RE: MD acausal

From: Erin N. (enoonan@kent.edu)
Date: Mon Dec 16 2002 - 02:38:48 GMT

  • Next message: Glenn Bradford: "RE: MD acausal"

    >>GLENN (to Steve):Thanks for taking a shot at "linear causality".
    >
    >In
    >the sentence directed to Steve, I'm quoting my own previous
    >use of the phrase.

    Glenn,
    I thought it was funny okay. Most people use them when they quote OTHER
    people. This whole conversation
    started because you left them out of Pirsig's statement,
    which in my opinion changed the whole interpretation.
    You should have left them in Pirsig's quote because talking about
    "the devil" is another persons description not his.
    So when you used them I naturally didn't think
    you were quoting yourself but me.

    Steve also puts the phrase in quotes
    >in his own post for much the same reasons (yet he isn't
    >getting harrassed like I am).

    Yes but he used them quoting another person. I thought it was funny okay and
    just pointed it out. If you feel 'harassed' I will try to
    be a little more sensitive to your feelings, just please
    don't sue me;-)

    >>ERIN:>Can you explain why it is completely ruled out.
    >>
    >>GLENN:I wish I could. But I think physicists can tell based on
    >>what happens, and don't need to know how it happens.
    >>
    >>ERIN: what do you mean they don't need to know how
    >>it happens? how can you be sure its causal when you
    >>don't know?
    >
    >I wasn't answering this question. When you asked me to explain
    >"why it is completely ruled out", I thought "it" referred to
    >"transfer of information", not "causality". To answer this new
    >question, most physicists would say that the photon behaviour is
    >caused when one of the photons is measured and the wave equation
    >collapses. Granted, this kind of cause is atypical of what we are
    >accustomed to in the macroscopic world and might be the type of
    >thing you would call "acausal".
    >Glenn

    This new question is what I am intersted in.
    That other quote I found in the website searching
    for the etymology of acausal. I have never read her
    work. I thought it was an interesting possibility.
    Of course its not the only possiblity for acausal.

    But now you seem to be admitting an acausal
    relationship is possible. Wow.

    erin

    MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Dec 16 2002 - 02:32:28 GMT