Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Login ]
Log-in to remove these advertisements.

Anti-Dialectics For Dummies?

POST REPLY
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 09 Nov 2010, 20:27
I'm not a dogmatist.
I just can't pick an Internet anonymous' article over the thought of such geniuses as Marx and Engels and Lenin.
Soviet cogitations: 231
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Nov 2010, 22:13
Ideology: Trotskyism
Pioneer
Post 09 Nov 2010, 20:37
Loz:

Quote:
It's tautology, just like your "anti-dialectic" thought.


So you keep saying, but we have yet to see your proof.

But you respond thus:

Quote:
In a way that it's a bunch of text with a little meaning/substance.


In other words, you have no answer. Fine, just be honest and admit it.

But, a tautology is not without meaning. So, even if you are right, my arguments are not tautologies.

Quote:
Marx-Engels-Lenin couldn't have missed this alleged "fallaciousness" of DiaMat.


Well, Marx knew nothing of DiaMat, but even if he and Engels did, they were human beings, and as such are surely not deities. They can't possibly have covered every base, nor were they above making mistakes.

However, search as you might, you will find no attempt in their work, nor in that of later theorists, to consider the arguments I have constructed.

The only conclusion therefore, unless you can show otherwise (from their writings), is that they did not spot these fatal defects.

Quote:
He didn't have to know bourgeois bullshit-"philosophy" and his logic led to the greatest advancement in the history of mankind.


May I remind you that Hegel was a bourgeois philosopher. So, you are mistaken once more.

And I deny this 'logic' is logic to begin with, or that it led to the advancement you allege.

Finally, name-calling is an admission of defeat.

Quote:
DiaMat is not just a theory, it's the way things go.


But, as we have seen, if it were true, things would not 'go'.

Unless, of course, you can show otherwise...

Quote:
Yeah, for an internet anonymous with a "left-communist" nickname has more credibility than biggest philosophers/revolutionaries in history.


Yes, I can just imagine the Jesuits saying this of Galileo:

Quote:
Yeah, an obscure mathematician like you, Galileo, has more credibility than the biggest philosophers in history -- Aristotle.


Someone has to innovate, or we'd still be in caves. Too bad for you, it's me.


Your attitude is little different from the "Well, if it was good enough for my parents, it's good enough for me" ploy.

You'd have us still in caves!
"The emancipation of the working class will be an act of the workers themselves."
Soviet cogitations: 231
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Nov 2010, 22:13
Ideology: Trotskyism
Pioneer
Post 09 Nov 2010, 20:39
Loz:

Quote:
I'm not a dogmatist.

I just can't pick an Internet anonymous' article over the thought of such geniuses as Marx and Engels and Lenin.


That's just a touching expression of faith.
"The emancipation of the working class will be an act of the workers themselves."
Soviet cogitations: 10005
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jul 2008, 20:01
Ideology: Trotskyism
Philosophized
Post 09 Nov 2010, 20:43
Quote:
I just can't pick an Internet anonymous' article over the thought of such geniuses as Marx and Engels and Lenin.


That's what dogmatism is. You trust Marx, Engels and Lenin, because they're Marx, Engels and Lenin. You don't even bother to argue with Rosa, everything you have to offer is a picture of a flag. She wins.
"Don't know why i'm still surprised with this shit anyway." - Loz
Soviet cogitations: 231
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Nov 2010, 22:13
Ideology: Trotskyism
Pioneer
Post 09 Nov 2010, 20:43
Mabool:

Quote:
But... sorry, what IS Historical Materialism if dialectical materialism is removed from it?


A good example can be found in Gerry Cohen's book 'Karl Marx's Theory of History. A Defence' -- if you ignore his functionalism and his technological determinism.

Combine that with Alex Callinicos's 'Making History', and you have a viable theory.

Have to go -- back later.
"The emancipation of the working class will be an act of the workers themselves."
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 09 Nov 2010, 20:44
Quote:
That's just a touching expression of faith.

Tautology again.
It's an expression of RATIONALITY.
Until you reach the intellectual depth of Marx or Engels,their arguments are still going to be stronger than yours.

Quote:
You don't even bother to argue with Rosa, everything you have to offer is a picture of a flag. She wins.

Revisionism!
Soviet cogitations: 10005
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jul 2008, 20:01
Ideology: Trotskyism
Philosophized
Post 09 Nov 2010, 20:45
Would you be so nice to summarize it for me, if only in a few sentences?

