--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" <anartaxius@...> wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" > > <anartaxius@> wrote: > > > I was not implying there are only two sides to this issue, > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> replied: > > No, I meant two as in more than one, not as in fewer than > > three (or more)! IOW, sometimes there is only one valid > > "side" (the earth revolves around the sun), and there's no > > need to give the "other side" (the sun revolves around the > > earth) equal time in the name of balance. That just creates > > confusion. > > Stephen Hawking recently was writing about effective theories. > One of his examples was the Earth-Sun relationship. The Sun > going around the Earth is an effective theory. It has a > certain resolution. For example it explains the way the sun > looks when it rises and sets, but does rather poorly in > explaining how the planets similarly move through the sky. > So the theory has a certain usefulness. Not useful for > astronomy any more, or space travel. > > The theory that the Earth goes around the Sun is also an > effective theory. According to Newtonian Mechanics, it is > actually wrong, the Earth and Sun revolve around a common > centre of mass, which is somewhere inside the surface of > the sun. So the statement Earth revolves around the Sun > is also wrong at a certain level of resolution. And there > are other gravitation forces, other stars that gravitationally > interact with the Sun and Earth, so the motion is even more > complicated, but it is usually not necessary to take these > into account unless trying to calculate positions of stars > hundreds of thousands of years in the past or future. > > I suppose I could argue with you that the Earth goes around > the Sun is obviously wrong, but in this discussion that not > the point you were attempting to get across.
<head spinning> Right, certainly interesting, but not my point. How about "GOP Says Earth Is Flat; Democrats Disagree"? Any better? You could say a flat earth is an "effective theory" too, I guess, so maybe not. > I actually sometimes, when watching a sunrise imagine that > I am on a sphere, and the rotation of the Earth is bringing > me into view of the sun, and at the same time there is also > a horizontal motion of the Earth relative to the sun that > is its revolution around the sun. But most of the time, it > is just, oh, the Sun is coming up, and that has even less > resolution than the Sun going around the Earth hypothesis > because I do not even think of that. The perceptual environment in which we make our way through life and the *real* environment in which we are situated are amazingly different. I sometimes try, without much success, to see the sun as a gigantic ball of unimaginably hot gases 93 million miles away rather than as a smallish but very bright spotlight moving across a domed ceiling. And just this very minute, it occurred to me that I don't perceive daylight as a function of the sun's illumination, but almost the reverse: the sun appears when it's daylight. No kidding, I never realized this was my habitual perception before! Boy, that sun is way brighter than I thought. > I do agree with you that an argument can be pointless, but > we do have to be on guard to argue cognizant of the level > of understanding of our opponent, and it may be with > certain ones, such argument will be eternally fruitless. True. Or they may have a different conceptual framework, or even just one from which pieces are missing. I think of a very bright friend of mine years ago when she started a new job that required her to learn to use a computer. She called me a few days later deeply perplexed. She'd been told to put a report she'd been working on on a floppy disk to give to someone else to look at while she finished up the details. "How am I supposed to keep working on it," she wanted to know, "when I've given it to Joe?" > I think Einstein's view of the revolution of the Sun and > Earth is probably beyond my ability to visualize, as it > takes in not just ideas like centre of mass, but time > dilation resulting from warped space and the equivalence > of mass and energy. Newton was wrong. The orbit of Mercury > around the Sun fits Einstein's theory instead. No one has > yet found a way to dethrone Einstein. When we argue > (logically, not an altercation) we have to be discussing > the same level of resolution of the situation or we get > equivocation, or using the same words but with different > meanings, understandings. At least for this topic, we have an ultimate authority. > Facts are a good place to start. If I have an orange in my > right hand, and nothing in my left hand, what are the facts > here? If I have an invisible, incorporeal orange in my right > hand, and nothing in my left hand, what are the facts here? > Both hands look the same. Which one has the invisible orange? > A lot of arguments regarding spirituality reflect these two > situations, and why such arguments are never resolved. What do you say when the other party insists the fact is that there's no such thing as an invisible, incorporeal orange? > How does one differentiate between different incorporeal > entities? How can we evaluate private internal experiences > of another, how can we judge what they are really trying to > describe, or are they just describing what their thoughts > are telling them what an experience is supposed to be like, > but they have not actually had it themselves? Lots of pitfalls. But does that mean we shouldn't even take a shot at it? As I said to Curtis the other day in a slightly different context, the fact that words are an inadequate tool for the task tells us something about the nature of what we're trying to discuss, in and of itself. > If someone has an incorporeal orange in their possession, > I do hope that is all they have to eat and drink. <puzzled> Why?
