| Topic: |
Science > Philosophy |
| User: |
"William Elliot" |
| Date: |
24 Nov 2005 11:13:57 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Topology of the Universe |
From: Lee Rudolph <lrudolph@panix.com>
Newsgroups: alt.math.recreational, alt.math.undergrad, sci.math
Subject: Re: Topology of the Universe
fishfry <fishfry@your-mailbox.com> writes:
William Elliot <marsh@hevanet.remove.com> wrote:
If the universe is connected, then the only
open and closed part is all or nothing.
How do you know the universes isn't a set of discrete objects, in
which case every subset would be both open and closed?
There was an "If" up there that you might have missed.
A discrete topological space with more than one point
is not a connected topological space.
Well, fry my fish. "It's all one."
The notion that "the universe" "is" a topological space is fairly
silly, of course; so the use of the word "connected" in the phrase
"If the universe is connected" is a bit of a scam, insofar as it
conflates the well-defined (but--on my assessment of the situation,
summed up in the word silly--rather irrelevant) mathematical
definition of "connected" with some not-mathematically-defined
notion of "connected" intended to apply to universes (whatever they
are).
Oh shucks, now I'll have to cross post this to alt.philosophy.
----
.
|
|
| User: "Michael Siemon" |
|
| Title: Re: Topology of the Universe |
24 Nov 2005 11:17:25 PM |
|
|
In article <Pine.BSI.4.58.0511242112350.13556@vista.hevanet.com>,
William Elliot <marsh@hevanet.remove.com> wrote:
From: Lee Rudolph <lrudolph@panix.com>
Newsgroups: alt.math.recreational, alt.math.undergrad, sci.math
Subject: Re: Topology of the Universe
fishfry <fishfry@your-mailbox.com> writes:
William Elliot <marsh@hevanet.remove.com> wrote:
If the universe is connected, then the only
open and closed part is all or nothing.
How do you know the universes isn't a set of discrete objects, in
which case every subset would be both open and closed?
There was an "If" up there that you might have missed.
A discrete topological space with more than one point
is not a connected topological space.
Well, fry my fish. "It's all one."
The notion that "the universe" "is" a topological space is fairly
silly, of course; so the use of the word "connected" in the phrase
"If the universe is connected" is a bit of a scam, insofar as it
conflates the well-defined (but--on my assessment of the situation,
summed up in the word silly--rather irrelevant) mathematical
definition of "connected" with some not-mathematically-defined
notion of "connected" intended to apply to universes (whatever they
are).
Oh shucks, now I'll have to cross post this to alt.philosophy.
----
Make that alt.philosophy.undergraduate (_very_ undergraduate...)
Or are you _really_ totally clueless?
.
|
|
|
| User: "William Elliot" |
|
| Title: Re: Topology of the Universe |
24 Nov 2005 11:25:30 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005, Michael Siemon wrote:
William Elliot <marsh@hevanet.remove.com> wrote:
From: Lee Rudolph <lrudolph@panix.com>
If the universe is connected, then the only
open and closed part is all or nothing.
The notion that "the universe" "is" a topological space is fairly
silly, of course; so the use of the word "connected" in the phrase
"If the universe is connected" is a bit of a scam, insofar as it
conflates the well-defined (but--on my assessment of the situation,
summed up in the word silly--rather irrelevant) mathematical
definition of "connected" with some not-mathematically-defined
notion of "connected" intended to apply to universes (whatever they
are).
Oh shucks, now I'll have to cross post this to alt.philosophy.
Make that alt.philosophy.undergraduate (_very_ undergraduate...)
Or are you _really_ totally clueless?
A clueless as a White House aide.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brian Fletcher" |
|
| Title: Re: Topology of the Universe |
25 Nov 2005 12:44:36 AM |
|
|
"William Elliot" <marsh@hevanet.remove.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.BSI.4.58.0511242122370.13556@vista.hevanet.com...
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005, Michael Siemon wrote:
William Elliot <marsh@hevanet.remove.com> wrote:
From: Lee Rudolph <lrudolph@panix.com>
If the universe is connected, then the only
open and closed part is all or nothing.
