Internet Goosing the Antithesis

Wednesday, April 05, 2006

About symmetry

I think some of the confusion around Aaron's examples arise from the fact that they are really two different kinds of scenarios :

1. We are looking at a single causal link, and looking at relationships at a specific moment in time. (examples 2 and 4)
2. We are looking at the existence of a causal link in time (photon traveling) and positing the possibility of reciprocity. (examples 1 and 3)

Symmetry of the first type always exists, but not of the second type - simply because the hypothetical causal agent does not have the capacity to effect what is needed. For example, if I reflect photons and can see, I can confirm 1, but being a man I can never reciprocate 4 - I cannot give birth to my father. Symmetry of the second type requires universal properties.

Here is my badly drawn attempt to explain the difference between Aaron's two principles :

Post a Comment


At 4/05/2006 12:02 PM, Blogger Aaron Kinney declaimed...

Regarding our conversation yesterday and your illustrations, I see what you are saying, but I think my symmetry pinciple is more generalized and somehow encompasses both of these examples.

Within both examples you use, what are their similarities? Well they both involve two entities and a relationship or interaction.

The symmetry principle applies to both examples of yours, I think, because within both examples there is a couple of entities and a relationship, and both entities must conform to the requirements of the relationship itself.

Entity A cannot have a relationship with entity B without exposing itself to entity B having a relationship with it as well.

Im trying to explain how both of these examples seem to fall under the same principle to me... maybe theres something Im still missing?

At 4/05/2006 3:28 PM, Blogger Francois Tremblay declaimed...

Like I said, the obvious proof that they are different, is that there is a parent-child relationship, but the child cannot give birth to his parent.

At 4/06/2006 1:24 PM, Blogger Aaron Kinney declaimed...

But a child cannot be a child without having a parent.

At 4/06/2006 2:07 PM, Blogger Zachary Moore declaimed...

I think maybe the symmetry illustration is best kept in the realm of moral statements. Otherwise, it seems like tautology.

At 4/06/2006 7:45 PM, Blogger Aaron Kinney declaimed...

Yea, I think my child/parent example was a poor one.



Create a Link

<< Home