Wonderful, AS IF, I did not know any of this, Waffle remains waffle however dressed up. I find Einseele's abject deference to Georges quite puerile but nobody else is allowed to do as he does, etc waffle. Does it actiually know how to think?
adrian archytas wrote: > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
