The Point

Ken Collins KPaulC at email.msn.com
Fri Sep 3 01:28:05 EST 1999


interesting... where's my post, in response to this one, pointing out that
this big pendulum is 'just' another instance of Archimedes lever?

too much The-Point?

K. P. Collins

Ken Collins <KPaulC at email.msn.com> wrote in message
news:uPZ6fOU5#GA.121 at cpmsnbbsa03...
> 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].
>
> 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