Prev: Lack of Ethics: musafuck Exploits Public Resources At Others'Expense
Next: Comprehensive Solution Manual for Textbooks
From: Perverse 19 mathermatics on 29 Mar 2010 23:55
I like turtles.


From: What you are reading is Philosophy and P Versus NP. on 30 Mar 2010 05:26
On Mar 29, 7:04 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> On Mar 29, 9:47 pm, "What you are reading is Philosophy and P Versus
>
>
>
>
>
> NP." <marty.musa...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 29, 6:08 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 29, 5:35 pm, "What you are reading is Philosophy and P Versus
>
> > > NP." <marty.musa...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Our units of temporal measurement, from seconds on up to months, are
> > > > so complicated, assymetrical and disjunctive so as to make coherent
> > > > mental reckoning in time all but impossible. Indeed, had some
> > > > tyrannical God contrived to enslave our minds to time, to
> > > > make it all but impossible for us to escape subjection to sodden
> > > > routines and unpleasant surprises, he could hardly have done
> > > > better than handing down our present system. It is like a set of
> > > > surfaces, like a language in which the simplest thought demands
> > > > ornate constructions, useless particles and lengthy circumlocutions..
> > > > Unlike the more successful patterns of language
> > > > and science, which enable us to face experience boldly or at least
> > > > level-headedly, our system of temporal calculation silently and
> > > > persistently encourages our terror of time.
>
> > > What wonderful words! It is so much more liberating
> > > than narrow confining expressions like:
>
> > >      "invariance with respect to time translation gives
> > >       the well-known law of conservation of energy"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem#Applications
>
> > > Could I get you to write a few more lines of prose
> > > and mail it to me along with your petrol charge card.
>
> > Sue,
>
> > You are so kind, it seems. Yes, if you meant what you said re: me
> > writing you some more lines of prose and mailing it to you, just send
> > me the address, I have the stamp! No, re: the petrol card (though I
> > need) I certainly do not expect it! (your words smile this day!)
>
> You are good sport as we make our point that time is
> more tangible than some conclude from casual musing.
>
> Awe :-(  Ya can't part with your petrol card?
>
> How about a compromise? I will
> give your writing some free TIME on my printer and
> you can use your stamp to send a cheque to
> this address:
>
> http://www.redcross.org/
>
> Kind regards
>
> Sue...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Martin
>

I don't know what a 'petrol' card really is -- is I had one I'd send
it to you!

I didn't mean to hurt your feelings, by all means, please send me a
'petrol card', are you British or European?

I imagine it just makes good sense, there, anywhere really with the
energy chrisis and economy being what it may.

I take you at your word! (I even found the TIME to write out the
check!

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4046/4475290669_50e9c3a895.jpg

Peace to you,


Martin

> > > Then I would feel wholly and completely liberated from
> > > the shackles of time and you will forever be my
> > > spiritual guiding light.
>
> > > Thanks in advance,
>
> > > Sue...- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

From: Zerkon on 30 Mar 2010 08:04
On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 14:35:42 -0700, What you are reading is Philosophy and
P Versus NP. wrote:

> Our units of temporal measurement, from seconds on up to months, are so
> complicated, assymetrical and disjunctive so as to make coherent mental
> reckoning in time all but impossible. Indeed, had some tyrannical God
> contrived to enslave our minds to time, to make it all but impossible
> for us to escape subjection to sodden routines and unpleasant surprises,
> he could hardly have done better than handing down our present system.
> It is like a set of surfaces, like a language in which the simplest
> thought demands ornate constructions, useless particles and lengthy
> circumlocutions. Unlike the more successful patterns of language and
> science, which enable us to face experience boldly or at least
> level-headedly, our system of temporal calculation silently and
> persistently encourages our terror of time.

It seems there might be confusion between "Our units of temporal
measurement" with what is being measured.

What can be clearer than our measurements? Determine whole then use
numbers to divide this into equal parts and Bob's your uncle. The fact
this simple scheme is not entirely accurate is of little concern. We can
just 'leap' to whatever number seems best. Perfect.

Thankfully there are simple minded people, such as myself, that might
help out here. We see 'time' as the smart guys word for 'change'. So,
your idea is about the "Terror of Change". Since change, in itself, is a
neutral process with no innate value other then that of existence, any
value place upon it is a refection/projection of a specific perspective,
like a vanity mirror.

When you say "for us to escape subjection to sodden routines and
unpleasant surprises" you are overgeneralizing (ie: 'us') what seems to
be a more personal condition which will time with change like everything
else.
From: marty.musatov on 30 Mar 2010 22:57
> On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 14:35:42 -0700, What you are
> reading is Philosophy and
> P Versus NP. wrote:
>
> > Our units of temporal measurement, from seconds on
> up to months, are so
> > complicated, assymetrical and disjunctive so as to
> make coherent mental
> > reckoning in time all but impossible. Indeed, had
> some tyrannical God
> > contrived to enslave our minds to time, to make it
> all but impossible
> > for us to escape subjection to sodden routines and
> unpleasant surprises,
> > he could hardly have done better than handing down
> our present system.
> > It is like a set of surfaces, like a language in
> which the simplest
> > thought demands ornate constructions, useless
> particles and lengthy
> > circumlocutions. Unlike the more successful
> patterns of language and
> > science, which enable us to face experience boldly
> or at least
> > level-headedly, our system of temporal calculation
> silently and
> > persistently encourages our terror of time.
>
> It seems there might be confusion between "Our units
> of temporal
> measurement" with what is being measured.
>
I agree there is confusion.
> What can be clearer than our measurements?
Though the idea of measurement is very clear in numerical expression, the idea of understanding and the problems of time as I presented them stem more from an inconsistent form of measurement stretched out over large quantities of disproportionate numbers that erode into meaningless notions instead of coherent expressions of a true condition.
Determine
> whole then use
> numbers to divide this into equal parts and Bob's
> your uncle.
To quote a movie, "Uncle Bob, eh? ... Okay." The kind drifter says to Arnold Schwarzenegger in response to the assertion he is an uncle to John Connor in The Terminator.
The fact
> this simple scheme is not entirely accurate is of
> little concern.
Why should inaccuracy ever not be a concern? If definitions are not precise the definitions are not of value. You should revisit this opinion in my humble opinion of it.
We can
> just 'leap' to whatever number seems best. Perfect.
>
Why is this perfect and why is it perfect to you?
> Thankfully there are simple minded people, such as
> myself, that might
> help out here.
How would they help and how would you help?
We see 'time' as the smart guys word
> for 'change'.
This seems to make sense, care to elaborate?
So,
> your idea is about the "Terror of Change".
Yes, though it sounds a bit like George Bush rhetoric, I suppose, the concern is real.
Since
> change, in itself, is a
> neutral process with no innate value other then that
> of existence, any
> value place upon it is a refection/projection of a
> specific perspective,
> like a vanity mirror.
Said the once who critized the one who less satisfied with the situation.
>
> When you say "for us to escape subjection to sodden
> routines and
> unpleasant surprises" you are overgeneralizing (ie:
> 'us') what seems to
> be a more personal condition which will time with
> change like everything
> else.
While I agree with you there is something, actually a great deal personal to it, the issues stem for there is a real overgeneralized problem. And while I am aware the atoms from a person who dies three hundred years ago weigh the same as if the person were alive today, I implore you: If we care not to understand each other than we care not about understanding our nature and physics.

--Musatov
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: Lack of Ethics: musafuck Exploits Public Resources At Others'Expense
Next: Comprehensive Solution Manual for Textbooks