Re: a union is always a join!
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2009 23:09:40 -0300
Message-ID: <49c6ef67$0$5492$9a566e8b_at_news.aliant.net>
paul c wrote:
>> "Walter Mitty" <wamitty_at_verizon.net> wrote in message >> news:R7qxl.1720$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!
Not that that would have anything to do with "ultimate reality" or anything.
> 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 - 03:09:40 CET