Re: [lojban] Direction of Rotation

[".arpis." <rpglover64+jbobau@gmail.com>]

Positive being counterclockwise as per mathematical convention.

On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 5:22 AM, Jonathan Jones <eyeonus@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 3:08 AM, Escape Landsome <escaaape@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> .
>>
>> No matter however precise one is, one cannot define the direction of
>> rotation of a spinning object without giving an arbitrary (or a
>> "cultural") reference frame.  (Viz, the sun, a clock, some move with
>> his right hand, and so on).
>>
>> The reason for this is geometrical and nearly metaphysical : it is a
>> well-known problem of epistemology, which was first noted by Kant in
>> his Critique of Pure Reason (in Transcendental Aesthetics), then also
>> noted by Lewis Carroll and Wittgenstein.
>>
>> There's nothing in the pure 3d-euclidian geometry that can induce
>> something such as a "clockwise" or "counter-colckwise" movement, since
>> there is no arbitrary preference to stipulate the x, y and z-vectors.
>>
>> Thus, the only thing you can say is that some determinante has value
>> +1 or -1, and that some rotations share the same value (though you
>> cannot say which one without arbitrary), and others share opposite
>> values.
>>
>> This is such set that, were we bound to communicate with an alien race
>> in a parallel universe which we could not visit, but only speak about
>> it, we would have no clue whether some movement would be clockwise or
>> counterclockwise, and indeed, it is even the case that it would make
>> no sense at all.
>>
>> Thus, the only convincing way to define the direction of rotation is
>> to culturally bind it to some famous move, e.g. the move of the hands
>> of some clock, for instance.
>
>
> I disagree with nearly the entire statement.
>
> Obviously a point of reference must be established, however, it is not true
> that such points can only be arbitrary or "cultural" in nature. For one
> thing, "cultural" is most certainly not a given. For a great, great many
> things, the "top" of the thing is obvious, and in those situations the point
> of reference is as well. Tops, humans, cars, planes, buildings, bottles,....
> For other things in which the top is not so obvious (Celestial bodies such
> as Earth, other spherical objects, um...) then some arbitrary point is
> assigned- consistently.
>
> If we were to communicate with an alien race, it stands to reason that we
> would not have the same words for concepts. That much is obvious just
> because we don't have the same words for concepts amongst /our own kind/.
> However, the concept itself- especially regarding universal truths, of which
> rotation is certainly numbered- will certainly exist.
>
> If it is possible to describe rotational motion and the direction thereof in
> purely mathematical terms, and I'm sure it is, then regardless of any
> differences between us and them, we can communicate the meaning of
> "clockwise". "Green", on the other hand, might be an insurmountable
> challenge.
>
>
> --
> mu'o mi'e .aionys.
>
> .i.e'ucai ko cmima lo pilno be denpa bu .i doi.luk. mi patfu do zo'o
> (Come to the Dot Side! Luke, I am your father. :D )
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "lojban" group.
> To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.



-- 
mu'o mi'e .arpis.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.