Aristotle's wheel paradox

[Jon Letendre]

1 minute ago, Max said:

If a randroid resorts to his magic mantra "A is A", you know that he's run out of arguments.

That’s about right.

When in doubt, are they refusing to conduct simple, two minute experiments on the grounds that math and experiment may be “premature and misleading”?

But he’s not out of arguments, he’s confused and irritated.

[Max]

@Jon: Well, I admire your patience...

[Jon Letendre]

57 minutes ago, Max said:

@Jon: Well, I admire your patience...

Thanks for noticing, Max.

It’s easy for me, to be honest. I don’t mind stupid, it doesn’t rub me the wrong way at all. It’s only when snippy gets added to stupid that I have to explode or walk away.

I have, without any doubt, much more patience than most everyone here. I substitute taught elementary school for five years. Classroom teacher, gym, art, music, librarian, special needs - I filled every position in the district’s elementary schools except Principal. I raised two daughters from infancy, was the at-home parent and they’re getting (almost) straight As in high school now.

[anthony]

Dumb comments against objectivity like that one, nicely illuminate what I was considering: the two erroneous extremities of floating rationalism and concretism which have inhabited this argument. Thanks for the confirmation.

Quite so, to cap my exhaustive and detailed arguments -

A remains A.  

 

 

[anthony]

26 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said:

That’s about right.

When in doubt, are they refusing to conduct simple, two minute experiments on the grounds that math and experiment may be “premature and misleading”?

But he’s not out of arguments, he’s confused and irritated.

Are you perhaps blind, Jon? I said a few times that such experiments were conducted. And long before your suggestion, and changes nothing. "Math and experiment" are not substitutes for identification and thinking.

[Jon Letendre]

Tony claims that when he does it, the bottle base does not over-spin.

Those us of who can accurately visualize the dynamics of this mechanical setup (as well as anyone who has tried it) know that’s impossible.

 

[Jon Letendre]

On 11/12/2018 at 11:45 AM, william.scherk said:

 Jon wrote: 

Thanks for noticing, Max.

It’s easy for me, to be honest. I don’t mind stupid, it doesn’t rub me the wrong way at all. It’s only when snippy gets added to stupid that I have to explode or walk away.

I have, without any doubt, much more patience than most everyone here. I substitute taught elementary school for five years. Classroom teacher, gym, art, music, librarian, special needs - I filled every position in the district’s elementary schools except Principal. I raised two daughters from infancy, was the at-home parent and they’re getting (almost) straight As in high school now.

Just curious, asshole - which part do you find funny?

[Jon Letendre]

Oh, KorbenKeating-Shit-for-Brains finds it funny, too.

Which part, Shit-for-Brains?

[Jonathan]

18 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

Tony claims that when he does it, the bottle base does not over-spin.

Those us of who can accurately visualize the dynamics of this mechanical setup (as well as anyone who has tried it) know that’s impossible.

 

Tony is severely visuospatially limited, and likely doesn't grasp the setup that you've explained to him, but even if he has grasped it, he wouldn't know what to look for, wouldn't be able to pay attention to and control which parts are rolling freely without slippage and which are not, and wouldn't be able to see and comprehend any over-spinning/spinning-out. Like Merlin, his mind is not capable of grasping the simple mechanics of what's happening.

J

[Jonathan]

17 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

Oh, KorbenKeating-Shit-for-Brains finds it funny, too.

Which part, Shit-for-Brains?

Hmmm. Perhaps they're laughing at your patience? Maybe they recognize that your patience is wasted on Tony?

Or maybe it's the opposite. I don't remember who has joined Merlin in revealing their mechanical reasoning cognitive inabilities. Did Billy and Korben throw in with him, and buy into his position? I don't recall. Are they laughing at you because they've decided that you're wrong about the mechanics of the "paradox"?

[Jon Letendre]

36 minutes ago, Jonathan said:

Hmmm. Perhaps they're laughing at your patience? Maybe they recognize that your patience is wasted on Tony?

Or maybe it's the opposite. I don't remember who has joined Merlin in revealing their mechanical reasoning cognitive inabilities. Did Billy and Korben throw in with him, and buy into his position? I don't recall. Are they laughing at you because they've decided that you're wrong about the mechanics of the "paradox"?

Billyboy was made sad and confused by several recent posts, but I don’t recall him giving any explanation or taking any position.

KorbenKeating-Shit-for-Brains made at least one post, a list of what was fallacious and what was not fallacious about the Paradox, is what I recall. It was rambling, close here, wrong there, I don’t recall the final position he took.