Quote:
Revisionism!


Are you really that stupid or is this an attempt at self-irony?
"Don't know why i'm still surprised with this shit anyway." - Loz
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 09 Nov 2010, 20:47
Quote:
Are you really that stupid or is this an attempt at self-irony?

Are you really that stupid to renounce DiaMat because of one article made by some anonymous person?
Soviet cogitations: 10005
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jul 2008, 20:01
Ideology: Trotskyism
Philosophized
Post 09 Nov 2010, 20:53
If it convinces me, it would be stupid to stick with it. Also I'm not really renouncing it, but yeah, it has made me doubt it heavily, and for one article, this is pretty impressive. I'm actually waiting for somebody like praxicoide to post something in this thread.

And sorry, I just can't help but imagine a Catholic priest saying "are you really that stupid to renounce crationism because of one book written by some Darwin guy?"
"Don't know why i'm still surprised with this shit anyway." - Loz
Soviet cogitations: 231
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Nov 2010, 22:13
Ideology: Trotskyism
Pioneer
Post 09 Nov 2010, 21:54
Loz:

Quote:
Tautology again.


I'm not sure you know what a tautology is. Here, upgrade your knowledge:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tautology

Quote:
It's an expression of RATIONALITY.


What is?

Quote:
Until you reach the intellectual depth of Marx or Engels,their arguments are still going to be stronger than yours.


So, you are treating them as deities.

And, Engels does not argue, he just asserts dogmatically,.

Marx does not mention this theory.
"The emancipation of the working class will be an act of the workers themselves."
Soviet cogitations: 231
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Nov 2010, 22:13
Ideology: Trotskyism
Pioneer
Post 09 Nov 2010, 21:55
Loz:

Quote:
Revisionism!


1) And what is wrong with revisionism?

2) Wasn't it Lenin who told us that no theory is above revision?
"The emancipation of the working class will be an act of the workers themselves."
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 09 Nov 2010, 21:56
Quote:
And sorry, I just can't help but imagine a Catholic priest saying "are you really that stupid to renounce crationism because of one book written by some Darwin guy?"

A bad comparison.
The church was(and is) the tool of the ruling class.Religion is the opium of people.
This a classic example of reactionary suppression of progressive ideas.
It doesn't have much to do with our topic of discussion though.
Look-Dialectical Materialism is revolutionary(it's final message is that workers will eventually take control over the means of production),and it is the ideological basis for a proletarian revolution.
Denying it is reactionary,capitalist subversion.

By renouncing DiaMat we lose the ideological basis of our,proletarian revolution!
Last edited by Loz on 09 Nov 2010, 21:58, edited 1 time in total.
Soviet cogitations: 231
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Nov 2010, 22:13
Ideology: Trotskyism
Pioneer
Post 09 Nov 2010, 21:57
Loz:

Quote:
Are you really that stupid to renounce DiaMat because of one article made by some anonymous person?


To which you have no effective reply, other than to name-call.
"The emancipation of the working class will be an act of the workers themselves."
Soviet cogitations: 231
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Nov 2010, 22:13
Ideology: Trotskyism
Pioneer
Post 09 Nov 2010, 22:01
Loz:

Quote:
A bad comparison.


Not really, since this theory of yours originated in the same NeoPlatonism (in Hegel) that spawned much of Roman Catholic Theology.

Quote:
The church was(and is) the tool of the ruling class.Religion is the opium of people.
This a classic example of reactionary suppression of progressive ideas.
It doesn't have much to do with our topic of discussion though.
Look-Dialectical Materialism is revolutionary(it's final message is that workers will eventually take control over the means of production),and it is the ideological basis for a proletarian revolution.

Denying it is reactionary,capitalist subversion.


You seem to be long on assertion; short on proof.


Quote:
By renouncing DiaMat we lose the ideological basis for our,proletarian revolution!


Except, it figured nowhere in October 1917.

Proof here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php? ... stcount=29
"The emancipation of the working class will be an act of the workers themselves."
Soviet cogitations: 1128
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Aug 2008, 18:12
Party Member
Post 10 Nov 2010, 13:58
From the outset, I will not pretend to claim I have read nearly as much on dialectics as you have, so please bear with me.

Quote:
The point is that this illustrates how vague this theory is -- because of that, it is used in an entirely subjective way by Dialectical Marxists. In addition, the word "quality" is either left undefined, or if defined, it rules out many of the examples used to illustrate this law. For example, water as gas, liquid or solid remains H2O. The addition of heat does not change water in the required way (as I pointed out).


