- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

"Val Miranda" <comcat…@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> SD, the law of cause and effect is valid for a material universe, but
the
> brain-body supported mind acts as an immaterial unit not subject to
this law
> in the sense that it can make choices in the material universe. But
not
> only that, the mind can be the force for changes and can make
determinations
> about reality such as the big bang was an implosion; it is free to
think
> such thoughts. There is no free will, but there is a free intellect.

> Regards,
> Val
> SDRodrian <don_quix…@mindless.com> wrote in message
> news:8bc746$lrt$1@nnrp1.deja.com…
> > In article <20000319072232.02057.00002…@ng-da1.aol.com>,
> > george…@aol.com (George Ortega) wrote:
> > > >SIZE=3>Subject: Re: Lorentz Contraction Revisited
> > > >From: SDRodrian <don_quix…@mindless.com>
> > > >Date: Sat, Mar 18, 2000 19:28 EST
> > > >Message-id: <8b16un$jb…@nnrp1.deja.com>

> > > You appear to understand the faulty logic in many of our commonly
> > accepted
> > > scientific conclusions. At sci.physics I am defending the Law of
Cause
> > and
> > > Effect against those who render reality indeterministic.

> > Good luck! Determinism goes against practically the entire human
> > experience (both historical and ordinary): All human laws are based
> > on rewards & punishments (on criminals having the "free will" to
choose
> > whether to commit or not commit crimes). Practically every notion of
> > education (whether it involves the mamma bird educating her baby
bird
> > or your mother educating you) exemplifies the "very apparent fact"
that
> > "babies" need to be taught to themselves make the "decision." [I
believe
> > Clarence Darrow had some success positing in court that his clients,
> > "couldn't help doing what they did." But that defense hasn't always
been
> > all that successful. Further, if you uphold a hard determinism you
seem
> > to risk the cornerstone of democracy (because it nullifies all
decision-
> > making processes, deliberation). Additionally, morality usually
requires
> > one to sacrifice instant gratification for the sake of some greater
good
> > (and this apparently calls not for some blind stumbling into a given
> > path, but, again, for a considered choice). Moreover, men's "pursuit
> > of ends" (their conviction that they can work "long term" for
results
> > which may eventually pay off in some way or other) implies that men
> > follow plans of action... forever free to lead to mistakes no less
than
> > to pay-offs (something which only their continued constant "good"
> > judgments determine). And how you're going to convince humanity
> > that their concern with morality and justice is beyond their ability
to
> > will (a preferred morality & justice) is hard to see; as people will
do
> > as they have always done when presented determinism (and which
> > is exemplified in the tale of determinist philosopher Zeno's beating
of
> > his slave): "Why," rightfully protests the slave: "Why do you beat
me
> > when your own philosophy is telling you that it's not my fault and
that
> > I was destined to commit this wrong since the beginning of the
world?"

> > Zeno's reply, of course, is that, if the slave had understood his
> > philosophy better... he would have known that he, Zeno, was also
> > destined from the beginning of the world to beat his slave for the
> > transgression. And here we come to the matter of paradoxes which
> > arise from trying to deny reality (which is a reality of
cause/effect
> > without any possible exception)... for if we accept that determinism
> > holds true in the world, then nothing really changes (as you can see
> > from the example of Zeno and his slave): The criminal commits his
> > crime & he is subsequently punished for it (most cases). Objections
> > on the basis that determinism leads to an impossibly fatalistic
ethics
> > may be referred to such concepts as that of philosopher Chrysippus's
> > "condestinate" facts (facts dependent upon other facts, in which the
> > fact of... whether a man is destined to live or die is dependent
upon
> > the fact that he acts to save his life, of course). The future is
indeed
> > predictable in the absolute, but only given absolute knowledge. But
> > the human experience is a bundle of feelings.... and we all "feel"
> > quite free to choose, no matter what the evidence to the contrary!

> > On the other hand, those who reject determinism usually do so
> > on the premise that nothing anyone ever does is without a cause!
> > (A logical absurdity: Opponents of determinism yet punish the
> > criminal to the degree that he had or had not a reason for doing
> > what he did... and "forgive" only the lunatic.) Such self-evidently
> > irrational rationalizations for indeterminism (and thereby "free
will")
> > go back all the way to the Epicurean philosophers, who adapted
> > earlier atomistic notions (in which everything that happens comes
> > about from the interactions and motions of atoms, deterministic)
> > with their own absurd idea that "occasionally" atoms could rather
> > "spontaneously" and of their own accord, mind you, change their
> > motions (apparently some atoms had "the capacity to swerve" at
> > will and for no apparent reason/cause whatsoever). Yet this is the
> > nature of the human condition, I'm afraid... to believe in magic and
> > most especially of all, in God: It might be hard-wired into our
brains
> > (since I myself know for a fact not only that there cannot be a God
> > but that there could NEVER have been a God, yet I believe in Him).
> > Then too, mathematicians will, willy-nilly, tell you that a true
random
> > number (one which does not arise out of some process which then
> > inevitably leads to it) is possible... and I have seen many a
> > description
> > of systems which mathematicians will tell you with a straight face
> > indeed produce random numbers left & right (the equivalent of mass-
> > producing miracles)... then being used to produce all sorts of
results
> > entirely "original" in the world (effects without causes, no less).
O
> > well!
> > Being a rather conservative Stoic myself, I do the conventional
thing
> > and merely seek out my place in the world (I accept reality for what
> > it is... every chance I get).

