Fractal Philosophy: The Final Virgin, I Mean, Version

[BeholdTheTruth]

Announcing the emergence (through the help of many here in this Forum): the world's first and last truly "fractal philosophy" -- which I have been asked to submit in a modified version of the paper below to a philosophy journal of some repute.

To all of you who have had trouble getting your arms, legs and/or other body parts around my "going away from" and "coming towards" description of the comings and goings of Change, http://yalelands.com/frph.pdf is likely to be more of a blessing than a curse. I honestly believe that as I have been getting a surprisingly large number of quite thoughtful comments, questions and counter-responses from people who have read and even reead the above.

Note: I cannot guarantee that anyone here will find this Fractal Philosophy paper of mine any more useful than anything else you have read of mine, but if you do decide to take a peak, I suggest most of you begin with the second chapter -- although even if you are already familiar with my parable, many of you might find the first chapter a good re-orientation to my extremely NON-fundamentalist fundamental idea.

Much thanks for all of your great feedback over the past year or so, especially those of you who have been especially good critics. Your comments are as always greatly appreciated.

[Skeptical Greg]

I got a headache trying to read it..

Totally incomprehensible..

[BeholdTheTruth]

Originally posted by Diogenes
I got a headache trying to read it..

Totally incomprehensible..

Hi Dio,

Maybe you should get your head examined. Thank God I am able to to say that not everyone shares your low opinion of the paper.[/B]

[b]For example, from a Professor of Toxicology and Pharmacology ...

"I thought you might be interested in the attached post, which touches upon the triadic metaphysics of C. S. Peirce (1839-1914). (Are you familiar with his writings?)

Upon my first quick reading of your fractal philosophy, I am
attracted by the involvement of complementary opposites and
threeness, naturally resulting in 8. (Where did the threeness come from? Why not two or four or five?) One way to understand/support your threeness may be through
Peirce's metaphysics of Firstness (quality, possibility, being, etc.),
Secondness (quantity, facts, interactions, etc.), and Thirdness (habit forming, evolution, law, mediation, etc.). Is this so-called the ontological triad of Pierce applicable in any way to your philosophy?"


Not good enough for you, Dio, mio? How about this one from an enthusiast of Persig's ZAMM metaphysics of Quality...

"The pdf-file was interesting... It does have similarities with Pirsig seeing Lila. In the café he notices she notices that he is watching her, and she notices that he notices that she notices he is watching her, etc. ad infinitum. Like standing between two mirrors, you have a reflection of a reflection of a reflection. The fellow of this pdf-file applies a similar strategy.

Two things I found particularly interesting: The first is that he uses a mathematical metaphor of the seemingly ease
of going away from a spot: Any direction is adequate, north, west, south or inbetween. Finding a good alternative narrows you options considerably, however. The place you want to go is either north or south or another particular direction. What Pirsig says about the hippie-movement is that the hippies were good at walking away from the center of the western culture of the sixties- they didn't, however, know where to turn to. That's why the movement virtually bleeded to death.

The second thing I found interesting was the notion of aming at turning towards turning towards something. It has a relation with the concept of free will. What does it mean to turn your attention to something (to will something)? In order to do that, you have to change your thinking from this to that (to the topic you want to focus on). And how do you initiate this change? By accelareting from some zero-point, so that you can accomplish an amount of changing your attention. But how do you start to accelerate? By starting to accelerate you acceleration. This
leads to an obvious paradox. How is it ever possible to turn your
attention towards something? How is free will possible? (This is a
version of psychology's homunculi, by the way)

The notion of a fractal philosophy is quite big and interesting.
Relating such a big idea to the whole edifice of the MoQ seems to me daunting. Nevertheless interesting. Maybe cartesian philosophy (SOM) tries to zoom in on a fractal- hoping someday to see the ultimate building blocks! Pirsig would say: Hey, you're just going in one possible direction. There are others, not only by 'zooming in' but by staying at one level and walk around there, or better: zoom in a bit but going to the 'left' simultanously. (Fits into another metaphor of Pirsig: His idea of a chaqautua meaning to deepen the riverpaths of our behaviors, instead of creating new ones only to end up in one shallow
homogenous river.)"