I don’t see how the length of the nodal point needs to be rigidly constant across nature to maintain a theory’s validity.

Quote:
1) This is the same point: because this theory is so vague, you can only rule my counter-examples out on a subjective basis, on what you think.

2) If the Aristotelian definition of 'quality' (that Hegel and Engels used) is relaxed to allow the change from water into steam to stand (see above), then there is no way you can rule out the counter-example I gave of the three animals in a row. There the relational properties of bodies change with no addition of energy.

3) The isomer example was used partly to illustrate the extreme vagueness of the 'addition of matter/energy' part of Engels's law. May I therefore refer you to the above link where I consider this topic in extensive detail.


You’re examples are a qualitative comparison, not a qualitative change. The mouse, pony and elephant are not changing into one another. The isomers are not changing into one another.

You can say that the pony is bigger than the mouse. However, to say that the pony represents a qualitative change from the mouse would imply that the pony was once a mouse.

Quote:
But, the dialectical classics tell us that:

1) Everything in the entire universe changes because of a struggle of opposites, and that

2) Those opposites change into one another.


I do not see O* and O** as the inherent opposites. Rather, they are the forces/energy which, should one triumph enough over the other, will trigger the qualitative change from one opposite to the other.

Thus the table (T) is defined as a table as we know it (obviously subjective). The opposite of T (T*) is when it has qualitatively changed to the extent it can no longer be defined as a table (and this cannot be “mouse” or “pony” because they have never been a table). As I see it, in the struggle of opposites O* represents the forces that “fight” for T whilst O** represents the forces that fight for T*. Thus, upon the outset, T exists while T* does not, yet this does not mean T* lacks the means to fight in the struggle of opposites. Eventually the forces of O** representing T* triumph over those of O* and T is negated by the forces representing its opposite. T* now exists with its own opposites and subject to its own respective forces.

As far as I see it, it is only through the application of energy/forces that the struggle of opposites can take place (and these forces are not the opposites).

Here’s another example if it helps.

I throw a ball away from me in a field.
The two opposites are B and B*.
B = the ball moving away from me as a result of my action.
B* = the ball no longer moving away from me.
The forces which aid B in the struggle of these opposites are O* (the force of me throwing the ball). The forces which aid B* in the struggle of these opposites are O** (air resistance and gravity).

When the ball leaves my hand, B* does not exist as the ball is obviously moving away from me. But this does not mean that the forces of O* and O** are not conflicting from the outset. Eventually the forces of O** triumph over O* resulting in the ball coming to a complete stop on the ground with B* replacing B.

Now if I were to throw the ball in outer space we would not see the battle of opposites (or at least, not for a very long time) as there is no air resistance and potentially no gravity. Thus the ball would keep going and B* would not come into existence. Thus, without the forces of O**, the battle of opposites cannot take place. However, this does not mean B* cannot potentially exist as the ball could succumb to the gravitational effect of a star or planet which would in turn provide the forces of O**. Thus B* is always a theoretical possibility and can be brought into existence even though it does not exist.

Quote:
And if the opposite of a cat is a dead cat, then a live cat must struggle with that dead cat if it is to turn into that opposite!


No, the forces which sustain the live cat must struggle with the forces which are trying to kill the cat. Eventually, the latter wins resulting in the opposite of cat triumphing over the cat.

Quote:
Mabool, please note that I am not attacking Historical Materialism [HM], a theory I fully accept,


That’s ironic, as I’ve recently come to doubt its applicability on a global level (particularly in east Asia)!
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3308
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 04 Jan 2007, 06:03
Party Bureaucrat
Post 10 Nov 2010, 14:06
gRed Britain wrote:
Now if I were to throw the ball in outer space we would not see the battle of opposites (or at least, not for a very long time) as there is no air resistance and potentially no gravity. Thus the ball would keep going and B* would not come into existence. Thus, without the forces of O**, the battle of opposites cannot take place.

Just a note that gravity is a property of spacetime and thus B* would still be there out in space in your example.
Erichs_Pastry_Chef wrote:
all I can concentrate on is looking at a peen0r.


Image
Soviet cogitations: 105
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 24 Mar 2010, 05:37
Pioneer
Post 10 Nov 2010, 15:02
Really, I'm not tmuch versed in dialetical materialism, but I don't care too much about that. So take the following as a very light appreciation.

