tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2202092988208583550.post3209867744196664625..comments2024-03-04T15:09:00.479-08:00Comments on The Scientific Worldview: Critique of "The Scientific Worldview": Part 8c The Ten Assumptions of Science: Complementarity Glenn Borchardthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09394474754821945146noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2202092988208583550.post-15870870315988182472014-01-02T15:51:10.495-08:002014-01-02T15:51:10.495-08:00I like all those alternatives better than what you...I like all those alternatives better than what you first wrote. <br /><br />You say I know neomechanics, but I'm cloudy in several areas. (That's why I'm going to re-read Universal Cycle Theory.)<br /><br />Most of all, I am well-versed in the apologetics of indeterminism, from being raise by "deep" thinking Catholics who had theological books lying around for me to look at. I tried to force myself to believe all the logical, not to mention moral, inconsistencies. <br /><br />I got out of the cramped box of religion because I took concepts seriously, most of all the concept of infinity. <br /><br />When I recited group prayers in church as a teenager, and it came to "world without end, Amen", I would look around the pews to see if everyone was simply mouthing those words, or if anyone like me was awed by the implications of an infinite reality. I would be thinking, "if only these people grasped what they were saying when they parrot, 'world without end'".<br /><br />So, truth be told, maybe it's not that I "know neomechanics". Maybe it's just that I know how indeterminists think, so I know what to watch out for. I took indeterminism to its logical conclusion, and came out on the other side. Funny enough!<br /> <br />Sadly, we both know that no matter how carefully we use words and concepts, most indeterminists will remain stuck in the paradigm that was etched into their brains during childhood.Rick Doogienoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2202092988208583550.post-8694540779933543682013-12-27T14:46:27.749-08:002013-12-27T14:46:27.749-08:00Good catch. You are right. I am always amazed at h...Good catch. You are right. I am always amazed at how well you know neomechanics—and language. I need to rewrite: “bodies can move toward each other as well as away from each other via their own inertia”. It could be: “their inertial motion forces bodies to move toward each other as well as away from each other”. Unfortunately, in that revision I don’t like use of the word “forces" either. Fortunately, as usual Rick, you really know how to get to the heart of things. Words make a big difference in our lives. We can’t think great thoughts without knowing great words.<br /><br />You had a hunch that indeterminists might grasp my unintended teleology as a sign of microcosms having something inside them that would give them the intention to converge or diverge. I should have known better. The word “own”, like the word “self”, should have tipped me off. Those words are common to systems philosophy and its microcosmic thinking. Inertia is not a microcosmic property, but a univironmental one. Your hunch is right. I vaguely recall one author at an NPA meeting who claimed that inertia was produced by the object in motion. Of course, the inertial motion of a microcosm is always produced by the microcosm that previously collided with it. This is no problem for Infinite Universe Theory, because there is always yet another microcosm to furnish that collision. As an indeterminist, however, the author was simply exploring the implications of his belief in finity. I didn’t question him, but I imagine he was a cosmogonist and might have been at the wrong meeting.<br /><br />Another try. This: “bodies can move toward each other as well as away from each other via their own inertia” should be: “under inertial motion, bodies may move toward each other as well as away from each other”.Glenn Borchardthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09394474754821945146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2202092988208583550.post-47999651299677166702013-12-27T12:56:26.076-08:002013-12-27T12:56:26.076-08:00Thanks for the quick reply. I realize I'm just...Thanks for the quick reply. I realize I'm just nitpicking semantics. I guess I wanted to tease out a few more comments from you. <br /><br />I found a pretty good answer to all this in another recent reply from you, "The infinite universe always has a good deal of passing of the buck, necessarily circular reasoning, and the requirement that the correct assumptions are necessary for understanding it". <br /><br />I guess we have to fix the indeterministic thinking first, and further down the road we'll get some better words that describe our neomechanical way of thinking.