Re: a union is always a join!

From: paul c <toledobythesea_at_oohay.ac>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 00:20:36 GMT
Message-ID: <oBAxl.19125$PH1.584_at_edtnps82>


Brian Selzer wrote:
> "Walter Mitty" <wamitty_at_verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:R7qxl.1720$SU3.1350_at_nwrddc02.gnilink.net...

>> "Brian Selzer" <brian_at_selzer-software.com> wrote in message 
>> news:50qxl.22730$Ws1.10290_at_nlpi064.nbdc.sbc.com...
>>
>>
>>> least not algebraic differences.  Once one admits that there are things 
>>> in the universe of discourse that can appear different at different 
>>> times, the semantics of insert, update and delete become clear: insert 
>>> describes the beginning of the path that something travels through time, 
>>> updates describe milestones along the path that mark changes in 
>>> appearance, and delete describes the end of the path.  So a transition 
>>> consisting of a delete and an insert that has no apparent effect on the 
>>> database makes perfect sense because it describes the end of one thing 
>>> and the beginning of another.
>> This is mysticism.

>
> What is your definition of mysticism? According to Webster, mysticism is
> either
>
> 1: the experience of mystical union or direct communion with ultimate
> reality reported by mystics
> 2: the belief that direct knowledge of God, spiritual truth, or ultimate
> reality can be attained through subjective experience (as intuition or
> insight)
> 3a : vague speculation : a belief without sound basis b : a theory
> postulating the possibility of direct and intuitive acquisition of ineffable
> knowledge or power
>
> My argument has nothing to do with a mystical union or direct communication
> with ultimate reality, does not even refer to God, spiritual truth or
> ultimate reality, nor does it concern the acquisition of ineffable knowledge
> or power. I don't think there is anything vague about my argument, and it
> is based upon the premise that there are things in the universe of discourse
> that can appear different at different times. I personally think that
> premise is reasonable. If you don't, then I would like to hear your
> argument.
>
>
>

(Pardon me for jumping in, ha ha, I should know better than to fall for these flights of fancy, I guess I'm just a sucker for alternative interpretations of the RM but I don't feel too guilty about that when even the big guns are still debating some nuances.)

Come on, this is a very unreasonable thing to ask of Walter (or any of the few posters here nowadays), given what you wrote. Eg., things that appear different from what they are, not to mention time travel!

  Give us a break. Suggest you stick to what is defineable as far as a convention machine is concerned, eg., ask how the information principle has got anything to do with these musings. Then you might find a better reception. You keep saying "I think" without demonstration, looks like you really mean "I want to believe". Basically this means that you must convince people who are familiar with such machines how whatever you advocate is possible using machine language. D&D did this and you need to if want other people to dig whatever you're talking about. You don't need to quote assembly language to do this, just offer some classical paralles which are known to be implementable.

Webster looks like it's gone downhill since I gave my old copy away, what the hell is "ultimate reality"? Sounds like a TV show. Anyway, you didn't mention #3a, the obvious link being vague speculation with overtones of #1 and #2, plus possibly whatever #3b et cetera mention.   Do us a favour and look up 'mumbo-jumbo' in Webster's. Received on Mon Mar 23 2009 - 01:20:36 CET

Original text of this message