The notion that "the universe" "is" a topological space is fairly
silly, of course; so the use of the word "connected" in the phrase
"If the universe is connected" is a bit of a scam, insofar as it
conflates the well-defined (but--on my assessment of the situation,
summed up in the word silly--rather irrelevant) mathematical
definition of "connected" with some not-mathematically-defined
notion of "connected" intended to apply to universes (whatever they
are).
Oh shucks, now I'll have to cross post this to alt.philosophy.
Make that alt.philosophy.undergraduate (_very_ undergraduate...)
Or are you _really_ totally clueless?
A clueless as a White House aide.
There is nothing more arrogant then intellectual arrogance. When someone of
the ilk of Al Einstein can get it "relatively wrong", one would expect a
more open minded approach to the workings of the mind.
That'll teach you cross post to alt. phil... ;-)).
BOfL
.
|
|
|
| User: "William Elliot" |
|
| Title: Re: Topology of the Universe |
25 Nov 2005 03:11:03 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 25 Nov 2005, Brian Fletcher wrote:
"William Elliot" <marsh@hevanet.remove.com> wrote in message
Oh shucks, now I'll have to cross post this to alt.philosophy.
Make that alt.philosophy.undergraduate (_very_ undergraduate...)
Or are you _really_ totally clueless?
A clueless as a White House aide.
There is nothing more arrogant then intellectual arrogance. When someone of
the ilk of Al Einstein can get it "relatively wrong", one would expect a
more open minded approach to the workings of the mind.
That'll teach you cross post to alt. phil... ;-)).
ROFL, you guys are fun, anything else ya gonna learn me?
BOfL
BOfL ?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Immortalist" |
|
| Title: Re: Topology of the Universe |
26 Nov 2005 12:39:15 PM |
|
|
William Elliot wrote:
On Fri, 25 Nov 2005, Brian Fletcher wrote:
"William Elliot" <marsh@hevanet.remove.com> wrote in message
Oh shucks, now I'll have to cross post this to alt.philosophy.
Make that alt.philosophy.undergraduate (_very_ undergraduate...)
Or are you _really_ totally clueless?
A clueless as a White House aide.
There is nothing more arrogant then intellectual arrogance. When someone of
the ilk of Al Einstein can get it "relatively wrong", one would expect a
more open minded approach to the workings of the mind.
That'll teach you cross post to alt. phil... ;-)).
ROFL, you guys are fun, anything else ya gonna learn me?
The notion that "the universe" "is" a topological space is fairly
silly, of course; so the use of the word "connected" in the phrase
"If the universe is connected" is a bit of a scam, insofar as it
conflates the well-defined (but--on my assessment of the situation,
summed up in the word silly--rather irrelevant) mathematical
definition of "connected" with some not-mathematically-defined
notion of "connected" intended to apply to universes (whatever they
are).
Fallacies of Definition (via connected)
In order to make our words or concepts clear, we use a definition. The
purpose of a definition is to state exactly what a word means. A good
definition should enable a reader to 'pick out' instances of the word
or concept with no outside help.
For example, suppose we wanted to define the word "apple". If the
definition is successful, then the reader should be able go out into
the world and select every apple which exists, and only apples. If the
reader misses some apples, or includes some other items (such as
pears), or can't tell whether something is an apple or not, then the
definition fails.
