From: Ross A. Finlayson (extropy@apexinternetsoftware.com)
Date: Wed Nov 20 2002 - 19:17:56 MST
On Wednesday, November 20, 2002, at 04:55 PM, gts wrote:
> Lee Corbin wrote:
>
>> gts writes
>>> "One cannot see the stars (event B) unless one first
>>> opens one's eyes (event A), but opening one's eyes does
>>> not cause one to see the stars. (i.e., A does not cause B.)"
>>
>> Incorrect. (To write in the style of the old unmellowed-out J.C.)
>
> I think you should follow the new reformed J.C. instead. :)
>
>> One may very well be able to see stars without opening one's
>> eyes, as, I believe, Ross pointed out. Technologies can be
>> obtained to accomplish this..
>
> That is entirely beside the point, which is the reason I did not answer
> Ross. I can rephrase it again if you prefer, still in terms of events:
>
> "A blind person cannot estimate the distance between stars (event B)
> unless he first implants astronomical electrodes into his brain to allow
> for star observation (event A), but the implantation of astronomical
> electrodes into his brain does not cause him to estimate the distance
> between stars."
>
> i.e., A does not always cause B, even if A always precedes B.
>
> -gts
>
Most people can't estimate the distance between stars without a lot more
information than that.
Take into account communication, he, or she, can get an estimate from
asking somebody else.
The statement A -> B by itself implies ~B -> ~A, but neither B -> A nor
~A -> ~B. If A -> B and B -> A then the two may be coalesced into one
event. That's the same thing as saying nothing besides A implies B,
that is to say (nothing besides A implies B). Sometimes logical
reinforcement is a double or n-tuple entendre.
About estimating the difference between stars, I guess it is a matter of
measuring their red shift and orbital declinations, and inclinations,
over multiple star-observing sessions, and thus calculating their
relative motions.
Where "A does not always cause B, even if A always precedes B", then
what that is is B -> A, B implies A. Temporality is thrown out of that
equation.
Ross F.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:16 MST