[Prev] [Next]   [Index]   [Thread Index]

01789: RE: [WDDM] Regarding the social network site

From: ROY DAINE <rdaine(at)btinternet.com>
Date: Sun, 11 May 2008 12:13:44 +0100 (BST)
Subject: RE: [WDDM] Regarding the social network site

Ok, I'm in agreement with the absurdity of the self-evident bit, though the wikipedia definition does say 'considered to be'.

Because I did not know what an axiom was, the wiki definition gave me the same understanding as the definition you accept, where axioms are - arbitrarily taken
as granted.

I can understand that rigorous definitions of particular words and phrases are necessary when dealing with mathematics, the cosmos, relativity, etc. but when it comes to DD there is not one definitive axiom or definition that is generally accepted.

It is thus necessary for each person embarking on a discussion of DD to 'define' what he or she means by the term. Whether that 'definition' is an axiom or stipulative definition or a cabbage, does not matter. It sets the basis for discussion.

Your rant under the heading - UNDERSTANDING DOES NOT MATTER - comes across as a hatred for the masses. Us poor unfornunates who, unable to compete with your intellectual rigour, are worthy only of contempt.

We should obviously not be allowed to discuss ideas concerning our own governance.

Your inability to accept that other people may have meritorious ideas, perhaps contrary to your own, because they do not always use terminology that you find acceptable, leaves you on the outside, able only to condemn.

Now, I'm quite happy to have any or all of my ideas and opinions rigorously critiqued. I can be persuaded by reasoned, coherent argument to an alternative point of view, or a refinement of my opinion.

But I'm not persuaded by your rant.

Roy
Georges Metanomski <zgmet(at)yahoo.com> wrote:
--- ROY DAINE <RDAINE(at)BTINTERNET.COM> wrote:
...
===============
G:
I shall only comment 2 of your statements, as their
absurdity contaminates all the rest:

1.AXIOM IS "SELF-EVIDENT".
QUOTE
In traditional logic, an axiom or postulate is a
> proposition that is not proved or demonstrated but
> considered to be self-evident.
UNQUOTE

2.UNDERSTANDING DOES NOT MATTER.
QUOTE
Now I may be wrong in my understanding of all
> these terms but it only really matters when trying
> to communicate with you.
UNQUOTE
================
1.AXIOM IS "SELF-EVIDENT".
It's one of the stupidest statements I ever came
across, typical of Wikipedia-type wisdom.

Now, "Axiom" admits a definition:
Any rational theory is structured as a top-down
network, whose higher nodes are deductive premises
of their lower neighbors - conclusions. Top nodes
don't have higher premise-neighbors and thus cannot
be deduced from anything, are arbitrarily taken
as granted and are called "axioms".

To illustrate the idiocy of the "self-evidence" let's
take the three mutually contradicting fundamental
geometrical axioms:

1.Euclides: Though a point not on a line passes
strictly one parallel.

2.Riemann: Though a point not on a line does not
pass any parallel.

3.Lobatschevsky: Though a point not on a line pass
any number of paralels greater than 1.

Now, which of them is "self-evidenter" than the
others? Each founds the Space of some fundamental
physical model and is falsified in others:

1.supports the Newton Model including the space
travel.

2.supports all terrestrial maps and navigation.

3.supports the General Relativity and the concurrent
model of the Cosmos.

Another example, the speed transformation. A stone
thrown in the direction of moving train appears to
the passenger to move slower than one thrown in the
opposite direction. This principle of additive speed
transformation indeed appears self-evident and has
been as such considered as axiom of naive Galilean
and Newton's models. It appeared "self-evident" that
it should apply to light, which, coming from a star
should move faster with respect to the earth when it
travels towards the star in its around the sun
rotation, than when it travels rearwards.

Now, the MM experiment has shown that light, unlike
the stone overtakes the "train" always at the speed C
even when the "train" moves at 0.9999999999.. C.

This result totally contradicts all "common sense" and
"evidences", and cannot even be imagined. Yet, the
invariance of C, independent of speeds of the light
source and of the observer became the fundamental
axiom of the entire contemporary physics.
===========================
2.UNDERSTANDING DOES NOT MATTER.
It's only in discussing with Georges that rigorous
understanding matters.
In real life we all understand one another well enough
and know what we should do. The principle of bandwagon
sheep running happily to the precipice chosen by the
driver.
We all agree that by decreasing greenhouse gases we
may reverse global warming, that Kyoto Protocol is
scientifically justified and has nothing to do with
anti-american politics, that wind power is efficient,
sustainable and clean, that the globalized world may
be run peacefully by the UN or other ridiculous circus
without any military power and fight, that there is
nothing to do about the demographic explosion, which
will somehow take care of itself, with help of
permanent genocides or what not, etc., etc.
And we shall all stay happy and clever till the last
moment of dying poisoned by the air we breath, by the
water we drink, by our own blood or by the radiation
of the nuclear war standing ante portes.

Have fun
Georges.


[Prev] [Next]   [Index]   [Thread Index]