[blml] Double Dummy play [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[richard.hills at immi.gov.au]

Richard Hills:

>>Believing that the De Wael School is a valid interpretation
>>of the Lawbook is akin to believing that the Ptolemaic
>>School is a valid interpretation of the universe.

Alain Gottcheiner:

>Analogy is a very dangerous exercise indeed.
>
>One should note that the Ptolemaic theory of epicycles leads
>to correct results, and that's the acid test for scientific
>theories.
>
>What's more, it's equivalent to Copernicus's heliocentric
>theory, in the sense that ... they lead to the same results.

Richard Hills:

One reason that it took so long for the Copernican theory to
displace the Ptolemaic geocentric theory was that Ptolemy's
epicycles gave more accurate predictions of planetary
movements than Copernicus's heliocentric circular orbits.

Only when Kepler refined Copernicus's initial theory, by
postulating elliptical orbits, did the two world views
provide identical predictions of the _movement_ of the
planets.

But Ptolemy's theory differed from Copernicus's theory on
the _illumination_ of the planets.  The fact that Venus (like
the Moon) had phases - a fact that Galileo was able to
discover thanks to the invention of the telescope - was
inconsistent with Ptolemy's geocentric theory.

Not to mention the discovery of the Galilean satellites.  The
fundamental point of Ptolemy's geocentric theory was that all
celestial bodies orbited the Earth.  But Galileo's telescopic
observations demonstrably suggested that the Galilean
satellites instead orbited Jupiter.

Alain Gottcheiner:

>Using Ptolemy's theory is merely using an Earth-based
>referential rather than a Sun-based referential, and the
>theory of relativity tells us that neither is 'more correct'
>than the other one.
>
>The only thing with Copernicus's theory is that it leads to
>easier calculations.

Richard Hills:

Alain here is confusing Ptolemy's theory with Tycho's
compromise theory.  Tycho proposed that the Moon and the Sun
orbited the Earth, and that the other planets orbited the Sun.
The invention of the telescope, and the discovery of the
phases of Venus, could not invalidate Tycho's relative change
of reference point.

But to get back to the thrust of my analogy, there is not
merely a different reference point between the De Wael School
and the so-called Majority School, so one cannot say that the
De Wael School is analogous to Tycho's theory.  Rather, there
is a fundamental difference of philosophy and outcome, making
the De Wael School analogous to the original Ptolemaic theory.

The bedrock principle of the De Wael School is this:

"Creating new UI is a greater evil.  Creating new MI is a
lesser evil.  Therefore, in cases where you have to do one or
the other, create new MI."

While the bedrock principle of the Majority School is this:

"Using UI is an evil.  Creating new MI is an evil.  These two
principles can never clash, so what's the problem?  By the
way, it is permissible to create new UI as a necessary
consequence of truthfully answering a Law 75C question."

Parsing the Lawbook alone cannot prove which of the Majority
School or the De Wael School is correct.  But the analogy to
Galileo's telescope is this WBF Code of Practice clause.

WBF Code of Practice, page 7:

>>A player who, without design, makes unauthorized
>>information available to his partner does not commit an
>>infraction of law or propriety; it is the use of that
>>information that is a breach of the laws.

Grattan Endicott (WBF CoP co-author), 5th June 2007:

>> ... There is no *design* to convey UI when a player
>>answers a question that the laws require him to answer.
>>                                        ~ Grattan ~   +=+


Epper si muove

Richard James Hills, amicus curiae
Level 6 Aqua Training Suite, DIAC
02 6225 6776

Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise
the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately.  This email,
including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally
privileged and/or copyright information.  Any review, retransmission,
dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other
than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and
has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental
privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au
See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm