Parallels do not exist: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Language » Parallels do not exist » Parallels do not exist

Parallels do not exist
adjusting the language, perhaps someday

Parallels do not exist

Matt C
banned

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Nov 03, 2006
Location: Austin, Texas
Total Topics: 26
Total Posts: 150

Posted 08/06/07 - 07:04 PM: Subject: Parallels do not exist	#1
This posting is one that reveals some facts, it will not be argumentative. In the English language there is a title called "Parallelism" for computing, grammar, and philosophy. For many years people believed that parallels existed. This was Euclid's 5th postulate in the Elements, which was the second most printed book until about 1800, and also the geometry that we learn early on, Euclidean geometry. However, we now know that two lines cannot be parallel to infinity, gravity bend the lines. With this in mind it seems logical that the titles be modernized; a mathematical/physics modernization. For a language-minded person, how does a language get modernized? To me, when I think about this, I think about a potential improvement in the precision of the English language. Matt

keda
Ijon Tichy

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 25, 2005
Location: Finland
Total Topics: 26
Total Posts: 2653

Posted 08/06/07 - 07:29 PM:	#2
Lines are not real, so gravity doesn't really affect lines. Be careful not to confuse physics with math.
All about making money Free Europe Now How to fix your country The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. -Benjamin Franklin If my sons did not want wars, there would be none - Gutle Rothschild It's not the people who vote that count, it's the people who count the votes - Josef Stalin

Matt C
banned

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Nov 03, 2006
Location: Austin, Texas
Total Topics: 26
Total Posts: 150

Posted 08/06/07 - 07:42 PM:	#3
When using math/physics in my post I was thinking about the math that Einstein incorporated into General Relativity. Math that did not use parallels was incorporated into General Relativity. That is why I connected the two.

keda
Ijon Tichy

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 25, 2005
Location: Finland
Total Topics: 26
Total Posts: 2653

Posted 08/06/07 - 07:54 PM:	#4
Einstein's theory of general relativity should be interpreted carefully, because he uses big words rather carelessly. The same goes for Non euclidean geometry, which I think is non euclidean just by name. Without these precautions we will quickly run into metaphysical mumbo jumbo.
All about making money Free Europe Now How to fix your country The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. -Benjamin Franklin If my sons did not want wars, there would be none - Gutle Rothschild It's not the people who vote that count, it's the people who count the votes - Josef Stalin

Cadrache
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 09, 2006
Location: AB, Canada
Total Topics: 37
Total Posts: 920

Posted 08/08/07 - 01:19 PM:	#5
As well as different ways to express the definition of parallel lines. One can equally argue that the definition of equal distance between the two lines would be determined by a relativity constant, and not just the mundane 6 cms apart type. Though I do suppose if, you reduce everything that is not inbetween the lines, and scrunch everything up, then you could theoritcally end up with both lines touching even then. Oh well.

ragus
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 23, 2006
Total Topics: 16
Total Posts: 1513

Posted 08/09/07 - 12:55 AM:	#6
keda wrote Lines are not real, so gravity doesn't really affect lines. Be careful not to confuse physics with math. Gravity in GR is rendered as a distortion of space-time. Are the paths taken by particles real? Do paths get altered?
feeling cheerful

keda
Ijon Tichy

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 25, 2005
Location: Finland
Total Topics: 26
Total Posts: 2653

Posted 08/09/07 - 09:28 AM:	#7
ragus wrote: keda wrote Gravity in GR is rendered as a distortion of space-time. Are the paths taken by particles real? Do paths get altered? The paths are empirically real, but transcendentally ideal
All about making money Free Europe Now How to fix your country The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. -Benjamin Franklin If my sons did not want wars, there would be none - Gutle Rothschild It's not the people who vote that count, it's the people who count the votes - Josef Stalin

ragus
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 23, 2006
Total Topics: 16
Total Posts: 1513

Posted 08/09/07 - 01:43 PM:	#8
keda wrote The paths are empirically real, but transcendentally ideal Transcendental? I don't know how or why you're using this term. Since we can represent an empirically real path by a line why should we haggle over the ontological status of lines?
feeling cheerful

Savio
Thinker

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 26, 2007
Location: Brazil
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 23

Last Blog:

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 08/09/07 - 04:33 PM:	#9
MatthewbCurry wrote: When using math/physics in my post I was thinking about the math that Einstein incorporated into General Relativity. Math that did not use parallels was incorporated into General Relativity. That is why I connected the two. Einstein once said: "As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." My best regards,
Om Shanti Shanti Shanti

keda
Ijon Tichy

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 25, 2005
Location: Finland
Total Topics: 26
Total Posts: 2653

