Hi Stephen P. King
The short answer is that the ball follows a parabola
because it's supposed to according to mathematics.
For in Idealism, things always happen as they do
because they are supposed to.
The problem with understanding the physics
of Leibniz or Plato (conceptual physics)
is that the objects are directed from a
timeless, spaceless realm (the mind of the One,
not my mind, obeying necessary logic) but are
actually carried out in the real, imperfect. contingent world.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
11/9/2012
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-11-08, 08:36:43
Subject: Re: On the ontological status of elementary arithmetic
On 11/8/2012 6:29 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
> Hi Stephen P. King
>
> You don't need to throw anything.
> Parabolas are completely described mathematically.
OK, what is the connection between the particular case of throwing
and a mathematical description?
>
>
> Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
> 11/8/2012
> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
>
>
> ----- Receiving the following content -----
> From: Stephen P. King
> Receiver: everything-list
> Time: 2012-11-07, 19:42:25
> Subject: Re: On the ontological status of elementary arithmetic
>
>
> 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:
>>>>>> snip
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Dear Bruno,
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Dear Bruno,
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>>
> Hi Bruno,
>
> 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!
>
>
>
--
Onward!
Stephen
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
