Write4U
Valued Senior Member
It hijacked the regular term "permit" and applied it to a very specific and exclusive scientific condition.
Quantum Creationism -- Is It Science Or Is It Religion?
- Thread starter Eugene Shubert
- Start date
- Status
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
There is something badly wrong with your mind. “Permit” is not the same word as permittivity.
Heaviside chose Permittivity because it was a new word, i.e. did not have a pre-existing meaning. That is what gave him the freedom to define it for scientific purposes without hijacking anything, or causing confusion with an existing usage.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
So the disqualifier is their common denominator and fundamental functionality ?
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
I would say, rather, that it is the enfolded functional potential of their hive mind, cf. Anal Seth.
I don't want to distract too much from the valid criticisms of Write4U's invention of language, but this caught my eye:
Doesn't that make missum something to do with the subjunctive, and not the past tense?
(And, while we're at it, can somebody please remind me what the subjunctive is, again?)
----
On the matter of Write4U, the only comment I have is that it constantly puzzles me as to why the man won't gracefully accept correction of his errors. Why does he instead look for straws to grasp at, to try in vain to justify whatever his most recent sinking ship is? To me, it smacks of an unwillingness to learn anything.
I have vague memories from school Latin. What are the four verb parts again? Something to do with present tense, infinitive, perfect tense and subjunctive?Baldeee said:
Doesn't that make missum something to do with the subjunctive, and not the past tense?
(And, while we're at it, can somebody please remind me what the subjunctive is, again?)
----
On the matter of Write4U, the only comment I have is that it constantly puzzles me as to why the man won't gracefully accept correction of his errors. Why does he instead look for straws to grasp at, to try in vain to justify whatever his most recent sinking ship is? To me, it smacks of an unwillingness to learn anything.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
No the fourth one is the past participle, not subjunctive.
I recall that the subjunctive is used in subordinate clauses after “ut” or “ne”, i.e. A in order that B(subjunctive) or A in order that not B(subjunctive). In French one uses subjunctive after “que” i.e “that”, e.g. je crois que B , I believe that B .
Re Write4U I agree: a stubborn refusal to concede, which he probably wrongly thinks shows intellectual strength, when in fact it shows brittle stupidity.
But he has a raft of problems. This blindness to the meaning of words is very odd. And the inability to discriminate between relevant and irrelevant internet references. And then there is his seeming need to work his Tegmark/Penrose/Seth religion into every subject.
Yes, you're right (and so was Baldeee, I think). Thanks. I should have just googled it in the first place.
The four principle parts of a Latin verb are:
First Principal Part: 1st singular present indicative active
Hence, mito - "I send". amo - "I love".
Second Principal Part: present infinitive active
mittere - "to send". amare - "to love".
Third Principal Part: 1st singular perfect indicative active
misi - "I sent". amavi - "I loved".
Fourth Principal Part: perfect participle passive (typically the masculine singular nominative)
missum - "He was sent" or "him having been sent". amatum - "He was loved" or "him having been loved".
The last one is used in constructing certain other tenses, too, especially in conjunction with the verb "to be".
----
The subjunctive is a different thing. (Thanks for the explanation.)
To correct what I said before, the fourth principle part is more correctly the supine, I believe.
It might look like the participle, but not all verbs have the passive while they usually still have a supine (e.g. to sit - sideo, sidere, sedi, sessum).
(At least I don't think "to sit" has a passive?).
Also note that the masculine singular nominative of the perfect participle passive of mitto would be missus, not missum.
Missum would be the accusative.
Some textbooks will say it's the perfect participle passive - masculine singular nominative - and give that, but I think that's because the supine is often introduced at a fairly late stage in one's learning, and they'd rather you learnt the four forms, even if the fourth is not quite what you might initially learn.
Some might also say that it's the neutral / accusative - and give that, which would tie in with missum.
But I was taught, eventually, that it should "correctly" be the supine - also missum.
So as to which it is will probably depend on which dictionary or textbook you look(ed) at, but hopefully they should make it clear what they're using as the fourth principal part.
The confusion would be if you saw missum and took that to be the masculine singular nominative etc.
