Arrow of Time II
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Inertia still lying for Einstein
Next: Doctrine of need
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 25 Jun 2010 01:11 On Jun 24, 1:06 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > No. > > Your usage > of "causality" is NAIVE > The NAIVE causality you espouse ------------------------------------------------ Well, Tom, I think it is your Ptolemaic physical assumptions that are naive, rather than my principle of causality. What do you think about the Colbert comedy star's theory that our scrambled eggs won't unscramble because of the Big Bang, or possibly [ta da] The Multiverse? Would it not be simpler to say the "unscrambling" could not possibly happen because that would be forbidden acausal physics for a nonlinear dynamical system? Nature is reasonably easy to understand if you have the right paradigm, and quite hard to understand is you are confined to the Substandard paradigm. Just ask the Ptolemaic scholars of yesteryear. No doubt your ancestors. RLO www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw See above for the correct paradigm for the 21st century.
From: eric gisse on 25 Jun 2010 02:55 Robert L. Oldershaw wrote: [...] > Nature is reasonably easy to understand [...] Such remarkable arrogance.
From: Tom Roberts on 25 Jun 2010 12:16 Robert L. Oldershaw wrote: > On Jun 24, 1:06 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> Your usage >> of "causality" is NAIVE >> The NAIVE causality you espouse > > Well, Tom, I think it is your Ptolemaic physical assumptions that are > naive, rather than my principle of causality. You're entitled to your delusions. > What do you think about the Colbert comedy star's theory that our > scrambled eggs won't unscramble because of the Big Bang, or possibly > [ta da] The Multiverse? I think that's silly. > Would it not be simpler to say the "unscrambling" could not possibly > happen because that would be forbidden acausal physics for a nonlinear > dynamical system? No. Because to me it quite clearly is not impossible to unscramble an egg, it's just very difficult and beyond our current technology. I see no sort of "causal" barrier, in principle. Of course a random natural process is not going to do it, but that's just statistics applied to the state space of the constituents of the egg. > Nature is reasonably easy to understand if you have the right > paradigm, Clearly not, if you want a detailed understanding. You appear to be comfortable with a superficial "understanding", without bothering to look at details. I agree that that is easy. But modeling, say, the particle distributions in the Tevatron, is not "easy" at all.... Tom Roberts
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 25 Jun 2010 12:37 On Jun 25, 2:55 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Robert L. Oldershaw wrote: > > [...] > > > Nature is reasonably easy to understand [...] > > Such remarkable arrogance. ------------------------------------------------- How do Lenny Susskind, Steve Weinberg, Dave Gross, Eddie Witten, Lucky Linde, Dim Page, and the long list of postmodern Platonists who have foisted so much untestable Ptolemaic pseudoscience upon us, rate on the same scale of arrogance? Is my "problem" arrogance, or a shocking lack of sycophancy? RLO www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 25 Jun 2010 12:45
On Jun 25, 12:16 pm, Tom Roberts <tjrob...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > > Would it not be simpler to say the > > "unscrambling" could not possibly > > happen because that would be forbidden > > acausal physics for a nonlinear dynamical system? > > No. Because to me it quite clearly is not impossible > to unscramble an egg, it's just very difficult > and beyond our current technology. I see > no sort of "causal" barrier, in principle. -------------------------------- Well Tom, obviously you too are entitled to your untestable delusions. RLO www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw |