that's why you put the "quotation marks" around "known".
Yes?
No.
Because you then talk about how nature has to "decide" etc ad nauseum.
Per ardua ad astra? It's hard work all right, but it doesn't look like
we're anywhere near escape velocity.
Glenn:
> The fact that we observe elliptical galaxies and binary
> stars thousands of light years away strongly suggests that the
> law of gravity described by Newton was in force long before Newton
> lived.
ELEPHANT:
No it doesn't, because in point of fact those galaxies don't behave in
accord with Newton at all and never did. Rather, they appear to be behaving
more in accord with relativity. Which, it turns out, involves not one but
two distinct contributions to gravitation, which cannot exactly be called
forces. The universe, that is as understood by higher quality
intellectualisations, is really *weird*, and there's no guaruntee that as
our intellectualisations get to be higher quality it won't get weirder. Who
knows, maybe relativity will get thrown in the trash.
Ah yes, apparently nature "knows". Piffle. Nonsense on LSD. Nuttiness the
like of which I will never enjoy again. Utter utter twaddle. A
contradiction in terms so blatant it makes your hair stand on end. Really I
think you need a slap around the face with a wet fish. NB: Human beings
have minds. Apples, galaxies, and other assorted supermarket groceries do
not.
Did you ever read Aldous Huxley on the substitutes for religion? I think
omniscient nature gets a look in as a comfort-blanket for the divinely
deprived. God is dead Glenn. Deal with it.
GLENN:
> My previous agreement with Andrea about gravity not being empirical
> was incorrect.
ELEPHANT:
One step forward, two steps back.
GLENN:
> The proposal that the force equation for gravity is a definition
> is misleading. Definitions serve to describe standards and
> conventions and they convey a precise meaning in a lingual
> shorthand. They don't say anything about how nature works.
ELEPHANT:
And neither do Newton's laws. They serve to decribe standards and
conventions and they convey a precise meaning in lingual (sic) shorthand.
They don't say anything about how nature works, but rather about
intellectualised things and the relations between them. I seem to be
repeating myself or something.
GLENN:
> The radical parts of Pirsig's belief are the consequences of saying
> Newton's law was created and not discovered. This means Newton's law
> was *not in effect* during the time of Ptolemeic belief in concentric
> shells or at any time before that. And neither was gravity. What kept
> people glued to the ground in Ptolemeic times were their beliefs for
> why they should be stuck to the ground, and nothing more.
ELEPHANT:
Here we go again.
The Law of Gravity isn't an *explanation* for our sticking to the earth, any
more than relativity is an *explanation* for why space is curved in the
presence of massive bodies. On the contrary, it merely states this fact in
terms of maths. Ptolemy isn't prevented from floating off into space by
what we happen to state, and so he isn't prevented from foating off into
space by any law of gravity either. When it comes to it, *nobody knows*
what the real reason we stick to the earth is, not even Einstein.
Perhaps the argument that if we could float off into space then we wouldn't
have legs isn't such a bad one. It's more or less on a par with the
competion. Because of course Einstein and Newton are simply trying to
intellectualise the world as it is and make that world as it is more
navigable - they aren't trying to explain why it is the way it is. The
'how' and the 'why'. 'Why' doesn't enter into it, scientifically speaking.
'How' is everything.
GLENN:
> Pirsig
> doesn't believe nature exists independently of human thought - nature
> is created as new beliefs are invented about nature - nature itself
> is just in our heads. And I disagree.
ELEPHANT:
Indeed. It's not a new dispute, the empiricists versus the idealists. The
trouble is, well, the empiricists just won't *listen* - I blame that
Aristotle. He started it. He was able to learn at the feet of Plato
himself, but instead he decided he'd rather go off and divide everthing up
into specious species instead. Much more fun - and what does it matter if
you never understand what that Plato guy was on about anyway? It was
probably not important. You could always cage some lecture notes off
someone else.
GLENN:
> I disagree because scientific historical evidence, such as the shape
> of ancient galaxies and the age of rocks on earth, contradict his
> belief.
ELEPHANT:
No They Do Not. But I've told you why a thousand times now, and I finally
tire of the struggle. Per ardua ad dead end.
GLENN:
> If you insist on holding fast to this way of thinking in the
> face of this evidence, you end up saying things like:
> - spiral galaxies are themselves beliefs concocted to further the
> cultural illusion that Newton's theory is correct or
> - spiral galaxies are themselves beliefs concocted to further the
> illusion that things were discovered or
> - old rocks are beliefs that support the notions of time and history,
> which are also just human beliefs.
ELEPHANT:
Do we indeed. Strange that I hadn't thought of it earlier. As it happens,
the beleif that newtons theory is correct is indeed (and always was) a
cultural illusion. This is because the theory has been empirically
falsified, as no doubt a good empiricist such as your self would be aware.
Any one for a confirmation of relativity experiment?
Actually you would be nearer the truth than you think, if only you would
carefully remove all the snearing disapproval laden terms ("concocted") from
your account. It is indeed true, and it is very perceptive of you to
recognise this, that spiral galaxies only get to be called spirial galaxies
because of the overal world picture in which our latest scientific laws
(relativity) properly play such a large part. This is rather a long way
away, however, from these galaxies being "concocted". Those galaxies are
only ajudged to exist after the most thorough scientific procedure, which
you dismiss as "just" a fabric of human beleifs. "Just"? Now what else
would they be, I ask you, besides Human?
Ah yes - I forgot - nature "knows".
Go careful now, mother nature sees you even when you turn the lights out
boys.
Ho hum.
Elephant
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
