Feynman's fallacy
ilya_sha...@yahoo.com
In his first chapter he makes the point that, because the laws of the
universe will be perceived the same from wherever the person observes
it, there is no way to find the center of the universe.
That is a fallacy. That any given point can provide the vintage point
of observation of the laws of the universe, means not that any point
can be the center of the universe but rather that the laws of the
universe are omnipresent within the universe - which, of course, they
would be expected to be.
In no way does that state that there is no such thing as the center
of the universe, or the starting point for the laws of the universe,
or a substance or a creator or a divine essence from which the universe
comes.
Ilya Shambat.
Jonathan Heath
> universe will be perceived the same from wherever the person observes
> it, there is no way to find the center of the universe.
> That is a fallacy.
Oh joy! The return of my favourite time-waster. Come along then, let's
hear your scientific method for determining the centre of the Universe.
I can't wait to see you prove Feynman wrong.
Randroid Terminator
>> That is a fallacy.
That's not difficult. All we have to do is wait for Feynman to say
something philosophical.
--
But woe to the legislator who wishes to establish
through force a polity directed to ethical ends!
For in so doing he would not merely achieve the
very opposite of an ethical polity but also
undermine his political state and make it insecure.
Immanuel Kant
Jonathan Heath
> something philosophical.
A touch strong, but I share the sentiment. However, what we're
discussing here is an empirical question.
Randroid Terminator
Not if all empirical questions reduce to philosophy.
Jonathan Heath
Two can play at this game you know.
Randroid Terminator
I don't know what you mean by that exactly, but maybe we should just
eliminate philosophy of science from all empirical questions and see
how well your questions get answered then.
Mark N
> I've been reading Richard Feynman's Six Not-So-Easy Pieces.
>
>
> In his first chapter he makes the point that, because the laws of the
> universe will be perceived the same from wherever the person observes
> it, there is no way to find the center of the universe.
>
>
> That is a fallacy. That any given point can provide the vintage point
> of observation of the laws of the universe, means not that any point
> can be the center of the universe but rather that the laws of the
> universe are omnipresent within the universe - which, of course, they
> would be expected to be.
I don't have that book. Did Feynman use that exact phrase, "center of
the universe"? And, if he did, is it possible that he meant it in a
loose, non-literal way, just to refer to a point that is special in some
sense? My guess is that he was trying to explain the principle of the
homogeneity of space, which roughly says that local laws of motion are
the same at all points in space. This is often expressed by saying that
there is no "special point" in the universe, but this doesn't involve
any assumptions about any global properties of the universe.
Mark
Jonathan Heath
claim appear unjustified.
> In his first chapter he makes the point that, because the laws of the
> universe will be perceived the same from wherever the person observes
> it, there is no way to find the center of the universe.
True, as far as I know. If anyone knows different, let's hear it.
> That is a fallacy. That any given point can provide the vintage point
> of observation of the laws of the universe, means not that any point
> can be the center of the universe but rather that the laws of the
> universe are omnipresent within the universe - which, of course, they
> would be expected to be.
> In no way does that state that there is no such thing as the center
> of the universe, or the starting point for the laws of the universe,
> or a substance or a creator or a divine essence from which the
universe
> comes.
And now we're off into Shambat world, where straw men frolic freely
before being struck down by the ire of Ilya. Did Feynman say "there is
no such thing as the center of the universe"? Perhaps, but if he did it
would not have been on the sole basis of the homogeneity assumption. As
you're probably aware, the geometry of space-time makes it meaningless
to talk about a centre of the universe. It's like asking where the
centre is on the surface of a sphere.
I was hoping that I'd driven this dull mystic away by exposing his
public library antics*, but he keeps on *coming* back for more. If he
*keeps it up*, I might post a link to his Ode to Idi Amin. His finest
work, IMHO.
* That link again, sports fans: http://tinyurl.com/uf37
Second item down.
Jonathan Heath
scientific method of establishing the centre of the universe. That's
not surprising since, if cosmologists are right about the structure of
space-time, it's hard to see how the concept could even be meaningful.
You seem to be arguing, contra Feynman, that the philosophy of science
is an important subject. If so, you're preaching to the converted as
far as I'm concerned. But what does that have to do with the question
in hand? Do you have a specific point about the nature of space to
make? If not, I don't understand why you're getting involved in this
debate.
Randroid Terminator
I don't have my newsreader configured to view threads, only posts
ordered by date. But it seems that you are answering one of my posts
without bothering to repost any of it as quotes.
"Blimey." That is a quaint word indeed.
The question, as I recall, was what you meant by "turning the tables"
or some such statement. I don't care much about the issue of the
center of the universe, because it's not philosophical per se, but I
have always (well, almost always) considered each conscious individual
to be his or her own center.
The mistake Feynman is making is backsliding into pre-Relativity, a
pre-Einsteinian time for physics when it didn't take into
consideration the viewpoint of the subject in its attempts to be
insanely objective about everything.
Because of my early studies of Einstein, I am still convinced that
each individual is the center of the universe.
fred...@papertig.com
>each individual is the center of the universe.
Methinks you'd better quick do your own version of the "Refutation of
Idealism" to assure us that you are not a solipsist - and a blatantly
contradictory one at that (as if solipsism wasn't contradictory enough,
Malenoid here announces that we are *each* the center of the universe).
Specifically, a little unintelligible transcendental B.S. would be
helpful at this juncture. You know, something along the lines of "I
only give the paradoxical appearance of being a solipsist but that is
only a mere representation, not the thing-in-itself".
But it does explain why you are drawn to Kant's style, not to mention
the content, since it is clearly an exercise in mental masturbation.
Fred Weiss
Mark N
> I don't have my newsreader configured to view threads, only posts
> ordered by date. But it seems that you are answering one of my posts
> without bothering to repost any of it as quotes.
Speaking of which, this seems to be an epidemic lately. Several people
have recently been making posts with no context and/or omitting the name
of the poster to whom they are responding. I'm wondering if this could
be more than just a coincidence. Maybe these people post through Google
Groups, and the recent changes there aren somehow responsible? Whatever
the reason for it, it certainly is annoying!
Mark
Jonathan Heath
people
> have recently been making posts with no context and/or omitting the
name
> of the poster to whom they are responding. I'm wondering if this
could
> be more than just a coincidence. Maybe these people post through
> Groups, and the recent changes there aren somehow responsible?
Whatever
> the reason for it, it certainly is annoying!
I post via GG and I think you're right to identify that as the source
of the problem. I like some of the new features, especially the
improved speed, but it's become more awkward to respond to others. The
name of who you're responding to isn't automatically included, and if I
want to quote a previous poster I have to go through and insert little
> signs. If I want to respond to the general tenor of a post rather
than a specific point, I'm normally inclined not to include quotes,
relying on the thread organisation instead to clarify who I'm
addressing. Seems like I'll have to rethink that.
Jonathan Heath
> pre-Einsteinian time for physics when it didn't take into
> consideration the viewpoint of the subject in its attempts to be
> insanely objective about everything.
I interpreted him differently. Feynman (and I) would surely agree that
the theory of relativity precludes privileged reference frames. Isn't
that part of the case for suggesting that "the centre of the Universe"
is a meaningless concept in physics? On that reading, the claims "there
is no centre" and "every conscious being is her own centre" are
equivalent - equivalently meaningless.
One might wonder, then, why Feynman made a meaningless claim. I have a
couple of theories about that. Theory 1 is that he didn't, and Shifty
Shambat is doing his usual trick of erecting a straw man. I can't prove
that since I don't have the book to hand, but it would be consistent
with his previous postings. Theory 2 is that Feynman worded the claim
badly with one eye on rhetorical effect.
Randroid Terminator
>>Because of my early studies of Einstein, I am still convinced that
>>each individual is the center of the universe.
>
>Methinks you'd better quick do your own version of the "Refutation of
>Idealism" to assure us that you are not a solipsist
I knew that would be your (or some blatherer's) response. But
solipsism is not equivalent to the belief that each individual is the
center of the universe.
Mark N
> Mark N wrote:
> Maybe these people post through Google
>> Groups, and the recent changes there aren somehow responsible?
>> Whatever the reason for it, it certainly is annoying!
> If so, note that there are two different ways to post from google
> groups: the "Reply" link at the bottom (which gives no quote control)
> and the two-step process, "Show Options" and the another "Reply" link,
> which *does* give you quote control. So if you want quote control,, be
> sure to use "Show Options."
Thank you, Sir. I hope that the Google posters will heed your words.
Mark
fred...@papertig.com
> On Sat, 8 Jan 2005 09:10:57 +0000 (UTC), fred...@papertig.com
wrote:
>
> >>Because of my early studies of Einstein, I am still convinced that
> >>each individual is the center of the universe.
> >
> >Methinks you'd better quick do your own version of the "Refutation
of
> >Idealism" to assure us that you are not a solipsist
>
> I knew that would be your (or some blatherer's) response.
Or maybe it was just God, whose voice you appear to be hearing at the
moment, whispering in your ear that you were about to say something
very, very stupid. It seems to me, Malenoid, that if God is taking the
trouble to talk to you that in future you might want to pay attention.
> But
> solipsism is not equivalent to the belief that each individual is the
> center of the universe.
Perhaps not, but using your finest transcendental logic, would you be
so kind as to explain to us how we each could be the center of the
universe. I have no difficulty supposing that you think you are - since
for years you have regaled us with the the wild imaginings from the
alternate universe you appear to inhabit. Or perhaps it is just a
matter of a different Kantian meaning for "center", as there appears to
be for most other things - which difference, when you can't think of
any other method of escape, is one of the more common ploys you use to
avoid dealing with the chronic problem of interpreting Kant.
Fred Weiss
Randroid Terminator
>> But
>> solipsism is not equivalent to the belief that each individual is the
>> center of the universe.