Or maybe, oh you seeker of truth who carries a burnt out lantern, this one from someone who is a science writer specializing in QM...

"What an interesting essay. Yes, quite thought-provoking. I read it twice, although the second reading was rather hurried.

1) My favorite "aha" concerns the fundamental difference between going from and coming to, which, I suppose, is one of your basic points. You mention that "going from" is non-specific and wave-like, while "coming to" is specific and arrow-like (directional). This calls to mind the quantum unit, which "goes from" the last point-like source at which it was located in wave-like fashion; yet it always "comes to" the next measured location as a point with an inferred incoming direction, i.e., arrow-like. I think we may say that any incoming point must have an inferred incoming direction (at least, this seems reasonable to me at the moment). Whether the mechanism of coming in is truly arrow-like is another matter, but it seems that, to the human at least, the arrival of a point immediately suggests an arrow-like history. Heisenberg's matrix mechanics gives some difficulty with this, but it seems to me you have something helpful in tidying up the thoughts.

2) These thoughts (of mine) depend on an overall unified and uni-directional flow of time. Step-by-step, each step in order, as you urge more than once in the essay and in your e-mail. As you are probably aware, for a number of very good reasons physics views time as reversible in principle. Thus, physics views it as immaterial for the most part whether the order of timesteps is 1-2-3-4-5, or 5-4-3-2-1. (This does not seem to affect absolute ordering, i.e., I don't know of any claim that timesteps 1-2-3-4-5 can be rearranged or visited as timesteps 3-5-2-4-1; however, in some circumstances we may say that the order is irrelevant, i.e., the result depends only on the total information and not on sequence.)

One consequence is that it is not *necessarily true* that the process of "coming to" is directional. A number of interpretations of QM rely on the odd concept of an "advance wave" that is simply a time-reversed regular (aka "retarded") wave. Viewed with time running backwards, the advance wave looks just like a normal wave; however, viewed with time running forwards, the "coming to y" process could be described as a circular (non-specific and pan-directional) wave collapsing toward its focus, which is y. (See illustration no. 2.) I'm not a big fan of interpretations relying on advance waves, but the idea does place a gloss on your concept of "coming to." (Of course, as a refugee from a war zone you consider yourself to be at one place at one time, which means that there *is* a single direction from you to y. However, QM does not view location in such absolute terms except upon the most precise measurement.)

QM shows us that this advance wave process, which works well mathematically, may result in the "appearance" of a particle at the point of collapse; yet the experimental results seem to indicate an incoming, directional path. It seems that this momentum cannot be detected directly (since we know the position), but must be inferred from other data. I must look into this. Certainly the direction of time flow (and, for that matter, the sequence of time steps) is demonstrably irrelevant to many of the results obtained by QM.

3) Fredkin does not allow for probabilistic or continuous results. Wolfram does, but he does not suggest a mechanism, and mechanism is Fredkin's strength. That's the difference between describing and explaining. AFAIK, a computer cannot allow for "should happen (but need not)" and "should not happen (but may)," except perhaps as the weighted result of comparing variables, which still must be calculated according to deterministic rules. Of course, given sufficient memory and a sufficiently subtle algorithm, a computer can produce the *appearance* of probabilistic or continuous results, while all the time running its deterministic calculations. Or we could throw in some random numbers, but that is always a problem for computers unless the numbers come from some place outside of the entire computer. Fredkin does not advocate such an approach, but favors the appearance-of-randomness solution within a strict deterministic frame.

Although your essay suggests that your effort is to describe rather than to explain, it actually seems to lend itself to a matrix of variables and a hierarchy of operations -- all of which seems susceptible of an algorithmic solution, i.e., something that you could program into a computer. Seems worth looking into. To be consistent with Fredkin, we would need some kind of deterministic algorithm to substitute for your "should" and "should not," as mentioned above, because although Fredkin embraces fundamental dualism (i.e., something outside of the entire computer) as a necessary principal, he then proceeds to insist (pig-headedly and without principle, in my opinion) that the program not be allowed any further input after initial conditions and algorithm are set. Svozil, on the other hand, might allow for such a possibility. This is particularly so because Svozil's point of view allows for a deterministic program analogous to (or even exactly) a computer game interacting with a game player/user which is also the observer, which is you and me. From the programmed game's point of view, things "develop"; from the game player's point of view, things "happen." This seems a promising analogy to your distinction between "coming from" and "going to."