<br /><br />I think it's time for me to re-read Universal Cycle Theory, then perhaps I'll come up with something better than this blather. <br /><br />Cheers, and Happy 2014!Rick Doogienoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2202092988208583550.post-63282832135703318662013-12-26T15:43:36.785-08:002013-12-26T15:43:36.785-08:00Thanks so much Rick. It seems like you may have go...Thanks so much Rick. It seems like you may have gotten a break while all those relatives were buying you presents. Sorry you found the “possibility of nearly ideal isolation” to be so awkward. Good thing I didn’t write the “possibility of ideal isolation”. Obviously, that would be completely wrong, since there is no such possibility. I still think that things can appear to be “nearly” isolated, just as we would be “nearly” isolated all alone in the middle of the wilderness even though there still would be an infinite number of things all around us. I was attempting to use a little visualization to get the convergence-divergence idea of complementarity across.Glenn Borchardthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09394474754821945146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2202092988208583550.post-83421757269846358032013-12-26T15:43:27.649-08:002013-12-26T15:43:27.649-08:00Glenn,
Anticipating your reply, I started puttin...Glenn,<br /> <br />Anticipating your reply, I started putting up my defenses. I have to add more to my first comment.<br /><br />I don’t see much difference in my persnickety problem with the phrase “nearly ideal” and your re-wording of the First Law, substituting “until” for “unless”, i.e., “bodies continue forever in a straight line UNTIL they hit something or are hit by something.” Both wording problems stem from the need to express the full meaning of Infinite Universe Theory. I know that popular language, even scientific terminology, lags behind newly emerging paradigms.<br /><br />We could even get picky about the phrasing of “bodies can move toward each other as well as away from each other via their own inertia”. By saying “their own inertia” we allow indeterminists to presume that there is some mysterious “energy” called “inertia” and the bodies hold that energy as if in a container. When, in reality, the “inertia” cannot be "owned" by that one body except as a descriptive term of conversation. For that inertia in question is an infinitely complex pattern of moving particles, diverging and converging with the microcosmic (inner) and macrocosmic (outer) environments.<br />I feel like I'm painting myself into a corner. And really, I'm not smoking anything.<br />I’d love to hear what you have to say, even though I know I’m forcing you to repeat yourself.<br />Thanks so much.<br />RickRick Doogienoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2202092988208583550.post-85106916049173970862013-12-26T14:46:11.703-08:002013-12-26T14:46:11.703-08:00"The trick is to not get caught up in thinkin..."The trick is to not get caught up in thinking that any of the ideals actually exist (like some folks I know)." <br />Hardy har! Like 99.999999% of the people on the planet, perhaps? (Give or take a decimal place.) I know some of those folks as well.<br /><br />Glenn, you seem to be losing patience with Bill's reification of ideal concepts. The earlier parts of this discussion were a bit more cordial. I've been reading it all very carefully. I'm amazed at the patience shown so far, and I could never be that patient. <br /><br />I also appreciate Bill's critiques. Lots of important points. I'm sure Bill has a higher IQ than this amateur from Michigan. He has given you one of the best critiques so far, I'll bet. Glad to read the back-and-forth. I'm glad you chose to give Bill some detailed answers to his detailed critique.<br /><br />One complaint I have that is probably rhetorical and not that useful; I get a bad twitch when someone (especially GB) uses the words "nearly" and "ideal" together as in TSW, "The possibility of nearly ideal isolation derives from the possibility of divergence; the possibility of nearly ideal nonisolation derives from the possibility of convergence." I know, I know. We can't change the entire English language, no matter how useful that would be.<br /><br />Can't we say something like "extreme convergence" or "extreme isolation" instead? It makes me think you're gonna turn around and say "nearly infinite" or "nearly perfect". That perfection exists only on paper and we can't remind ourselves of that often enough. I'm getting a cognitive dissonance headache. I need a drink of Holiday Cheer.Rick Doogienoreply@blogger.com