>Perhaps not, but using your finest transcendental logic, would you be
>so kind as to explain to us how we each could be the center of the
>universe. I have no difficulty supposing that you think you are - since
>for years you have regaled us with the the wild imaginings from the
>alternate universe you appear to inhabit. Or perhaps it is just a
>matter of a different Kantian meaning for "center", as there appears to
>be for most other things - which difference, when you can't think of
>any other method of escape, is one of the more common ploys you use to
>avoid dealing with the chronic problem of interpreting Kant.
>Fred Weiss
I didn't claim to be using transcendental logic. I said I got the idea
from my teenaged readings of Einsteinian relativity. So I'm not saying
there's a metaphysical center. But in SR each act of measuring a time
or a speed involves an observer, and the results are relative to, and
dependent upon, this observer's perspective. We cannot find some
distant, objective perspective that does not include an observer.
There are striking similarities between this view and Kant's
Copernican Revolution (the world revolves around us, not vice versa),
but I'm not giving that kind of spin.
Mark N
> On Sun, 9 Jan 2005 14:15:09 +0000 (UTC), fred...@papertig.com wrote:
>>>But
>>>solipsism is not equivalent to the belief that each individual is the
>>>center of the universe.
>>Perhaps not, but using your finest transcendental logic, would you be
>>so kind as to explain to us how we each could be the center of the
>>universe. I have no difficulty supposing that you think you are - since
>>for years you have regaled us with the the wild imaginings from the
>>alternate universe you appear to inhabit. Or perhaps it is just a
>>matter of a different Kantian meaning for "center", as there appears to
>>be for most other things - which difference, when you can't think of
>>any other method of escape, is one of the more common ploys you use to
>>avoid dealing with the chronic problem of interpreting Kant.
>>Fred Weiss
> I didn't claim to be using transcendental logic. I said I got the idea
> from my teenaged readings of Einsteinian relativity. So I'm not saying
> there's a metaphysical center. But in SR each act of measuring a time
> or a speed involves an observer, and the results are relative to, and
> dependent upon, this observer's perspective. We cannot find some
> distant, objective perspective that does not include an observer.
I don't think I would put it quite that way. It makes SR sound
subjectivist, and it really isn't. Rather than referring to "observers,"
one should refer to "reference frames." Measurements of time intervals
and speeds and so forth are relative to a reference frame. The same
general situation exists in pre-relativistic physics: measurements are
made relative to a reference frame.
Of course, if a measurement is made, there must be someone (an
"observer") to carry out the measurement. But again, this is just as
true in pre-relativistic physics as it is in SR.
Mark
Randroid Terminator
>Randroid Terminator wrote:
By pre-relativity, are you referring to Michelson and Morely?
Almost every reference to special relativity through Google refers to
an observer. For example:
http://physics.about.com/cs/generalrelativit1/a/110703_2.htm
"These effects are part of the Lorentz Transformation which Einstein
showed was the correct way to transform coordinates between different
observers. When you transform from the viewpoint of one observer to
another, space and time form the first observer mix to give a new set
of space-time for the other. Events that happened at a particular time
and place for one observer will happen at different times and places
for another."
http://sol.sci.uop.edu/~jfalward/relativity/relativity.html
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/SpecialRelativity.html
http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/theory/relativity.html
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/HistTopics/Special_relativity.html
...and so on.
So perhaps you wouldn't describe SR in the "subjectivist" fashion, but
I Googled approximately 157,000 webpages that do.
Mark N
> So perhaps you wouldn't describe SR in the "subjectivist" fashion, but
> I Googled approximately 157,000 webpages that do.
Congratulations on that! :-)
Mark
Jonathan Heath
> >I don't think I would put it quite that way. It makes SR sound
> >subjectivist, and it really isn't. Rather than referring to
"observers,"
> >one should refer to "reference frames." Measurements of time
intervals
> >and speeds and so forth are relative to a reference frame. The same
> >general situation exists in pre-relativistic physics: measurements
are
> >made relative to a reference frame.
>
> >Of course, if a measurement is made, there must be someone (an
> >"observer") to carry out the measurement. But again, this is just as
> >true in pre-relativistic physics as it is in SR.
Agreed.
Mal:
> By pre-relativity, are you referring to Michelson and Morely?
I would guess he's referring to physics pre-1905.
> Almost every reference to special relativity through Google refers to
> an observer. For example:
>
> http://physics.about.com/cs/generalrelativit1/a/110703_2.htm
> "These effects are part of the Lorentz Transformation which Einstein
> showed was the correct way to transform coordinates between different
> observers. When you transform from the viewpoint of one observer to
> another, space and time form the first observer mix to give a new set
> of space-time for the other. Events that happened at a particular
time
> and place for one observer will happen at different times and places
> for another."
>
> http://sol.sci.uop.edu/~jfalward/relativity/relativity.html
>
> http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/SpecialRelativity.html
>
> http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/theory/relativity.html
>
>
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/HistTopics/Special_relativity.html
>
> ...and so on.
>
> So perhaps you wouldn't describe SR in the "subjectivist" fashion,
but
> I Googled approximately 157,000 webpages that do.
So what? It's easier to make the point using human observers as an
example, and that's why many pop science descriptions do just that. But
Mark's correct in saying that the theory places no special emphasis on
the role of "conscious beings". In fact, Einstein vehemently rejected
subjectivism in his opposition to Copenhagen.
Randroid Terminator
<ma...@myinboxisbroken.com> wrote:
>Randroid Terminator wrote:
Looked at from another angle, your comment is too interesting to pass
off to Google. Because you would have an extremely difficult time
proving exactly what your measurements were in the absence of an
observer to look at them at some point or other. So your argument is
non-falsifiable. The observer remains the sine qua non at the basis of
SR, because without him you cannot validate your reasoning. That is
why in Einstein's elevator thought-experiment it is necessary to have
an individual experiencing the effects of acceleration or gravity. In
time-dilation theory, you can measure the effects with two
synchronized pocket-watches (to utilize an anachronism from Einstein's
day), but still you need observers to validate the results.
So no, I'm not talking subjectivism, which would render SR arbitrary
by common definition of "subjective." I just find it suspicious when
someone tries to remove the observer, rendering him unimportant, by
using the label "subjectivism." If SR were an arbitrary theory, it
would have been dismissed from the beginning. Whether including the
observer was pre-SR or not, it is still an advance over previous
physical theories to include him. Where, for example, was the observer
in Newtonian mechanics?
Randroid Terminator
<jon_d...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> So perhaps you wouldn't describe SR in the "subjectivist" fashion,
>but
>> I Googled approximately 157,000 webpages that do.
>
>So what? It's easier to make the point using human observers as an
>example, and that's why many pop science descriptions do just that. But
>Mark's correct in saying that the theory places no special emphasis on
>the role of "conscious beings". In fact, Einstein vehemently rejected
>subjectivism in his opposition to Copenhagen.
I agree with "no special emphasis." But try to do without one.
Jonathan Heath
> On Sun, 9 Jan 2005 17:58:02 +0000 (UTC), Mark N
> <ma...@myinboxisbroken.com> wrote:
> >Of course, if a measurement is made, there must be someone (an
> >"observer") to carry out the measurement. But again, this is just as
> >true in pre-relativistic physics as it is in SR.
>
> Looked at from another angle, your comment is too interesting to pass
> off to Google. Because you would have an extremely difficult time
> proving exactly what your measurements were in the absence of an
> observer to look at them at some point or other. So your argument is
> non-falsifiable. The observer remains the sine qua non at the basis
of
> SR, because without him you cannot validate your reasoning. That is
> why in Einstein's elevator thought-experiment it is necessary to have
> an individual experiencing the effects of acceleration or gravity. In
> time-dilation theory, you can measure the effects with two
> synchronized pocket-watches (to utilize an anachronism from
Einstein's
> day), but still you need observers to validate the results.
There's some conflation of the issues going on here. We clearly require
the presence of observers in order to certify a theory as empirically
adequate. But the assumption that we operate on, indeed the assumption
that is required if scientific activity is to be intelligible, is that
the world works that way even when we're not looking.
As for the separate question of thought experiments, two things:
firstly, Einstein's theory amounts to more than the thought
experiments, so you shouldn't get too hung up on them. Secondly, I'm
not sure whether the Einsteinian thought expts really do need an
observer, except in the sense that one has to be able to 'see' them
with one's 'mind's eye'. I'm guessing that's not the type of observer
you had in mind.
> So no, I'm not talking subjectivism, which would render SR arbitrary
> by common definition of "subjective." I just find it suspicious when
> someone tries to remove the observer, rendering him unimportant, by
> using the label "subjectivism." If SR were an arbitrary theory, it
> would have been dismissed from the beginning. Whether including the
> observer was pre-SR or not, it is still an advance over previous
> physical theories to include him. Where, for example, was the
observer
> in Newtonian mechanics?
As I've said, there is no special role for the observer in either
Newtonian mechanics or relativity. Only in QM has a serious case been
made for some form of subjectivism, and not too successfully, IMHO. If
you're referring to thought experiments though, the classic
Newton/Clarke examples could be considered to require observers (though
wrongly in my view).
fred...@papertig.com
> I didn't claim to be using transcendental logic. I said I got the
idea
> from my teenaged readings of Einsteinian relativity. So I'm not
saying
> there's a metaphysical center. But in SR each act of measuring a time
> or a speed involves an observer, and the results are relative to, and
> dependent upon, this observer's perspective.
As I believe Jonathan and Mark have already pointed out to you - and
which should be obvious - *any* act of measurement involves an observer
and the results might well, in some circumstances, be relative to and
dependent upon the observer. You do, for example, look smaller the
farther away you are from any given observer. But we also know that
your height doesn't increase or decrease the farther or closer you move
in relation to the observer.
>We cannot find some
> distant, objective perspective that does not include an observer.
Really? Are you suggesting that we cannot determine the height of an
object because "it all depends on how near or far we are from it" - as
if its height varies depending on where it is in relation to you?
