The Purpose

Ken Collins KPaulC at email.msn.com
Fri Aug 13 14:29:41 EST 1999


What's The Purpose?

getting on with what needs to be done... Tapered Harmony has to rund the
'same' gauntlet through which NDT has passed.

Ken Collins wrote in message ...
>what's The Point?
>
>Ken Collins wrote in message <#rWvLJw4#GA.497 at cpmsnbbsa02>...
>>Alan M Dunsmuir wrote in message
<7$I9rAAcyur3EwYA at moonrake.demon.co.uk>...
>>
>>>[...]
>>
>>>Your sad little w[db]2t [...] predicts, describes and explains nothing.
>>
>>do a little experiment.
>>
>>collect all the pennies in the world, and haul them all to the outside
door
>>of Big Ben's tower.
>
>>[...]
>
>first, i only used 'Big Ben's tower' in the example because the prior
poster
>chose it as a discussion point. any 'structure' can be substituted, in the
>previous discussion. for Big Ben's tower... do it with a granite mountain,
>and the mountain will crumble in the same way [might have to use more than
>all the world's pennies, though].

of course, the structure that 'positions' the pendulum' must be able to
transfer the pendulum's dynamics to the mountain, without, itself, giving
out first... this big pendulum is just another version of Archimedes' "big
lever".

K. P. Collins

[the rest of the msg is unchanged from the prior post.]

>
>The Point of my discussion has to do with the way folks've 'eliminated
>variables' while 'analyzing' this-or-that in physical reality. via such
>'elimination of variables', folks come up with a finite [see
'finitization',
>AoK, Ap4] set of 'rules' which constitute a 'lens' through which the stuff
>in question can be viewed.
>
>typically, it's convenient to take this approach, but, with respect to
>larger questions, it's dead-ended.
>
>why?
>
>because just 'eliminating variables' does not, itself, dictate to physical
>reality what physical reality is.
>
>so, if folks 'eliminate' stuff that has Existence within physical reality,
>folks, simultaneously, impose upon themselves the inability to See physical
>reality.
>
>doing so artificially renders stuff 'impossible'... 'intractible', etc.,
>through no correlation with respect to anything within physical reality,
>except blind, automated TD E/I-minimization within nervous systems.
>
>what's the 'big-deal'?
>
>consider 'quantum mechanics', for instance... because of all the
>'elimination of variables' that was inherent in Classical Mechanics, when
>folks wanted to go beyond Classical Mechanics [and Einstein's Relativity
>Theories], folks had to 'invent' stuff that doesn't exist within physical
>reality in order to 'undo' the 'elimination of variables' that was done, in
>the development of Classical Mechanics for the sake of 'calculational
>convenience' [for the sake of blind, automated TD E/I-minimization within
>their nervous systems].
>
>the old saw, "two wrongs don't make a right", is particularly apres-po...
as
>all the so-called 'quantum weirdness' that's been so-often invoked in
>discussions of physical reality, demonstrates clearly to anyone who only
>Looks.
>
>in the classical 'pendulum' of the preceding discussion, 'friction' was one
>of the 'variables' that was 'eliminated' in the formulation of the 'set of
>rules' that was converged upon.
>
>and there it is... in eliminating 'friction', folks, simultaneously,
>'eliminated' the one-way flow of energy from order to disorder that is
>what's described by 2nd Thermo [wdb2t], =and= all correlation to physical
>reality.
>
>the 'correlations' that were built into the 'pendulum' 'rule set' have only
>to do with TD E/I-minimization within the nervous systems of the folks who
>developed the 'pendulum rule set'.
>
>so, when other folks wanted to go beyond the classical view, they had to
>'invent' stuff to 'account' for stuff that was arbitrarily 'eliminated' in
>the classical view... only trouble was that, the going-beyond folks
>maintained their alegience to the classical 'rule set'. in doing so, folks
>accepted the classical dictate, 'thou shall not See physical reality'...
>
>...so folks did the only thing that was left open to them. they 'invented'
a
>lot of non-sense that danced all around wdb2t, without actually
acknwledging
>its existence.
>
>this turn of events also had its roots in blind, automated TD
>E/I-minimization... folks didn't want to 'offend' classicists, and
>classicists wanted to 'defend their turf' [AoK, 'short paper'], and would
do
>so by imposing elevated TD E/I upon any folks who'd 'disagree' with them,
>which was experienced, by the 'going-beyond folks, as an 'impediment' that
>was 'better gone-around'.
>
>so the going-beyond folks invoked the classical 'conservation of angular
>momentum', which is what's outwardly-'apparent' in adding a penny to either
>the tob or the bottom of a "pendulum's" bob... the shortening, or
>lengthening, of its period [which is the same stuff of a figure skater's
>spinning faster, or slower, depending upon whether her arms are held in or
>extended [hi, Katia :-)].
>
>the trouble is that wdb2t is in-there, having Existence within physical
>reality, and adding, or removing, pennies, increases, or decreases, the
>wdb2t 'component' that's in-there, but which 'can't be talked about'
because
>it was erroneously 'eliminated'.
>
>the sad thing... The Point... is that everything that was built 'on-top-of'
>such erroneous 'eliminations' is also erroneous, by 'virtue' of it's having
>carried the error through...
>
>...which is Why, i had to discuss this stuff in bionet.neuroscience... it's
>mostly Neuroscience.
>
>cheers, K. P. Collins [ken]
>
>





More information about the Neur-sci mailing list