The dichotomy between the outbound point of view -- which I take to be the quantum unit in the absence of measurement -- and the inbound point of view -- which I take to be a retrospective analysis upon detection -- seems to mirror the paradoxical formulations of QM. That is, the Schrodinger equation is continuous and evolutionary, essentially a partial differential equation. The Heisenberg matrix with its eigenvalues manages to produce single observables, but one cannot derive therefrom a consistent prior history, regardless of how the human mind may scream for such an arrow.

It is still a puzzlement, but I definitely found your Heraclitean essay helpful in this regard.

4) Why did you stop at 3 iterations of the tendencies of comings and goings? Your epilog just states that you got tired of it -- is that it? I found the 2nd iteration useful, just like the analytical improvement on change of position (velocity) supplied by the concept of change of change of position (acceleration). The 3rd iteration didn't give me any aha, just as I can't think of any analogously improved insight from a change of acceleration, i.e., a change of change of change of position. Nevertheless, it seems clear that we could continue the process for a very long time, so is your chosen stopping place arbitrary or what? What do you see as the added value, if any, of the 3rd iteration? And if there is an added value, why would there be no additional value from a 4th, and so on?

5) I'm not sure you showed proper respect for the comments about the binary representations of an 8-element series. Your distinction between numbers and operators in this regard seems to argue something that was not contained in the comment. The nature of abstract information is that there is no intrinsic distinction between the digital representation of three operators that may or may not be present (let 0 represent the absence of the operator and 1 represent the presence of the operator); and binary numbers (let 0 represent 0 and 1 represent 1); and coins (let 0 represent tails and 1 represent heads); and population gender (let 0 represent male and 1 represent female); and anything else whatsoever. If you choose to represent your operators in binary form, which is what you did, then you have a binary series that has no more and no less information content than you choose to put into it. And the information content certainly does not affect the pattern that will develop when you lay out the series in order of increasing magnitude according to a sequence of binary numbers, which is what you did..."

[Skeptical Greg]

Appeal to Authority...

[BeholdTheTruth]

Originally posted by Diogenes
Appeal to Authority...

Simply not true.

As usual, Dio, your sense of intellectual integrity and logic are im-paired. :-)

You are confusing providing data points with appealing to authority. A typical mistake of a lightweight.

I am not appealing to authority. You claimed that my paper is incomprehensible. And thus via some data points I showed that while my paper is obviously incomprehensible to a lightweight like you, several IQ heavyweights easily comprehended and indeed agreed with much of what I am saying in the paper.

BTW, speaking of intellectual heavyweights and lesser mortals, I notice that no one else here has as yet challenged the logic of my newest paper, so until I hear otherwise am I to assume that guys lke Cat, James, EvilDave, Hans, CurtC Artic... have finally begun to comprehend the merits of my model? :rolleyes:

[Some Friggin Guy]

This is a little complicated for my exhausted mind to deal with right now. I'll take a look again in a few more days. Until then, I will state neither merit nor logical error, since I am too tired to find either.

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Yalel,

BTW, speaking of intellectual heavyweights and lesser mortals, I notice that no one else here has as yet challenged the logic of my newest paper, so until I hear otherwise am I to assume that guys lke Cat, James, EvilDave, Hans, CurtC Artic... have finally begun to comprehend the merits of my model?

On the contrary. I, for one, have simply decided not to waste any more time on your nonsense.


Dr. Stupid

[Some Friggin Guy]

So, Dr. ; You don't feel it's worth looking into?

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Yalel


Simply not true.

As usual, Dio, your sense of intellectual integrity and logic are im-paired. :-)

You are confusing providing data points with appealing to authority. A typical mistake of a lightweight.

