Re: BHA: Pi and H2O

[Colin.Wight@xxxxxxxxxx (Colin Wight)]

Hi Michael,

>But mathematical entities are not quite like
>that, unlike real substances, water, for instance.

Hence my qualification about notwithstanding an disagreements we might have
about mathematical entities.


I agree with the rest of what you say, but since the reality of mathematical
terms is a subject of hot debate neither argument seems decisive to me. The
point, surely, however, is iff the value of pi is X my thinking it is Y
doesn't change it, or else I would have done better in my maths exams.

Louis,

 If Nixon's nose grew slightly, we would probably all say
>that Nixon changed inessentially, but you apparently want to deny he changes
>inessentially due to external relations.

I wouldn't call Nixon's nose an external relation, it is surely not even
related to him. If his nose changes he is still Nixon, but he has also
changed. If I think of his nose changing when it doesn't he hasn't changed,
unless of course I am closely related to him (now look at the positions you
are forcing me into) and he is aware of my thinking and constantly checks
his nose in the mirror etc...

>
>Consider a rock which is transported from one place to another; it does not
>undergo essential change, but its location changes.

Yes, but does thinking about it change it?

Better yet, consider a
>rock which remains in the same location while its environment changes.  It
>is the same rock (essential properties unchanged), but its environmental
>and/or geological properties have changed by virtue of its external
>relations.

Yes agreed.

Perhaps it was in one formation at the start and is now a part
>of another, even though its essential nature has not changed.  My view (or
>way of speaking) is that the rock underwent change, if only inessential.

I agree with all of this, but not all external relations have this effect.
If the environment in Cambridge changes it does not change a rock located in
Arizona. So the thesis if 'something changes everything changes' does not
hold. Whether a change in one thing leads to a change in another is
something we have to discover: this is not the case with internal relations
I hasten to add.



>
>No, human minds were part of my specific example, but I can give others.
>Suppose that Pinocchio's nose was initially pi inches long and grew after
>telling lies.  Then pi initially had an empirical property that it later
>lost,
>namely the property of being the measure in inches of Pinocchio's nose.

Well no, his nose is now pi inches longer, pi has remained the same, surely.
I mean I really hope you were right since it would imply a sure fire way to
make a fortune.

But the real point is would Pinocchio's nose change if I lied?

  The
>chemical structure of water was causally efficacious in extinguishing a fire
>in my house yesterday but it was prevented from doing so today.  So the
chemical structure of water underwent a change in the property of being
causally efficacious in dousing a fire in my house.

But surely, it was no longer water if it underwent a fundamental change,
viz. that it was steam.

Anyway, I refuse to reply to this issue on the list (I'm sure people must be
getting fed up of me) since what was a small objection on my behalf to
Gary's understanding of 'real negation' is getting in the way of reading of
Dialectic.

But get back to me personally Louis, if you want to continue, like you I
enjoy any exchange.


Thanks,



------------------------------------------------------------------

Dr. Colin Wight
Department of International Politics
University of Wales, Aberystwyth
Tel: (01970) 621769

----------------------------------------------------------------



     --- from list bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---