I am pleased to write that reviews are still appearing on Amazon UK and Amazon USA. The latest one on Amazon USA is, in general terms, a fairly positive one. Unfortunately Mr(?) B MacIntyre has ruined my sequence of five star reviews but his comments are still valid ones - after all not everybody will rate the book highly. I think that his comments with regard to me being a 'crank theorist' to be a little unfair but on the face of it CTF could be seen as such.
One of his points is particularly interesting. In ITLAD I give the analogy that my theory on the bisection of time is similar to that of the radioactive decay of a substance - i.e. that in any given time period a substance loses half its quantity. I apply Zeno's bisection paradox to this. Mr McIntyre points out that this is in error. He writes:
"For instance, he says that a radioactive half life implies that there will always be a quantity of a given radioactive substance - not so, a billion atoms of cobalt 60 will eventually be reduced to one, and then none."
Now I think that it is a little unfair and somewhat disingenuous of him to criticise me for using this because radioactive half life is not, in any way a component of CTF so as such my misunderstanding of this is irrelevant. Indeed I only use it as an analogy for something else. However that is not the point of this posting. I am of the opinion that he is right in that what is happening in half life is that numbers of atoms are being reduced and their will be a point, as he says, when it will decrease from 2 to 1 and then to zero - because an atom cannot be split into half an atom (after all is that not what atom means - Greek atomos (indivisible).
Is he, as I suspect, right on this point?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
Tony, taking into account my comments on your other post "Zeno's Bisection Paradox - A New Angle" into consideration I hope you can see that your Amazon reviewer is indeed right and not right at the same time.
Sort of.
The radioactive Half-Life of a substance is simply to time it takes for exactly half of it to decay.
NOW, the problem comes when we try to seperate the invinity division of matter from the infinite division of time.
In radioactive decay there will, ultimately, come a time when there is not enough actual substance left to decay half of without destroying the remaining substance. This is Einsteinian IF given a linear timeline.
CTF theory relates to TIME, the time within the Phaneron of the individual. Time can be infinitely subdivided whereas matter can not.
I hope this makes sense, as it barely does to me, and I'm supposed to know what I'm talking about!!
Can I make a request to any American members of this Blog who have bought anything on Amazon USA. It would be really great if you could add a 'comment' on Mr McIntyre's review. It would be interesting to involve him in this debate - it is sad that he is missing all this (and it would be good to have his opinions on this esteemed site).
Sorry, what I meant is that on the comment you could simply direct him to this site saying something along the lines as 'you may find this interesting ....
Direct link to the "comment on the review box":
http://www.amazon.com/review/product/0785821627/ref=cm_cr_dp_synop?%5Fencoding=UTF8&sortBy=bySubmissionDateDescending#ROJPZN256GXFR
Anthony: I am uncertain as to whether my comment would be appropriate to post to him, as it is coming from the philosophical rather than the scientific perspective. Eric Steinhart ( esteemed professor of philsophy and Nietzsche scholar) has asserted that eternal recurrence (which he strongly affirms) is a metaphsyical theory, which has as its touchstone the idea that time itself repeats as a whole, and not conversely things within time. It is a repetition of time taking place outside of time, and can be rationally believed because it is morally and existentially robust. When Nietzsche spoke of the Biblical God, he said, "If you could prove such a god to us, we would believe it even less." Likewise, if Peake's theory can be disproven, I would believe it nonetheless, perhaps all the more. Steinhart admits that there may indeed be things contained in the new physics which support ER but warns against this being viewed as the thing of greatest import. The only point in which I agree with MacIntyre is regarding the area of NDE: I vastly prefer Anthony's theory to the melodrama and generic quality of so many of these accounts. To my thinking, the fact that this MacIntyre fellow ended his 3 star (which ain't half bad) review with the statement that he remained "intrigued and disturbed" was a "hail fellow well met" gesture that proved his respect for Peake. As I said, because I am not scientific, I am not posting this unless you would tell me it is relevant.
Susan,
Thanks for your response. I agree with your concerns. The reason I wish him to know about this blog is because I feel that his parting shot was friendly and intrigued rather than aggressive and negative. I think that he made some very valid points which to me shows that he gave me the honour of reading the book very carefully. I guess that I feel his opinions would be an interesting counterpoint. The only reason I have not placed an invite to him on Amazon USA is that I have never bought anything from that site and therefore cannot do so.
But please, do not feel obliged in any way. I am more than happy with the three stars!!!
ANTHONY; Thanks for responding. And I of course can only view you as a 5 star author, and then some. But I do think this man has great respect for you; he might have called you a crank and given you one star. But he was careful only to say that you used a method of other theorists who may or may not be cranks. And the ending is abrupt and moving: almost as if he were flattering you and wanting you to speak to him. As I have written you a 5 star review on amazon.com/ USA 2 months ago (under a pseudonym) I would be happy to invite him, or ask him if he wants you to, rather. But as I said, I would not know if I should keep my comments out of it or not--you must tell me.
ANTHONY; Thanks for responding. And I of course can only view you as a 5 star author, and then some. But I do think this man has great respect for you; he might have called you a crank and given you one star. But he was careful only to say that you used a method of other theorists who may or may not be cranks. And the ending is abrupt and moving: almost as if he were suddenly flattering you and wanting you to speak to him. As I have written you a 5 star review on amazon.com/ USA 2 months ago (under a pseudonym) I would be happy to invite him, or ask him if he wants you to, rather. But as I said, I would not know if I should keep my comments out of it or not--you must tell me.
I DID NOT MEAN TO POST IT TWICE- IT SAID THE FIRST HAD BEEN AN ERROR. NOW IT IS JINXED!!!
Susan, the more postings the better - and after all it may make some people feel that they are experiencing a deja vu!!!!
I again agree with you that the guy seems an interesting person and one that would certainly add even more to this site.
Please do just drop him a line and ask him to maybe give the site the once over. If he then wishes to join he can contact me via my website.
Indeed, if you do place the link on there others may see it and decide to give the site the once-over so it cannot be a bad thing.
Thanks again.
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED (under the pseudonym, 'Betty DeCicco')-Do you want to take a look to see if I posted the link correctly (I tried my best)?
"Mmmmm, Betty"
*obviously*
Susan Marie,
That looks fine ... thank you so much for doing this.
Whether he responds or not is up to him now. I am of the opinion that he could contribute some interesting comments so lets hope ...
ANTHONY: My pleasure, and I intuit that he will surely pop in at some point in time. . .
KARL: Oh, hush up. *spoken sternly yet playfully, and with affectionate regard.*
*loves it when Susan-Marie becomes a tad stern*
And Tony, I hope you're not taking criticism too much to heart again with this fella on Amazon.
I'm sure if and when he comes over to join us here in our cerebral revellery that he will see the errors of his ways.
*smile*
Post a Comment