On Sep 2, 9:35Â am, ZerkonX
X.net> wrote:> On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 07:33:25 -0700, tg wrote:
>> The point is that there are a number of metaphorical ways of describing
>> the case, and your own interpretation is just one of them. Where we (I)
>> get confused is in trying to shoehorn a particular case into a
>> particular model/interpretation/simile/intuition/whatever.
>
> Yes, agree. These analogies are given to illuminate. I just take it from
> there.
>
> Another is the recent description of time as dimension is 'the meeting'.
> A person gives geographical directions to a meeting place but must also
> give a time when the meeting is to happen. therefore....
>
> Another is the teacup falling off of a table.. and so on.
>
> These are very interesting and even more so in questioning them.
>
>> You have to be careful, particularly if you want to claim Eastern- ness,
>> not to cling to your version as if it is any less of an illusion than
>> any other.
>
> I certainly agree but one has to start somewhere and use some thing or
> other. My attempt is to cling to a logic which is not just 'my' logic.
> So the reason for the post is to see how this stands up to challenge.
>
I don't know. Let's consider another of old Albert's fabrications:
Einstein tells us that if we are in an enclosed structure, it is
impossible to tell whether we are sitting on the surface of the earth
or are in intergalactic space undergoing an acceleration of 1G. Most
people don't have trouble accepting and understanding this
proposition.
The problem is that if we can't make that distinction, it calls into
question the meaning of the two concepts "acceleration" and
"gravity". Here we have two indistinguishable things with apparently
completely distinguishable (to us) causalities.
But what if all of human history took place in just such an
enclosure? Observing that a ball thrown horizontally follow a curved
path to hit the floor, what model or metaphor should we choose to
associate with the mathematical model (height, velocity, time,
distance relationships) that we develop?
A. A downward acting 'field of force'?
B. An accelerating floor, walls and ceiling?
C. A metric of space and time such that the apparent motion of the
ball is simply a characteristic of the ball?
The problem is that absent further information, any of these might be
correct. It has nothing to do with accuracy of measurement, which you
seem to be fixated on. Nor is 'logic' of any help. We might be
influenced to prefer one or the other because we have more experience
of analogous phenomena, and that is probably what is happening to
you---you are comfortable with one simile or another because you are
familiar with whatever the thing is 'like'.
-tg
-tg
> Coming across as 'claiming' Eastern-ness, is understandable. The attempt
> is more to include it. Excluding 'Western-ness' is impossible. It is
> taken for granted.
