From: polowin@chem.queensu.ca (Joel Polowin)
Subject: Re: TIME HAS INERTIA.    ABIAN replies DAVID P. MURPHY
Organization: Dept. of Chemistry, Queen's University
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 18:54:18 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.042632.22306@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> corleyj@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (Jason D Corley ) writes:

>>           " we should act for  THE SECURITY of our nation "
>>
>> Do you need a more experimental verification and testability of (A3) and 
>> (A4) ! ?

>In any case, even if this were true, (which it ain't), it would only
>prove that Americans feel strongly about security, which is admittable
>without agreeing with your A3 and A4, which are terrific examples of
>oversimplification and overgeneralizing.

Folks, let's try this:

(1)  People laugh at new theories even if they are true.
(2)  People are laughing at my new theory.
(3)  Therefore it is true.

An argument can fail because its premises are false, and/or if the logic
is faulty.  In the above, the logic is faulty; people also laugh at new
theories if they are false, and the laughter does not support the theory
being true or false.  If (1) is changed to (1a): People laugh at new
theories ONLY if they are true, the logic is then correct -- but that
premise (1a) is obviously nonsense even though the argument is valid,
i.e. the conclusion does follow from the premises.

Abian's (A1) doesn't add anything to his arguments; all of the complaints
about (A1) and the rest of it don't lend any support to any of it.

There's also the standard ploy of (a) taking a well-defined mathematical
statement, (b) converting it to English, (c) stripping off the constraints
and using fuzzy or colloquial terminology, (d) trying to apply the
fuzzy statement in a new context, and (e) from this trying to show either
that the original mathematical statement is false or that the result is
incorrect because some conflict with the original (presumed valid)
mathematical statement shows up.  

This is common among arguments by Biblical fundamentalists -- for example,
the claim that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics:
(a) In a closed system, \Delta S >=0.  (b)  In a closed system, entropy
increases.  (c)  In a system, disorder always increases.  (d)  Evolution
says that organisms become more complex through time; more complexity
means less disorder.  (e)  Therefore, evolution violates the second law
of thermodynamics.

It is quietly ignored that such arguments also show that refrigerators and
crystallization are impossible, since both lead to an increase in "order".

Abian's arguments about 'proclivities' and 'status quo' and such-like
suffer from the same sort of problems.  He's using fuzzy terms and
trying to claim that they have mathematical meaning; he's taking
mathematical definitions of "addition" and "product" and so on from
set theory, and trying to fuzz them up to apply to his theories.  He
gives the standard definition of "addition", for example, but doesn't
(as far as I could see) show that the REAL-WORLD quantities actually
fit his THEORETICAL definitions of "addition" and "product" etc.

We don't HAVE a well-supported theory of just what makes gravity tick.
For all I know, Abian may be right -- but his comments don't give any
support for his notions, and there are serious problems.  (Time requires
energy to keep going forward?  Where's the energy going?)  Occam's
Razor suggests that there's something simpler.

(Oh, and we're looking for precedent in comments about time slowing
down?  One might check out the second-last chapter of James Blish's
_Spock Must Die!_.  "If the universe was shrinking at a centimeter
a day, and all of our measuring tools were shrinking at an equivalent
rate, how could we even begin to realize the situation?"  Or words to
that effect.)

Joel Polowin
polowin@silicon.chem.queensu.ca, polowin@chem.queensu.ca,
polowinj@qucdn.queensu.ca