From: tao@fine.princeton.edu (Terry Tao)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: TIME HAS INERTIA .  ABIAN IS INCAPABLE OF LOGIC
Date: 14 Dec 92 18:44:07 GMT
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

Hello again! I'm sorry if I'm becoming as obnoxious as Abian with all these
posts, but I've finally isolated the logical flaw in all of Abian's
arguments (and indeed with many crackpots.)  Yes, I'm going to tell Abian
about logic, though he purports to know logic well.   He does NOT.

Let us take A3.

The fundamental principle of any object X (from a particle to a galaxy) is:
gaining a feeling of security.

This has one of two meanings.

(a) if an object X performed an action Y, then Y will make X more secure,
or at least X "thinks" Y will make X more secure.

(b) If X is an object and Y is an action that will make X more secure, or
at least X "thinks" Y will make X more secure, then X will perform Y.

Listen to this:

* (a) and (b) are different statements! (b) is stronger than (a)!

* All this "verification of A3" merely verifies (a)!

* However, every application of A3 that Abian uses, uses version (b)!

* Hence, his arguments have a huge flaw in them!

* In fact, (b) is self-contradictory!

* Also, I am willing to believe that (a) can be true for some people,
though not all.  I am NOT willing to believe (b) in any case.

* The reason why A3 is even half-credible is because (a) is plausible while
(b) is not.

Here's an example.

Abian challenged Bill Riemers that regardless of whether he responds to a
post of Abian or ignores it, he is verifying A3.  His argument went like
this:


if Riemers responds to Abian, then he is doing so out of a desire to
advance his security.

if Riemers does not respond, then he is doing so out of a desire to advance
his security.

Now suppose both actions advance Riemer's security.  Then if he chose, say
the first option, then he did NOT choose the second option, despite the
fact that the second option also increases his security.  Hence (b) is
contradicted: substitute "Riemer" for X and "ignoring Abian's post" for Y.

So (b) is PATENTLY FALSE!

Now (a) may not be true either: I will post seperately about a definition
of security.  But for the moment, see that (b) is false.

Now Abian claims (A3) implies (A1).  Now the first part of A1 is:

Maintaining the status quo.

And I assume Abian says "this follows from A3, because keeping the status
quo is secure."

In other words, the syllogism is:

Action Y (keeping the status quo) is secure.
Hence object X will perform action Y.

In other words, Abian is using form (b)! Yes, he is using the contradictory
form of A3.  Not the other, more reasonable form, which is (a).

Of course, if he could prove that "maintaining the status quo" is the ONLY
secure option then he would be able to prove (a) from (b).  But he has not
proved this, and one can see that "maintaining the status quo" is not
always the only secure option.

Now if A3 is changed to

(c) If X is an object and Y is the most secure option available to X, then
X will perform Y,

then to use (c), Abian must first prove that Y is the MOST secure option,
not just A secure option.  He has not proved this in any of his
applications.

Thus: (a), (b), or (c), whichever way A3 is meant, none of them have any
power! (b) is contradictory, and (a) and (c) are fairly powerless.

Note also that (a) will be contradicted if an object X finds itself with no
secure options (e.g. being chucked down a black hole).


The exact same problem lies with A1.  For simplicity, let's keep with the
first part of A1: "MAINTAINING THE STATUS QUO".  There are two forms: 

(d) if X is an object and X performs action Y, and there are no
provocations, then Y is a status quo.

(e) if X is an object and Y is a status quo, and X is currently in Y, and
there are no provocations, then X will remain in Y.

And there are four full forms of A1 (they're a little bit complicated):

(D1) if X is an object and X performs action Y, and there are no
provocations, then Y is a status quo.  If there is a provocation, then Y
need not be a status quo, but after the provocation X will tend back to
performing action Z, where Z is another status quo possibly different from
Y.

(D2) if X is an object and X performs action Y, and there are no
provocations, then Y is a status quo.  If there is a provocation, then Y
need not be a status quo, but after the provocation X will tend back to
performing action Y again. 

(E1) if X is an object and Y is a status quo, and X is currently in Y, and
there are no provocations, then X will remain in Y.  If there is a
provocation, then X may not necessarily continue to perform Y, but after
the provocation X will tend back to performing action Z, where Z is another
status quo possibly different from Y.

(E2) if X is an object and Y is a status quo, and X is currently in Y, and
there are no provocations, then X will remain in Y.  If there is a
provocation, then X may not necessarily continue to perform Y, but after
the provocation X will tend back to performing action Y again.

Again:

* (d) and (e) are different, and (e) is more powerful than (d)

* (d) is basically Newton's first law, though weaker than N1 (or the
time-independent Schrodinger equation)

* (D1), (D2), (E1), and (E2) are all different, E2 is more powerful than
E1, E2 is more powerful than D2, and they are all more powerful than D1.