> > Most religions reject determinism, of course, because when God
> > knows all that is to happen (unless He is mistaken, and what God is)
> > He has either willed it thus (which absolves sinners), or He cannot
> > change any of it (and has thus been stripped of His omnipotence):
> > St. Augustine made a nifty "out" for God by proposing that God's
> > omniscience is independent of time (consequently... it's not unlike
> > memory... again creating the paradox of a powerless Omnipotent
> > in order to give reality to the notion of a free will in a world in
> > which
> > God is not the author of sin & evil as well as of the good). So you
> > can see to what extent proponents of indeterminism & free will are
> > "willing" to go... when even the most religious of them (St.
Augustine,
> > St. Thomas Aquinas, Boethius, Erasmus) are quite happy to reduce
> > God to a mere idle dreamer for its sake. So I don't advise anyone to
> > make it his/her lifework to try to stamp out irrational beliefs in
this
> > crazy world of ours.

> > Although Eastern religions have sometimes been termed more hard
> > fatalistic (hard deterministic), in practice they are no less
> > irrationally
> > indeterministic than ours: So that, in practice, any Easterner
patient
> > who is told he has been condemned to die by cancer... is just as
> > likely as a Westerner to seek a second opinion. But even a great
> > man like Voltaire ridiculed the notion that ours is the only
possible
> > reality (determinism) in Leibniz's theist version (... God being
good,
> > and ours being God's creation, then) that ours is the best of all
> > possible worlds (since ours must be the only world possible). And
> > it is still Leibniz we ridicule to this day; and Voltaire whom we
laugh
> > along with. Although many religious figures have favored a sort of
> > determinism (at least where God was concerned), to do so (Luther
> > and Calvin, for example) stresses the omnipotence of God over His
> > supposed love and mercy: So, for them, it is not within man's power
> > to do any good thing, even charity, without it first being prompted
by
> > grace. According to Luther, God does not only know everything but
> > does everything (so to posit that a man can do even good without it
> > coming from God is, to Luther, the same as that man acting outside
> > God): This makes theirs not a very Christian God... who leaves a man
> > in a world in which the laws of man (indeterministic) are in
complete
> > disagreement with the (deterministic) laws of God. {Don't worry,
most
> > Protestants only pay lip service to Luther & Calvin these days.] But
> > do theists have a choice (pun)? Their belief in God and in magic
agrees
> > with our reality only by "only paying lip service" to the many
paradoxes
> > which arise out of trying to imagine exceptions to a reality which
is
> > unforgivingly deterministic not here & there, but

absolutely/everywhere.

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

> > Hobbes’s materialism is just this sort of partially deterministic
> > approach
> > … which, while denying the existence of the soul, yet proposes
that
> > free will is possible, as it arises from motions and/or
modifications of
> > matter in the brain, which, while yet deterministic, the will can
bring
> > to a
> > "willed" halt). Schopenhauer, A. J. Ayer, Moritz Schlick and others
have
> > followed this illogical "half-way" too. The problem remains what is
has
> > always been: We may acknowledge the deterministic nature of the
> > inanimate
> > world (about which we can do nothing), but we just can’t help
"feeling"
> > that
> > our minds can still make a true/real

…

read more »

george…@aol.com (George Ortega) wrote:
> >SIZE=3>Subject: Re: Lorentz Contraction Revisited
> >From: SDRodrian <don_quix…@mindless.com>
> >Date: Sat, Mar 18, 2000 19:28 EST
> >Message-id: <8b16un$jb…@nnrp1.deja.com>

> You appear to understand the faulty logic in many of our commonly
accepted
> scientific conclusions. At sci.physics I am defending the Law of Cause
 and
> Effect against those who render reality indeterministic.