Look, the relativistic or relational effects of the perspective of the
observer has been known for a long time. It has certainly been known to
marine navigators for hundreds of years. None of it - and nothing
Einstein ever proposed - suggests subjectivity. It only would if the
same or another observer(s) *under the same circumstances and using the
same means of measurement* were to consistently and inexplicably get
different results.
> There are striking similarities between this view and Kant's...
Gee, who would have guessed? Or, more precisely, that you would have
leaped onto a thoroughly distorted view of Einstein,i.e. from the
twisted perspective of you as the observer, to justify your (and
Kant's) irrationalism. It's also worth noting that while on the one
hand you continually assert that none of it is empirically based - in
your eagerness "to deny knowledge in order to make room for faith" -
like all religionists, you pounce on any out of context bit of science
or interpretation of science to bolster your claims. So while denying
science and the scientific approach, you will also in the next breath
use it when you consider it convenient.
Hasn't God yet whispered in your ear that he doesn't play dice with the
universe?
Fred Weiss
Ken S. Tucker
to Jonathan, Randroid et al...
Regarding this torturous thread...
Science and scientific theory is not for philosophy,
it's to provide the experimentalists and engineers
with reasonable expectations of the outcome of
experiments and product developements, the later
related to bankers.
The theory is ultimately for the subjective satisfaction
of the user.
Should I cite PC improvement over the last 20
years...where's the philosophy?
General Relativity was forced upon us, good
physical as well as philosophical logic compelled
our notice, and IMHO, as a GR brat, I can see
how GR was/is an earthquake to science and
philosophy that is still going on.
For example, we can look at current GR physical
experiments, LIGO and GP-b, ($2,000,000,000)
to determine the nature of the spacetime we inhabit.
Philosophically, it's like an intelligent fish curious
about the existance and nature of water.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
PS: Please do not respond until others have.
Jonathan Heath
> General Reply
> to Jonathan, Randroid et al...
My dear old thing, you really are quite the barmpot aren't you?
Mark N
> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
I love those crazy British expressions! :-)
Mark
Randroid Terminator
Certainly there is more to SR than 'observers,' I can also Google many
webpages which contain references only to the pure theory and
mathematics of SR.
But I was hoping you would argue for your point this way: put a
pocketwatch in a relativistic framework with no subject present, and
the watch will still lose time due to the effects of time dilation.
That's basically all you're saying above.
However, you don't know that time-dilation was a factor until you
actually looked at the watch. All you can objectively say is that the
theory predicted such and such, and you saw it happen. Meanwhile,
when you yourself are in the relativistic framework, time appears to
be moving normally, the watch's ticking doesn't seem to slow down
at all.
So the observer's reference frame doesn't matter at all then? When
the observer is outside the relativistic frame, the watch would appear
to slow down; when the observer is inside the same frame, the same
watch would appear to tick at the original rate of the
non-relativistic framework. The observer in the relativistic framework
would rightly say: it is time in the rest of the universe that sped
up, not my time that slowed down.
Is the observer's consciousness influencing the outcome of the
experiment? Of course not. Yet is the observer's relativistic
perspective an important factor in the experiment? Yes, indeed.
>As for the separate question of thought experiments, two things:
>firstly, Einstein's theory amounts to more than the thought
>experiments, so you shouldn't get too hung up on them. Secondly, I'm
>not sure whether the Einsteinian thought expts really do need an
>observer, except in the sense that one has to be able to 'see' them
>with one's 'mind's eye'. I'm guessing that's not the type of observer
>you had in mind.
I'm sure there is more to SR than thought-experiments; however, there
wouldn't be any SR without them.
>> So no, I'm not talking subjectivism, which would render SR arbitrary
>> by common definition of "subjective." I just find it suspicious when
>> someone tries to remove the observer, rendering him unimportant, by
>> using the label "subjectivism." If SR were an arbitrary theory, it
>> would have been dismissed from the beginning. Whether including the
>> observer was pre-SR or not, it is still an advance over previous
>> physical theories to include him. Where, for example, was the
>observer
>> in Newtonian mechanics?
>As I've said, there is no special role for the observer in either
>Newtonian mechanics or relativity. Only in QM has a serious case been
>made for some form of subjectivism, and not too successfully, IMHO. If
>you're referring to thought experiments though, the classic
>Newton/Clarke examples could be considered to require observers (though
>wrongly in my view).
I didn't say there was any special role or subjectivism in SR.
Randroid Terminator
>Randroid Terminator wrote:
>
>> I didn't claim to be using transcendental logic. I said I got the
>idea
>> from my teenaged readings of Einsteinian relativity. So I'm not
>saying
>> there's a metaphysical center. But in SR each act of measuring a time
>> or a speed involves an observer, and the results are relative to, and
>> dependent upon, this observer's perspective.
>
>As I believe Jonathan and Mark have already pointed out to you - and
>which should be obvious - *any* act of measurement involves an observer
>and the results might well, in some circumstances, be relative to and
>dependent upon the observer. You do, for example, look smaller the
>farther away you are from any given observer. But we also know that
>your height doesn't increase or decrease the farther or closer you move
>in relation to the observer.
Bad analogy. We know that your height doesn't increase or decrease
with distance, but we do know that time does dilate (and space does
contract) relative to a stationary reference frame.
>>We cannot find some
>> distant, objective perspective that does not include an observer.
>Really? Are you suggesting that we cannot determine the height of an
>object because "it all depends on how near or far we are from it" - as
>if its height varies depending on where it is in relation to you?
>Look, the relativistic or relational effects of the perspective of the
>observer has been known for a long time. It has certainly been known to
>marine navigators for hundreds of years. None of it - and nothing
>Einstein ever proposed - suggests subjectivity. It only would if the
>same or another observer(s) *under the same circumstances and using the
>same means of measurement* were to consistently and inexplicably get
>different results.
I don't think you understand relativity, or else you wouldn't have
claimed above that mariners have known about it for hundreds of years.
Or did their sailing ships travel a lot faster than I realized?
And no, I'm not claiming subjectivism. I'm saying that from a
relativistic framework's perspective, time in the rest of the universe
appears to speed up, but from a stationary perspective, the
relativistic framework appears to move through time more slowly. And
you cannot have "perspective" without an observer. Even if one were
to say, "From the perspective of that distant star...", one is
imaginatively transferring one's consciousness, one's perspective,
into that star's framework.
>> There are striking similarities between this view and Kant's...
>
>Gee, who would have guessed? Or, more precisely, that you would have
>leaped onto a thoroughly distorted view of Einstein,i.e. from the
>twisted perspective of you as the observer, to justify your (and
>Kant's) irrationalism. It's also worth noting that while on the one
>hand you continually assert that none of it is empirically based - in
>your eagerness "to deny knowledge in order to make room for faith" -
>like all religionists, you pounce on any out of context bit of science
>or interpretation of science to bolster your claims. So while denying
>science and the scientific approach, you will also in the next breath
>use it when you consider it convenient.
>Hasn't God yet whispered in your ear that he doesn't play dice with the
>universe?
Your paranoia is whispering in your ear again.
I never thought that about God (if there is one) anyway. I've always
held that QM is wrong -- or, if not wrong, not expressing the entire
truth because it doesn't delve deeply enough into the heart of
sub-atomic particles themselves. Eventually a new physics theory came
along which subsumed QM, and although it has variants many of which
seem correct, one of them should emerge victorious in the long run,
subsuming and integrating not only QM, but GR itself.
Jonathan Heath
them in those terms. I think Tim Maudlin puts it better than I could:
"The truly relativistic answer [the question being what would it be
like to travel at close to c]: right now you *are* travelling at 99.99%
of the speed of light - in some perfectly legitimate inertial frame. It
is no more correct to say that you are now at rest than that you are
infinitesimally close to moving at light speed. Indeed, except for
things travelling at light speed, it makes no sense to attribute any
absolute velocity to any object. Not being invariant, sub-light
velocities are not real properties of objects. There can therefore be
no dynamical effect of 'travelling near the speed of light' because
there is no such objective state as travelling near the speed of light.
Things don't shrink or slow down. Rather, there are always infinitely
many ways of expressing space-time intervals in terms of distance in
space and elapsed time. None of these ways, represented by the various
inertial frames, is any more valid, or less valid, than any other."
Randroid Terminator wrote:
> Is the observer's consciousness influencing the outcome of the
> experiment? Of course not. Yet is the observer's relativistic
> perspective an important factor in the experiment? Yes, indeed.
Only where non-invariant quantities such as time are concerned. Note
that Maudlin claims such quantities cannot be considered "real
properties of objects". The most important consequence of relativity is
that Lorentz invariance is a normative condition for physical theories
i.e. any theory with pretensions to universality must deal in invariant
quantities.
> >As for the separate question of thought experiments, two things:
> >firstly, Einstein's theory amounts to more than the thought
> >experiments, so you shouldn't get too hung up on them. Secondly, I'm
> >not sure whether the Einsteinian thought expts really do need an
> >observer, except in the sense that one has to be able to 'see' them
> >with one's 'mind's eye'. I'm guessing that's not the type of
observer
> >you had in mind.
>
> I'm sure there is more to SR than thought-experiments; however, there
> wouldn't be any SR without them.
We've been through this one before, and I continue to disagree. Can
thought experiments be helpful? Yes, even for a genius such as
Einstein. Are they in any way necessary for SR? No. The theory works
just fine without them, and I see no reason to suppose that the theory
could not have been developed without enlisting them.
> >As I've said, there is no special role for the observer in either
> >Newtonian mechanics or relativity. Only in QM has a serious case
been
> >made for some form of subjectivism, and not too successfully, IMHO.
If
> >you're referring to thought experiments though, the classic
> >Newton/Clarke examples could be considered to require observers
(though
> >wrongly in my view).
>
> I didn't say there was any special role or subjectivism in SR.
No, but you did imply that it was some kind of watershed moment, where
the "insane" objectivity of earlier physics was rejected. But in fact,
the specific concept of relativity was not the great novelty it is
sometimes portrayed to have been. Galilean/Newtonian relativity had of
course been around for centuries. Einstein's triumph lay in recognising
the superfluousness of absolute space and time, and the significance of
the speed of light.
