Aristotle's wheel paradox

[Ellen Stuttle]

21 hours ago, Jonathan said:

It's Jonathan paying homage to Role &.

Toe Knee sometimes seems to be almost a twin brother of Jason Alexander, albeit one with much better spelling skills.

J

Oddly (because untypically of my memory patterns), I don't remember about Jason Alexander's spelling skills.  I'm assuming you're right, that he was bad at spelling.

Although...come to think of it, was it some post of Jason's that JR was replying to when he started the Roland persona?  And Roland then talked about his (Roland's) "Sycamore lechers" - taking off on Jason's Cypress Lectures.

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

56 minutes ago, Jonathan said:

Don't make assumptions. Based on my own experience and motives, I think that people may not be responding to your questions because they don't know what you think you're asking, and worse, that you don't know what you think you're asking. They don't want to get that far bogged down in dealing with the nightmare mess that is your mind. Observing your mind in action is one thing, getting too close and dealing in too much detail with the twisted tangle is another.

J

Second that.  Sometimes I think that Tony might be saying something that's at least intelligible, and then I try to get a coherent answer based on that fragment.  But then what he comes back with leaves me wondering if he has the foggiest clue what he's trying to say.

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

21 hours ago, william.scherk said:

Hubs for everyone!

Note (quoting from the text):  "Its hub during the same rotation lays down a smaller circumference along a line parallel to the ground (Figure 8.1)."

And note where the line is in the figure - under the second wheel, an imagined track the wheel is rolling on.

Ellen

[Brant Gaede]

deleted  

[anthony]

 

[anthony]

1 hour ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

Note (quoting from the text):  "Its hub during the same rotation lays down a smaller circumference along a line parallel to the ground (Figure 8.1)."

And note where the line is in the figure - under the second wheel, an imagined track the wheel is rolling on.

Ellen

An "imagined track" is not a real track. Naturally, "its hub during the same rotation lays down a smaller circumference...

What else does a small wheel do?

The Paradox was set up like a 'trick question' to lead you astray with slippage. The 'paradox' is dispensed with when you can see the different roll-speeds.

[Jonathan]

5 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

Oddly (because untypically of my memory patterns), I don't remember about Jason Alexander's spelling skills.  I'm assuming you're right, that he was bad at spelling.

Although...come to think of it, was it some post of Jason's that JR was replying to when he started the Roland persona?  And Roland then talked about his (Roland's) "Sycamore lechers" - taking off on Jason's Cypress Lectures.

Ellen

Yes, Jason inspired the creation of Roland. I think it was the contrast of Jason's pompous self-importance and his unfocused mind, especially his spelling errors and the dumb, unintentional  homophones, that gave birth to Roland.

[Jonathan]

So, I'm trying to grasp what Tony thinks his position is.

Um, there's no slippage, neither on "real world" tracks nor on imaginary ones, but there can be slippage in "experiments," all of which are outside of reality and are tricks, illusions.

He requires us to present examples, which we have not built, but yet which meet the precise conditions of the formulation of the "paradox," but which already exist in reality independently of any of us.

In other words, he demands that we present a mechanism which no one would intentionally create (other than to show that it doesn't  work as described in the "paradox") due to the fact that the result would be a machine that would create its own resistance to its intended action.

Therefore, the only examples that we might find must be accidents, such as our just happening to stumble across wheels in ruts at a depth perfectly up to their hubs.

And Tony takes this as a victory that we can't deliver examples which meet his criteria of excluding all examples.

J

[Jonathan]

3 hours ago, anthony said:

An "imagined track" is not a real track. Naturally, "its hub during the same rotation lays down a smaller circumference...

What else does a small wheel do?

The Paradox was set up like a 'trick question' to lead you astray with slippage. The 'paradox' is dispensed with when you can see the different roll-speeds.

Tony knows the intentions of the author of the "paradox." He doesn't even know for certain who the author is (nor does anyone else), but he's certain that he knows his intentions. When the author mentioned lines and wheels unrolling on them, he didn't mean it. Only some of the entities and conditions should be treated as being real: Only so many as Tony can keep in his mind at once and feel that he is grasping their movement.

J

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

6 hours ago, anthony said:

 

This video is a wonderful example of an optical illusion through a cognitive bias, perceptual framing.

Notice that the wire paths are three dimensional. Ditto for the two tiny slit markers on the two circles. Ditto for the handle and the round board the circles are painted on.

This makes one unconsciously assume that we are watching a three-dimensional demonstration of all parts, including the circles. That is, we automatically assume the circles are three-dimensional.

But they are not. The circles are two-dimensional and do not touch the wire paths. Their slippage is against invisible air, not against the visible paths.

If the circles were three dimensional, in physical contact with the wire paths, and we could see the reality of surface-to-surface contact in a manner that highlighted when slippage transpired and when it did not (friction sparks would be quite useful for this), we would see slippage all over the place.

I bet whoever made this thing works as a magician on the side. He's very good at enhancing illusions with perceptual framing.

Michael

[merjet]

On 12/7/2018 at 1:53 PM, Jonathan said:

He refers to the two horizontal lines on which the circles travel. Now he wants there to be only one line. Heh.

