From: tao@fine.princeton.edu (Terry Tao)
Subject: Re: TIME HAS ANGULAR MOMENTUM: BETTER THEORY THAN (A1)-(A4)    
Originator: news@nimaster
Keywords: Acceptance of (T3) and (T1)  is inevitable
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 07:33:07 GMT

In article <abian.724992804@pv343f.vincent.iastate.edu> abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:
>                                             12-21-92
> Dear Messrs  Neill and  David (Boucher)
>  
>    In your recent postings you give examples and you question and
>try  to refute (A3) by pointing out that I explain two mutually
>opposing phenomena invoking the same (A3).  Thus invalidating (A3)
>as a "useless nonexplanation".
>
>    I strongly disagree with the above .  Yes (A3) can explain
>(and therefore is not useless) two opposing phenomena (1) and (2)
>below:

Hang on, before we continue, I would like to replace all versions of (A3)
with my (T3):

(T3) the fundamental principle of any object, from an atom to a whatever,
can be explained by: GAINING A FEELING OF INSECURITY

Note: the following has been edited by me.

>
>
>(1)
>    A person commits suicide. The night before suicide he leaves
>    a note explaining the reasons of his decision. Every line,
>    every word in the note breaths with fear, with insecurity,
>    with desperation and despondency. 
>    My explanation for the suicide is experience the insecurity 
>    again by writing the letter, and then plunging into the complete
>    unknown of what happens after death - certainly one of the most
>    insecure of experiences.
>
>(2) 
>    A person to prolong his life subjects himself to numerous
>    food and activity regiments.  Restrains himself from the
>    usual indulgences. Adopts a severe spartan stoic type of
>    life. Although loves to smock, but forces himself not to
>    smoke. Although loves to drink, but forces himself not to
>    drink.  He suffers from all these restrains.  Obviously he is 
>    going against his desires in an effort to make him into a highly
>    insecure person and be denied of all pleasures to have a miserable,
>    insecure life. 
>
>   Now, these two opposing ends are caused by the same
>   (T3)  i.e. by  TO GAIN A FEELING OF INSECURITY !
>
>    Does the above makes (T3) nonexplaining ? !! No, no, on the contrary 
>it explains  and explains it rationally. 
>    
>    Is (T3) useless ? !!  No, no, on the contrary it is immensely useful.
>It prevents us from acting as ignoramuses by calling the person in (1) "a 
>self-sacrificing hero" and by calling the person in (2) "a careful and
>cautious person."  
>    In fact, (T3) will hopefully enlighten us and lead us to find a
>rational and helpful solution to prevent  both (1) and (2).
>
>   It is high time that Physicists accept (T3) as one of the utmost
>(if not the utmost) primal cause of action of  particles et al.  Other-
>wise they will be drowning in the quagmire of inventing hundreds and
>hundreds nonconvincing explanations for the behavior of particles et al.
>
>   Of course, the DYNAMISM THRU WHICH  (T3) MANIFESTS ITSELF IS:
> 
>(T1)  THE TENDENCY OF PROVOKING THE STATUS QUO, REACTION TO
>      MAINTAINENCE AND THE TENDENCY OF PROVOKING AGAIN THE STATUS QUO.   
>
>     
>   Messers NEILLE and DAVID, because of lack of time, I cannot comment
>on all your questions and  "seeming counterexamples"
>   As far as LASER is concerned, if you follow it  long enough , you
>will find that it  also will be diluted in space.
>
>  Mr. Neille  or Mr. David, one of you wanted some references ,
>I gave  8 names  belonging to quite  "accredited" scientific institutions.  
>What are your credentials !? 
>
>  I repeat that PHYSICS will not progress radically, unless it accepts
> besides (T1) and (T3) also (T2), i.e.,  that   TIME HAS ANGULAR MOMENTUM and 
> some energy is irretrievably recycled in moving TIME around and around.
>                                    
>  With love,                                                 Alexander Abian
>

Also note how all physical phenomena are explained neatly by (T3) and (T1).

For example, a glass of water will dilute a drop of oil because it fears
the oil as an invader and thus will maximise its insecurity by absorbing
it, whereas the strong sulfuric acid will nurture its feelings of
insecurity and unlovedness by destroying everything weaker than it.

Child A will peacefully let a barber cut his hair because it makes him more
insecure to part with it.  Child B will fight and fight because he hates
his hair and would feel much more security if he got rid of it.

I have no time to demonstrate the countless other examples.


Logical challenge to Abian, again: why must (A3) and (A1) be the valid
axioms and not (T3) and (T1)? again, Abian will probably give the excuse that Churchill
does not like cats, or more specifically, one authority (Churchill)
believes in security rather than insecurity, or at least does so on the
surface.

By the way, Abian: while I admit Churchill never said

"BECAUSE DOGS ARE CATS, WE MUST FIGHT THE ..."

neither did he say

"BECAUSE THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF ANY OBJECT, FROM AN ATOM TO A
CHEESECAKE, CAN BE EXPLAINED BY: GAINING A FEELING OF SECURITY, WE MUST
FIGHT THE ..."

rather, what he did say was something like:

"If the security of the nation means anything to you, then you should fight
the invader"

and the analogy with my DOGS are CATS model would be

"If you like four legged animals, you'll like cats"

Which is not unreasonable.  Thus my original argument, that Abian's
theories have the logical equivalence of my proof that Dogs are Cats,
stands unrefuted.

Terry.

p.s. sorry for ignoring the proverb "Never argue with a fool, etc..".  It's
just that there's no other entertainment here at the moment.
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.religion.kibology