Jonathan Heath
> Bad analogy. We know that your height doesn't increase or decrease
> with distance, but we do know that time does dilate (and space does
> contract) relative to a stationary reference frame.
What's a stationary reference frame? Stationary with respect to what?
> >Look, the relativistic or relational effects of the perspective of
the
> >observer has been known for a long time. It has certainly been known
to
> >marine navigators for hundreds of years. None of it - and nothing
> >Einstein ever proposed - suggests subjectivity. It only would if the
> >same or another observer(s) *under the same circumstances and using
the
> >same means of measurement* were to consistently and inexplicably get
> >different results.
>
> I don't think you understand relativity, or else you wouldn't have
> claimed above that mariners have known about it for hundreds of
years.
> Or did their sailing ships travel a lot faster than I realized?
No, actually I don't think *you* understand relativity if you've never
heard of Galilean relativity. Try googling.
Randroid Terminator
<jon_d...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Randroid Terminator wrote:
>> Bad analogy. We know that your height doesn't increase or decrease
>> with distance, but we do know that time does dilate (and space does
>> contract) relative to a stationary reference frame.
>What's a stationary reference frame? Stationary with respect to what?
That's irrelevant, and you know it.
>> >Look, the relativistic or relational effects of the perspective of
>the
>> >observer has been known for a long time. It has certainly been known
>to
>> >marine navigators for hundreds of years. None of it - and nothing
>> >Einstein ever proposed - suggests subjectivity. It only would if the
>> >same or another observer(s) *under the same circumstances and using
>the
>> >same means of measurement* were to consistently and inexplicably get
>> >different results.
>> I don't think you understand relativity, or else you wouldn't have
>> claimed above that mariners have known about it for hundreds of
>years.
>> Or did their sailing ships travel a lot faster than I realized?
>No, actually I don't think *you* understand relativity if you've never
>heard of Galilean relativity. Try googling.
Talk about context-switching, sheesh. You are acting like Phreed's
nonsense that I responded to never even existed. This is an obvious
example of how you people cover up for each other. For example, The
Phreed wrote:
"It's also worth noting that while on the one hand you continually
assert that none of it is empirically based..." Pffft. I have never
claimed or "asserted" that "none of it" is empirically based. The
knowledge of how to build a cabinet or roof a house is obviously
"empirically based," as is knowledge of causality. It's just that
causality is a priori to empirical experience in general, while roofs
and houses are not.
Phreed's posts are a long-running joke, and perhaps that explains why
you just now tried to cover up for one of his regular excretions
posted to this forum.
Jonathan Heath
> On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 05:14:28 +0000 (UTC), Jonathan Heath
> <jon_d...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Randroid Terminator wrote:
> >> Bad analogy. We know that your height doesn't increase or decrease
> >> with distance, but we do know that time does dilate (and space
does
> >> contract) relative to a stationary reference frame.
>
> >What's a stationary reference frame? Stationary with respect to
what?
>
> That's irrelevant, and you know it.
Um, is that an acknowledgement that there's no such thing as a
stationary reference frame? You know, it wouldn't hurt for you to admit
when you're wrong once in a while.
> [snip]
> >> I don't think you understand relativity, or else you wouldn't have
> >> claimed above that mariners have known about it for hundreds of
> >years.
> >> Or did their sailing ships travel a lot faster than I realized?
>
> >No, actually I don't think *you* understand relativity if you've
never
> >heard of Galilean relativity. Try googling.
>
> Talk about context-switching, sheesh. You are acting like Phreed's
> nonsense that I responded to never even existed. This is an obvious
> example of how you people cover up for each other.
There's that victim complex again. You tried to make a facetious
comment, but you were wrong on a point of fact. All I did was draw
attention to that, and believe me, I wouldn't hesitate to do the same
to anyone else. As a rule, I don't much like people making smart-arse
comments about things they don't understand.
Mark N
> On Sun, 9 Jan 2005 20:01:40 +0000 (UTC), Jonathan Heath
> <jon_d...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>There's some conflation of the issues going on here. We clearly require
>>the presence of observers in order to certify a theory as empirically
>>adequate. But the assumption that we operate on, indeed the assumption
>>that is required if scientific activity is to be intelligible, is that
>>the world works that way even when we're not looking.
> Certainly there is more to SR than 'observers,' I can also Google many
> webpages which contain references only to the pure theory and
> mathematics of SR.
>
> But I was hoping you would argue for your point this way: put a
> pocketwatch in a relativistic framework with no subject present, and
> the watch will still lose time due to the effects of time dilation.
>
> That's basically all you're saying above.
I'm not sure what you mean by "the relativistic framework" and "the
relativistic frame" in your comments below, but I will assume that these
expressions refer to an inertial reference frame in which the "watch"
that you refer to is at rest. You can correct me if I've misunderstood.
> However, you don't know that time-dilation was a factor until you
> actually looked at the watch. All you can objectively say is that the
> theory predicted such and such, and you saw it happen. Meanwhile,
> when you yourself are in the relativistic framework, time appears to
> be moving normally, the watch's ticking doesn't seem to slow down
> at all.
Right. The time interval between two fixed physical events (such as two
ticks of a clock) can have different values in different inertial
reference frames. That is, time intervals are not frame-invariant. So
what? The same thing is true of, for instance, velocities in
galilean-newtonian physics. I could mimic your whole paragraph above,
with time replaced by velocity, from a galilean-newtonian perspective.
Would you draw similar conclusions about "subjectivity" in
galilean-newtonian physics from that?
> So the observer's reference frame doesn't matter at all then? When
> the observer is outside the relativistic frame, the watch would appear
> to slow down; when the observer is inside the same frame, the same
> watch would appear to tick at the original rate of the
> non-relativistic framework. The observer in the relativistic framework
> would rightly say: it is time in the rest of the universe that sped
> up, not my time that slowed down.
No, that's not right. The "moving" observer would not see "stationary"
clocks "running fast." He would see them "running slow." That is, given
two inertial frames, S and S'. Then, as observed from S, clocks that are
at rest in S' "run slow," and, as observed from S', clocks that are at
rest in S "run slow" also. (How could it be otherwise, if no inertial
frame has any preferred status over any other?) This may seem
paradoxical, but there is no inconsistency.
Mark
fred...@papertig.com
First you claim:
> And no, I'm not claiming subjectivism.
But then you say:
> ...you cannot have "perspective" without an observer. Even if one
were
> to say, "From the perspective of that distant star...", one is
> imaginatively transferring one's consciousness, one's perspective,
> into that star's framework.
Suggesting that the "star's framework" is somehow dependent on your
consciousness, as if *anything* about that or any star (metaphysically)
is dependent on your consciousness
And then when you claim parallels to Kant and I merely underscore your
own acknowledgment, you accuse me of paranoia.
How we *view* the star - or for that matter, view almost anything - of
course is tautologically dependent on us. But that star will keep right
on twinkling as it was before and in relationship to all the stars
regardless of whether we are viewing it or not. Nothing however is
dependent on our viewing it, as if we stopped viewing it, it would
cease to exist or somehow exist differently than it does when we view
it. And, I might add, what we are viewing is things - not some
bifurcated existence of "appearances" vs. "things-in-themselves".
So whatever you were attempting to salvage in Kant fails once again.
In addition I would suggest that you get your line straight. If you
want to hide behind the shield of none of Kant's "transcendental"
claims having any basis in empirical facts, then don't start dragging
in empirical facts to support them. You can't avoid a stolen concept by
stealing more of them. It just compounds the philosophical felony.
Fred Weiss
fred...@papertig.com
> On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 05:14:28 +0000 (UTC), Jonathan Heath
> <jon_d...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Randroid Terminator wrote:
> >What's a stationary reference frame? Stationary with respect to
what?
>
> That's irrelevant, and you know it.
Then why did *you* bring it up?
> Talk about context-switching, sheesh. You are acting like Phreed's
> nonsense that I responded to never even existed.
And what "nonsense" is that and what context is being switched? The
real nonsense we've been drawing your attention to - and which you keep
ducking and dodging - and the only relevant context which you keep
switching is *your* original claim, the claim which started this
thread, that your study of Einstein led you to the view that we are
each the center of the universe. The only thing true in all your
blather on this subject is that this view is in fact similar to Kant's.
What you won't admit, now or ever, is that just like you, *Kant was
wrong* - and that the study of Einstein does not lead to any such view.
> ...Pffft. I have never
> claimed or "asserted" that "none of it" is empirically based. The
> knowledge of how to build a cabinet or roof a house is obviously
> "empirically based,"...
You mean we can build *actual* cabinets and roofs - not merely *the
appearance* of cabinets and roofs? And they are actual cabinets and
roofs, not merely who-knows-what *depending on the frame of reference
of each observer*? Great, what then happens to the Kantian distinction
between "appearances and things-in-themselves" which is at the very
foundation of his entire shakey edifice? And what happens to the entire
thrust of your original point and the shakey edifice you are trying to
build on it?
And to get to the stolen concept at the root of your entire exercise,
are you making an actual point which has any objective validity - or
are you just blathering from your own little universe, from your own
little Malenoidian/Kantian perspective once again? Or aren't you in
actual fact, as you are always trying to do, to have it both ways?
Trying to be objective and assuming/presupposing it from one side of
your mouth, while denying it from the other?
>... as is knowledge of causality. It's just that
> causality is a priori to empirical experience in general,...
Let me get this straight: our knowledge of causality is empirically
based but causality "in general" isn't. Yeah, I'm gonna steal Diana
Hsieh's line in the face of such evident nonsense: Uh, huh.
> Phreed's posts are a long-running joke,...
That charge wears very thin in its constant repetition when the real
issue is that you should put your own posts up to a mirror, including
the ones in this thread.
Fred Weiss
Robert Kolker
>
> In no way does that state that there is no such thing as the center
> of the universe, or the starting point for the laws of the universe,
> or a substance or a creator or a divine essence from which the universe
> comes.
