Prev: speed of light found in purely mathematical numbers without any physical numbers #556 Correcting Math
Next: If economics is one of the soft social sciences, how is it's application different from hard sciences like physics or math?
From: Yap on 7 Apr 2010 05:19
On 4 Apr, 09:38, John Jones <jonescard...(a)btinternet.com> wrote:
> Yap wrote:
> > On Apr 2, 8:34 am, John Jones <jonescard...(a)btinternet.com> wrote:
> >> By breaking the guitar of time, we can lose sight of determinism.
> > Unclear sentence.
> >> I have argued that sequenced events can be ordered by association: we do
> >> not need Time as an ordering medium. For example, rather than say "A
> >> comes before B" we can, without losing information, say "that A, rather
> >> than B, is associated with C, says that A comes before B".
> > Now, A to B fits nicely in sequence.
>
> Why would it? is my point.
You are the one who put the condition that A-B, not me.
>
> > Then A to B to C is also a sequence.
>
> But A to B to C is a sequence because you associate A with B and C.
No, again that was what you projected.
>
> > But why would you equate the two, since A to B will never reach C?
>
> It's not the reaching that matters here. We only need to make an
> association, not a reaching.
I don't understand.
First of all, you said I associate them but I did it with your
condition.
Anyway, even if not reaching, what is your point in the association?

In a lot of instances, you do not need time as an element. But to come
to think of it, any association may actually require time to make
sense.

From: Errol on 7 Apr 2010 05:48
On Apr 2, 2:34 am, John Jones <jonescard...(a)btinternet.com> wrote:
> By breaking the guitar of time, we can lose sight of determinism.
>
> I have argued that sequenced events can be ordered by association: we do
> not need Time as an ordering medium. For example, rather than say "A
> comes before B" we can, without losing information, say "that A, rather
> than B, is associated with C, says that A comes before B".
>
> I have never dealt with the objection that without some sort of
> independent ordering medium, such as Time, then we ought have no reason
> to expect any order at all among world-events.  Without Time, there
> doesn't seem to be any reason why A should always be associated with C.
> Time seems to give us the law of sequence and causality, but
> "association" seems to bring no laws at all.
>
> Of course, if there are no laws then determinism vanishes. Let us then
> try and keep the idea of Time as Association, and by doing so break the
> harmony and order of determinism.
>
> To do that - to keep the idea of "time as association", rather than
> "time as sequence" - we must tackle the objection I made against it,
> above: why is it that some events are always (atemporally) associated
> with other events? Is there a law at work?
>
> No, there is no law at work. It should come as no surprise, for example,
> that there can be more than one example of an object. We can divide each
> of such objects into parts, and these parts will always be associated
> with each other... that is why A is always associated with C... In other
> words, we have replaced temporal sequence with physical patterns.

Of course there is a law at work. There is always a law at work.
If A = Humpty Dumpty sitting on a wall
and B=Humpty Dumpty had a great fall
and C=All the kings horses and all the kings men, couldn't put Humpty
together again, then the law is associated with B Falling=Gravity and
also that eggs shatter on impact.

How does the "assosciation" of A = Humpty Dumpty sitting on a wall
work with C=All the kings horses and all the kings men, couldn't put
Humpty together again. It is a meaningless association without the
action of B=Falling.

Consult your book of nursery rhymes for simple answers in future


>
From: John Jones on 7 Apr 2010 06:03
huge wrote:
> John Jones :
>
>> huge wrote:
>>> John Jones :
>>>
>>>> huge wrote:
>>>>> John Jones :
>>>>>
>>>>>> huge wrote:
>>>>>>> John Jones :
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> huge wrote:
>>>>>>>>> johnbee :
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "John Jones" <jonescardiff(a)btinternet.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> news:hpce3u$lfs$1(a)news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> There is no literal meaning to the phrase "discrete function".
>>>>>>>>>> Just for your information, a discrete function is a function
>>>>>>>>>> that is defined only for a set of numbers that can be listed,
>>>>>>>>>> such as the set of whole numbers or the set of integers.
>>>>>>>>> Now he'll claim that there is no literal meaning to the phrase
>>>>>>>>> "function," "set," "numbers," or "integers." If you sat across
>>>>>>>>> from him at dinner and asked him to pass the salt, he would
>>>>>>>>> perform a lengthy linguistic analysis on the meaning of "salt,"
>>>>>>>>> while the rest of the people at table finish their dinner. He's
>>>>>>>>> one of those sad sacs who are under the influence of Continental
>>>>>>>>> philosophers such as Hegel and Derrida -- obscurantists all.
>>>>>>>> The grammatical disaster is on you. If anyone asked you to pass
>>>>>>>> the salt you could do no more than say that salt is a technical
>>>>>>>> term in another language.
>>>>>>> Hey, if you think 7th or 8th grade algebra, where the concept of a
>>>>>>> function is introduced, is another language -- you are even more
>>>>>>> ignorant than I thought.
>>>>>> There you go again. Salt isn't "really" salt, function isn't
>>>>>> "really" function, its a technical term in another language. There's
>>>>>> no connection between the two uses whatsoever.
>>>>> Salt really is salt. A function is a function.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> No, if you want to know what salt is you should understand it
>>>> chemically, is your argument.
>>> It is one of the ways of understanding it, and superior to
>>> Derrida-daism. You can also understand it in several other ways that
>>> are superior to Derrida-daist obscurantism.
>> I'm talking about sequence and time. You are talking about maths and
>> dadiasm. Why?
>
> Already explained twice.