Also, while the participle is an adjective that must therefore agree with the noun it is describing (in terms of declension - hence needing to state "masculine singular nominative"), the supine is an unchanging form.
So in the case of mitto, mittere, misi, missum, I do think that this fourth part is probably best understood as the supine, but there may well not be any "correct", and each to their own.
The subjunctive is a mood that expresses a desire, wish, possibility, a hypothetical situation etc.
So, in English, "I hope that he stops talking nonsense" is in the subjunctive mood.
We don't have specific tenses for this ('cos English is far easier to learn - if you ignore all the exceptions!
) but in Latin, and some other languages, they did/do.The subjunctive contrasts with the indicative ("he stopped talking nonsense") which is an expression of fact, and the imperative ("Stop talking nonsense!") which expresses a command.
Good grief!
I haven't done Latin for XLV years and it comes flooding back!
I started reading your post but, stopped after reading this.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Presumably, then, you have the same difficulty with “capacitance” and “inductance”, both of which are related to the generally used words “capacity” and “induction”, yet are technical terms, coined specifically for use in science and engineering.
No one else seems to find this strange.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
False equivalence. Try to find an example that supports my argument.
permit - permission? - permittance - permittivity. But no permittive, I find that strange and illogical.
Permittance vs Permission - What's the difference? | WikiDiff
https://wikidiff.com/permission/permittance
And what is the meaning of permittivity?
Permittivity
Relative permittivity is directly related to electric susceptibility (χ) by �=�−1, otherwise written as �=�r�0=(1+�)�0
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permittivity
Last edited:
I do not think this is correct: "permittivity" is not a derivative of "permittive" but instead seems to be a variation on, as mentioned before, "permissivity".
Permissivity is the version that obeys the general rules of how words form from Latin verbs.
Seeking a different word, possibly due to connotations of the existing one, but still keeping with the notion of "allowing something", the coined word was "permisivitty".
This is not derived from "permittive" as "permittive" does not exist as a word, other than as a mispelling of "permissive".
To be a derivative of something, that something must exist in the first place, must it not?
However, it is clear that you are trying to derive "permittive" from "permittivity".
And, as you can see, it's not flying.
The odd / strange thing here is that you're not taking on board what people are telling you.
In your above example, the correct words, according to the general rules of deriving words from the Latin, and which are all regular, non-scientific, non-coined words, would be permit - permission - permittance - permissivity.
I'm assuming at this point that you do know of the word "permissivity", and thus you deliberately put "permittivity" into that string of words?
Why did you do that?
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
No, I am trying to derive permittivity from permittive. But that word does not exist.
That's ok with me but I wonder what the scientists said when permittivity was introduced as an extention of permission in the current familiar context.
It appears that permissivity also does not exist.
But a better analogy is conductive (not conducive) and its derivative conductivity.
But I choose the term permittive after mentally referencing permittivity as the
Dielectric constant of a plasma in context of quantum fields such as plasma
https://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node100.html
It seemed entirely natural to use that spelling. ok, I invented a new word....
Last edited:
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
When I tested the sentence with "vacuum is a permissive condition" it did not sound right.
But "vacuum is a permittive condition" sounds entirely logical. It was a matter of aesthetics.
my question is ; "Why is there objection to such an ordinary derivative of "permit"?
Where is the consistency?
It is not an ordinary derivative.
The ordinary derivative is permissive, whether you find that aesthetic or not.
Permissive follows the general rules of how we construct words from the Latin roots of verbs, as has been explained previously.
When Permittivity was coined it was a word that sat outside those normal structures, and was coined with a specific definition / purpose.
Also note that noone is really objecting to you using the word permittive if that is what you want to use.
What is being objected to is you using it without explanation of what you want it to mean, given that it is not a word in use at the moment, and is not a standard derivative of "permit".
Then expecting everyone to know what you mean.
And, further, not understanding why the objection, or listening to what people have been telling you.
Even now you don't seem to grasp the basics that permittivity is not an ordinary derivative, and that trying to derive a new word from permittivity is thus also not ordinary.
So.
When you say "vacuum is a permittive condition", what do you actually mean?