I am not appealing to authority. You claimed that my paper is incomprehensible. And thus via some data points I showed that while my paper is obviously incomprehensible to a lightweight like you, several IQ heavyweights easily comprehended and indeed agreed with much of what I am saying in the paper.

BTW, speaking of intellectual heavyweights and lesser mortals, I notice that no one else here has as yet challenged the logic of my newest paper, so until I hear otherwise am I to assume that guys lke Cat, James, EvilDave, Hans, CurtC Artic... have finally begun to comprehend the merits of my model? :rolleyes:

Yes, Yalel, I suppose you could be right and the silence you are getting is the result of the many people who now comprehend the merits of your model.

However, this silence could also be the result of the many people who now comprehend that your model has no real merit.

As for me, I looked at your paper and I follow the latter opinion.

[BeholdTheTruth]

Stimpson J. Cat Yalel,


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BTW, speaking of intellectual heavyweights and lesser mortals, I notice that no one else here has as yet challenged the logic of my newest paper, so until I hear otherwise am I to assume that guys lke Cat, James, EvilDave, Hans, CurtC Artic... have finally begun to comprehend the merits of my model?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On the contrary. I, for one, have simply decided not to waste any more time on your nonsense.</quote>

Kevin, thanks for visiting me in the R&P section.

And thus a philosophical question as well as a scientific one: if it is non-sense, how do you account for these data point responses to my paper such as those below by guys who write as if they know what they are talking about which support of my remarks to Dio? Are these respondees as silly as me, or is there perhaps really something to be observed under the threshold Mach set for observations, e.g., something that is generically occurring during the performance of step-wise changes?


Originally posted by Yalel
... Thank God I am able to to say that not everyone shares your low opinion of the paper.

For example, from a Professor of Toxicology and Pharmacology ...

"I thought you might be interested in the attached post, which touches upon the triadic metaphysics of C. S. Peirce (1839-1914). (Are you familiar with his writings?)

Upon my first quick reading of your fractal philosophy, I am
attracted by the involvement of complementary opposites and
threeness, naturally resulting in 8. (Where did the threeness come from? Why not two or four or five?) One way to understand/support your threeness may be through
Peirce's metaphysics of Firstness (quality, possibility, being, etc.),
Secondness (quantity, facts, interactions, etc.), and Thirdness (habit forming, evolution, law, mediation, etc.). Is this so-called the ontological triad of Pierce applicable in any way to your philosophy?"


Not good enough for you, Dio, mio? How about this one from an enthusiast of Persig's ZAMM metaphysics of Quality...

"The pdf-file was interesting... It does have similarities with Pirsig seeing Lila. In the café he notices she notices that he is watching her, and she notices that he notices that she notices he is watching her, etc. ad infinitum. Like standing between two mirrors, you have a reflection of a reflection of a reflection. The fellow of this pdf-file applies a similar strategy.

Two things I found particularly interesting: The first is that he uses a mathematical metaphor of the seemingly ease
of going away from a spot: Any direction is adequate, north, west, south or inbetween. Finding a good alternative narrows you options considerably, however. The place you want to go is either north or south or another particular direction. What Pirsig says about the hippie-movement is that the hippies were good at walking away from the center of the western culture of the sixties- they didn't, however, know where to turn to. That's why the movement virtually bleeded to death.

The second thing I found interesting was the notion of aming at turning towards turning towards something. It has a relation with the concept of free will. What does it mean to turn your attention to something (to will something)? In order to do that, you have to change your thinking from this to that (to the topic you want to focus on). And how do you initiate this change? By accelareting from some zero-point, so that you can accomplish an amount of changing your attention. But how do you start to accelerate? By starting to accelerate you acceleration. This
leads to an obvious paradox. How is it ever possible to turn your
attention towards something? How is free will possible? (This is a
version of psychology's homunculi, by the way)

The notion of a fractal philosophy is quite big and interesting.
Relating such a big idea to the whole edifice of the MoQ seems to me daunting. Nevertheless interesting. Maybe cartesian philosophy (SOM) tries to zoom in on a fractal- hoping someday to see the ultimate building blocks! Pirsig would say: Hey, you're just going in one possible direction. There are others, not only by 'zooming in' but by staying at one level and walk around there, or better: zoom in a bit but going to the 'left' simultanously. (Fits into another metaphor of Pirsig: His idea of a chaqautua meaning to deepen the riverpaths of our behaviors, instead of creating new ones only to end up in one shallow
homogenous river.)"

