Laurent wrote:

Electromagnetic fields should not appear as ultimate, irreducible
realities.

Fish should regard bicycles as allegorical allusions rather than
discrete parenthetical statements.

Zeno and Democritus were correct,

You'd better read up on both math and science. Things have evolved
during the past 2400 years. The Liberal Arts qualify you for nothing
in this world but discussing the Liberal Arts,

http://www.planetgr.com/articles/pub...inter_36.shtml

[snip]

The aether (substrate, background...) may help to maintain the
relations that give shape to a particle as it moves, but that
information stays always bounded by the laws of spacetime.
[snip]

Bull****. Science has literature citations.

http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm
(Do something naughty to physics)

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!

"Uncle Al" wrote in message
...
Laurent wrote:

Electromagnetic fields should not appear as ultimate, irreducible
realities.

Fish should regard bicycles as allegorical allusions rather than
discrete parenthetical statements.

But Unky Al.. Don't you think that due to scale of observation
the fish would only be able to regard the allegorical parts of the
allusion while not recognizing the non discrete nature of the
allegory, never knowing the parenthetical nature of the statements.....



Zeno and Democritus were correct,

You'd better read up on both math and science. Things have evolved
during the past 2400 years. The Liberal Arts qualify you for nothing
in this world but discussing the Liberal Arts,

http://www.planetgr.com/articles/pub...inter_36.shtml


Some may consider the way the rules of physics are bandied about
on here that those rules may fall into the liberal arts field soon...






[snip]

The aether (substrate, background...) may help to maintain the
relations that give shape to a particle as it moves, but that
information stays always bounded by the laws of spacetime.
[snip]

Bull****. Science has literature citations.


Sometimes in the fiction section though....



http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm
(Do something naughty to physics)

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!

wrote:

"Uncle Al" wrote in message
...
Laurent wrote:

Electromagnetic fields should not appear as ultimate, irreducible
realities.

Fish should regard bicycles as allegorical allusions rather than
discrete parenthetical statements.

But Unky Al.. Don't you think that due to scale of observation
the fish would only be able to regard the allegorical parts of the
allusion while not recognizing the non discrete nature of the
allegory, never knowing the parenthetical nature of the statements.....

1) The investiture of overture implicating the implacable assuredly
assigns a denoument of dentation irrationalizing a ratio of textual
hermeneutism subsuming subsequent inquiry to putative peer review.

2) Some statements and truisms about neologisms, newisms, postisms,
parasitisms, and other small seismisms.

Which is Jacques Derrida, which is Uncle Al? (might be 0-2 or 2-0,
too)


Uncle Al says, "The motif of Deconstruction resists the tyranny of
meaning."

http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm
(Do something naughty to physics)

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!

Fish should regard bicycles as allegorical allusions rather than
discrete parenthetical statements.

But Unky Al.. Don't you think that due to scale of observation
the fish would only be able to regard the allegorical parts of the
allusion while not recognizing the non discrete nature of the
allegory, never knowing the parenthetical nature of the statements.....

What the heck are you two on about?

Some may consider the way the rules of physics are bandied about
on here that those rules may fall into the liberal arts field soon...

Hmm.. yeah, I consider that all the 'rules' of physics and mathematics, etc.
are a liberal art. I mean even the concept of a 'number' or a 'value' is
invented by us. Sure we use it and build upon it and do all sorts of useful
things, but really all it is is just our perception (and in fact our
notation/visualisation) of the truth. Look at it from a slightly different
angle and some really complex theories may actually turn out to be very
simple, likewise something we consider simple now may seem horribly
difficult to proove. Change the basic 'atom' upon which we build these
theories and you've got something wildly different.

So the rules of Physics are simply a human interpretation that has been
worked on for many years by many great minds, and if that's not a liberal
art what is?

J

Jay wrote:




So the rules of Physics are simply a human interpretation that has been
worked on for many years by many great minds, and if that's not a liberal
art what is?