Fine. Now tell us where the Center of the Universe Is. Preferably in
English.
Bob Kolker
Robert Kolker
> On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 17:26:14 +0000 (UTC), Jonathan Heath
> <jon_d...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>In his first chapter he makes the point that, because the laws of the
>>>universe will be perceived the same from wherever the person observes
>>>it, there is no way to find the center of the universe.
>
>
>>>That is a fallacy.
>
>
>>Oh joy! The return of my favourite time-waster. Come along then, let's
>>hear your scientific method for determining the centre of the Universe.
>>I can't wait to see you prove Feynman wrong.
>
>
> That's not difficult. All we have to do is wait for Feynman to say
> something philosophical.
Feynman hardly ever said anything philosphical. He said many things
anti-philosophical. Which had a perfect right to because he was one of
the top five physicists of the 20-th century and he was much smarter
than any philosopher who ever lived. He delivered the goods. The
philosophers (with the exception of Hume) have not.
Bob Kolker
Robert Kolker
>
> Because of my early studies of Einstein, I am still convinced that
> each individual is the center of the universe.
There can only be one center, if there is a center at all. Hence there
is no center of the universe.
Bob Kolker
Robert Kolker
>
>
> As I believe Jonathan and Mark have already pointed out to you - and
> which should be obvious - *any* act of measurement involves an observer
> and the results might well, in some circumstances, be relative to and
> dependent upon the observer.
The observer could be a recording device. It need not be a concscious
entity. Measurement or observation necessarily involved the interaction
of two physical systems. Measurement and observation are interactions.
Bob Kolker
Robert Kolker
> General Relativity was forced upon us, good
> physical as well as philosophical logic compelled
> our notice, and IMHO, as a GR brat, I can see
> how GR was/is an earthquake to science and
> philosophy that is still going on.
There are alternative covariant theories to GTR. I would say covariance
was forced on us. GTR, not necessarily. There are affine non-metric
theories that describe gravitation within experimental error.
Bob Kolker
Robert Kolker
> But I was hoping you would argue for your point this way: put a
> pocketwatch in a relativistic framework with no subject present, and
> the watch will still lose time due to the effects of time dilation.
The moving clock will be measured to be moving slow compared to the
observer's clock (proper time). By the way the observer could be a
recording device. It need not be a conscious entity.
Bob Kolker
Robert Kolker
>
>
> I don't think you understand relativity, or else you wouldn't have
> claimed above that mariners have known about it for hundreds of years.
> Or did their sailing ships travel a lot faster than I realized?
Galileo first stated the principle of relativity. It means that
mechanical laws of motion in all inertial frames are the same. Galileo
pointed out that if you were sailing in a ship moving smoothly in a
straight line with uniform speed (no acceleration) you would notice that
things in your cabin (the one without a porthole) look exactly normal.
If you toss a ball into the air it will fall straight down. The fish
have no trouble swimming in a fishbowl. Birds and bugs have no
difficulty flying about in the cabin. In fact things look eactly the
same as if you were standing still. Which means there is not difference
between standing still and moving uniformly. Newton made use of this
principle of relativity also.
This principle should be distinguished from the postulate that the speed
of light (in vacuo) is the same in all inertial frames regardless of the
motion of the source.
See http://sps.nus.edu.sg/~cheongsa/page8d.html
"Other than his numerous experiments on acceleration and the motion of
objects, Galileo was also very observant, and he probably liked to
ponder deeply about the things he see.
For example, he wondered whether it is possible for sailors in a boat to
tell whether the ship is actually moving or not, without looking at the
surrounding seascape and shoreline. To investigate this, he devised a
simple experiment: the sailor will drop a ball when the boat is docking
in bay, and when the boat is moving with uniform velocity in the open sea.
Of course, in practice there will be complications: depending on the
weather the sea can be quite rough, and the light boats in Galileo's
time will be heaved up and down by the choppy waters, and the result of
the experiment will be quite different from that performed in bay, where
the waters are calmer.
So Galileo imagined an ideal windless day where the waters in the open
sea is calm and smooth, as would the waters in the bay. In such an ideal
situation, Galileo argued that there will no difference in the outcomes
of the experiments, be it done in the bay or out in the open sea. Now,
if the sailor is locked in the cabin with no portholes to look out from,
what would he conclude from the experiment?
What else?
"The boat is not moving, when I did my two experiments."
said the sailor, even though the boat is indeed moving with uniform
velocity in the second case.
Actually, this was not what he said exactly. However, in his book
Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems Galileo wrote a parable
on a dialogue between two of the three chief characters, SALVATIUS and
SAGREDUS in which SALVATIUS painted a hypothetical situation in which
one lock himself or herself in the main cabin of a large ship together
with a zoo, literally, and another person do the same in an identical
ship. One of this ship is moving with uniform velocity on a smooth sea
and the other one at rest.
In the parable, SALVATIUS's conclusion is that if both persons make
careful observations on the two zoos on the moving ship and the
stationary ship, then none of their observations about the motion of
butterflies and bees flying and people throwing balls at each other,
will differ from each other.
This leads to the Galilean Principle of Relativity, which was first
stated as
The mechanical laws of physics are the same for every observer moving
uniformly with constant speed in a straight line.
Ah... but this seems to imply that there must an observer who is
absolutely at rest, as postulated by Aristotle, otherwise how do we know
that any other observer is moving with a uniform velocity?
But what the Galilean Principle of Relativity did is precisely to remove
the need for such an absolutely resting observer. We may argue for this
by referring to Galileo's ship parable, in which the uniformly moving
observer sees the same physics as the stationary observer. Therefore, if
there is any absolutely resting observer, he will share the same physics
will other uniformly moving observers in the sense all physical
experiments performed in their closed main cabin will obtain the same
results, relative to coordinates and times measured in this closed cabin.
However, if all physical measurements coincide, what serves to
distinguish the absolutely resting observer's cabin from the uniformly
moving observer's cabin? To tell the truth, nothing! If there is
something that allows us to tell them apart, then clearly the two cabins
are not equivalent physically, implying there must be at least one
physical experiment whose results are different for the absolutely
resting observer and the uniformly moving observer. But this would mean
that Galileo's conclusion about the equivalence of physics is wrong!
Therefore, we have two choices:
Galilean Principle of Relativity TRUE = No absolutely resting observer.
Galilean Principle of Relativity FALSE = Absolutely resting observer
possible.
Since then many empirical tests on the validity of this Principle has
been carried out, and it is now clear to us that, at low velocities
(much less than the speed of light) and not near strongly gravitating
bodies, Galilean's Principle of Relativity has to be accepted as valid,
and it is on this principle that Newton's Laws of Motions are based upon."
Bob Kolker
Mark N
[...]
He lives! Wow, Bob. When it rains, it pours! :-)
Mark
Randroid Terminator
<jon_d...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Randroid Terminator wrote:
>> On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 05:14:28 +0000 (UTC), Jonathan Heath
>> <jon_d...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Randroid Terminator wrote:
>> >> Bad analogy. We know that your height doesn't increase or decrease
>> >> with distance, but we do know that time does dilate (and space
>does
>> >> contract) relative to a stationary reference frame.
>>
>> >What's a stationary reference frame? Stationary with respect to
>what?
>>
>> That's irrelevant, and you know it.
>
>Um, is that an acknowledgement that there's no such thing as a
>stationary reference frame? You know, it wouldn't hurt for you to admit
>when you're wrong once in a while.
We can call point X stationary with regard to the relativistic frame,
or vice versa. I'm not wrong because I've known this damn theory for
25 years. Why don't you admit that you want me to be wrong?
>
>> [snip]
>> >> I don't think you understand relativity, or else you wouldn't have
>> >> claimed above that mariners have known about it for hundreds of
>> >years.
>> >> Or did their sailing ships travel a lot faster than I realized?
>>
>> >No, actually I don't think *you* understand relativity if you've
>never
>> >heard of Galilean relativity. Try googling.
>>
>> Talk about context-switching, sheesh. You are acting like Phreed's
>> nonsense that I responded to never even existed. This is an obvious
>> example of how you people cover up for each other.
>
>There's that victim complex again. You tried to make a facetious
>comment, but you were wrong on a point of fact. All I did was draw
>attention to that, and believe me, I wouldn't hesitate to do the same
>to anyone else. As a rule, I don't much like people making smart-arse
>comments about things they don't understand.
Likewise, smart-"arse."
Randroid Terminator
<ma...@myinboxisbroken.com> wrote:
>Randroid Terminator wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 9 Jan 2005 20:01:40 +0000 (UTC), Jonathan Heath
>> <jon_d...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>There's some conflation of the issues going on here. We clearly require
>>>the presence of observers in order to certify a theory as empirically
>>>adequate. But the assumption that we operate on, indeed the assumption
>>>that is required if scientific activity is to be intelligible, is that
>>>the world works that way even when we're not looking.
>> Certainly there is more to SR than 'observers,' I can also Google many
>> webpages which contain references only to the pure theory and
>> mathematics of SR.
>> But I was hoping you would argue for your point this way: put a
>> pocketwatch in a relativistic framework with no subject present, and
>> the watch will still lose time due to the effects of time dilation.
>> That's basically all you're saying above.
>I'm not sure what you mean by "the relativistic framework" and "the
>relativistic frame" in your comments below, but I will assume that these
>expressions refer to an inertial reference frame in which the "watch"
>that you refer to is at rest. You can correct me if I've misunderstood.
"Relativistic" would indicate that the watch is not at rest, but is
moving at relativistic speeds (i.e., constantly accelerating towards
C) with reference to a frame that is at rest.
But no matter. Whichever kind of situation you imagine, you always
plant your own perspective firmly within it. That's not subjectivism,
that's just a fact.
>> However, you don't know that time-dilation was a factor until you
>> actually looked at the watch. All you can objectively say is that the
>> theory predicted such and such, and you saw it happen. Meanwhile,
>> when you yourself are in the relativistic framework, time appears to
>> be moving normally, the watch's ticking doesn't seem to slow down
>> at all.