[Jon Letendre]

1 hour ago, Jonathan said:

Tony is severely visuospatially limited, and likely doesn't grasp the setup that you've explained to him, but even if he has grasped it, he wouldn't know what to look for, wouldn't be able to pay attention to and control which parts are rolling freely without slippage and which are not, and wouldn't be able to see and comprehend any over-spinning/spinning-out. Like Merlin, his mind is not capable of grasping the simple mechanics of what's happening.

J

Yes, he is severely limited in this area. Don’t they notice that they are? N. Branden was and knew it and said so. What’s the big deal? We all have strengths and weaknesses. For example, Tony is very good at composition. Take one of any of the millions of things Tony and I vehemently agree about and send each of us to our respective corners for twenty minutes to compose a one page presentation and defense of that idea. 90% of the time it will be Tony’s work that Tony and I agree is the better presentation and defense of that idea. That doesn’t make Tony better than me, I’m not uncomfortable with it, I’m not made anxious by it.

Billyboy has a far richer vocabulary than I. And superior understanding of grammar and word use. I know enough to notice that and I am smart enough not to get into an argument about it. I would lose.

[anthony]

5 hours ago, Jonathan said:

Tony is severely visuospatially limited, and likely doesn't grasp the setup that you've explained to him, but even if he has grasped it, he wouldn't know what to look for, wouldn't be able to pay attention to and control which parts are rolling freely without slippage and which are not, and wouldn't be able to see and comprehend any over-spinning/spinning-out. Like Merlin, his mind is not capable of grasping the simple mechanics of what's happening.

J

ha - ha. This is child's play. It seems I did this practical trial long before anyone. As I said, you all have lost the plot. Slippage, mechanics, spinning. hmmm

I ask again. Does the neck turn with the bottle, and no "slippage/spin", when it is given a push and it rolls on its side on a single surface, e.g. a table?

Yes. No.

That's all one has to know. If "yes", then bringing in TWO irregular surfaces (to bear the neck) will not change any thing. Same bottle rolling. UNLESS - the friction and weight distribution between neck and/or bottle is not perfectly balanced and even on the two surfaces. Then - one or other will skid. Get it? In which case, the 'experiment' is faulty. It will need 'a magic hand' to skew it or straighten it, as you wish. Big fail as scientists, lads. 

BUT - no 'friction', 'weight', 'gravity', etc. is explicit or implict in the framing of the "paradox". Only circles and lines.

You guys have introduced mechanics to an abstract exercise which does not need or ask for concretist explanations.

The last laugh is Aristotle's. "A" (circle) is "A" (circle). 

 

[anthony]

And so long. ;) Been fun.

[Peter]

20 minutes ago, anthony said:

And so long. Been fun.

Well, if any other paradoxes are examined I would value your input, Tony.

[Brant Gaede]

An abstract exercise that can be concretized but is forbidden to be concretized should be junked.

--Brant

even Einstein embraced experiment

[Max]

1 hour ago, anthony said:

You guys have introduced mechanics to an abstract exercise which does not need or ask for concretist explanations.

 

The paradox is given as a mechanical puzzle (rolling wheels, without slipping,  constitute certainly a mechanical system). But you can analyze mechanical systems by using mathematics. So you can for example prove Kepler's laws for the movement of planets with mathematics, using Newton's laws. You can also treat this paradox as a mathematical problem. I've done that in my post of Februari 4. Just try reading that, and tell me what in your opinion is wrong with that derivation, or shut up.

[Jon Letendre]

2 hours ago, Peter said:

Well, if any other paradoxes are examined I would value your input, Tony.

Same here!

Tony, tell us about this one...

[Jon Letendre]

1 hour ago, Max said:

The paradox is given as a mechanical puzzle (rolling wheels, without slipping,  constitute certainly a mechanical system). But you can analyze mechanical systems by using mathematics. So you can for example prove Kepler's laws for the movement of planets with mathematics, using Newton's laws. You can also treat this paradox as a mathematical problem. I've done that in my post of Februari 4. Just try reading that, and tell me what in your opinion is wrong with that derivation, or shut up.

No, no, no.

Math would be “premature and misleading” don’t you remember?

[Jon Letendre]

5 hours ago, Peter said:

Well, if any other paradoxes are examined I would value your input, Tony.

Peter,

You have said before that you’re not into this sort of thing, and I will respect your preference for not discussing it, of course.

But, here you are. You must be at least a little interested. It sure seems that you think Tony’s understanding has some merit. Almost all of his posts in this discussion contain one or two rock-solid observations, so thinking that would be plenty understandable.

Any bottles or books at home? I’m curious what you think.

A straw can be taped to a plastic lid, that’s like a bottle, just with a more exaggerated delta between circumferences. Tape them together and spin them. What do you notice?