If that is so why must scientist take liberal art courses to "round" us
out, so-to-speak.

But the interpretation is rooted in non-changing observables, unlike the
concept of good/bad, mores and tabooes.

"Joseph.D.Warner" wrote in message
...


Jay wrote:




So the rules of Physics are simply a human
interpretation that has been
worked on for many years by many great minds, and if
that's not a liberal
art what is?

If that is so why must scientist take liberal art courses
to "round" us
out, so-to-speak.

But the interpretation is rooted in non-changing
observables, unlike the
concept of good/bad, mores and tabooes.


COMMENT:

The "interpretation" of physical law isn't the important
part of physics. That it is, seems to be a red herring
promoted by humanities-types. The description of the
physical laws themselves is the important task and important
work-product of physics.

Physics is the system which allows quantitative observations
to be input into a mathematical formula, which will generate
quantitative *predictions* about what will happen in the
future, as a result of the automatic acts of nature, if
there is no further human intervention. No interpretation of
this process is needed, strictly speaking. It is enough to
merely describe it. If I let the rock go, it will fall with
such and so characteristics of motion. There is no point in
asking why, since all answers to that question very quickly
hit a wall of "I don't know" which it is pointless to
locate, and sometimes pointless even to waste time
discussing. The laws of this universe are what they are, and
it's enough that we find out what they are.

As for the human part of this, the process of finding out
the character of physical law is not error-free, and it
generates human mathematical formulas which are (in some
circumstances) malpredictive. But over time, the formulas
get objectively better at predicting the future, and thus
physics knowledge advances.

SBH

Militar,

Hope you are not going to shoot somebody. I have never seen
such a dirty cross****ing work.

George

Uncle Al wrote:
wrote:

"Uncle Al" wrote in message
...

Laurent wrote:

Electromagnetic fields should not appear as ultimate, irreducible
realities.

Fish should regard bicycles as allegorical allusions rather than
discrete parenthetical statements.

But Unky Al.. Don't you think that due to scale of observation
the fish would only be able to regard the allegorical parts of the
allusion while not recognizing the non discrete nature of the
allegory, never knowing the parenthetical nature of the statements.....


1) The investiture of overture implicating the implacable assuredly
assigns a denoument of dentation irrationalizing a ratio of textual
hermeneutism subsuming subsequent inquiry to putative peer review.

2) Some statements and truisms about neologisms, newisms, postisms,
parasitisms, and other small seismisms.

Which is Jacques Derrida, which is Uncle Al? (might be 0-2 or 2-0,
too)


Uncle Al says, "The motif of Deconstruction resists the tyranny of
meaning."


Pontificating pale pachyderm.

Uncle Al wrote in message ...
wrote:

"Uncle Al" wrote in message
...
Laurent wrote:

Electromagnetic fields should not appear as ultimate, irreducible
realities.

Fish should regard bicycles as allegorical allusions rather than
discrete parenthetical statements.

But Unky Al.. Don't you think that due to scale of observation
the fish would only be able to regard the allegorical parts of the
allusion while not recognizing the non discrete nature of the
allegory, never knowing the parenthetical nature of the statements.....

1) The investiture of overture implicating the implacable assuredly
assigns a denoument of dentation irrationalizing a ratio of textual
hermeneutism subsuming subsequent inquiry to putative peer review.

What you mean to say is, for the fish the bicycle leaves the realm of
allegory when he leaps out of the water and gets caught in the gears.

That's what's known as "the hard conceptual reification". Grisly.

....

Uncle Al wrote in
:

1) The investiture of overture implicating the implacable assuredly
assigns a denoument of dentation irrationalizing a ratio of textual
hermeneutism subsuming subsequent inquiry to putative peer review.

2) Some statements and truisms about neologisms, newisms, postisms,
parasitisms, and other small seismisms.

Which is Jacques Derrida, which is Uncle Al?

Hehe Honey you haven't read Herbert Marcuse.

--

be loghmAn mikhAd hekmat biyAmuzeh.