Import & Swerve
01010100 01101000 01100101 00100000 01110011 01110100 01100001 01110100
01100101 01101101 01100101 01101110 01110100 00100000 01101101 01100001
01100100 01100101 00100000 01100010 01111001 00100000 01100001 00100000
01110000 01100001 01110010 01110100 01111001 00100000 01110100 01101111
00100000 01100001 00100000 01100011 01101111 01101110 01110100 01110010
01100001 01100011 01110100 00101100 00100000 01110100 01101000 01100001
01110100 00100000 01100001 00100000 01110100 01101000 01101001 01101110
01100111 00100000 01110010 01100101 01101100 01100001 01110100 01101001
01101110 01100111 00100000 01110100 01101111 00100000 01101001 01110100
00100000 01101001 01110011 00100000 01101001 01101110 00100000 01100110
01100001 01100011 01110100 00100000 01101001 01101110 00100000 01100001
00100000 01110000 01100001 01110010 01110100 01101001 01100011 01110101
01101100 01100001 01110010 00100000 01110111 01100001 01111001 00101100
00100000 01110111 01101000 01100101 01101110 00100000 01101000 01100101
00100000 01101011 01101110 01101111 01110111 01110011 00100000 01101001
01110100 00100000 01101001 01110011 00100000 01101110 01101111 01110100
00100000 01110011 01101111 00101110 00001010
SF Revolution Expansion – stage 1 – finished
Data Feeds
When faced with the question of why are we here, we know for absolute
certain we are here for one reason, we are here to go. We are not here
to stay. In fact we even spend trillions to help us on our death trip
a little faster.
|
v
|
= K[C(1- R^-.25)/ (B + C/3)]^.5 |
Uranium has sixteen isotopes, all of which are radioactive. Naturally occurring uranium nominally contains 99.28305 by weight 238U, 0.7110% 235U, and 0.0054% 234U.
1e8 watts per square centimeter for about a microsecond will melt part of the surface of a sheet of aluminum.
One megaton at one kilometer will do 3.3e10 W/cm2, enough to vaporize but not quite enough for impulsive shock.
- One could hold that holes do not exist at all, arguing that all
truths about holes boil down to truths about holed objects (Jackson
1977: 32). This calls for a systematic way of paraphrasing every
hole-committing sentence by means of a sentence that does not refer to
or quantify over holes. For instance, the phrase ‘There is a hole
inɉ۪ can be treated as a mere grammatical variant of the shape
predicate ‘… is holed’, or of the predicate ‘… has a
hole-surrounding part’. (Challenge: Can a language be envisaged that
contains all the necessary predicates? Can every hole-referring
noun-phrase be de-nominalized? Compare: ‘The hole in the tooth was
smaller than the dentist’s finest probe’, Geach 1968: 12.) - One
could hold that holes do exist, but they are not the immaterial
entities they seem to be (Lewis & Lewis 1970). For instance, one
could hold that holes are material after all—they are superificial
parts of what, on the naive view, are their material hosts. For every
hole there is a hole-surround; for every hole-surround there is a hole.
On this view the hole-surround is the hole. (Challenge: This
calls for an account of the altered meaning of certain predicates or
prepositions. What would ‘inside’ and ‘outside’ mean? What would it
mean to ‘enlarge’ a hole?) - Alternatively, one could hold that
holes are “negative” parts of their material hosts (Hoffman &
Richards 1985). On this account, a donut would be a sort of hybrid
mereological aggregate—the mereological sum of a positive pie together
with the negative bit in the middle. (Again, this calls for an account
of the altered meaning of certain modes of speech. For instance, making
a hole would amount to adding a part, and changing an object to get rid
of a hole would mean to remove a part, contrary to ordinary usage.) - Yet another possibility is to treat holes as “disturbances” of some sort (Karmo 1977). On this view, a hole is to be found in
some object (its “medium”) in the same sense in which a knot may be
found in a rope or a wrinkle in a carpet. (The metaphysical status of
such entities, however, calls for refinements. Simons 1987: 308 has
suggested construing them as Husserlian moments that continuously
change their fundaments, but this seems to suit knots and wrinkles
better than holes.)
On the other hand, the possibility
remains of taking holes at face value. Any such effort would have to
account, not only for the general features mentioned in section 1—to
the effect that holes are sui generis, immaterial particulars—but also for a number of additional peculiarities (Casati & Varzi 1994). Among others:
- Holes
are localized at—but not identical with—regions of space. (Holes can
move, as happens anytime you move a piece of Emmenthal cheese; regions
of space cannot.) - Holes are ontologically parasitic: they are always in something else and cannot exist in isolation. (‘There is no such thing as a hole by itself’, Tucholsky 1930.)
- Holes are fillable. (You don’t destroy a hole by filling it up. You don’t create a new hole by removing the filling.)
- Holes
are mereologically structured. (They have parts and can bear part-whole
relations to one another, though not to their hosts.) - Holes
are topologically assorted. (Superficial hollows are distinguished from
internal cavities; straight perforations are distinguished from knotted
tunnels.)
powered by performancing firefox
powered by performancing firefox