Good luck! Determinism goes against practically the entire human
experience (both historical and ordinary): All human laws are based
on rewards & punishments (on criminals having the "free will" to choose
whether to commit or not commit crimes). Practically every notion of
education (whether it involves the mamma bird educating her baby bird
or your mother educating you) exemplifies the "very apparent fact" that
"babies" need to be taught to themselves make the "decision." [I believe
Clarence Darrow had some success positing in court that his clients,
"couldn't help doing what they did." But that defense hasn't always been
all that successful. Further, if you uphold a hard determinism you seem
to risk the cornerstone of democracy (because it nullifies all decision-
making processes, deliberation). Additionally, morality usually requires
one to sacrifice instant gratification for the sake of some greater good
(and this apparently calls not for some blind stumbling into a given
path, but, again, for a considered choice). Moreover, men's "pursuit
of ends" (their conviction that they can work "long term" for results
which may eventually pay off in some way or other) implies that men
follow plans of action... forever free to lead to mistakes no less than
to pay-offs (something which only their continued constant "good"
judgments determine).  And how you're going to convince humanity
that their concern with morality and justice is beyond their ability to
will (a preferred morality & justice) is hard to see; as people will do
as they have always done when presented determinism (and which
is exemplified in the tale of determinist philosopher Zeno's beating of
his slave): "Why," rightfully protests the slave: "Why do you beat me
when your own philosophy is telling you that it's not my fault and that
I was destined to commit this wrong since the beginning of the world?"

Zeno's reply, of course, is that, if the slave had understood his
philosophy better... he would have known that he, Zeno, was also
destined from the beginning of the world to beat his slave for the
transgression.  And here we come to the matter of paradoxes which
arise from trying to deny reality (which is a reality of cause/effect
without any possible exception)... for if we accept that determinism
holds true in the world, then nothing really changes (as you can see
from the example of Zeno and his slave): The criminal commits his
crime & he is subsequently punished for it (most cases). Objections
on the basis that determinism leads to an impossibly fatalistic ethics
may be referred to such concepts as that of philosopher Chrysippus's
"condestinate" facts (facts dependent upon other facts, in which the
fact of... whether a man is destined to live or die is dependent upon
the fact that he acts to save his life, of course). The future is indeed
predictable in the absolute, but only given absolute knowledge. But
the human experience is a bundle of feelings.... and we all "feel"
quite free to choose, no matter what the evidence to the contrary!

On the other hand, those who reject determinism usually do so
on the premise that nothing anyone ever does is without a cause!
(A logical absurdity:  Opponents of determinism yet punish the
criminal to the degree that he had or had not a reason for doing
what he did... and "forgive" only the lunatic.) Such self-evidently
irrational rationalizations for indeterminism (and thereby "free will")
go back all the way to the Epicurean philosophers, who adapted
earlier atomistic notions (in which everything that happens comes
about from the interactions and motions of atoms, deterministic)
with their own absurd idea that "occasionally" atoms could rather
"spontaneously" and of their own accord, mind you, change their
motions (apparently some atoms had "the capacity to swerve" at
will and for no apparent reason/cause whatsoever). Yet this is the
nature of the human condition, I'm afraid... to believe in magic and
most especially of all, in God: It might be hard-wired into our brains
(since I myself know for a fact not only that there cannot be a God
but that there could NEVER have been a God, yet I believe in Him).
Then too, mathematicians will, willy-nilly, tell you that a true random
number (one which does not arise out of some process which then
inevitably leads to it) is possible... and I have seen many a
description
of systems which mathematicians will tell you with a straight face
indeed produce random numbers left & right (the equivalent of mass-
producing miracles)... then being used to produce all sorts of results
entirely "original" in the world (effects without causes, no less). O
well!
Being a rather conservative Stoic myself, I do the conventional thing
and merely seek out my place in the world (I accept reality for what
it is... every chance I get).

Most religions reject determinism, of course, because when God
knows all that is to happen (unless He is mistaken, and what God is)
He has either willed it thus (which absolves sinners), or He cannot
change any of it (and has thus been stripped of His omnipotence):
St. Augustine made a nifty "out" for God by proposing that God's
omniscience is independent of time (consequently... it's not unlike
memory... again creating the paradox of a powerless Omnipotent
in order to give reality to the notion of a free will in a world in
which
God is not the author of sin & evil as well as of the good).  So you
can see to what extent proponents of indeterminism & free will are
"willing" to go... when even the most religious of them (St. Augustine,
St. Thomas Aquinas, Boethius, Erasmus) are quite happy to reduce
God to a mere idle dreamer for its sake. So I don't advise anyone to
make it his/her lifework to try to stamp out irrational beliefs in this
crazy world of ours.