>
>Right. The time interval between two fixed physical events (such as two
>ticks of a clock) can have different values in different inertial
>reference frames. That is, time intervals are not frame-invariant. So
>what? The same thing is true of, for instance, velocities in
>galilean-newtonian physics. I could mimic your whole paragraph above,
>with time replaced by velocity, from a galilean-newtonian perspective.
>Would you draw similar conclusions about "subjectivity" in
>galilean-newtonian physics from that?
There was no so-called "subjectivity" in those theories. Furthermore,
I don't see how including the subject in the experiment indicates
subjectivism. I never claimed that one's own consciousness dictated
the results. My original claim was only that one's consciousness is
the center of the universe.
>> So the observer's reference frame doesn't matter at all then? When
>> the observer is outside the relativistic frame, the watch would appear
>> to slow down; when the observer is inside the same frame, the same
>> watch would appear to tick at the original rate of the
>> non-relativistic framework. The observer in the relativistic framework
>> would rightly say: it is time in the rest of the universe that sped
>> up, not my time that slowed down.
>No, that's not right. The "moving" observer would not see "stationary"
>clocks "running fast." He would see them "running slow." That is, given
>two inertial frames, S and S'. Then, as observed from S, clocks that are
>at rest in S' "run slow," and, as observed from S', clocks that are at
>rest in S "run slow" also. (How could it be otherwise, if no inertial
>frame has any preferred status over any other?) This may seem
>paradoxical, but there is no inconsistency.
That's right, thanks.
Randroid Terminator
wrote:
>> ...you cannot have "perspective" without an observer. Even if one
>were
>> to say, "From the perspective of that distant star...", one is
>> imaginatively transferring one's consciousness, one's perspective,
>> into that star's framework.
>
>Suggesting that the "star's framework" is somehow dependent on your
>consciousness, as if *anything* about that or any star (metaphysically)
>is dependent on your consciousness
I'm not suggesting that any existent is dependent upon consciousness.
But when you consider an alternate perspective, you will always
imaginatively place yourself in those "shoes."
Randroid Terminator
<now...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> That's not difficult. All we have to do is wait for Feynman to say
>> something philosophical.
>Feynman hardly ever said anything philosphical.
Thank God!
Randroid Terminator
>Randroid Terminator wrote:
>Bob Kolker
Nice try, Bob. But I just didn't want to be exclusionary, as "each
individual" was a reference to me alone. And if you had written that,
it would be a reference to you alone.
Randroid Terminator
>fred...@papertig.com wrote:
>Bob Kolker
That's the argument I've been expecting to see. However, you still
can't prove anything about the measurement result without actually
looking at the recording device. So there is still an observer.
Randroid Terminator
<ejh...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Ooh! Ooh! I know! I know!
>
>Assuming the universe is 16 billion years old and was created in a single
>event, the center is 16 billion light years in every direction.
No, every point in the universe is the center, and that would include
yourself.
Randroid Terminator
<ejh...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>"Randroid Terminator" <Male...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:hbh6u0lamsjqtp8vd...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 03:07:01 +0000 (UTC), Edward Howell
>> <ejh...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> No, every point in the universe is the center, and that would include
>> yourself.
>Wow! As though I didn't have a big enough ego already now I find I'm the
>center of the universe!
It follows logically that if every point in the universe is its
physical center, then that would include you.
Robert Kolker
>
> Assuming the universe is 16 billion years old and was created in a single
> event, the center is 16 billion light years in every direction.
There is no one point in the space-time manifold that can be the center
to the exclusion of all other points.
Bob Kolker
Robert Kolker
> Wow! As though I didn't have a big enough ego already now I find I'm the
> center of the universe!
I'm Spartacus!
Bob Kolker
>
Ken S. Tucker
So far non-metric theories are a bit like tackling a greased
pig, you know it's there, but it's hard to cook.
If you ask me directly about "affine geometry", my comments
would be discouraging.
I'll support my statement by ref to AE's "The Meaning of Relativity",
specifically the "Non-Symmetric Field".
I doubt you want to discuss that.
Ken S. Tucker
fred...@papertig.com
Randroid Terminator wrote:
> But no matter. Whichever kind of situation you imagine, you always
> plant your own perspective firmly within it. That's not subjectivism,
> that's just a fact.
>From whichever perspective one looks at this situation, Malenoid still
has his foot planted firmly in his mouth.
> ...My original claim was only that one's consciousness is
> the center of the universe.
Yes,we know that was your original claim.
MAL: "Hop. Hop. Yes, even I see that my foot is in my mouth but if I
choose to ignore it, I won't have to admit how foolish I look. Hop.
Hop."
Malenoid is a veritable contortionist. He has the unique ability to hop
around on one foot while at the same time have his hand firmly planted
in the stolen concept jar. Normally he just has his head up his ass.
Fred Weiss
fred...@papertig.com
Randroid Terminator wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 22:37:59 +0000 (UTC), Robert Kolker
> <now...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> >fred...@papertig.com wrote:
>
> >> As I believe Jonathan and Mark have already pointed out to you -
and
> >> which should be obvious - *any* act of measurement involves an
observer
> >> and the results might well, in some circumstances, be relative to
and
> >> dependent upon the observer.
>
> >The observer could be a recording device. It need not be a
concscious
> >entity. Measurement or observation necessarily involved the
interaction
> >of two physical systems. Measurement and observation are
interactions.
>
> >Bob Kolker
>
> That's the argument I've been expecting to see. However, you still
> can't prove anything about the measurement result without actually
> looking at the recording device. So there is still an observer.
So there is.
And so what?
You keep babbling that this has nothing to do with subjectivism and I
keep wondering, "So why does Malenoid the Kantian bring this up?"
Is there some point to all of this, some profound insight? Perhaps
something like...I dunno..."In order to observe, one needs an
observer".
As if we needed you - or Kant - to tell us that.
Do you think you might manage to blurt out here - hopping though you
are on one foot with your hand in the stolen concept jar - "Well, gee,
doncha see, that means we have to abandon all that damned 'insane
objectivity' that stops us from transcendentalizing God, Freedom, and
Immortality - and transcendentalizing is soooooo fun".
Fred Weiss
Jonathan Heath
I was starting to worry. It looked like we were going to have a whole
science-based thread without him.
Jonathan Heath
> On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 11:06:30 +0000 (UTC), Jonathan Heath
> <jon_d...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Randroid Terminator wrote:
> >> On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 05:14:28 +0000 (UTC), Jonathan Heath
> >> <jon_d...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Randroid Terminator wrote:
> >> >> Bad analogy. We know that your height doesn't increase or
decrease
> >> >> with distance, but we do know that time does dilate (and space
> >does
> >> >> contract) relative to a stationary reference frame.
> >>
> >> >What's a stationary reference frame? Stationary with respect to
> >what?
> >>
> >> That's irrelevant, and you know it.
> >
> >Um, is that an acknowledgement that there's no such thing as a
> >stationary reference frame? You know, it wouldn't hurt for you to
admit
> >when you're wrong once in a while.
>
> We can call point X stationary with regard to the relativistic frame,
> or vice versa. I'm not wrong because I've known this damn theory for
> 25 years. Why don't you admit that you want me to be wrong?
I notice that you're persisting in this idiosyncratic terminology of
"the relativistic frame", despite both Mark and I having pointed out
its obscurity, but I'll ignore that for the sake of argument.
I said there's no such thing as a stationary RF, and you responded by
saying that we can define a point as stationary with respect to some
RF. But those two are not quite the same thing are they? The point
being that it is meaningless to talk about a stationary RF unless it is
with respect to some other RF. Yet did we see any such qualification in
your post to Fred? No, which leads me to conclude that you whatever you
think you've known for 25 years, it's not the theory of relativity.
> >> [snip]
> >> >> I don't think you understand relativity, or else you wouldn't
have
> >> >> claimed above that mariners have known about it for hundreds of
> >> >years.
> >> >> Or did their sailing ships travel a lot faster than I realized?
> >>
> >> >No, actually I don't think *you* understand relativity if you've
> >never
> >> >heard of Galilean relativity. Try googling.
> >>
> >> Talk about context-switching, sheesh. You are acting like Phreed's
> >> nonsense that I responded to never even existed. This is an
obvious
> >> example of how you people cover up for each other.
> >
> >There's that victim complex again. You tried to make a facetious
> >comment, but you were wrong on a point of fact. All I did was draw
> >attention to that, and believe me, I wouldn't hesitate to do the
same
> >to anyone else. As a rule, I don't much like people making
smart-arse
> >comments about things they don't understand.
>
> Likewise, smart-"arse."
Great comeback. The difference is up until now (my patience having worn
thin) I didn't try to belittle anyone about their lack of familiarity
with the theory. You, on the other hand, were only too happy to try it,
but unfortunately your ignorance betrayed you.
Back to the point though. Your original claim: every conscious being is
his or her own centre of the universe.
In order to refute this, we don't even need to delve into the
complexities of the geometry of space-time. There's a more obvious
response: how can there be more than one centre of anything? If you're
going to attempt an answer, remember that it has to be couched in
physical/geometrical terms if it is to have any relevance to this
thread.
The equivalence principle, which isn't unique to SR, provides no
support for your assertion. What SR *does* imply is that any concept
such as "the centre of the universe" is physically meaningful iff it is
defined exclusively in terms of Lorentz-invariant quantities. This
implies, in turn, that if such a thing existed, observers from
different RFs would agree on where it was i.e. they couldn't each think
they were the centre of the universe (or they could, but only one could
be right).
Thomas Clarke
> > [...]
I saw the title and eagerly looked into the thread but there
was so little science involved that there was little point in
posting.
Not surprising that Kolker held back.
Tom Clarke
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Robert Kolker
posting.
> Not surprising that Kolker held back.
I was out of town.
Whenever I see the term observer in the relativistic context used as a
synonym for a conscious observer I reach for my Uzi.