Or maybe, oh you seeker of truth who carries a burnt out lantern, this one from someone who is a science writer specializing in QM...

"What an interesting essay. Yes, quite thought-provoking. I read it twice, although the second reading was rather hurried.

1) My favorite "aha" concerns the fundamental difference between going from and coming to, which, I suppose, is one of your basic points. You mention that "going from" is non-specific and wave-like, while "coming to" is specific and arrow-like (directional). This calls to mind the quantum unit, which "goes from" the last point-like source at which it was located in wave-like fashion; yet it always "comes to" the next measured location as a point with an inferred incoming direction, i.e., arrow-like. I think we may say that any incoming point must have an inferred incoming direction (at least, this seems reasonable to me at the moment). Whether the mechanism of coming in is truly arrow-like is another matter, but it seems that, to the human at least, the arrival of a point immediately suggests an arrow-like history. Heisenberg's matrix mechanics gives some difficulty with this, but it seems to me you have something helpful in tidying up the thoughts.

2) These thoughts (of mine) depend on an overall unified and uni-directional flow of time. Step-by-step, each step in order, as you urge more than once in the essay and in your e-mail. As you are probably aware, for a number of very good reasons physics views time as reversible in principle. Thus, physics views it as immaterial for the most part whether the order of timesteps is 1-2-3-4-5, or 5-4-3-2-1. (This does not seem to affect absolute ordering, i.e., I don't know of any claim that timesteps 1-2-3-4-5 can be rearranged or visited as timesteps 3-5-2-4-1; however, in some circumstances we may say that the order is irrelevant, i.e., the result depends only on the total information and not on sequence.)

One consequence is that it is not *necessarily true* that the process of "coming to" is directional. A number of interpretations of QM rely on the odd concept of an "advance wave" that is simply a time-reversed regular (aka "retarded") wave. Viewed with time running backwards, the advance wave looks just like a normal wave; however, viewed with time running forwards, the "coming to y" process could be described as a circular (non-specific and pan-directional) wave collapsing toward its focus, which is y. (See illustration no. 2.) I'm not a big fan of interpretations relying on advance waves, but the idea does place a gloss on your concept of "coming to." (Of course, as a refugee from a war zone you consider yourself to be at one place at one time, which means that there *is* a single direction from you to y. However, QM does not view location in such absolute terms except upon the most precise measurement.)

QM shows us that this advance wave process, which works well mathematically, may result in the "appearance" of a particle at the point of collapse; yet the experimental results seem to indicate an incoming, directional path. It seems that this momentum cannot be detected directly (since we know the position), but must be inferred from other data. I must look into this. Certainly the direction of time flow (and, for that matter, the sequence of time steps) is demonstrably irrelevant to many of the results obtained by QM.

3) Fredkin does not allow for probabilistic or continuous results. Wolfram does, but he does not suggest a mechanism, and mechanism is Fredkin's strength. That's the difference between describing and explaining. AFAIK, a computer cannot allow for "should happen (but need not)" and "should not happen (but may)," except perhaps as the weighted result of comparing variables, which still must be calculated according to deterministic rules. Of course, given sufficient memory and a sufficiently subtle algorithm, a computer can produce the *appearance* of probabilistic or continuous results, while all the time running its deterministic calculations. Or we could throw in some random numbers, but that is always a problem for computers unless the numbers come from some place outside of the entire computer. Fredkin does not advocate such an approach, but favors the appearance-of-randomness solution within a strict deterministic frame.