Posted 08/09/07 - 07:26 PM:	#10
ragus wrote: keda wrote Transcendental? I don't know how or why you're using this term. Since we can represent an empirically real path by a line why should we haggle over the ontological status of lines? I'm not. I'm just pointing out the epistemological status of lines. The possible occupation of a path by objects can be considered empirically real, but since they do not do so apart from our experience of it, it is transcendentally ideal.
All about making money Free Europe Now How to fix your country The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. -Benjamin Franklin If my sons did not want wars, there would be none - Gutle Rothschild It's not the people who vote that count, it's the people who count the votes - Josef Stalin

Matt C
banned

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Nov 03, 2006
Location: Austin, Texas
Total Topics: 26
Total Posts: 150

Posted 08/09/07 - 08:02 PM:	#11
Some of this knowledge is beyond my current comprehension. What do you all think about the name parallelism to titles in computation, grammar, and philosophy? Do you think for example that it would be beneficial to call parallel processing multiple processing, mg? Matt

Savio
Thinker

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 26, 2007
Location: Brazil
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 23

Last Blog:

Posted 08/09/07 - 08:14 PM:	#12
MatthewbCurry wrote: Some of this knowledge is beyond my current comprehension. What do you all think about the name parallelism to titles in computation, grammar, and philosophy? Do you think for example that it would be beneficial to call parallel processing multiple processing, mg? Matt In computing the name helps to understand how the meta-algorithm works. It splits a job into smaller ones then put them in separate processors. A processor can schedule jobs (e.g, round-robin) but it only handles one job at a time; so we say its a queue. When you imagine several queues working together, you imagine them side-by-side :-) so, it makes sense to call it parallel processing. It's not a bad name at all, is it?
Om Shanti Shanti Shanti

Matt C
banned

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Nov 03, 2006
Location: Austin, Texas
Total Topics: 26
Total Posts: 150

Posted 08/09/07 - 10:06 PM:	#13
Due to parallels not existing the name for parallel processing may be more accurate as side by side processing, s-b-s for short. The word parallel is so prevalent though. Matt

Savio
Thinker

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 26, 2007
Location: Brazil
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 23

Last Blog:

Posted 08/09/07 - 10:12 PM:	#14
MatthewbCurry wrote: Due to parallels not existing the name for parallel processing may be more accurate as side by side processing, s-b-s for short. The word parallel is so prevalent though. Matt Of course parallels exist. It may not exist in matter but it exists as a concept, thought, whatever. Being a concept is more than enough to explain its usage. <- That last is my humble opinion... :-)
Om Shanti Shanti Shanti

mcatalan
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 16, 2007
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 3

Posted 08/16/07 - 11:47 PM:	#15
Murrey Gell-mann, when asked about the possibilities of quantum computing, quoted a friend who said "a two-bit computer is just a two-bit computer" juggling! http://jugglinglab.sourceforge.net/bin/example_JM.html i'm crossing my fingers that projective geometry will replace riemannian geometry and lead to some new insight into supersymmetry and physics based on the lattice properties of frames in 3/5/7/9 cascades in juggling. multiplexing (MUXing): The combining of two or more information channels onto a common transmission medium. Note: In electrical communications, the two basic forms of multiplexing are time-division multiplexing (TDM) and frequency-division multiplexing (FDM). In optical communications, the analog of FDM is referred to as wavelength-division multiplexing (WDM). http://www.atis.org/tg2k/ Edited by mcatalan on 08/17/07 - 12:17 AM
art student

Matt C
banned

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Nov 03, 2006
Location: Austin, Texas
Total Topics: 26
Total Posts: 150

Posted 07/23/08 - 06:22 PM:	#16
This is a reminder, this is only a reminder: parallels do not exist. Supplanting the word with an accurate word or phrase will increase society's intellect by a couple of units. ex: problematic statement: the storm is moving parallel to the east coast. accurate statement: the storm is moving along the east coast.

larryn
SuperChomsky

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 15, 2008
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 63

Posted 08/20/08 - 02:34 PM:	#17
MatthewbCurry wrote: ex: problematic statement: the storm is moving parallel to the east coast. accurate statement: the storm is moving along the east coast. The former statement implies a more specific definition than simply saying 'along'. 'Parallel' implies that the two objects are equidistant and do not converge. 'Along' is very vague. Many words exist for the sake of being more precise, and this utility allows a term to stay around. If the term 'parallel' had no modern conventional meaning, then the word would no longer be used. Your logic would result in our getting rid of all abstract terms, which is simply asinine.

