[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Correspondence Theory Of Truth -- Discussion

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Pat Hayes <phayes@xxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 11:03:59 -0500
Message-id: <p06230913c2e8d24bb0c6@[]>
>Jon Awbrey schrieb:
>>  Pat,
>>  In what "frame of reference" shall I evaluate your objection?
>>  I tried to follow fashion by invoking analogies from physics.
>>  Relative to that frame of reference, I can only iterate what
>>  all my physics professors dinned into my skull, to wit, that
>>  older common sense notions of magnitude had simply ceased to
>>  make sense any more lacking reference to an observer's frame
>>  and the specified operations commonly known as "measurements"
>>  that are an absolute, er, relative "must" to pin operational
>>  definitions to the given magnitudes.    (01)

I have a hard time parsing this, but if you are (or perhaps they 
were) referring to the need to relate notions of length and duration 
to an inertial frame of reference, then yes, of course that is what 
relativity requires us to do (in fact, Newton already required this 
for many other measurements, so nothing basically new here.) I fail 
to see however what this has to do with the topic at hand. I hope you 
are not making the distinctly unscientific mistake of assuming that 
'frame of reference' here is an epistemic notion with no direct 
physical significance.    (02)

>  That's how they taught,
>>  but I will refrain from echoing all the ridicule they heaped
>>  on former generations of deluded philosophers, prescientists,
>>  and especially common sense normal folks who ever languished
>  > in the dissociative styles of thought that dreamed otherwise.    (03)

For physics teachers they sound to have been a most unpleasant bunch 
of characters. You should have gone to a better school. BTW, 
Newtonian physics is an astonishingly good approximation to reality 
for most purposes involving terrestrial or even astronomic 
velocities, e.g. the Voyager spacecraft navigation to Jupiter and 
Saturn and beyond was done without needing relativistic corrections.    (04)

>  >
>>  Ingvar sought to evade the point of that analogy by shifting
>>  the frame of reference to everyday epistemology and ordinary
>>  language acceptability.    (05)

I believe that is where the discussion was originally anchored. 
Unless of course we are considering an ontology for astrophysics or 
high-energy particle physics.    (06)

Pat    (07)

IHMC            (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   home
40 South Alcaniz St.    (850)202 4416   office
Pensacola                       (850)202 4440   fax
FL 32502                        (850)291 0667    cell
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes    (08)

Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/  
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/  
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ 
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    (09)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>