> For the third time:
> ______________________
> You were claiming (as if it were a great discovery) that
> you need not refer to time in reference to sequence.
>
> I said that, indeed you do not, since anyone who knows the
> least bit about math knows that most definitions (specifications)
> of sequence in math do not require it.


You are saying that your idea of sequence in time is not the idea of
sequence in mathematics. It also isn't the idea of sequence in music.
Stick to the original temporal definition.

So, your discovery is, in fact,
> trivial.
> _______________________________
>
> Now, I've saved that to note pad so I can copy and past it if
> you ask the same question again.
>
> There's another thing you keep ignoring that I keep posting:
> Your way of thinking (Hegelian through Derrida on the Continent)
> has never led to anything but a bit of discussion in universities
> in things like literature classes and, less commonly, Continental
> philosophy departments.
>
> Scientific thinking has led to the Hubble space telescope
> and heart transplants. Now, don't you think that deserves some
> kind of response to explain why you persist in this obscurantism?
>
From: huge on 7 Apr 2010 06:29
John Jones :

> huge wrote:
>> John Jones :
>>
>>> huge wrote:
>>>> John Jones :
>>>>
>>>>> huge wrote:
>>>>>> John Jones :
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> huge wrote:
>>>>>>>> John Jones :
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> huge wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> johnbee :
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "John Jones" <jonescardiff(a)btinternet.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>> news:hpce3u$lfs$1(a)news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> There is no literal meaning to the phrase "discrete
>>>>>>>>>>>> function".
>>>>>>>>>>> Just for your information, a discrete function is a function
>>>>>>>>>>> that is defined only for a set of numbers that can be listed,
>>>>>>>>>>> such as the set of whole numbers or the set of integers.
>>>>>>>>>> Now he'll claim that there is no literal meaning to the phrase
>>>>>>>>>> "function," "set," "numbers," or "integers." If you sat
>>>>>>>>>> across from him at dinner and asked him to pass the salt, he
>>>>>>>>>> would perform a lengthy linguistic analysis on the meaning of
>>>>>>>>>> "salt," while the rest of the people at table finish their
>>>>>>>>>> dinner. He's one of those sad sacs who are under the influence
>>>>>>>>>> of Continental philosophers such as Hegel and Derrida --
>>>>>>>>>> obscurantists all.
>>>>>>>>> The grammatical disaster is on you. If anyone asked you to pass
>>>>>>>>> the salt you could do no more than say that salt is a technical
>>>>>>>>> term in another language.
>>>>>>>> Hey, if you think 7th or 8th grade algebra, where the concept of
>>>>>>>> a function is introduced, is another language -- you are even
>>>>>>>> more ignorant than I thought.
>>>>>>> There you go again. Salt isn't "really" salt, function isn't
>>>>>>> "really" function, its a technical term in another language.
>>>>>>> There's no connection between the two uses whatsoever.
>>>>>> Salt really is salt. A function is a function.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> No, if you want to know what salt is you should understand it
>>>>> chemically, is your argument.
>>>> It is one of the ways of understanding it, and superior to
>>>> Derrida-daism. You can also understand it in several other ways that
>>>> are superior to Derrida-daist obscurantism.
>>> I'm talking about sequence and time. You are talking about maths and
>>> dadiasm. Why?
>>
>> Already explained twice.
>
>> For the third time:
>> ______________________
>> You were claiming (as if it were a great discovery) that you need not
>> refer to time in reference to sequence.
>>
>> I said that, indeed you do not, since anyone who knows the least bit
>> about math knows that most definitions (specifications) of sequence in
>> math do not require it.
>
>
> You are saying that your idea of sequence in time is not the idea of
> sequence in mathematics. It also isn't the idea of sequence in music.
> Stick to the original temporal definition.

What original temporal definition??? Reproduce it
Here:
______________________


_______________________________
>
> So, your discovery is, in fact,
>> trivial.
>> _______________________________
>>
>> Now, I've saved that to note pad so I can copy and past it if you ask
>> the same question again.
>>
>> There's another thing you keep ignoring that I keep posting: Your way
>> of thinking (Hegelian through Derrida on the Continent) has never led
>> to anything but a bit of discussion in universities in things like
>> literature classes and, less commonly, Continental philosophy
>> departments.
>>
>> Scientific thinking has led to the Hubble space telescope and heart
>> transplants. Now, don't you think that deserves some kind of response
>> to explain why you persist in this obscurantism?
>>





--
huge: Not on my time you don't.
From: huge on 7 Apr 2010 07:32
John Jones :

>> There's another thing you keep ignoring that I keep posting: Your way
>> of thinking (Hegelian through Derrida on the Continent) has never led
>> to anything but a bit of discussion in universities in things like
>> literature classes and, less commonly, Continental philosophy
>> departments.
>>
>> Scientific thinking has led to the Hubble space telescope and heart
>> transplants. Now, don't you think that deserves some kind of response
>> to explain why you persist in this obscurantism?
>>

You are still avoiding answering the above two paragraphs.
What is your answer?

--
huge: Not on my time you don't.
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Prev: speed of light found in purely mathematical numbers without any physical numbers #556 Correcting Math
Next: If economics is one of the soft social sciences, how is it's application different from hard sciences like physics or math?