Andrea, you said it all when you said:
> As a side note, IMHO, it makes no sense at all to say that gravitation existed
> before Newton. Gravitation isn't even an empirically observable something.
> Forces (such as gravitation "is") are an abstraction used to formulate shorter
> sentences about the (empirically observable) behavior of "things".
- this is simpler than what I said only because it is better expressed, and
not corrupted by the love of argument which I do suffer from. I suppose my
mistake is to *argue* that gravitation isn't even an empirically observable
something - whereas Andrea, as indeed you wisely regard it as being, this is
a simple and obvious fact.
As a side note, around this virtual room, I do now hear voices and hands
raised in protest at the *structural* aspects of my clock/gravity argument
analogy, rather than at the startlingly obvious and gratuitous fact that
clocks are clocks - this is wonderful. Let me take a moment to ponder them
- one turns out to quite insightful.
RICK WROTE:
> Elephant, I believe the structure of your analogy is flawed. Your analogy
> confuses the measure (law of
> gravity and clock) with the measured (gravity and time) and thus appears
> absurd when you draw it to the conclusion that you do.
ELEPHANT:
You are stunningly astute in noting that my clock argument confuses the
measure with the measured, and that all the absurdities result from that.
Perhaps what I had failed to get across was that *this is the whole point of
the analogy*. Rather than being a flaw in the analogy, this is it's peice
de resistance. You are confused? Ok, lets run through that one more time.
Glenn's argument is:
The old galaxy and newtonian Gravity are (nearly) in accord.
Therefore:
My newtonian gravity was built when the galaxy was built.
(Glenn's been so busy with the clock thing that he hasn't troubled to object
to this version of his reasoning - so we can say that there's general
agreement about Glenn's point here)
Well now, what have we got in terms of measures and measured here? Well the
old galaxy is the measured if anything is. And the fact that Glenn accepts
this terminology of "in accord" agrees with this too - the galaxy is being
measured, and it's found to 'measure up': it's found to measure up to the
law of Gravity. So, the law of Gravity is our measure here: the 'metre
rule' that we're holding up to those ancient photons beaming in from the
other side of the universe (assuming a universe can have sides).
So far so good.
But does my clock absurdity measure up to this exact same measure/measured
antinomy? Lets take another look at the argument I thought was analogous to
Glenns, only more obviously ridiculous:
I've recently bought an alarm clock.
It tells the time.
I have a french clock from 1850 that I inherited from my grandmother
It also tells the time.
The old clock and the new clock are (nearly) in accord.
Therefore:
My new alarm clock was built in 1850.
Well what's being measured, and what's the measure here? You could say that
time was being measured. And you could say that the Clocks are the
measurers. Then, Rick's point is, you could say that the mistake in the
alarm-clock paradox is that the accordance between the clocks shows that
they are *measuring the same thing*, something continuous as it happens,
that is, Time. The conclusion that the two alarm clocks are really the same
alarm clock is just based on miking up this oneness of the thing measured
(Time) with the oneness of the measurers (the clocks). So the whole
argument is wrong because it confuses time with clocks.
Absolutely!!!! That is the whole damm point!!!! (the exclamation mark is
not an argument, but it is a tone of triumph!!!!!) Because that is exactly
the mistake and the confusion that Glenn is perpetrating over Gravity.
On the one hand we have this measured stuff, which is continuous and
indiscrete but includes a region which we call 'that far flung ancient
galaxy'. On the other hand, we have the measure which is this intellectual
absraction called "gravity". Now, we know gravity is an intellectual
absraction, as Andrea points out, because Gravity is a Force, and Forces are
not directly observable but have to be mathematically hypothesised on the
basis of numerically distinguished observed bodies and accelerations (I left
out mass on purpose: see the bit about gravity and the two object universe
in my last post).
Glenn claims that his measure holds good for the ancient galaxy: all well
and good - because we're still in the realm of "in accord with" here, and so
far Glenn hasn't said anything to confuse measures and the measured, and
nothing we can possible object to. The trouble is, Glenn immediately moves
from this harmless claim about the relation between the measured and the
measure to an outrageous attribution of the measure to the measured! He
reasons:
The old galaxy is in accord with the law of gravity. (fine)
Therefore:
The *gravity itself* is in the old galaxy. (no! no! no! - where in all outer
space did that one come from?)
Now you see the confusion between the law of gravity, a measure, and this
notion of "gravity itself" which is supposed to be the measured thing, is
the core of Glenn's argument. The representation of it that I just gave
(with comments and exclamation marks!) is really not a wit different from
the one I gave before, but to help out I'll add some comments this time:
-The old galaxy and newtonian Gravity are (nearly) in accord (gravity the
measure).
-Therefore:
-My newtonian gravity was built when the galaxy was built (gravity "itself",
gravity the measured).
Now the mistake in this argument is precisely the one Rick has astutely
observed in the clocks business as we saw before. Since this makes the
analogy between the clocks argument and Glenn's quite perfect, and reveals
the mistake which lies at the heart of both ridiculous arguments, I think
Rick should be given some sort of order of merit for services to MOQerdoom.
Case rests, M'Lud.
Elephant
P.S. The defendant wishes the following remark to be taken in evidence.
Glenn wrote:
> the law of gravity is bound up in gravity itself
Self indictment duly noted. The court will ajorn.
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:09 BST