. . . .

His position back then was that of the ancient eggheads -- that each circle appears to travel the distance of its own circumference.

And that's where the "paradox" exists: Only in the minds of those to whom it appears that each circle travels its own circumference.

[ ] hardly anyone agrees with the ancient eggheads and Merlin that each circle appears to travel the distance of its circumference.

Heh. You are lying and/or too stupid to know the difference between a line of motion and a surface. You can’t even count correctly. Ha ha ha ha ha. There are three horizontal lines in the first image on Wikipedia. The brown one is a surface that the larger circle rolls on.

. . . .

False. Sorry, jackass, you have no access to my perceptions or those of the ancient Greeks. You are also a very incompetent mind-reader.

It appears to me, and it is a fact, that the horizontal distance between the smaller circles in both images on Wikipedia is the circumference of the larger circle. In the video you refer to the smaller circle does not appear to me to travel the distance of its circumference. I know that its circumference is only about 65% of the horizontal distance it travels.

 

[merjet]

8 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

If the circles were three dimensional, in physical contact with the wire paths, and we could see the reality of surface-to-surface contact in a manner that highlighted when slippage transpired and when it did not (friction sparks would be quite useful for this), we would see slippage all over the place.

But then it would be unlike the zillions of wheels people commonly see on cars, trucks, bicycles, etc. The reality of surface-to-surface contact for them is one place, where the wheel contacts the surface it rolls on. Did Jonathan dupe you, too?

[Jonathan]

1 hour ago, merjet said:

But then it would be unlike the zillions of wheels people commonly see on cars, trucks, bicycles, etc. The reality of surface-to-surface contact for them is one place, where the wheel contacts the surface it rolls on. Did Jonathan dupe you, too?

Tony, would mind translating the above? You seem to be on Merlin's wavelength but also sometimes a bit less incoherent than he is. What is Merlin trying to say in the above?

J

[Jonathan]

1 hour ago, merjet said:

Heh. You are lying and/or too stupid to know the difference between a line of motion and a surface. You can’t even count correctly. Ha ha ha ha ha. There are three horizontal lines in the first image on Wikipedia. The brown one is a surface that the larger circle rolls on.

Are you referring to the image that you created and posted to Wikipedia which is different from that which was initially there? Yes?

Youve posted the image there which ignores and excludes the line at the bottom of the small wheel which was included in the text of the original formulation of the "paradox," and now you want me to accept it as true and certified and official because it's at Wikipedia?

Merlin, you're not at all good at the Ministry of Truth tactics. You've been caught molesting Wikipedia in order to try to salvage your ego, and you think that the right strategy now is to act like you haven't been caught, and to keep on citing the Wikipedia page as if it's an independent source that you haven't fucked up? It's embarrassing.

J

[merjet]

1 hour ago, Jonathan said:

Youve posted the image there which ignores and excludes the line at the bottom of the small wheel which was included in the text of the original formulation of the "paradox," and now you want me to accept it as true and certified and official because it's at Wikipedia?

No, I did not exclude it. I moved it to the top of the small circle and made it dashed.

But I understand. You want everybody to accept this monstrosity as authoritative, despite its flaws.

1. The straight lines are not the length of the circumference of the larger circle or the smaller circle.

2.The straight lines are ambiguous. Are they lines of travel or surfaces or both?

Of course, you want them to be both so you can continue faking reality and desperately cling to your “solution” and your pseudo-self-esteem.

 

[Jonathan]

51 minutes ago, merjet said:

No, I did not exclude it. I moved it to the top of the small circle and made it dashed.

 

Is the top of the small circle where the line was positioned as described in the text of the Aristotle's Wheel Paradox? No, it was not.

The original text has both circles "unrolling" on top of their respective lines. The way that you have the diagram set up, the direction of the rolling is opposite -- the circle is going against the line rather than unrolling with it.

You've fucked it up, and you've done so on purpose.

 

52 minutes ago, merjet said:

But I understand. You want everybody to accept this monstrosity as authoritative, despite its flaws.

1. The straight lines are not the length of the circumference of the larger circle or the smaller circle.

If  those were your complaints, then you should have made only those changes. The image should conform to the original description. But, instead of just making those corrections, you made other alterations which make the diagram inaccurate in new and different ways.

 

55 minutes ago, merjet said:

2.The straight lines are ambiguous. Are they lines of travel or surfaces or both?

Read and comprehend the original description. They are lines beneath the circles, and on which the circles "unroll."

 

1 hour ago, merjet said:

Of course, you want them to be both so you can continue faking reality and desperately cling to your “solution” and your pseudo-self-esteem.

Faking reality? Heh. I'm not the one who has molested Wikipedia by posting descriptions and diagrams which contradict the original formulation.

J

[anthony]

Here's a good question:  What do a science experiment, a piece of abstract art and an item of "fake news" have in common?

First, are they all "reality"? Certainly (they exist, they are things). Second, are they all corresponding to reality? Not always, yes, seldom or never, - no particular order.