I'm a communist , and I find dialectics too vague and too complex for the common man to understand, and practically not useful in social struggle or science. The Diamat was used to propose deterministic point of views about social changes, such as the general expression 'socialism will negate capitalism'. The POV that socialism / communism is unavoidable in history because 'dialectics show it' is the source of political reformism and wrong strategy/tactics.

We don't know if socialism or communism will succeed.

Also, dialectic philosophers such as Alan Woods tried to associate it with modern science, and tried to refute physics and cosmology theories based on 'undialectic/dialetic' accusations. That's not science. That's religion. See Reason In Revolt book. Too bad those people associating marxism with such a nonsense.
Soviet cogitations: 231
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Nov 2010, 22:13
Ideology: Trotskyism
Pioneer
Post 10 Nov 2010, 16:22
gRed:

Quote:
From the outset, I will not pretend to claim I have read nearly as much on dialectics as you have, so please bear with me.


Of course!

Quote:
I don’t see how the length of the nodal point needs to be rigidly constant across nature to maintain a theory’s validity.


1. In that case, this word can only ever be applied subjectively in relation to what we are told is an objective law.

2. The point of referring to such 'nodes' is brought out by Lenin:

Quote:
"The 'nodal line of measure relations' ... -- transitions of quantity into quality... Gradualness and leaps. And again...that gradualness explains nothing without leaps." [Lenin (1961) Philosophical Notebooks, p.123. Lenin added in the margin here: "Leaps! Leaps! Leaps!"]


Quote:
"What distinguishes the dialectical transition from the undialectical transition? The leap. The contradiction. The interruption of gradualness." [Ibid., p.282.]


If a 'nodal point' lasts for several minutes, hours, days or even years, then in what way is this an "interruption in gradualness"?

So, if we are to confirm the accuracy of this theory, we need to be told how long one of these nodes is supposed to last.

But, my main objection is that, everywhere you look, this theory is terminally vague. As I have put the point in one of my essays:

Quote:
I made the point in Essay Seven Part One that Dialectical Materialism [DM] relies for its 'veracity' on what I have called "Mickey Mouse Science". Anyone who has studied or practiced genuine science knows the great care and attention to detail that has to be devoted by researchers, often over many years or decades, if they want to add to, or alter, even relatively minor areas of current knowledge, let alone establish a new law. This was the case in Engels's day, just as it is the case today. Moreover, the concepts used by scientists have to be precise and analytically sound. The use of primary data is essential (or at least it has to be reviewed or referenced by scientists) and supporting evidence has to be extensive, meticulously recorded and subject not only to public scrutiny, but peer review.

In contrast, the sort of Mickey Mouse Science one finds in Creationist literature is rightly the target of derision by scientists and Marxists alike. And yet, when it comes to DM, we find in Engels's writings (and those of subsequent dialecticians) little other than Mickey Mouse Science. Engels supplied no original data, and what little evidence he presented in support of his 'Law' would have been rejected as amateurish in the extreme if it had appeared in an undergraduate science paper, let alone in a research document --, even in his day! It is salutary, therefore, to compare Engels's approach to scientific proof with that of Darwin, whose classic work is a model of clarity and original research. Darwin presented the scientific community with extensive primary evidence, which has been added to greatly in the last 150 years.

The picture is almost the exact opposite when we turn to consider not just the paucity of evidence illustrating (it certainly does not prove) Engels's first 'Law', the transformation of quantity into quality, but also the total lack of clarity in the concepts used. In Anti-Dühring and Dialectics of Nature, for example, we are not told what a "quality" is, nor how long a dialectical "node" is supposed to last. Furthermore, we are left completely in the dark what the phrase "addition of matter and energy" means, nor are we told what the energetic (thermodynamic) boundaries are to any of the systems under consideration. Indeed, we are not even told what constitutes a system, nor what counts as a system "developing"!

Moreover, supporting 'evidence' alone is considered; problem cases are just ignored. In this, too, DM resembles Creation 'Science'.

Again, unlike genuine science, the situation as not changed much in dialectical circles in the last 140 years. This led me to observe (in an earlier Essay):

"Moreover, this Law is so vaguely worded that dialecticians can use it in whatever way they please. If this is difficult to believe, ask the very next dialectician you meet precisely how long a 'nodal point' is supposed to last. As seems clear, if no one knows, anything from a Geological Age to an instantaneous quantum leap could be 'nodal'!