[Peter]

I have nothing to say Jon, other than to encourage civility.

From: Jimmy Wales To: atlantis Subject: ATL: David Kelley on civility Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 08:33:13 -0800/ Here's a fairly long quote from David Kelley that is directly applicable to questions about why a civility policy is a good idea on a mailing list which makes an effort to be creative, open, and intensely intellectual.

From _Unrugged Individualism: The Selfish Basis of Benevolence_, p. 38: The forms of civility, and the broader realm of manners, are therefore dismissed by some people as arbitrary.  "Why should I confirm to arbitrary social standards?  I am an individualist."  But while the forms are conventional, what is conveyed through those forms is not. If my argument so far has been correct, then it _is_ objectively important to acknowledge each other's independence in some way or other, whether by saying 'please,' or 's`il vous plait," or by some gesture understood to have that meaning.  It doesn't matter which forms we use to convey this, any more than it matters which sounds we use to express a given concept in language.  But insofar as civility has a communicative function, it does matter that we use the same forms.  Someone who does not practice these forms is rude.  We can assume that his failure to comply reflects indifference to what the forms express (unless he is ignorant, as in the case of a foreigner).

A similar answer can be given to the complaint that the forms of civility are inauthentic.  "What if I don't like the present Grandma gave me and I don't really feel any gratitude?  Am I not falsifying my feeling if I say _thank-you_ nonetheless?"  The purpose of that thank-you is not to convey one's specific feelings about the gift, or the person who gives it.  Its purpose is to acknowledge that it was a gift, from an autonomous person, not something owed one by an underling.  (If Grandma wants more than this, and makes it clear that she really wants to know whether one liked the gift, then one should tell her, as tactfully as possible.)

Civility, then, may be defined as _the expression -- chiefly through conventional forms -- of one's respect for the humanity and independence of others, and of one's intent to resolve conflicts peacefully_.

[Jon Letendre]

10 minutes ago, Peter said:

I have nothing to say Jon, other than to encourage civility.

I said I would respect your preference and I will.

We do agree on something. I too would value Tony’s input on other paradoxes. Maybe he will chime in on the 747 on a conveyer belt.

[Peter]

3 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said:

I said I would respect your preference and I will.

We do agree on something. I too would value Tony’s input on other paradoxes. Maybe he will chime in on the 747 on a conveyer belt.

What about new paradoxes? I am looking for funny but not drunken answers to the following question. How will the CBS show “The Big Bang Theory” end?

Semper fideliter cogito, Peter

Notes: So, net result:  The grammatically correct way to write Peter's motto would be "Semper fideliter cogito." Ellen S.

From: BBfromM To: atlantis Subject: ATL: Ayn Rand and drinking Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 20:33:51 EDT. Ayn Rand did not drink, simply because she disliked the taste of liquor, but she had no objection to other people drinking -- assuming they did not reach the stage of drunkenness. She very much liked the concept of some drinking and much gaiety and good will at parties -- it was what she had thought would be true of parties in America. She had gathered this while still in Russia, from the American movies she saw. But was deeply disappointed to discover that parties generally held little gaiety and that people too often drank in order to become soddenly drunk and to make that an excuse for the sort of out-of-control behavior that they assumed would not be judged since they were "drunk."

She was convinced that no one HAD to be out-of-control, no matter how much they had to drink, that it was a "luxury" they allowed themselves as an escape from rationality.  To demonstrate this, she once downed a large glass of straight vodka -- sufficient to make almost anyone hopelessly drunk and, since she did not drink, sufficient presumably to make her helplessly drunk.  She felt the effects of the vodka strongly, she felt physically wobbly and mentally fuzzy -- but by an act of will she was able to remain herself and to continue speaking with the clarity and precision that was her trademark. There's a moral to the story. Barbara

[Jon Letendre]

54 minutes ago, Peter said:

I have nothing to say Jon, other than to encourage civility.

Just so we’re clear, Peter, Tony’s not bowing out because of incilivity. He’s bowing out because he started to catch a glimmer of how wrong he is about so much. He’s not seeing all of it correctly yet, but he sees that he’s been wrong about a whole lot. Some people react ungracefully in a case like that.  He’s no victim, so don’t feel too bad for him.

[Jon Letendre]

1 hour ago, Peter said:

I have nothing to say Jon, other than to encourage civility.

I have one more thing to say, Peter.

I have been the subject of rather extreme incivility here at OL on several occasions and I do not recall you saying one word in those cases. If you continue like that - saying nothing when I am viciously attacked, but then waiting until I lose patience with some snippy dolt who can’t visualize or conceptualize or otherwise analyse rolling - then the positive way I see you is going to change.