Hello everyone
---------------------------------------- > Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 23:20:43 +0000 > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [MD] Quality-as-pre-conceptual/MOQ as conceptual. > > Dan, > To say t he laws of physics are the same on Earth as on Mars or as they were > when the galaxies > were being formed, is not to make a sociological statement about the > comparative state of > science among Earth scientists, little green men & disembodied scientists > floating around > billions of years ago. Dan: Not sure of your point here... your initial post... > 1) The laws of physics are the same since Newton as they were when the > galaxies were being formed (though they might> have been different in the > fraction of a second after the Big Bang). ...seems to suggest the same laws of physics were in effect billions of years ago when galaxies were forming as are in effect today. I am asking who was around billions of years ago to know that there were laws of physics in existence dictating the formation of galaxies. It doesn't make sense, I know. But that's my point. Your statement above makes no sense when you think about it. Craig: > Rather it’s to say that the same laws apply here & there, now & then. Dan: Yes I gathered that much though I have to say I thought you might be joking. Let's just agree it is a good IDEA that the same laws apply then as now. Craig: > If astronomers discover a new galaxy forming, they study it for clues to how > our own galaxy > formed. Why? Only because they think the same laws will apply (i.e., > interaction between > similar phenomena will be similar under similar conditions.) Dan: Operative word: think. The laws astronomers apply are the result of thinking, not some disembodied law floating around waiting to be discovered. I'm pretty sure that is Robert Pirsig's point that you're not taking into account when you structure statements like the one I copied and pasted above. I see below you've reformulated your statement to be more in agreement, thank you. > > [Dan] >> the passage from ZMM concerning gravity might shed some light on this. "For >> example, it seems completely natural to presume that gravitation and the law >> of gravitation existed before > Isaac Newton. It would sound nutty to think that until the seventeenth > century there was no gravity." > "Of course." > "So when did this law start? Has it always existed?" > John is frowning, wondering what I am getting at. > "What I’m driving at," I say, "is the notion that before the beginning of the > earth, before the sun and the stars > were formed, before the primal generation of anything, the law of gravity > existed." > "Sure." > "Sitting there, having no mass of its own, no energy of its own, not in > anyone’s mind because there wasn’t anyone, > not in space because there was no space either, not anywhere...this law of > gravity still existed?" > Now John seems not so sure. > "If that law of gravity existed," I say, "I honestly don’t know what a thing > has to do to be nonexistent. > It seems to me that law of gravity has passed every test of nonexistence > there is. You cannot think of a single > attribute of nonexistence that that law of gravity didn’t have. Or a single > scientific attribute of existence it did have. > And yet it is still ‘common sense’ to believe that it existed." > John says, "I guess I’d have to think about it." > "Well, I predict that if you think about it long enough you will find > yourself going round and round and round and > round until you finally reach only one possible, rational, intelligent > conclusion. The law of gravity and gravity itself did > not exist before Isaac Newton. No other conclusion makes sense. > "And what that means," I say before he can interrupt, "and what that means is > that that law of gravity exists > nowhere except in people’s heads! > (RMP, ZMM, Chap. 3) > > [Reconstructed] > Z1) The law of gravity cannot exist except in someone’s mind > (= understanding). > Z2) The law of gravity did not exist in anyone’s mind before Newton . > Z3) (Newtonian) gravity is what is understood through (Newtonian) law of > gravity. > Z4) :. The law of gravity and gravity itself did not exist before Isaac > Newton. Dan: I think you strike closer. > > >Craig: > Q1) What is an example of gravity? > A1) An apple falling on Newton ’s skull. > Q2) What is an ancient example of gravity? > A2) An apple falling on Plato’s skull. Dan: I wasn't aware Plato advanced a law of gravity. But I know very little of Plato. Please provide a reference. > > > > > > > > How do we reconcile Z4 with A2 (i.e., that gravity doesn’t exist at a time > when we have examples of it)? > > > > Because we have 2 different notions of gravity. Dan: Again, I'm afraid your point eludes me. Thank you, Dan _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live™ Contacts: Organize your contact list. http://windowslive.com/connect/post/marcusatmicrosoft.spaces.live.com-Blog-cns!503D1D86EBB2B53C!2285.entry?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_UGC_Contacts_032009 Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
