From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: TIME HAS INERTIA AND THE PRINCIPLE OF TENDENCY OF MAINTAINING THE
Date: 12 Oct 92 02:32:16 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <Bvz4z5.11C@news.iastate.edu> abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:
>
>
>In article <1992Oct11.011759.2257@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>>In article <abian.718746124@pv343f.vincent.iastate.edu> abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:
>>
>>[discussion of the 'motivations' of inanimate objects deleted]
>>
>>> you were indoctrinated with.  This is quite natural, and indeed this is
>>>how everybody and everything  acts until by brutal force or by force of
>>>a stronger persuasion one changes the status quo of his beliefs and
>>>forms a new status quo of beliefs.  Right now I am doing the same thing.
>>>I am exhibiting the tendency of maintaining the status quo of my beliefs.
>>
>>     'Beliefs' are not science insofar as they are not falsifiable.
>>
>>     Yours do not appear to be falsifiable, and are thus not science.
>>
>>                                    dale bass
>  
>  Your above two line statement is itself a belief.  Is it a scientific
>or a nonscientific belief ?  It does not matter - it is a belief.

    No, it was an observation.  Your assertions seem to be a) completely
    unorganized, b) lacking connection with physical phenomena,
    c) unverifiable where they are even comprehensible.  In the absence 
    of you telling us how these ramblings are connected to nature, 
    and how we might verify or falsify them, it is not science.

>  Also, are you agreeing with me or are you trying to falsify my beliefs
>in which case do my beliefs acquire the aura of "science"  according to
>your definition of "science" ? 

     I am not trying to do either.  I am simply pointing out to you that
     vacuous assertions do not constitute science.

>  I think that any statement conveys a "belief".  It is almost futile to
>define what is  "scientific "  or  "non-scientific".  I have already
>mentioned that it is futile to give "definitions of absolutes" since
>the first question would then be  what is the definition of "definition"?
>I don't want to go further than this concerning "definitions".

     It is not futile at all.  A scientific statement is one that 
     is potentially falsifiable.  Science does not deal with 'Truth'.
     Science does not deal with 'absolutes'.  The rules of science
     are very very clear.

>  I still maintain that:
>    
>   THE TENDENCY OF MAINTAINING THE STATUS QUO,  REACTION TO PROVOCATION 
>           AND THE TENDENCY OF MAINTAINING AGAIN A STATUS QUO
>
>is to me the most basic PRINCIPLE in matters pertaining to all events:
>scientific , social, political, psychological, philosophical, cosmic,etc.
>etc.

     I repeat again.  This is not science.  Forgetting for the minute
     that there appears to be no information in the above sentence, there
     appears to be no way to verify or falsify the aforementioned statement,
     much less quantify it.  One could easily define 'status quo' such
     that the above statement is a tautology.

>   A person, in order to maintain its status quo of tranquillity, may react 
>so violently to a provocation that could distroy itself and/or the provoker 
>and create a new status quo.  Just the same way that a chemical (such as 
>uranium) in order to maintain its status quo of tranquillity, may react so 
>violently to a provocation (such as being struck or hit) that it will explode 
>like an atom bomb.  No physics or mathematics can explain better the real 
>reason which governs the action of an A  or  H bomb.  They may quantify but 
>they do not explain.  The above Principle explains!

     'Explanations' of this sort are metaphysics at best and are not 
     falsifiable.   I could as easily and as 'truthfully' assert that the
     'real' PRINCIPLE of the universe is every object's DESIRE FOR
     CAMEMBERT.  Every object is 'motivated' by the desire for a 
     TASTE OF CHEESE.  That is the reason that firecrackers EXPLODE
     when lit.  The lighting process has a tendency to REMIND the firecracker
     that he hasn't had CHEESE in a while, and firecrackers are very
     touchy about their FINE cheese.  You can't prove that this is
     *not* true (and I am more than inventive enough to provide cheesy
     motivations for every process you care to consider).  And, this 
     is certainly a more entertaining  alternative to your metaphysics.
     
     However, the above 'principle' contains no physical information, and the
     'motivation' of inanimate objects is not science.  

                               dale bass

-- 
C. R. Bass                                           crb7q@virginia.edu
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Virginia                            (804) 924-7926