Re: Atoms

From: John K Clark (johnkclark@fastmail.fm)
Date: Mon Mar 17 2008 - 16:20:54 MDT


On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 "Heartland" <mindinstance@gmail.com> said:

> you can't seem to comprehend why you could have the same process
> using different atoms and different processes using the same atoms.

Huh! The same process using DIFFERENT atoms and different processes
using the SAME atoms. That is crap. At the present moment I am at a very
loud party and for just the hell of it I decided to check my Email. I
have had several (more than several actually) glasses of wine and am ĺ
drunk, some would say that at this instant Iím drunk as a skunk, but
diminished as I may be I can still easily see Bullshit when I see it. I
donít usually drink this heavily but this is a party so what the hell,
and a damn good party too I must say! I donít care what you say this is
fun.

  John K Clark

>
> I understand all the words but the sentence you constructed using them is
> mysterious. What does, "in identical atoms," mean, for example?
>
> >> Are you talking about moving electrons?
>
> JKC:
> > No, I'm talking about something much more general. I'm talking about any
> > process the scientific method cannot tell apart happening to any atoms
> > the scientific method cannot distinguish between;
>
> Then you're talking about different kind of processes because the
> processes I'm
> talking about can be distinguished quite easily.
>
> > in short I am talking
> > about identical processes happening to identical atoms.
>
> Oh, so you corrected your original sentence from, "in identical atoms,"
> to, "to
> identical atoms." That's better. Still, though, you can't seem to
> comprehend why
> you could have the same process using different atoms and different
> processes using
> the same atoms. At some point you need to realize that identity of a
> process is
> orthogonal to identity of atoms used by the process.
>
> Slawek
>

-- 
  John K Clark
  johnkclark@fastmail.fm
-- 
http://www.fastmail.fm - IMAP accessible web-mail


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:01:02 MDT