From: Paul Grant (shade999@optonline.net)
Date: Sun Aug 03 2003 - 12:37:00 MDT
Bleh, sent this early by accident...
From what I gathered solely from that web page,
he's arguing that calculus is the equivalent of broken,
in that there is no such physical analogue as a time slice
in relation to objects in motion. That would include
digitization as well. He's basically stating that comparing
any two objects in motion is pointless, since at best, we
are comparing an avg rather than an instant in time.
Its a practicality argument, more than anything else.
Anybody who tries to apply calculus to events already
runs into these problems and approximates. He's saying
the equivalent of "the map is not the territory"; just because
we think its been discretized properly does not mean it has
{ergo error}, and does not mean it can... His work, of course,
assumes that there is no fundamental slice in time....
omard-out
From: owner-extropians@extropy.org [mailto:owner-extropians@extropy.org]
On Behalf Of Paul Grant
Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2003 1:54 PM
From what I gathered solely from that web page,
he's arguing that calculus is the equivalent of broken,
in that there is no such physical analogue as a time slice
in relation to objects in motion. That would include digitization as
well.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-extropians@extropy.org [mailto:owner-extropians@extropy.org]
On Behalf Of Giu1i0 Pri5c0
Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2003 10:53 AM
To: extropians@extropy.org
Subject: Re: Ground-breaking work in understanding of time
When this was announced a few days ago I was curious, so I downloaded
both papers of Lynds are read them. Perhaps I did not understand
anything of what he is trying to say, but I was not impressed. It seems
to me that he is assuming from the very beginning what he wants to
prove, and that he is not explaining why the standard view of these
things (that we learn in first year calculus) is wrong.
----- Original Message -----
From: "randy" <cryofan@mylinuxisp.com>
To: <extropians@extropy.org>
Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2003 2:16 PM
Subject: Re: Ground-breaking work in understanding of time
> On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 12:19:52 +1000, you wrote:
>
> >At 03:53 PM 7/31/03 -0700, Jeff wrote:
> >
> >>http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2003-07/icc-gwi072703.php
> >
> >I see that this poorly written and somewhat Sokal-like piece of fluff
> >is attributed to a PR agent:
> >
> >Brooke.Jones@australia.edu
> > Independent Communications Consultant
> >
> >< "Naturally the parameter and boundary of their respective position
> >and magnitude are naturally determinable up to the limits of possible
> >measurement as stated by the general quantum hypothesis and
> >Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, but this indeterminacy in precise
> >value is not a consequence of quantum uncertainty. What this
> >illustrates is that in relation to indeterminacy in precise physical
> >magnitude, the micro and macroscopic are inextricably linked, both
> >being a part of the same
parcel,
> >rather than just a case of the former underlying and contributing to
> >the latter." >
> >
> >Naturally. Yeep.
> >
> >Damien Broderick
>
> Slashdot discussion on this:
>
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/08/03/029213&mode=thread&t‰
id=1
34
>
>
> -------------
> -Randy
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Aug 03 2003 - 12:46:11 MDT