[MD] cloud of probability

[MarshaV]

"One geometry cannot be more true than another; it can only be more convenient. Geometry is not true, it is advantageous." 
      (RMP)  
 

On Jun 9, 2011, at 11:18 AM, david buchanan wrote:

> 
> dmb quoted both of Pirsig's books:
> 
> "Definitions are the FOUNDATION of reason. You can't reason without them." (Emphasis is Pirsig's. ZAMM, page 214.)
> 
> "A metaphysics must be divisible, definable and knowable, or there isn't any metaphysics." (Pirsig in Lila, page 64.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan replied:
> Exactly. Come on, Marsha and Mark. If you want to know what gravitation is, look it up. Or even better, try reading ZMM... or re-reading it, or whatever it takes to get the ideas contained there to sink in. Good God almighty...
> 
> 
> 
> dmb says:
> 
> I sincerely wonder if Marsha and Mark are capable understanding this point. "Gravity" is a physical concept, a word with specific meanings. It is NOT an ineffable mystical reality. It's a scientific term that refers to a predictable, quantifiable, repeatable action. On earth, I believe the formula is 32 feet per second, per second. In Newtonian physics it is a concept that gives precise meaning to the fact that unsupported things fall to the ground and planets remain in orbit. Einstein's physics uses this concept in a less mechanical and more sophisticated way but it's still NOT mysticism. It's physics. Physics must be divisible, definable and knowable, or there isn't any physics. 
> 
> To define "gravity" as the opposite of all that is non-gravity, as Marsha did, is just convoluted nonsense. It's a pointless logic loop whereby the term in question is twice negated so that one simply does a full circle right back to the term without adding anything at all. It is literally meaningless. 
> 
> Definitions are the FOUNDATION of reason but Marsha "reasons" with her own private definitions. In her world - and what a lonely place it must be - static patterns are not static and they are not patterned. In open defiance of all the dictionaries, she imagines them as ever-changing clouds. To torture and abuse the english language in this way is to remove oneself from reason and intelligibility, to cut oneself off from communication with others and can only end in confusion, isolation and unhappiness. 
> 
> Can you imagine what would happen if someone answered questions this way in a court of law? At best, she would be cited for contempt or even declared mentally incompetent. A person exhibiting such behavior would end up in jail or even in a psychiatric hospital. 



 
___