>At 02:55 PM 5/5/96 +1000, you wrote:
>>
>>On Sat, 4 May 1996, D Hugh-Jones wrote:
>>
>>Maybe Quetzil's being a bit cheeky, but he has a point.
>>
>>To conceive of making an A-bomb one needs to have thought of the idea of
>>dropping explosive things on top of each other, to have some idea of how
>>to deliver it, and to know that if you get enough U235 together it will
>>explode. In principle you don't need a lot of quantum theory, though in
>>this case because U235
But it will _also_ require the knowledge that certain materials have certain
properties that others do not possess. And it will require that those
materials exist, actually exist, that is. The notion of bombi-ness alone
doth not a bomb make. Why not bomb them with flowers. Or linguistically
construct a theory that allows us to think our enemies away.
>
>>A simpler example would be gunpowder, which was used long before we had
>>theories about oxygen and combustion.
But this just makes the materialist argument, in that knowledge of theories
about, that is linguistic conceptualisations of, oxygen and combustion were
not necessary in order for them to have the properties they have independent
of any knowledge we might gain of them. Also, in order for gunpowder to be
used as gunpowder, as opposed to feathers, required that the users, Guy
Falwkes for example, at least knew that certian materials had certain
propoerties that others didn't..
>
>it is a more effective example.
>
>
>>
>>As I recall, quarks weren't "discovered" until after the bombs had been
>>built, so that "knowledge" was apparently not necessary.
But this has always been my point. The knowledge does not proceed the
potential. Whether or not quarks, feathers, gunpowder, etc., exist and have
the properties they have is not, solely, dependent upon humanity. Of course,
what meaning we give to things is important, no one has denied this. But
there are non-linguistic constraints on what meaning and/or use we can
give/use certain things.
>
--------------------------------------------------------
Colin Wight
Department of International Politics
University of Wales, Aberystwyth
Aberystwyth
SY23 3DA
--------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>On Sat, 4 May 1996, D Hugh-Jones wrote:
>>
>>Maybe Quetzil's being a bit cheeky, but he has a point.
>>
>>To conceive of making an A-bomb one needs to have thought of the idea of
>>dropping explosive things on top of each other, to have some idea of how
>>to deliver it, and to know that if you get enough U235 together it will
>>explode. In principle you don't need a lot of quantum theory, though in
>>this case because U235
But it will _also_ require the knowledge that certain materials have certain
properties that others do not possess. And it will require that those
materials exist, actually exist, that is. The notion of bombi-ness alone
doth not a bomb make. Why not bomb them with flowers. Or linguistically
construct a theory that allows us to think our enemies away.
>
>>A simpler example would be gunpowder, which was used long before we had
>>theories about oxygen and combustion.
But this just makes the materialist argument, in that knowledge of theories
about, that is linguistic conceptualisations of, oxygen and combustion were
not necessary in order for them to have the properties they have independent
of any knowledge we might gain of them. Also, in order for gunpowder to be
used as gunpowder, as opposed to feathers, required that the users, Guy
Falwkes for example, at least knew that certian materials had certain
propoerties that others didn't..
>
>it is a more effective example.
>
>
>>
>>As I recall, quarks weren't "discovered" until after the bombs had been
>>built, so that "knowledge" was apparently not necessary.
But this has always been my point. The knowledge does not proceed the
potential. Whether or not quarks, feathers, gunpowder, etc., exist and have
the properties they have is not, solely, dependent upon humanity. Of course,
what meaning we give to things is important, no one has denied this. But
there are non-linguistic constraints on what meaning and/or use we can
give/use certain things.
>
--------------------------------------------------------
Colin Wight
Department of International Politics
University of Wales, Aberystwyth
Aberystwyth
SY23 3DA
--------------------------------------------------------