Although your essay suggests that your effort is to describe rather than to explain, it actually seems to lend itself to a matrix of variables and a hierarchy of operations -- all of which seems susceptible of an algorithmic solution, i.e., something that you could program into a computer. Seems worth looking into. To be consistent with Fredkin, we would need some kind of deterministic algorithm to substitute for your "should" and "should not," as mentioned above, because although Fredkin embraces fundamental dualism (i.e., something outside of the entire computer) as a necessary principal, he then proceeds to insist (pig-headedly and without principle, in my opinion) that the program not be allowed any further input after initial conditions and algorithm are set. Svozil, on the other hand, might allow for such a possibility. This is particularly so because Svozil's point of view allows for a deterministic program analogous to (or even exactly) a computer game interacting with a game player/user which is also the observer, which is you and me. From the programmed game's point of view, things "develop"; from the game player's point of view, things "happen." This seems a promising analogy to your distinction between "coming from" and "going to."

The dichotomy between the outbound point of view -- which I take to be the quantum unit in the absence of measurement -- and the inbound point of view -- which I take to be a retrospective analysis upon detection -- seems to mirror the paradoxical formulations of QM. That is, the Schrodinger equation is continuous and evolutionary, essentially a partial differential equation. The Heisenberg matrix with its eigenvalues manages to produce single observables, but one cannot derive therefrom a consistent prior history, regardless of how the human mind may scream for such an arrow.

It is still a puzzlement, but I definitely found your Heraclitean essay helpful in this regard.

4) Why did you stop at 3 iterations of the tendencies of comings and goings? Your epilog just states that you got tired of it -- is that it? I found the 2nd iteration useful, just like the analytical improvement on change of position (velocity) supplied by the concept of change of change of position (acceleration). The 3rd iteration didn't give me any aha, just as I can't think of any analogously improved insight from a change of acceleration, i.e., a change of change of change of position. Nevertheless, it seems clear that we could continue the process for a very long time, so is your chosen stopping place arbitrary or what? What do you see as the added value, if any, of the 3rd iteration? And if there is an added value, why would there be no additional value from a 4th, and so on?

5) I'm not sure you showed proper respect for the comments about the binary representations of an 8-element series. Your distinction between numbers and operators in this regard seems to argue something that was not contained in the comment. The nature of abstract information is that there is no intrinsic distinction between the digital representation of three operators that may or may not be present (let 0 represent the absence of the operator and 1 represent the presence of the operator); and binary numbers (let 0 represent 0 and 1 represent 1); and coins (let 0 represent tails and 1 represent heads); and population gender (let 0 represent male and 1 represent female); and anything else whatsoever. If you choose to represent your operators in binary form, which is what you did, then you have a binary series that has no more and no less information content than you choose to put into it. And the information content certainly does not affect the pattern that will develop when you lay out the series in order of increasing magnitude according to a sequence of binary numbers, which is what you did..."

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Yalel,

On the contrary. I, for one, have simply decided not to waste any more time on your nonsense.

Kevin, thanks for visiting me in the R&P section.

And thus a philosophical question as well as a scientific one: if it is non-sense, how do you account for these data point responses to my paper such as those below by guys who write as if they know what they are talking about which support of my remarks to Dio? Are these respondees as silly as me, or is there perhaps really something to be observed under the threshold Mach set for observations, e.g., something that is generically occurring during the performance of step-wise changes?

Don't know. Don't care.

I spent a considerable amount of time trying to make sense out of your nonsense the last time you came trolling around here. I have concluded that you are completely full of crap, and I am not going to waste any more time on your ideas.

Maybe your new paper is a work of pure brilliance. But there is too much crap floating around for me to read it all on the off-chance that there may be a nugget of brilliance floating in the river of feces. At some point, it becomes necessary to simply dismiss some people as being full of crap. You reached that point a long time ago.


Dr. Stupid

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat

Yalel,

Don't know. Don't care.

I spent a considerable amount of time trying to make sense out of your nonsense the last time you came trolling around here. I have concluded that you are completely full of crap, and I am not going to waste any more time on your ideas.