A. They are all man-made.

Each was invented and created and passed through some individual's conscious mind. He put his personal stamp (or at times, bias) on it. But here's the thing, all of them give many undiscerning observers the 'suggestion' of being the 'metaphysical given' -- i.e. "reality" itself. In that ambiguity lies all the equivocations common today (and why people's thinking is screwy). Which example IS representative of reality, is up to the individual's b.s. detector: i.e. does this integrate with what I know?

[anthony]

Michael, the demonstration is identical to what I see e.g. a car wheel do (without a second track). Just more graphic. I don't think it was intended to be 3 D. What it shows is what we know: the inner wheel turns slower and must, by necessity. 

[Jonathan]

14 minutes ago, anthony said:

Second, are they all corresponding to reality? Not always, yes, seldom or never, - no particular order.

 

Objectively demonstrate, using geometry and objective measurements, which, if any, aspects of any of my diagrams or animated sequences of diagrams are in any way inaccurate.

Do the same with Jon's videos.

 

16 minutes ago, anthony said:

Each was invented and created and passed through some individual's conscious mind. He put his stamp on it. But here's the thing, all of them give observers the 'suggestion' of being the 'metaphysical given' -- i.e. "reality" itself.

Identify specifically what does not comply with reality itself in the diagrams, animations and videos. You're implying errors or trickery. You're suggesting that when we created these things, they passed through our individual conscious minds, and were therefore distorted in some way.

Your accusations are not enough. You actually have to objectively show that any aspect of the diagrams, animations and videos is inaccurate.

Doing so should be very simple. It's elementary geometry. Why aren't you doing it? You've been challenged many time to do so.

 

21 minutes ago, anthony said:

Which example IS representative of reality, is up to the individual's b.s. detector, i.e. does this integrate with what I know?

"B.S. detector"? Heh.

What you believe that you know is false.

Your B.S. detector is faulty. Having feelings about having a B.S. detector is not the act of being rational, logical and objective.

What would be rational, logical and objective would be for you to objectively demonstrate, using geometry and objective measurements, which, if any, aspects of any of my diagrams or animated sequences of diagrams are in any way inaccurate.

They're right there in front of you in reality.

Are you not capable of doing the simple geometry of objectively checking their accuracy?

J

[Jonathan]

17 minutes ago, anthony said:

Michael, the demonstration is identical to what I see a car wheel do (without a second track). Just more graphic. I don't think it was intended to be 3 D. What it shows is what we know: the inner wheel turns slower and must, by necessity. 

Like Merlin, Tony can't cognitively handle the second track (the surface under the small wheel), and therefore needs to eliminate it. He can't process that many things at once.

The large wheel rolls on a surface? Yeah, okay. There's a smaller wheel attached to the larger wheel, and sharing its axle? Yep, I'm still with you. The smaller wheel also has its own surface under it, and on which it unrolls? No! It does not! There is no surface there!

J

[anthony]

"Objectively"- by someone who doesn't know the meaning of "objectivity". Who asks for geometric proof for what is a matter of direct observation of reality and reasoning.

Also, someone who won't commit himself to answer whether that inner circle is moving slower or not. My bs detector is ticking loudly.

[Jonathan]

4 hours ago, merjet said:

But then it would be unlike the zillions of wheels people commonly see on cars, trucks, bicycles, etc. The reality of surface-to-surface contact for them is one place, where the wheel contacts the surface it rolls on. Did Jonathan dupe you, too?

Wow, that's pretty sassy, talking like that to our generous host here at OL!

Merlin is saying that MSK can't think for himself, but is easily led, and misled, by others.

The truth is that Merlin is projecting, and that he is upset that he's not duping anyone. With all of the dishonest effort that he's put into this issue, including molesting the Wikipedia page with an intentionally inaccurate diagram and description, he has nevertheless failed to fool anyone other than dopey Tony.

J

[anthony]

The "track" was cleverly insinuated by the 'paradox'. Everyone needs "slippage" (but it can't be between the wheels, they are fixed) - ergo -- bring in an outside track to 'slip' on. 

And there it is! The dotted path has to be the track! Much special pleading going round.

 

[Jonathan]

5 minutes ago, anthony said:

"Objectively"- by someone who doesn't know the meaning of "objectivity".

Argumentum ad hominem. "Poisoning the well."

 

8 minutes ago, anthony said:

Who asks for geometric proof for what is a matter of direct observation of reality and reasoning.

Heh, yeah, you can't do the geometry. You can't provide the proof. You only have an accusation, and no objective evidence to back it up.

 

9 minutes ago, anthony said:

Also, someone who won't commit himself to answer whether that inner circle is moving slower or not.

I've already explained that. I'm not interested in trying to deal with figuring out what you think you mean when you're asking questions. Your mind is a mess, and I have no interest in wasting time trying to untangle it.

 

11 minutes ago, anthony said:

My bs detector is ticking loudly.

That's retardation that you're hearing.

J

[Jonathan]

3 minutes ago, anthony said:

The "track" was cleverly insinuated by the 'paradox'. Everyone needs "slippage" (but it can't be between the wheels, they are fixed) - ergo -- bring in an outside track to 'slip' on. 

And there it is! The dotted path has to be the track! Much special pleading going round.

 

Incoherence.

J