Re: How the comet flies

In article <1174946268.222366.96070@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"nando_ronteltap@xxxxxxxxx" <nando_ronteltap@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 26 mrt, 20:06, Ye Old One <use...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Predicting forward with our current state of knowledge, I would say a
hundred million years. This only makes two basic assumptions: First
that no significant change occurs in the mass of any of the major
bodies involved (Earth, Moon, Sun) and second that no new body appears
in the solar system with sufficient mass to change the orbital
dynamics involved.

Well 100 million years, I still don't actually believe that you
believe that.

- it's not the point whether or not a new body shows up, it's only a
point if or not the new body moves freely, otherwise all is still
predetermined regardless of whether any extra bodies show up

Yep.

- it's just an arbitrary number

Yep. Is there a problem with that?

- the working of the system is not dependent on our knowledge of it

Yep. I've been looking at the moon waxing the past week and thinking
about how its behavior is clearly independent of your knowledge of it.

So when your knowledge, the theories you use, simply do not have the
function of allowing for the possibility of alternative results, it
must then all be absolutely predetermined according to your theory.

Yep.

It
would be more convincing if you had something more definite like, the
number 9238921352332 as the predetermination maximum.

Hunh?

But the question remains, do you believe that what your theories are
telling you, eventhough observation shows variation, and so that free
behaviour is valid?

No, I believe that the theories are correct that that variations in
observations are the result of inaccuracies in measurement and perhaps
perturbations unaccounted for.

I just figured you would allow for godless randomness in the system,
to have it move freely. And then you would make a spiel that the
concept of randomness isn't actually predicated on alternatives and
decisions.

Well, it isn't. Have you ever watched particles exhibit Brownian motion?
That's fairly random ... are you telling us it's because of
consciousness?

Of course that is simply ignorance, randomness in this
sense of moving freely, is conceptually neccessarily based on
alternatives and decisions.

" ... is conceptually based on" just means "... I think is based on".
"... conceptually neccessarily based on" just means "... I think must be
based on."

And to undercut your ignorance some more,

That's funny.

the alternatives can usually be found at times t+1 and further, or
what's called the future. Having alternatives doesn't neccesarily mean
that things are 2 ways at once in the here and now, time t=0.

Woooh! Some mathematical symbols! You must be smart!

--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
Level 1 Linux technical support: Read The Fscking Manual!
Level 2 Linux technical support: Write The Fscking Code Yourself!

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: How the comet flies
    ... that no significant change occurs in the mass of any of the major ... bodies involved and second that no new body appears ... I just figured you would allow for godless randomness in the system, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Re: How the comet flies
    ... that no significant change occurs in the mass of any of the major ... bodies involved and second that no new body appears ... number 9238921352332 as the predetermination maximum. ... There is no randomness in the system. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: How many main religious Festivities are there?
    ... >> mass is expressed most fundamentally as a time. ... and bodies percieved to be varying in media. ... distance, we must assign the Sun, which we are perceiving to be fixed in ...
    (sci.chem)
  • Re: How many main religious Festivities are there?
    ... >> mass is expressed most fundamentally as a time. ... and bodies percieved to be varying in media. ... distance, we must assign the Sun, which we are perceiving to be fixed in ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: The simplest possible collision.
    ... The simplest possible collision involving a spall. ... Take two objects of mass Ma1 and Mb1 moving on an ... least two new bodies if full conservation is to hold. ... In these perfect spalls, the object that leaves ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Loading