Maybe your new paper is a work of pure brilliance. But there is too much crap floating around for me to read it all on the off-chance that there may be a nugget of brilliance floating in the river of feces. At some point, it becomes necessary to simply dismiss some people as being full of crap. You reached that point a long time ago.


Dr. Stupid

Amen Stimpy!

[BeholdTheTruth]

Does anyone here besides me remember the story of Robert the Bruce or how Edison created the light bulb, or how the Wright Brothers created the first lighter than air flying vehicle? BTW, as I remember Kev you didn't think much of Robert Rosens' ideas either.

In any case, for all of you more open-minded types out there -- with regards to the above three <i/>positive,/I> feedbacks regarding what is at http://yalelands.com/frph.pdf , I will take Kevin's and other such non-sense remarks from those who care not to see what more and more are now beginning to see as examples of childish pique. ;)

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Yalel
Does anyone here besides me remember the story of Robert the Bruce or how Edison created the light bulb, or how the Wright Brothers created the first lighter than air flying vehicle? BTW, as I remember Kev you didn't think much of Robert Rosens' ideas either.

In any case, for all of you more open-minded types out there -- with regards to the above three <i/>positive,/I> feedbacks regarding what is at http://yalelands.com/frph.pdf , I will take Kevin's and other such non-sense remarks from those who care not to see what more and more are now beginning to see as examples of childish pique. ;)
[/i]
Same old Yalel and his creative history at work to show how valid his ideas are!

The Wright Brothers did not build lighter-than-air vehicles, by 1903 lighter-than-air vehicles (or ballons) were well known (they used in the US Civil War by both sides some 50 years before as observation platforms).

However, the Wright Brothers did develop the first powered, heavier-than-air vehicle which is quite a different thing.

[c4ts]

If you could condense that paper into the form of a Platonic dialogue, then it might become worth reading.

[BeholdTheTruth]

Originally posted by Crossbow

[/i]
Same old Yalel and his creative history at work to show how valid his ideas are!

The Wright Brothers did not build lighter-than-air vehicles, by 1903 lighter-than-air vehicles (or ballons) were well known (they used in the US Civil War by both sides some 50 years before as observation platforms).

However, the Wright Brothers did develop the first powered, heavier-than-air vehicle which is quite a different thing.

CB, glad you proved my point: there is a strong need here for many of you here to point out anything that I may say that is wrong rather than trying to see anything that I may be right about.

Thanks for being so predictable. Yale

[BeholdTheTruth]

Originally posted by c4ts
If you could condense that paper into the form of a Platonic dialogue, then it might become worth reading.

Some people have figured out that it [i]is</> in the form of a Platonitc dialouge... For example, from the Netherlands: "It was yours, the article? Then my apologies for my harsh comment at the beginning at the post about 'the author'. Uhm, let me put it more mildly what I said: the old Greek philosophers used this dialogue-technique, in which it was true that the writer assumed rather naieve and 'stupid' commenters. The technique you used addresses the reader directly, which has the advantage that it can create a more personal touch, but in many cases I did't assume the stance you ascribed to your potential readers. And true, the recurring suggestions about the assumed stance of the reader kind of irritated me (which left the reader stupid and the author smart!). Anyhow, your style of writing was original and playful..." I could not have said it more fairly or better myself.

[Jim_MDP]

Ok, as much as I hate to bump this thread Yale, you did stalk me through several rooms and I did publicly say I would respond.

First...I have read your new site, the PDF and this thread.

Second...no, I can not analyze the fractals or half the other maths you have thrown out in your defense.

Last...that doesn't matter. As was established back when you started this here, well nigh on 13 months ago...The problem isn't the math per se or even that you choose to use such analysis. It's that YOU HAVEN'T DISCOVERED ANYTHING NEW. You twist language to present common and obvious themes as stunning new discovery. Ah but isn't this always the way of the philosopher? And the misunderstood ones at that?

This so reminds me of my friend foisting Carneige's book on me after I repeatedly explained that I felt it was just common sense repackaged. He's not taking it well either.

That is all.

Presumably I can now be removed from the 'heavyweight' list. Why the hell you had me in the company of Stimpsy et. al., I'll never know.