* (D1) is still basically Newton's first law, depending on the meaning and
quantification of the word "tend"
 
* (e), (E1), and (E2) (or occasionally D2) are what are being used in all of 
Abian's applications

* (e), (E1), (E2), and (D2) are self-contradictory

* the reason why A1 is even half plausible is because (D1) is plausible though (e) is not.

For example, Abian uses form (E2) to deduce the existence of gravitation

Y = "the state of all matter being together" is a status quo.

X = "the universe"

and the provocation is the Big Bang.

Read his argument carefully:

Before the big bang all the matter was together (X was Y)
the big bang occured (there was a provocation)
therefore all matter now attracts (therefore X tends to Y)

The syllogism used is E2.

However, E2 is wrong!

take for example, an object X that is moving at velocity v1 in vacuum, gets
hit by another object, then moves in another constant velocity v2.

Y = "moving at velocity v1"

the provocation is "being hit"

but X is not tending to Y after the provocation! it is tending instead to

Z = "moving at velocity v2"

which verifies D1 rather than E2.

The same example shows D2 is wrong.

another example of E2 / D2 failing:

take X = "the universe"
Y = "all charged particles being together at the same point"
and provocation = big bang

conclusion: any charged particle is attracted to any other.


also, E1 is wrong! take the example of the moon.  There are at least two
possible status quos for the moon to have:

Y1 = "moving in a straight line"
Y2 = "moving in a circular orbit around the Earth"

and it cannot be in both of them, though it is performing both at any one
given instant.  (Technical point: if instead of "instant" you replace it by
"arbitarily small interval", then E1 CAN be made to work, it is the
principle that the movement of matter can be described by a C^\infty, or
even an analytic function.  However this is probably not the version Abian
had in mind.  Continuity of physics IS one of the fundamental principles of
physics already, actually, though usually quite implicit.)

An alternative example: Abian maintains that Jupiter shall be destroyed.
But

Y = "Jupiter existing forever"

is surely a status quo, and thus by E1 Jupiter shall remain indefinitely.


Thus the only remaining form of A1 that is still working is D1, which may
be true but it is weak.



All your arguments about deducing phenomena X from A1 or A3 or whatever are
of the logical form:

The FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF PHYSICS IS AS FOLLOWS:

THE APPEARANCE OF ALL CATS, FROM A PERSIAN TO A SIAMESE, CAN BE
CHARACTERIZED BY
(A7) HAVING FOUR LEGS

THIS IMPLIES THE FOLLOWING:

(A8) ALL DOGS ARE CATS

NOW DO NOT TELL ME ABOUT LOGIC - I KNOW LOGIC WELL.  YOU CANNOT
SHOW ME ANY CAT WITHOUT VERIFYING (A7) MORE AND MORE! AND THUS
YOU SHOW (A8).  I HAVE GIVEN THE PROOF OF (A8) AT LEAST TEN TIMES
AND IT IS THE FOLLOWING:

ALL DOGS HAVE FOUR LEGS, AND HENCE BY (A7) ALL DOGS ARE CATS.

If Abian proposed this, I would say the problem was the two
different possible meanings of (A7), which are confused together
at this moment:

(A7a) All cats have four legs
(A7b) All four legged creatures are cats


- EXACTLY the problem with Abian's logic.


Conclusion: Abian has the following three choices.

(a) Consistently use the weaker forms of the hypotheses, in which
case you do have a substantial case for them, but them you cannot
use them to apply to explain inertia of time or gravity, for
example.

(b) Consistently use the stronger forms of the hypotheses, in
which case you have not verified the hypotheses, and they are
contradictory anyway.

(c) Muddle vaguely, using the weaker forms whenever someone
challenges you and the stronger forms whenever you want to prove
something.  This is logically inconsistent. 

For the entire time spent here Abian has been performing option
(c).  Thus, his logic is completely flawed, and he has proved
that all dogs are cats.

If Abian continues to use method (c) in trying to advance his
results, then I challenge him to accept either that all dogs are
cats (by identical logic to Abian) or to point out the problem
with (A8).  If he performs the latter, then he will damn himself
by his own words.

By the way - I do not accept your excuse that you will have NO
TIME! come on, RESPOND!!!


This concludes the logic lesson for today.

Examination grades are:

Classical physics: B.  Your work is very elegant and precise, but
you make a few wrong predictions.  Good effort, though.

Modern physics: A.  Keep up the good work!  Your predictions are
almost perfect, just smooth out the problems with QM and GR.

Abian: D-.  Some interesting ideas, but work is too sloppy and filled with
errors.


Terry 
Newsgroups: sci.physics