Permeability came to the English language from the Latin word permeabilis.
In English it had a meaning all of its own (i.e. "allowing liquids to pass through") prior to adoption as a scientific measure unrelated to liquids.
Permittivity did not.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Thanks for the question.
The term "permittive" suggest a condition or medium without physical restrictions restrictions.
Assuming a timeless, dimensionless, permittive condition at the instant of the BB and the Inflationary Epoch where the singularity expanded at FTL for an instant allowing a geometry to form that then began to guide the mathematical evolution of the universe.
I particularly like CDT (causal dynamical triangulation) as it actually uses a fractal value as the fundamental particles that are causal to the formation of spacetime and all it's physical expressions of inherent mathematical potentials (patterns).
Surely, if any creation takes place it must be at this level of quantum values that are suitable for biochemical evolution.
The Table of Elements is the Elementary menu of this Universe. The evidence shows that there are many more elements to spacetime than is necessary to produce life in a dynamic. Life in this universe is only based on about 500 different biochemicals.
Chemical Compounds in Living Things
The strings of beads pictured below are simple models of polymers in biochemical compounds.
https://bio.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Human_Biology/Human_Biology_(Wakim_and_Grewal)/03:_Chemistry_of_Life/3.04:_Biochemical_Compounds
I think "permissive" is an anthropomorphized word as granted.
I believe "permittive" is more formal and abstract in essence, as condition.
A condition that permitted this:
Figure 3.3.6 DNA is a polymer made of many monomers called nucleotides. DNA carries all the instructions a cell needs to carry out metabolism.
https://humanbiology.pressbooks.tru.ca/chapter/3-3-biochemical-compounds/#
Last edited:
Baldeee:
The most he ever does in response to specific criticisms of his ideas, language or anything else is to replace one poor rationalisation with a different poor rationalisation. He will never give up on a bad idea that's his.
Case in point:
Now he has a new rationalisation for using his neologism. He believes that standard words with regular etymologies are too "anthropomorphized", whatever that's supposed to mean. Therefore, ordinary English is to be replaced with Write4U language, which is "more formal" (??) and "abstract in essence, as condition" (??!)
Oh, and you opened the floodgates for yet another spin of the Write4U three-topic wheel of doom. And I see you have attracted the standard sort of Write4U response, which doesn't actually address your question.
He never really does. He's sort of in his own little world.
The most he ever does in response to specific criticisms of his ideas, language or anything else is to replace one poor rationalisation with a different poor rationalisation. He will never give up on a bad idea that's his.
Case in point:
You told him that "permittive" isn't a real word, and why. He has ignored all that.
Now he has a new rationalisation for using his neologism. He believes that standard words with regular etymologies are too "anthropomorphized", whatever that's supposed to mean. Therefore, ordinary English is to be replaced with Write4U language, which is "more formal" (??) and "abstract in essence, as condition" (??!)
This sort of question is always a waste of time with Write4U. The answer is that he doesn't actually mean anything. It's "abstract in essence, as condition". Don't you see? Write4U's words mean exactly what he wants them to mean, and their meanings can fluidly change to be whatever he needs them to be from moment to moment. This is more formal and abstract in essence, you see.
Oh, and you opened the floodgates for yet another spin of the Write4U three-topic wheel of doom. And I see you have attracted the standard sort of Write4U response, which doesn't actually address your question.
Last edited:
Write4U:
Ho hum. As you were. Just ignore my little rant. You were going to anyway.
The vacuum has physical restrictions. For instance, the vacuum is empty of matter, by definition. Unless you're using your own "more abstract" definition of "vacuum", of course. In that case, anything goes, because words no longer need to have set meanings in the Write4U world. (Idle thought: would anybody pay Write4U to write for them?)
Word salad.
More word salad. Come on. This doesn't actually mean anything. Admit it.
Non sequitur, apparently unrelated to anything that came before.
Right! It's literally called "The Table of the Elements"!
How do you know what's necessary to produce life?
The obligatory irrelevant cut and paste.
Ho hum. As you were. Just ignore my little rant. You were going to anyway.
- Status