Bob Kolker
Randroid Terminator
wrote:
>Randroid Terminator wrote:
>> But no matter. Whichever kind of situation you imagine, you always
>> plant your own perspective firmly within it. That's not subjectivism,
>> that's just a fact.
>>From whichever perspective one looks at this situation, Malenoid still
>> ...My original claim was only that one's consciousness is
>> the center of the universe.
>Yes,we know that was your original claim.
>MAL: "Hop. Hop. Yes, even I see that my foot is in my mouth but if I
>choose to ignore it, I won't have to admit how foolish I look. Hop.
>Hop."
Yes, a technique I got from Rand standing on one foot and describing
her simplistic philosophy.
>Malenoid is a veritable contortionist. He has the unique ability to hop
>around on one foot while at the same time have his hand firmly planted
>in the stolen concept jar. Normally he just has his head up his ass.
>Fred Weiss
Just like you and Rand.
Randroid Terminator
<jon_d...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Randroid Terminator wrote:
>> On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 11:06:30 +0000 (UTC), Jonathan Heath
>> <jon_d...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Randroid Terminator wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 05:14:28 +0000 (UTC), Jonathan Heath
>> >> <jon_d...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>>
>> We can call point X stationary with regard to the relativistic frame,
>> or vice versa. I'm not wrong because I've known this damn theory for
>> 25 years. Why don't you admit that you want me to be wrong?
>
>I notice that you're persisting in this idiosyncratic terminology of
>"the relativistic frame", despite both Mark and I having pointed out
>its obscurity, but I'll ignore that for the sake of argument.
Then please tell us the alternative lingo again.
>I said there's no such thing as a stationary RF, and you responded by
>saying that we can define a point as stationary with respect to some
>RF. But those two are not quite the same thing are they? The point
>being that it is meaningless to talk about a stationary RF unless it is
>with respect to some other RF. Yet did we see any such qualification in
>your post to Fred? No, which leads me to conclude that you whatever you
>think you've known for 25 years, it's not the theory of relativity.
I agree completely about stationary RF's. What I would like to do is
get back to the original topic.
>
>Great comeback. The difference is up until now (my patience having worn
>thin) I didn't try to belittle anyone about their lack of familiarity
>with the theory. You, on the other hand, were only too happy to try it,
>but unfortunately your ignorance betrayed you.
>
>Back to the point though. Your original claim: every conscious being is
>his or her own centre of the universe.
>
>In order to refute this, we don't even need to delve into the
>complexities of the geometry of space-time. There's a more obvious
>response: how can there be more than one centre of anything? If you're
>going to attempt an answer, remember that it has to be couched in
>physical/geometrical terms if it is to have any relevance to this
>thread.
>
>The equivalence principle, which isn't unique to SR, provides no
>support for your assertion. What SR *does* imply is that any concept
>such as "the centre of the universe" is physically meaningful iff it is
>defined exclusively in terms of Lorentz-invariant quantities. This
>implies, in turn, that if such a thing existed, observers from
>different RFs would agree on where it was i.e. they couldn't each think
>they were the centre of the universe (or they could, but only one could
>be right).
The most one can say is that the center (or "centre") *appears* to be
everywhere at once. That is the point of the webpage I posted for Mr.
Howell.
I have trouble with the theory that the universe has edges. I don't
see how it could have edges if space/time loops back in on itself.
And if there are no edges, there is no actual definable center.
And yet I've recently read that the universe is shaped like a --
dodecahedron, I think? -- with the faces of the figure, its edges,
mirroring whatever happens to occupy the region at its face on the
opposite side of the universe. But where is this edge then? Is it
roughly 16 billion light-years from any starting point you happen to
choose? Is it rational to think of such things from inside the
universe, or is this theory based on some kind of externalistic,
god-like perspective?
Randroid Terminator
<now...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>Thomas Clarke wrote:
> posting.
>> Not surprising that Kolker held back.
>
>I was out of town.
Doing what?
>Whenever I see the term observer in the relativistic context used as a
>synonym for a conscious observer I reach for my Uzi.
Then you should go shoot up about 154,000 websites.
Edward Howell
"Robert Kolker" <now...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:6eSdnT5_f-y...@comcast.com...
No! I'm Spartacus!
Ed Howell
Jonathan Heath
> On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 14:27:44 +0000 (UTC), Jonathan Heath
> <jon_d...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Randroid Terminator wrote:
> >> On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 11:06:30 +0000 (UTC), Jonathan Heath
> >> <jon_d...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Randroid Terminator wrote:
> >> >> On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 05:14:28 +0000 (UTC), Jonathan Heath
> >> >> <jon_d...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>
>
> >>
> >> We can call point X stationary with regard to the relativistic
frame,
> >> or vice versa. I'm not wrong because I've known this damn theory
for
> >> 25 years. Why don't you admit that you want me to be wrong?
> >
> >I notice that you're persisting in this idiosyncratic terminology of
> >"the relativistic frame", despite both Mark and I having pointed out
> >its obscurity, but I'll ignore that for the sake of argument.
>
> Then please tell us the alternative lingo again.
I have a two-fold objection to the term "relativistic frame". Firstly,
it implies that relativity only applies for special frames travelling
at close to the speed of light, which of course is untrue. Secondly, it
prompts the question of how the speed of the frame is defined. As
Maudlin says in the quote I posted, you are right now travelling at
close to the speed of light in some perfectly legitimate RF - there is
no absolute velocity.
All of this might seem pedantic and I know that it can be irritatingly
long-winded to write "with respect to X" after every sentence. I just
wanted to be sure you accepted the above, which, it seems from your
later comments, you do.
[snip]
> I agree completely about stationary RF's. What I would like to do is
> get back to the original topic.
Good. Same here.
[snip]
> I have trouble with the theory that the universe has edges. I don't
> see how it could have edges if space/time loops back in on itself.
> And if there are no edges, there is no actual definable center.
> And yet I've recently read that the universe is shaped like a --
> dodecahedron, I think? -- with the faces of the figure, its edges,
> mirroring whatever happens to occupy the region at its face on the
> opposite side of the universe. But where is this edge then? Is it
> roughly 16 billion light-years from any starting point you happen to
> choose? Is it rational to think of such things from inside the
> universe, or is this theory based on some kind of externalistic,
> god-like perspective?
Would that be the Poincare model? I need to do some reading on this
myself.
It's always hellishly difficult to visualise these things, but I think
the idea is that the universe (as described in co-moving coordinates)
is like the 3-D surface of a 4-D dodecahedron. Us 3-D beings cannot
comprehend what it would be like to either leave the 'surface' or
travel to the 'centre' of the dodecahedron, just as 2-D beings would
not be able to comprehend the idea of a conventional dodecahedron
having a centre.
This type of topology allows the universe to have finite size but also
be unbounded, because no matter how far you go, you can't fall off,
like circumnavigating the globe.
Robert Kolker
>
> No! I'm Spartacus!
No you are NOT. Liar liar pants on fire.
Bob Kolker
Robert Kolker
> I have a two-fold objection to the term "relativistic frame". Firstly,
> it implies that relativity only applies for special frames travelling
> at close to the speed of light, which of course is untrue. Secondly, it
> prompts the question of how the speed of the frame is defined. As
> Maudlin says in the quote I posted, you are right now travelling at
> close to the speed of light in some perfectly legitimate RF - there is
> no absolute velocity.
The frames of reference of special relativity are inertial frames.
In general relativity all frames of reference are created equal.
Bob Kolker
Randroid Terminator
<jon_d...@hotmail.com> wrote:
That's true, but for relativity to take effect I would think that one
would have to consider an accelerating RF. Mere velocity, no matter
how extreme, makes a difference to the man in the elevator who is in a
continuous state of free-fall. In that case, "respect to X" is not
necessary. It is only when comparing pocketwatches after the trip is
completed that X becomes the standard time-reference.
>> I have trouble with the theory that the universe has edges. I don't
>> see how it could have edges if space/time loops back in on itself.
>> And if there are no edges, there is no actual definable center.
>> And yet I've recently read that the universe is shaped like a --
>> dodecahedron, I think? -- with the faces of the figure, its edges,
>> mirroring whatever happens to occupy the region at its face on the
>> opposite side of the universe. But where is this edge then? Is it
>> roughly 16 billion light-years from any starting point you happen to
>> choose? Is it rational to think of such things from inside the
>> universe, or is this theory based on some kind of externalistic,
>> god-like perspective?
>Would that be the Poincare model? I need to do some reading on this
>myself.
>It's always hellishly difficult to visualise these things, but I think
>the idea is that the universe (as described in co-moving coordinates)
>is like the 3-D surface of a 4-D dodecahedron. Us 3-D beings cannot
>comprehend what it would be like to either leave the 'surface' or
>travel to the 'centre' of the dodecahedron, just as 2-D beings would
>not be able to comprehend the idea of a conventional dodecahedron
>having a centre.
>This type of topology allows the universe to have finite size but also
>be unbounded, because no matter how far you go, you can't fall off,
>like circumnavigating the globe.
That is all I needed to hear.
Throughout this conversation there has been an implied distinction
between appearances of our common-sense world and the reality
studied by the physicists. Intuitively speaking, we cannot
"comprehend" the idea of the surface of a sphere having a center.
But rationally speaking, we are capable of comprehending otherwise,
of 'seeing' that the seemingly flat surface really is a sphere,
otherwise you wouldn't have been able to explain this subject at all
(although it is hellishly difficult to visualize). That is what the
anti-apriorists, such as the Objectivists, cannot accept. That is how
their anti-apriorism cognitively limits them. And one cannot be
anti-apriorist and Objectivist at the same time, the two theories are
antonyms of each other. Apriorism provides for the advance of science
over the limits of intuition and understanding, it is rationality in
advance of any real understanding. Objectivism provides for nothing
more than the ordering of and deriving of concepts from one's
perceptual field, and cannot conceptually leap beyond the level of
merely biological, 19th-century mechanistic taxology (applied beyond
biology to the rest of one's field of awareness), and into the realm
of human free-will and spontaneous creativity.
