Re: Beating a dead....

Reilly Jones (
Sat, 11 Apr 1998 13:09:25 -0400

Nico Myowna wrote 4/11/98: <Reilly, all phenomenons are relative to the
relativity of time and space. This relativism is true: In our experience
is there only one time -- but if we send a atomary watch (A) with a space
shuttle around earth and have an other similar runing atomary watch (B) on
earth than there is a time difference between A and B after A has returning
from space.>

This time difference is a function of the measuring mechanism itself. You
are not saying that the Planck moment has changed during the flight, are
you? Is the Planck moment constant or is it not?

As long as you bring up science here, I'll address some comments made by
the Merry Guillotiner on 4/9/98:

<Your philosophy is cutting edge, cutting edge for the 13'th century that
is, the same is true of your science.... The speed of light is absolute,
it's the same for any observer.... And you've also rejected Quantum
Mechanics, I think that's part of your credibility problem. After dumping
on the two greatest intellectual accomplishments of the century it's hard
to get people to sit contentedly at your feet while you [unpleasant blah,
blah, blah].>

I agree that the speed of light being the same for any observer is
absolute, an absolute metaphysical assumption. Verification continues...
This is science, not mysticism. I have not rejected QM, I have simply
noted that QM and Relativity are not reconciled, and they are not
reconciled for a reason that science has not discovered yet. They have not
discovered it yet because something is wrong with some of the metaphysical
assumptions underlying the current Kuhnian paradigm and it is very hard to
buck dogmatism when you are trying to suck in grant money.

I also can't believe that individuals who proclaim themselves to be
scientists, promote the Big Bang as science. Creation ex nihilo was
formulated as a pious scientific doctrine at the Fourth Lateran Council in
1215. All the kooky machinations undergone since then to undergird this
doctrine resemble Ptolemy's increasingly convoluted epicycles more than
anything else.

There is a lot of kookiness in science I don't go for. Time travel, for
one. Utterly senseless. Basement or attic universes for another, unless
the Planck moment for each is different from ours and different from each
other, then I'd be willing to entertain the idea. Singularities inside
black holes for another. Black holes are just like glaciers, if you want
to free up the matter in them, just raise the background temperature around
them. The idea of a space-time continuum for another, I'd go for a
space-time conjunction or a space continuum, though. The Planck moment is
not a variable, not involved in any continuum, at least not locally anyway.
I don't just pick on junk physics either, biology makes no sense when it
takes randomness (as in mutations) to be some ontological aspect, rather
than an epistemological aspect. If there was one ounce of ontological
randomness in the universe, the universe would be entirely unintelligible.

Lastly, I can't think of any greater credibility problem that to take
information as an ontological primitive. Information has no existence
without a knower and a known. It is a common fallacy to say that DNA
transmits information, without referencing the knower who can translate the
information. DNA replication, the thing-in-itself, is not transmitting
information, it is simply molecules bumping around and lining up in
preferred developmental branches. The "everything is digital" worldview I
always held to be harmless idiocy until I was shown that it leads to a
mandate to guillotine half my state. I will take it seriously now.

Reilly Jones | Philosophy of Technology: | The rational, moral and political relations
| between 'How we create' and 'Why we create'