On 11/7/2012 12:46 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 07 Nov 2012, at 17:16, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/7/2012 9:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 06 Nov 2012, at 17:05, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/6/2012 8:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
This is not convincing as we can make statical interpretation of
actions. In physics this is traditionally done by adding one
dimension. The action of throwing an apple (action) can easily be
associated to a parabola in space-time.
This invalidate your point, even if you say that such parabola
does not exist, as you will need to beg on the "real action" to
make your point.
So do you agree that the relation goes both ways, which is to say
that the relation is symetrical? If the action of throwing an apple
implies a parabola, does the existence of the parabola alone define
the particular act of throwing the apple?
Throwing an apple ===> a parabola
But throwing a banana ====> a parabola, too.
Can you not see that these two relations are not in a symmetrical
one-to-one relation? There are many actions that can be represented
by one and the same parabola.
Then why do you ask me if it is symmetrical. You make my point here.
That is not my question. If you agree that the relation is not
symmetrical, then how can you use the existence of the parabola to
necessitate the particular case (throwing an apple) without further
explanation as to how that one special case is selected? We can show the
existence of a general class of entities far easier than the existence
of a particular entity!
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at