My point, of course, is that logic can make fools of us all. The epistemological considerations on dialethics are legion, and with paraconsistency an attempt to find the gems of logic in practice - rather like mathematicians looking for gems amongst practical findings in physics. Somewhere along the line we all use the work of others. I don't find the work of physicists I barely understand, or even those I do, illogical or without explanation I can grasp. I do know I can add nothing to the practical or theoretical considerations in the subject, but can usually tell when someone else can't either. I am referring to modern work which might produce something of more than philosophical interest - and one of practical interest in demonstrating when we are up blind alleys in respect of truth- seeking. There may be computing rules involved. The few exceptions to rules may reveal something further about rules. Identifying the exceptions is difficult and isn't about decrying all knowledge or acting without what we know or confused as to what we know. Science breaks down at some points, requiring machines we can't build on scales we can't really imagine. So does logic, including processual dialectics. There are many examined cases and a developing mathematics attempting to describe the topography of space (non- commutative geometries etc.) - I tend to prefer this to looking up terms in dictionaries.
On 5 Oct, 18:35, adrian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Obviously you've got no sense of humour, And yes I'm unique and special, > everybody is in their > own way, so are snowflakes, daisies , fingerprints and so on. > You're certainly part of a typical type and by your own label a solipsist. > You seem to imagine > sneering makes friends.Has it occurred to you that you may misunderstand the > meaning of the > message? You do it quite consistently. ORN wrote You're unique, to a previous > remark of mine > that I was not unique and I replied in kind. just like someone saying "you're > a champion > fellow." BESIDES< BESIDES< BESIDES, somebody said it to me. I DID NOT SAY IT > ABOUT MYSELF AS > YOU FALSELY IMAGINE. So far you have not managed to say a good word to me or > about me, > charming, I love you too, somewhere on an ice floe among penquins. > > adrian > > > > einseele wrote: > > Others I do not... you, after all you are sooo special. I'm part of > > the billions, you are unique, remember. > > > On Oct 5, 1:31 pm, adrian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> If you wish to take that as a personal insult I cannot stop you. But it > >> eems to be ok for you > >> to insult others. > > >> adrian. > > >> einseele wrote: > >>> Hello Neil > >>> When someone like adrian writes (Not being a common joke, I presume): > >>> "HAHA, One friend reckons I'm one in 2 billion. He's competent enough > >>> to judge so." > >>> ... all discussions end, at least to me. Because the conversation is > >>> not aimed to the apparent subject, namely physics, or whathever; but > >>> to an intention not stated on the supposed piece of talk. > >>> He said that in another thread to ornamentalmind, if I'm not wrong > >>> (sorry orn, if you weren't part). > >>> Probably ornament. did a positive comment to adrian, and he got that > >>> answer were we can read: > >>> "HAHA, One friend reckons I'm one in 2 billion. He's competent enough > >>> to judge so." > >>> Meaning: > >>> HAHA (laughing in loud voice), you are a poor thing among billions > >>> (anyone else reading his/her post), because I'm special (ornament > >>> and ... I are idiots), One friend (not A friend) reckons (surrendered > >>> to the revealed truth)... Being the friend someone competent "enough" > >>> See the perfect movement to say: "Hey everybody there, you are > >>> obviously almost nothing compared to me, I like ornamentalmind anyway > >>> (sorry orn. again if you were not the case) and anyone else who > >>> admires me, the special being among billions, even my idiot friend > >>> reckons that, well he/she is competent enough... > >>> This is the intention beneath the discussion. Personally gives me > >>> repugnance, I wanted to follow your points, but as usual, that is not > >>> possible as we surely will receive that kind of aggression. Besides I > >>> frankly prefer to be among many others, instead of sharing the table > >>> with adolf adrian > >>> regards > >>> On Oct 4, 11:47 pm, archytas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>> THe LHC has not yet performed the experiments with lead nuclei that > >>>> caused some to fret about black holes. There are plenty of arguments > >>>> around that fall into trivialisation.Dialetheism should be clearly > >>>> distinguished from trivialism. This is the view that all > >>>> contradictions are true (and hence, assuming that a conjunction > >>>> entails its conjuncts, it is also the view that everything is true). > >>>> Though a trivialist must be a dialetheist, the converse is not the > >>>> case: a dialetheist typically claims that some (and, usually, very > >>>> specific) sentences are dialetheias, not that all of them are. How one > >>>> can do the former without being committed to the latter is one of the > >>>> main topics in the dialetheic theory, since trivialism is considered > >>>> by most philosophers theoretically repugnant, if anything is. The > >>>> standard solution for the dialetheist consists in subscribing to the > >>>> view that entailment (deductively valid inference) is paraconsistent. > >>>> Rigourous derivation is needed to avoid trivialisation, as I think > >>>> Georges has just pointed out, or else, frankly, we can make anything > >>>> mean what it does not and become trivial. > >>>> On 3 Oct, 09:26, Georges Metanomski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>>> NOTE: It's a warning to non-physicists, who could be > >>>>> muddled by this bullshit. > >>>>> --- On Fri, 10/3/08, socratus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>>> .> Einstein’s formula E =mc^2 belong to behavior of micro > >>>>>> particle > >>>>>> ( light quanta/ electron). > >>>>> According to Quantum physics the> energy > >>>>>> ( force/ power) of body ( particle ) in the rest is not > >>>>>> equals to > >>>>>> zero, > >>>>>> but equals E= mc^2. > >>>>>> When E =mc^2 changes according to" The Law of > >>>>>> conservation > >>>>>> and transformation energy / mass " the body begin its > >>>>>> moving. > >>>>>> It is Potential force which changes in the Kinetic force > >>>>>> and this > >>>>>> power > >>>>>> is hiding in the micro particle: light quanta/ electron. > >>>>> =================== > >>>>> G: > >>>>> E=MC2 concerns Special Relativity and has been conceived > >>>>> before Quantum Theory. I happen to know it, as I have > >>>>> developed its rigorous derivation, which Einstein used > >>>>> at the end of his life. > >>>>>http://findgeorges.com/ROOT/RELATIVISTIC_DIALECTIC/D_OUTLINE_OF_EINST... > >>>>> It has nothing to do with > >>>>> "behavior"(?) of any particles, especially with light > >>>>> quanta, nor with "transformation energy / mass" and moving > >>>>> bodies, nor with any Potential force which changes in the > >>>>> Kinetic force(?), nor with any "power"(?) hiding(?) in > >>>>> "light quanta/ electron". > >>>>> BTW energy is not "( force/ power)" which they teach in > >>>>> elementary high school classes. > >>>>> E=MC2 states equivalence of mass and energy and that's > >>>>> all. In practice when some nuclear transformation results > >>>>> in decrease of mass, the difference transforms to EM > >>>>> radiation, like in Hiroshima, or in radioactive > >>>>> treatment of cancer. > >>>>> Georges. > >>>>> ===================- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