The following are fallacies of definition:
Too Broad (The definition includes items which should not be included)
Too Narrow (The definition does not include all the items which shouls
be included)
Failure to Elucidate (The definition is more difficult to understand
than the word or concept being defined)
Circular Definition (The definition includes the term being defined as
a part of the definition)
Conflicting Conditions (The definition is self-contradictory)
If the definition is too broad the definition includes items which
should not be included, then the solution would be to identify the term
being defined, Identify the conditions in the definition, Find an item
which meets the condition but is obviously not an instance of the term,
or if the definition is too narrow with the definition does not
including items which should be included, then the solution would be to
identify the term being defined, identify the conditions in the
definition, find an item which is an instance of the term but does not
meet the conditions, or if the definition fails to elucidate, making it
harder to understand than the term being defined, then the solution is
to identify the term being defined, identify the conditions in the
definition, show that the conditions are no more clearly defined than
the term being defined, or if the definition is circular, which
includes the term being defined as a part of the definition, a circular
definition being a special case of a failure to elucidate, then the
solution is to identify the term being defined. Identify the conditions
in the definition, show that at least one term used in the conditions
is the same as the term being defined, or finally if the definition is
self-contradictory, then the solution is to identify the conditions in
the definition, show that they cannot all be true at the same time (in
particular, assume that one of the conditions is true, then show from
this that another of the conditions must be false), consequently
eliminating the wiggle room of the oponent till he squirms like worms!
(Reaniphrased)
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacies_of_definition
http://www.google.com/search?q=fallacies
http://images.google.com/images?q=pinch
BOfL
BOfL ?
.
|
|
|
| User: "William Elliot" |
|
| Title: Re: Topology of the Universe |
26 Nov 2005 05:54:09 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 26 Nov 2005, Immortalist wrote:
William Elliot wrote:
On Fri, 25 Nov 2005, Brian Fletcher wrote:
The notion that "the universe" "is" a topological space is fairly
silly, of course; so the use of the word "connected" in the phrase
"If the universe is connected" is a bit of a scam, insofar as it
conflates the well-defined (but--on my assessment of the situation,
summed up in the word silly--rather irrelevant) mathematical
definition of "connected" with some not-mathematically-defined
notion of "connected" intended to apply to universes (whatever they
are).
Fallacies of Definition (via connected)
In order to make our words or concepts clear, we use a definition. The
purpose of a definition is to state exactly what a word means. A good
definition should enable a reader to 'pick out' instances of the word
or concept with no outside help.
"When I use a word, it means exactly what it's supposed to mean, neither
more nor less." -- the Jabberwokie
For example, suppose we wanted to define the word "apple". If the
definition is successful, then the reader should be able go out into
the world and select every apple which exists, and only apples. If the
reader misses some apples, or includes some other items (such as
pears), or can't tell whether something is an apple or not, then the
definition fails.
Thus speakest the immortal words of the immortalist:
The following are fallacies of definition:
Too Broad (The definition includes items which should not be included)
Too Narrow (The definition does not include all the items which shouls
be included)
Failure to Elucidate (The definition is more difficult to understand
than the word or concept being defined)
Circular Definition (The definition includes the term being defined as
a part of the definition)
Conflicting Conditions (The definition is self-contradictory)
Oh oh, in perusing the lengthy forth following, I uncover need for legal
council. What newsgroups do you recommend that would give such brief
consideration and comment about what action to take, especially in view of
the veiled threats thereinforth.
If the definition is too broad the definition includes items which
should not be included, then the solution would be to identify the term
being defined, Identify the conditions in the definition, Find an item
which meets the condition but is obviously not an instance of the term,
or if the definition is too narrow with the definition does not
including items which should be included, then the solution would be to
identify the term being defined, identify the conditions in the
definition, find an item which is an instance of the term but does not
meet the conditions, or if the definition fails to elucidate, making it
harder to understand than the term being defined, then the solution is
to identify the term being defined, identify the conditions in the
definition, show that the conditions are no more clearly defined than
the term being defined, or if the definition is circular, which
includes the term being defined as a part of the definition, a circular
definition being a special case of a failure to elucidate, then the
solution is to identify the term being defined. Identify the conditions
in the definition, show that at least one term used in the conditions
is the same as the term being defined, or finally if the definition is
self-contradictory, then the solution is to identify the conditions in
the definition, show that they cannot all be true at the same time (in
particular, assume that one of the conditions is true, then show from
this that another of the conditions must be false), consequently
eliminating the wiggle room of the opponent till he squirms like worms!
(Reaniphrased)
Oh oh, an environmental threat, to take wriggle room away from worms.
In view of how much wriggle room has already been taken away from snakes
and other lizzardy reptiles, this new threat needs be taken seriously.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
