Re: Relativity in Physics

[Antonio Rossin <rossin(at)tin.it>]

At 13:26 +0200 20-10-2005, Georges Metanomski wrote:
> Three chapters of Relativistic Dialectic
> are stored in temporary directory for comments
> and critiques prior to fixed storing:
>
> Relativity in Physics. Introduction
> Relativity in Physics. Galileo and Newton
> Relativity in Physics. Aether and Dogmatic Thinking
>
> In Directory:
>
> http://members.fortunecity.com/georges/rdtests/index.html
>
> Georges


Hi all,

I've considered Georges' "Relativistic Dialectics" three
chapters, starting of course from the "Introduction", taken
as the explanation that would give the remaining discourse
an understandable meaning.

Let me but say first of all that I have been already questioning
Georges about the meaning of the term "Dialectics" which I
owe to Hegel's "Thesis, Antithesis and Synthesis" reasoning,
and yet I've got no explanation from Georges of why he heads
his treatise with that word.  Which missed explanation makes
Georges' stuff ununderstandable to me, therefore useless to
my pragmatic necessities.

Today's "Introduction" seems to suffer from the same lack.
Let me quote Georges' and comment:

(1.) ---------------
(quote) "In the present part we discuss the Physical concept
of Relativity in the light of Relativistic Dialectic (RD)."

(comment)
There is no light of RD since the meaning of this term looks
still obscure.


(2.) ----------------
(quote) "RD founds human Universe of Discourse in the
Dialectic Dichotomy Situation (Subject versus Object)"

(comment)
Here, some explanation of Georges' meaning for "Dialectics"
seems to appear.  What he calls "Dialectic Dichotomy" is a
part only of DIALECTICS, to wit, the Thesis-Antithesis
relationship, which takes meaning if only it is refereed to its
natural (logical) goal, the Synthesis.
It looks like Georges' "Dialectics" structure is limited only to
the T-A relationship with no resulting Synthesis.


(3.) -------------------
(quote) "Future, the domain of Subject, has the nature of
Possibility [...]
Past, the domain of Object, has the nature of Contingency [...]
order is deterministic, based upon effective cause related to its
effect."

(comment)
The "Future - Past" Dichotomy sounds quite understandable,
if it is referred to the Antithesis-Thesis dichotomy. But the
Present time seems to have disappeared (see 2. above).

It sounds like the Future passes directly into the Past without
the "Present" stage in logical chain. I mean, the Subject is
looking at the Future, that's right, but it lays in the Present -
even though, after a *time*, the Present becomes Past.

But that *time* is discrete, and it is the stage in which the
"Subject" -- any one of us ! -- makes its choice, acts its free
will, performs its consciousness.  In one word only, all along
that *time* the Subject comes to a Synthesis. There is no clue
for a "Present" in Georges' Future-Past Dichotomy.

Further, and even worse, the meaning of the term "Subject"
sounds ambiguous in Georges' text.  In (2.) above G. posits
the "Subject" entity as the dichotomic counterpart of "Object"
thus he gives both the same logical level and meaning.

But the "Subject" is also meant to be the observer of the whole,
the living function that gives the whole a meaning, indeed, the
final user and the artificer of the DIALECTICS process.
(Note: I use all capital letters for the word DIALECTICS in
order to distinguish it from Georges' "Dialectics", since he did
not make the difference clear until the Present time)


(4.) --------------------------
(quote) "Compass needle is not an antinomy of contradictory
poles, but a dipole (dichotomy) composed of two complementary
poles (terms)."

(Comment)
The "compass needle" analogy should suggest that there is also
a pivot, a container, to give that dichotomy a meaning, otherwise
it is nonsense but only a piece of the special iron, known even to
kids, called "magnet".

There is no clue for this essential pivot function in Georges
Dialectics, still.


(5.) ------------------
(quote) "One of the terms of Dichotomy is "Referential". For
want of a better name we shall call "Core" its counterpart, the
"principal" term on which the awareness concentrates directly.

(comment)
"awareness" of whom? Let's suppose, it is the Subject's.
Further, this "awareness" does not "concentrate" on the
Dichotomy, on one of its poles, but it looks rather as the
synthesis being drawn from observing it.  But again, the
Synthesis *function* doesn't belong to George's Dialectics.


(6.) --------------
(quote) "Thus, RD sees human Universe of Discourse as a
structure of Dialectic Dichotomies - Situations ("Fundamental
Dichotomies") whose complementary Terms are:
-SUBJECT(ivity), phenomenally equivalent with Continuity,
Globality, Future, Possibility, Teleological Order.
-OBJECT(ivity), phenomenally equivalent with Discreteness,
Locality, Past, Contingency, Deterministic Order."

(Comment)
The above wording sounds unhappy and quite confusing,
because Georges drives to make:
i-  "RD see[s]" as if it were the Subject, i.e. a living function;
ii- "Subject(ivity)" as an observed entity, instead of a quality
     of the observing Subject's awareness
iii- "Subject(...)" as the natural counterpart of "Object(...)".

Most of all, the last iii- point deserves explanation, not to be
misleading, since "Subject" refers to Humans, in common
understanding, and "Object" refers to things.
Let' recall, that of accounting Humans as the counterpart
of Things -Humans like Things-  is a very dangerous attitude,
the History teaches.


(7.)-------------
(quote) "Relativity consists, in the sense of RD, in considering
Phenomena and Model Constructs in Situations defined by
their Subjective and Objective counterparts. Thus, Discrete
(Objective) Constructs should be considered at the
background of (Subjective) Continuum and be mathematically
  represented as integrals thereof."

(Final comment and critique)
Trying to synthesize:
I shall admit, Georges' "Relativity in Physics. Introduction" did
not introduce anything to me, and I wonder by which purpose
(a meaning) he introduces it to the lists I'm a member of --
especially cicdd and WDDM, whose declared purpose is the
spreading of (direct) Democracy to the common people.

I've also read Georges' "Galileo and Newton" and "Aether
and Dogmatic Thinking" chapters of "Relativity in Physics",
and found nothing that could enlighten my above perplexities
about RD.  Of course, Democracy encompasses everything;
but I don't think anyone outside academia has ever heard of
such things like Georges' -- which, in a lack of any further
explanation of meaning and purpose, look like the stuff of
some academic careerist who wants to be "politically correct"
and present a liberal-humanistic image abroad in order to gain
political consensus and leadership.

Which would not be a shameful purpose, as far as I can see:
but some more explanation about this last point could help the
democrats' awareness.


Best regards,

antonio

--
Antonio Rossin - Neurologist
  ? Dialectical Philosopher ?
rossin(at)tin.it
http://www.flexible-learning.org

Coordinamento ISPO Italy:
http://www.simpol.org
ispo.italy(at)simpol.org