"And, it really isn't good enough for dialectically-inclined readers to dismiss this as mere pedantry. Can you imagine a genuine scientist refusing to say how long a crucially important interval in her theory is supposed to be, and accusing you of 'pedantry' for even asking?"


gRed:

Quote:
You’re examples are a qualitative comparison, not a qualitative change. The mouse, pony and elephant are not changing into one another. The isomers are not changing into one another.


But Engels also used such molecules to try to illustrate this law, even though, as you point out, they do not develop into one another. Check this out:

Quote:
"It is surely hardly necessary to point out that the various allotropic and aggregational states of bodies, because they depend on various groupings of the molecules, depend on greater or lesser quantities of motion communicated to the bodies.

"But what is the position in regard to change of form of motion, or so-called energy? If we change heat into mechanical motion or vice versa, is not the quality altered while the quantity remains the same? Quite correct. But it is with change of form of motion...; anyone can be virtuous by himself, for vices two are always necessary. Change of form of motion is always a process that takes place between at least two bodies, of which one loses a definite quantity of motion of one quality (e.g. heat), while the other gains a corresponding quantity of motion of another quality (mechanical motion, electricity, chemical decomposition). Here, therefore, quantity and quality mutually correspond to each other. So far it has not been found possible to convert motion from one form to another inside a single isolated body." [Dialectics of Nature, pp.63-64.]


However, Engels slides between two different senses of "motion" here: (1) change of place, and (2) energy. In this way, he is able to argue that any change in the relation between bodies always amounts to a change in energy. But, this depends on the nature of the field in which these bodies are embedded -- i.e., whether or not the field is "conservative".

In a conservative field, the work done in moving a force in a circuit is zero, but certain (non-circuitous) line integrals in such fields can also be zero, if these are chosen carefully.

So, a force could 'develop' in this way in an energy neutral environment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_vector_field

Independently of this, Engels also confused the expenditure of energy with energy added to a system. The difference between the two is easy to see. Imagine someone pushing a heavy packing case along a level floor. In order to overcome friction, the one doing the pushing will have to expend energy. But that energy has not been put into the packing case in any constructive way. Now, if the same case is pushed up a hill, Physicists tell us that recoverable energy has been put into the case in the form of Potential Energy.

Now, as far as can be ascertained in the examples of interest to dialecticians (but again, they are not at all clear on this), it is the latter form of energy (but not necessarily always Potential Energy) that is relevant, not the former. The former sort does not really change the quality of any bodies concerned; the latter does. If that is so, then the above counter-examples (e.g., involving Enantiomers) still apply, for the energy expended in order to change one isomer into another is generally of the first sort, not the second.

To be sure, some of the energy in the packing case example will appear as heat (and/or perhaps sound), and will warm that case slightly. But that energy will not be stored in the case as chemically recoverable (i.e., structural, or new bond) energy.

Despite this, a few die-hard dialecticians might want to argue that any expenditure of energy is relevant here. That would be an unfortunate move since it would make this 'Law' trivial, for in that case it would amount to the belief that any change at all (no matter how remote), since it involves the expenditure of some form of energy somewhere (but not necessarily energy put 'into' the bodies concerned), is the cause of qualitative change to other bodies somewhere else.

Again, consider this:

Quote:
"In these series we encounter the Hegelian law in yet another form. The lower members permit only of a single mutual arrangement of the atoms. If, however, the number of atoms united into a molecule attains a size definitely fixed for each series, the grouping of the atoms in the molecule can take place in more than one way; so that two or more isomeric substances can be formed, having equal numbers of C, H, and 0 atoms in the molecule but nevertheless qualitatively distinct from one another. We can even calculate how many such isomers are possible for each member of the series. Thus, in the paraffin series, for C4H10 there are two, for C6H12 there are three; among the higher members the number of possible isomers mounts very rapidly. Hence once again it is the quantitative number of atoms in the molecule that determines the possibility and, in so far as it has been proved, also the actual existence of such qualitatively distinct isomers." [Engels, Dialectics of Nature, p.67. Bold emphases added.]


But, there is no "development" here! So, if Engels can use examples where there is no "development" to illustrate his 'Law', dialecticians can hardly complain if similar examples are used to refute it.

Anyway, it is quite clear that Engels did not appreciate how this radically compromised his claim that:

Quote:
"It is impossible to alter the quality of a body without addition or subtraction of matter or motion, i.e. without quantitative alteration of the body concerned." [Ibid., p.63. Bold emphasis added.]