Matt C
banned

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Nov 03, 2006
Location: Austin, Texas
Total Topics: 26
Total Posts: 150

Posted 08/29/08 - 11:30 AM:	#18
larryn wrote: The former statement implies a more specific definition than simply saying 'along'. 'Parallel' implies that the two objects are equidistant and do not converge. 'Along' is very vague...Your logic would result in our getting rid of all abstract terms, which is simply asinine. The idea is simple: along is a superior choice, parallels are an illusion that many people thought to be real and it persisted this way for a long time. Two particles trajectories (ex: the path of two photons) being equidistant ad infinitum is not realistic. I am not proposing abstaining from abstract terms though. The concept of 'parallel' seems like a great selection for modernizing because non-Euclidean geometry is a triumph in our mathematical knowledge, it's part of General Relativity.

Klingsor's goldfish
Awaiting triage

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 31, 2008
Location: A counterentropic eddy of spacetime
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 121

Posted 08/29/08 - 12:24 PM:	#19
Matt C wrote: The idea is simple: along is a superior choice, parallels are an illusion that many people thought to be real and it persisted this way for a long time. Two particles trajectories (ex: the path of two photons) being equidistant ad infinitum is not realistic. I am not proposing abstaining from abstract terms though. The concept of 'parallel' seems like a great selection for modernizing because non-Euclidean geometry is a triumph in our mathematical knowledge, it's part of General Relativity. errrrmmmm.... parallel simply means paths that are equidistant for their length this is an example of parallel lines "=". Why do you want to bring in an infinite length? BTW many things are illusions (or constructions, or conventions, or concepts, or metaphorical uses), yet we happily use terms that refer to them - because there is a pragmatic advantage to doing so - we all think in the same basic ways. Presumably you wish to excise all metaphors, too?
Looks like freedom but it feels like death Its something in between I guess.

enkidu
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 27, 2006
Total Topics: 18
Total Posts: 1190

Posted 08/29/08 - 12:47 PM:	#20
MatthewbCurry wrote: For a language-minded person, how does a language get modernized? A language gets modernized by usage. Words, grammatical forms are created when people find a necessity for them; in the same way, words or grammatical forms can become obsolete and dissapeared if this necessity dissapears. Every now and then, a political authority recommends some modifications, but ultimately, it is up to the public to adopt the changes by their usage. There is clearly no urge to suppress the word "parallel" from the english language or from any other, it is still widely used (and will be used forever) in mathematics, as well as in many other areas (such as gymnastics for instance), but also figuratively. Anyway, the evolution of language is not something that is squarely planified and decided (except maybe by the most authoritarian order) on rational ground, it is more a natural phenomenon that occurs in parallel with the development of societies.
"The difficulty in philosophy is to say no more than we know." L. Wittgenstein - The Blue Book "Only a Sith Lord deals in absolutes" - you know who

Kelby
Cognitive Philosopher

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 03, 2008
Location: The Fire Nation
Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 236

Posted 08/29/08 - 12:50 PM:	#21
I think I said this on another forum about the word "like." Words remain alive because they still have meaning for people and help communicate information. The word parallel, if it was useless, would disappear...and it hasn't. sooo?
Embodied Cognition: http://www.iep.utm.edu/e/embodcog.htm#H2

Matt C
banned

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Nov 03, 2006
Location: Austin, Texas
Total Topics: 26
Total Posts: 150

Posted 08/29/08 - 03:04 PM:	#22
Kelby wrote: I think I said this on another forum about the word "like." Words remain alive because they still have meaning for people and help communicate information. The word parallel, if it was useless, would disappear...and it hasn't. sooo? I readed an article about the evolution of words. It eludes to language taking hundreds of years to evolve. One of the predictions is that read will be readed.

larryn
SuperChomsky

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 15, 2008
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 63

Posted 08/29/08 - 03:29 PM:	#23
Matt C wrote: I readed an article about the evolution of words. It eludes to language taking hundreds of years to evolve. One of the predictions is that read will be readed. I see you are getting an early start on using 'readed'... I think the point was that language evolution is also a natural process, and that it doesn't require us to force the changes; it will just happen on its own.

SIR2U
Why

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 17, 2006
Location: Honduras
Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 833

Posted 08/29/08 - 05:17 PM:	#24
matt c wrote: I readed an article about the evolution of words. It eludes to language taking hundreds of years to evolve. Thousands of years would be closer for English. Words are reused or redefined as new uses for them come along, we all still listen to the dial tone on the phone and them dial a number even thought there is no dial available to do it with on modern phones. If there is no use for them they disappear. When there is no word available for something that is invented, developed or discovered we sometimes borrow words from other languages. If something new is introduced into a society from another it is often the practice to import its name and make it more pronouncable. But the idea that a word would like parallel would just disappear is sort of ridicules. Even if it is not accurate enough for more modern physics and math use it still has everyday uses for us poor uneducated slobs. The geniuses will have to find another word to use. Now there's a good idea! Lets try to invent one for them.
Unknown Alanic wiseman. "Ignorance and bad teeth have at least one thing in common. Keeping your mouth closed makes them both less obvious"

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.