Although Eastern religions have sometimes been termed more hard
fatalistic (hard deterministic), in practice they are no less
irrationally
indeterministic than ours: So that, in practice, any Easterner patient
who is told he has been condemned to die by cancer... is just as
likely as a Westerner to seek a second opinion. But even a great
man like Voltaire ridiculed the notion that ours is the only possible
reality (determinism) in Leibniz's theist version (... God being good,
and ours being God's creation, then) that ours is the best of all
possible worlds (since ours must be the only world possible).  And
it is still Leibniz we ridicule to this day; and Voltaire whom we laugh
along with. Although many religious figures have favored a sort of
determinism (at least where God was concerned), to do so (Luther
and Calvin, for example) stresses the omnipotence of God over His
supposed love and mercy: So, for them, it is not within man's power
to do any good thing, even charity, without it first being prompted by
grace. According to Luther, God does not only know everything but
does everything (so to posit that a man can do even good without it
coming  from God is, to Luther, the same as that man acting outside
God):  This makes theirs not a very Christian God... who leaves a man
in a world in which the laws of man (indeterministic) are in complete
disagreement with the (deterministic) laws of God. {Don't worry, most
Protestants only pay lip service to Luther & Calvin these days.] But
do theists have a choice (pun)? Their belief in God and in magic agrees
with our reality only by "only paying lip service" to the many paradoxes
which arise out of trying to imagine exceptions to a reality which is
unforgivingly deterministic not here & there, but absolutely/everywhere.

Hobbes’s materialism is just this sort of partially deterministic
approach
… which, while denying the existence of the soul, yet proposes that
free will is possible, as it arises from motions and/or modifications of
matter in the brain, which, while yet deterministic, the will can bring
to a
"willed" halt). Schopenhauer, A. J. Ayer, Moritz Schlick and others have
followed this illogical "half-way" too. The problem remains what is has
always been: We may acknowledge the deterministic nature of the
inanimate
world (about which we can do nothing), but we just can’t help "feeling"
that
our minds can still make a true/real choice/decision.  [Spinoza's
marvelous
analogy of a conscious rock thinking it's flying through the air
according
to its will because it doesn't know the cause of its motion... really
reaches
to the heart of it: As the idea of free will stems directly from the
fact that
we do not know how we come to "feel" we are "right" ... and this
ignorance
leaves open the room to propose the human will as a tiny version of
God's
Omnipotent Free Will  in each of us.] However, the modern formal
discipline
of psychiatry is obviously based upon a deterministic assertion that
neuroses
are caused (so at least this particular branch of modern science seems
to
have a grip on the deterministic nature of reality also "penetrating"
even
into the workings of the human mind). This little bit of sanity hasn’t
always
necessarily been the case: Descartes distinguished "minds" & "bodies" as
two completely distinct substances whose essential properties "are
utterly
different." Stop for a moment to consider the real (logical)
consequences of
a "free will" and it becomes self-evident it implies that our choices
must be
random & capricious, unpredictable and inexplicable (as they do not
arise
from anything inevitably leading up to them but, rather, are entirely
"original"
uncaused
…

read more »

mercury…@aol.com (Mercury481) wrote:
> SDRodrian don_quix…@mindless.com wrote:

> >Let’s wait until this marvy experiment is actually (in actuality)
> >carried out. Until then let’s NOT assume Lorentz’s contraction hold
> >in
> >reality (however entertaining it may be to dream about it happening
> >in
> >some fantastic comic book).

> The Lorentz’s trasformation!!!.

Sorry. The posts originate from the misstated "Lorentz contraction"
(which should really read as the "Fitzgerald contraction"). This is
the meaning regardless of what was said. I did not correct it because
the Fitzgerald/Lorentz equations are so wedded together that it never
even crossed my mind the distinction was crucial to understanding:
But it is, of course. Lorentz’s portion, that mass increases with
velocity
is not only true but proven (as you say). However, Fitzgerald’s portion,
that matter contracts in the direction of its motion… is not only not
proven but BOTH highly unlikely ever to be proven OR "seen," obviously.

> Hum… experiments have been carried
> out
> (actually, and in actuality even…) that prove the Lorentz’s
> transformation to
> be consistent with >real< observations in particle accelerators. I
> guess the
> day dreamers at CERN are writing you a "fantastic comic book" LOL

> Even a little information can go a long way, seems you haven’t gotten
> very far,
> better hurry and get informed cause you are getting left behind SD…

Sorry again: But sometimes the ole brain assumes everybody knows
what everybody’s talking about regardless of the words (terms) being
used! It might get worse (as time goes by) a lot sooner than it’ll
improve.

An older & wiser,

S D Rodrian
s…@t-three.com
http://members.aol.com/prebigbang

P.S. It might have been nicer had you actually noticed & corrected
the running mistake in the entire thread instead of putting
the sole blame on me, as: "I was just following orders, you know."
But usually you only get one shot to do the right thing, as you may
now realize.

 ____________________

> We can welcome a challenge to scientific assumptions about nature
> without
> asserting such challenger to be true.

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.