Andrea:
> by law one could also think of "the fact that things fall", which
> happens to be the same thing as "gravitation itself", if you are informal
> enough.
Quite. But the fact that things fall is a fact about how we intellectualise
DQ. I mean, we could instead decide that nothing falls, but rather that
distinct objects pop in and our of existence at distinct places in what we
now call the "trajectory" of an object. All sorts of reasons why that's a
*very* low quality intellectualisation - but that's precisely that I'm
saying. Gravity is a high quality intellectualisation, but an
intellectualisation none the less.
It's an intellectualisation whether you consider it as "the fact that things
fall" or as a "force". (or both, or something else like curved space-time).
The moment you mention "things" and the relations between them you are
dealing with intellectualisations.
E
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