Once more: here we have change in geometry "passing over" into a qualitative change, refuting this 'Law'.

Quote:
You can say that the pony is bigger than the mouse. However, to say that the pony represents a qualitative change from the mouse would imply that the pony was once a mouse.


This is basically the same point as the above. There are plenty more examples listed at my site where Engels himself quotes examples (and in published work, not just notebooks) of objects and processes that do not develop into one another to illustrate this law. If so, I can surely use his own examples against him.

These are listed here:

http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/page%2007.htm

Quote:
I do not see O* and O** as the inherent opposites. Rather, they are the forces/energy which, should one triumph enough over the other, will trigger the qualitative change from one opposite to the other.


If so, and they aren't 'opposites', then when the dialectical classics tell us that all change is the result of a struggle between opposites, which then change into one another, they must be wrong. In view of that, are you still prepared to assert this?

Quote:
Thus the table (T) is defined as a table as we know it (obviously subjective). The opposite of T (T*) is when it has qualitatively changed to the extent it can no longer be defined as a table (and this cannot be “mouse” or “pony” because they have never been a table). As I see it, in the struggle of opposites O* represents the forces that “fight” for T whilst O** represents the forces that fight for T*. Thus, upon the outset, T exists while T* does not, yet this does not mean T* lacks the means to fight in the struggle of opposites. Eventually the forces of O** representing T* triumph over those of O* and T is negated by the forces representing its opposite. T* now exists with its own opposites and subject to its own respective forces.

As far as I see it, it is only through the application of energy/forces that the struggle of opposites can take place (and these forces are not the opposites).


Once more, this ignores what the dialectical classics actually say, and since we are debating the classical theory, not yours, my points still stand.

You can check out what they say here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php? ... stcount=31

Quote:
I throw a ball away from me in a field.
The two opposites are B and B*.
B = the ball moving away from me as a result of my action.
B* = the ball no longer moving away from me.
The forces which aid B in the struggle of these opposites are O* (the force of me throwing the ball). The forces which aid B* in the struggle of these opposites are O** (air resistance and gravity).

When the ball leaves my hand, B* does not exist as the ball is obviously moving away from me. But this does not mean that the forces of O* and O** are not conflicting from the outset. Eventually the forces of O** triumph over O* resulting in the ball coming to a complete stop on the ground with B* replacing B.

Now if I were to throw the ball in outer space we would not see the battle of opposites (or at least, not for a very long time) as there is no air resistance and potentially no gravity. Thus the ball would keep going and B* would not come into existence. Thus, without the forces of O**, the battle of opposites cannot take place. However, this does not mean B* cannot potentially exist as the ball could succumb to the gravitational effect of a star or planet which would in turn provide the forces of O**. Thus B* is always a theoretical possibility and can be brought into existence even though it does not exist.


Once more, if these forces are opposites, they must change into one another. If they aren't then the classical theory no longer applies to such examples. [Does air resistance change into gravity? I suspect not.]

Quote:
No, the forces which sustain the live cat must struggle with the forces which are trying to kill the cat. Eventually, the latter wins resulting in the opposite of cat triumphing over the cat.


This is the same point again. Do these forces change into one another? No.

Quote:
That’s ironic, as I’ve recently come to doubt its applicability on a global level (particularly in east Asia)!


But, what scientific theory does not need updating in the light of new evidence?
"The emancipation of the working class will be an act of the workers themselves."
Soviet cogitations: 455
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Nov 2010, 01:24
Komsomol
Post 14 Nov 2010, 01:36
Quote:
Once more, if these forces are opposites, they must change into one another. If they aren't then the classical theory no longer applies to such examples. [Does air resistance change into gravity? I suspect not.]

the opposites here are not air resistance <-> gravity
but
the force of throwing <-> air resistance and gravity
and those are convertable , they're both elements of force
We need to make revolution so our kids wont grow up in corporate prostitution
Sky was the limit. Then the communists came!
Soviet cogitations: 231
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Nov 2010, 22:13
Ideology: Trotskyism
Pioneer
Post 15 Nov 2010, 02:43
Goldfather:

Quote:
the opposites here are not air resistance <-> gravity but
the force of throwing <-> air resistance and gravity
and those are convertable , they're both elements of force


Maybe so, but do they turn into one another, as we are told they must?
"The emancipation of the working class will be an act of the workers themselves."
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.