Every such post I send to this forum at least carries with it the
implication that I am relying on an anti-Objectivist stance while
heading toward such a conclusion. Even 20th-century physics disagrees
with Objectivism. That is why I was interested to find out that Rand
actually liked Relativity. It is apparent, and no surprise, to realize
that she obviously didn't understand it much beyond lending it the
most superficial of glances. But then, that's pretty much how she
dealt with everything, as is apparent with her so-called
"epistemology."
Robert Kolker
>
> Throughout this conversation there has been an implied distinction
> between appearances of our common-sense world and the reality
> studied by the physicists.
And rightly so. "Common sense" has proven to be a poor guide to finding
out how the world really works. On the basis of "common sense" quantum
physics never would have been developed.
Richad Feynman points out that "common sense" cannot account for the
result of the double slit experiment.
Bob Kolker
Jonathan Heath
My first attempt at responding to your post seems to have got lost
(maybe it was a sign), so I'll try again. Don't know about Bob, but I'd
just love to hear your thoughts on "affine geometry".
Jonathan Heath
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen"
Albert Einstein
Randroid Terminator
>Randroid Terminator wrote:
That's why I reject Objectivism.
Jonathan Heath
> Feynman hardly ever said anything philosphical. He said many things
> anti-philosophical. Which had a perfect right to because he was one
of
> the top five physicists of the 20-th century and he was much smarter
> than any philosopher who ever lived. He delivered the goods. The
> philosophers (with the exception of Hume) have not.
Yeah, right. Feynman really winds me up with that crap. Philosophers of
science have nothing but respect for Feynman's ability and insight, but
he seems to think that he's fighting a war rather than engaging in a
constructive enterprise. The fact that he's a great physicist does not
confer on him the "perfect right" to decry philosophy. Shakespeare was
a great playwright - did he have a similar right?
As for him being much smarter than any philosopher who ever lived and
philosophers not delivering the goods .. Newton, anyone?
Randroid Terminator
Kolker is a cultist, drooling over Feynman the same way Phreed drools
over Peikoff, and for the same reasons: they have failed to
individuate as adults. Whatever they lacked as children, they look for
in parent figures as adults. Never having fully emerged from their
pupal cocoon stage, they find themselves cast out of it anyway, and
find comfort in wrapping themselves in something else.
Jonathan Heath
> Throughout this conversation there has been an implied distinction
> between appearances of our common-sense world and the reality
> studied by the physicists. Intuitively speaking, we cannot
> "comprehend" the idea of the surface of a sphere having a center.
> But rationally speaking, we are capable of comprehending otherwise,
> of 'seeing' that the seemingly flat surface really is a sphere,
> otherwise you wouldn't have been able to explain this subject at all
> (although it is hellishly difficult to visualize).That is what the
> anti-apriorists, such as the Objectivists, cannot accept. That is how
> their anti-apriorism cognitively limits them.
I'm not sure how all this supports the case for apriority. To the
extent that my description works, isn't that down to our experience of
spheres (or dodecahedra)? We can vaguely imagine what it would be like
to be a 2-D being living on the surface of a sphere, but only because
we know what the surface of a sphere is like from experience.
I often wonder whether anyone really understands the proliferation of
dimensions in modern physics, at least in terms of being able to
visualise them (although in my more heretical moments I like to argue
that the role of visualisation is often overplayed). In my experience,
the textbooks argue along the lines of "we have one, two, three
dimensions ... but why stop there?", which I think you'll agree isn't
particularly compelling.
Robert Kolker
> As for him being much smarter than any philosopher who ever lived and
> philosophers not delivering the goods .. Newton, anyone?
Newton was a -natural- philosopher, not a stuck in the amber
metaphysician. To see this is the case read his rules for formulating
hypotheses from observed fact, given in Book 3 of -Principia-. Newton
was the last Alchemist and the first thoroughly modern theoretical
physicist. He severed himself from the Cambridge Aristoteleans during
his leave of absence during the plague years. Newton restored the Ionian
spirit to philosophy.
In addition to all that he was a brilliant mathematician who forged the
tools necessary to express motion. He invented calculus and differential
equations.
Bob Kolker
Robert Kolker
>
> Kolker is a cultist, drooling over Feynman the same way Phreed drools
> over Peikoff, and for the same reasons: they have failed to
> individuate as adults. Whatever they lacked as children, they look for
> in parent figures as adults. Never having fully emerged from their
> pupal cocoon stage, they find themselves cast out of it anyway, and
> find comfort in wrapping themselves in something else.
Actually it is quantum electrodynaics I drool over. Feynman delivered
the goods. That is not cultism. That is results.
Bob Kolker
Robert Kolker
> I often wonder whether anyone really understands the proliferation of
> dimensions in modern physics, at least in terms of being able to
> visualise them (although in my more heretical moments I like to argue
> that the role of visualisation is often overplayed). In my experience,
> the textbooks argue along the lines of "we have one, two, three
> dimensions ... but why stop there?", which I think you'll agree isn't
> particularly compelling.
I can do four dimensions hyperbolic spaces in my head and I never
experienced them. It is just a matter of mental practice. Analogy helps,
the formal math helps and doing the the excercises help. Done
sufficiently often the intuition is formed.
One can acheive geometric intuation without direct perceptual experience.
Bob Kolker
Robert Kolker
>
> Kolker is a cultist, drooling over Feynman the same way Phreed drools
> over Peikoff, and for the same reasons: they have failed to
> individuate as adults.
First of all I learned the math. That is something that L.P. and Rand
never even -tried- to do. Second of all my interest is in the science.
The personality of Feynman is not the main thing. It is his -work-.
Feynman and others put Quantum Electrodynamics on the map and help forge
a major piece of the standard model, which delivers results on
everything but gravitation good to 12-15 decimal places. Let's see any
philosopher match that.
Feynman did -science- and he did not suffer fools or foolishness.
Philosophy, by and large, has been a failure. It has not definitively
answered its basic questions nor has a means to doing so been
philosophically formulated. The most successful parts of philosophy have
been those most akin to mathematics and formal logic.
Scientists and technologists (engineers and such like) armed with simple
realism have delivered your wealth and prosperity. What have the
philosolphers produced. Three thousand years of philosophical
speculation and what have they produced? The conclusion that Socrates is
Mortal.
Empirically based science has produced our industry, our medicine, our
means of defense. It has made leisure available to the least of us in
amounts no even dreamt of a hundred years ago. I fart in the general
direction of philosophy.
Bob Kolker
Randroid Terminator
<jon_d...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Randroid Terminator wrote:
>> Throughout this conversation there has been an implied distinction
>> between appearances of our common-sense world and the reality
>> studied by the physicists. Intuitively speaking, we cannot
>> "comprehend" the idea of the surface of a sphere having a center.
>> But rationally speaking, we are capable of comprehending otherwise,
>> of 'seeing' that the seemingly flat surface really is a sphere,
>> otherwise you wouldn't have been able to explain this subject at all
>> (although it is hellishly difficult to visualize).That is what the
>> anti-apriorists, such as the Objectivists, cannot accept. That is how
>> their anti-apriorism cognitively limits them.
>I'm not sure how all this supports the case for apriority. To the
>extent that my description works, isn't that down to our experience of
>spheres (or dodecahedra)? We can vaguely imagine what it would be like
>to be a 2-D being living on the surface of a sphere, but only because
>we know what the surface of a sphere is like from experience.
However, we can't visualize twelve dimensions. The ability or power to
think beyond the given, even to leap beyond it as physicists often do,
is not given in such limited intuitions (or by Objectivism). It is
given a priori to the theories.
>I often wonder whether anyone really understands the proliferation of
>dimensions in modern physics, at least in terms of being able to
>visualise them (although in my more heretical moments I like to argue
>that the role of visualisation is often overplayed). In my experience,
>the textbooks argue along the lines of "we have one, two, three
>dimensions ... but why stop there?", which I think you'll agree isn't
>particularly compelling.
Well no, because we don't *literally* have one, two, three dimensions.
We have these ideas about them, that's all. But I see it as compelling
in the sense that, only as ideas (theories) and not speaking
literally, there is no reason to stop at three. And then it may just
so happen that more than three dimensions was the reality of the
universe after all. Strings, for example, are not three dimensional
objects. They aren't objects at all according to common sense, but
they are objects for physics, and possess as many dimensions (let's
say, twelve) as they need to in order to fit make the theory work,
among other things (there's more to a theory than just how well it
works). And the latter is what it's all about.
Randroid Terminator
>Randroid Terminator wrote:
Delivered the goods, i.e., he makes great cocoons for you
unindividuated physics freaks to wrap yourselves in like a surrogate
womb.
Randroid Terminator
Don't worry, I won't try to take your cocoon away from you if wrapping
mere theories areound you involves you in a psychological
life-or-death situation.
Robert Kolker
>
> Delivered the goods, i.e., he makes great cocoons for you
> unindividuated physics freaks to wrap yourselves in like a surrogate
> womb.
Delivers the goods = produce technology and make correct quantitative
predictions about what physical processes and eventws will occur under
specified condition. Such activity has made the computer with which to
spew your nonsense possible.
I am interested in results, not idle metaphysical or ethical
speculations. Philosophy has posed a set of questions for over 3000
years. It has not answered a single one of them. This looks like failure
to me. What can you say about an activity that has persisted for at
least three millenia and has failed by its own standards. I call it a
waste of time. What do you call it?
Bob Kolker
Jonathan Heath
Robert Kolker wrote:
> Jonathan Heath wrote:
>
> > As for him being much smarter than any philosopher who ever lived
and
> > philosophers not delivering the goods .. Newton, anyone?
>
> Newton was a -natural- philosopher, not a stuck in the amber
> metaphysician.
But a philosopher nonetheless and one who was hugely influential on the
development of philosophy (particularly Hume, who you seem to have some
respect for).
Jonathan Heath
Robert Kolker wrote:
> Scientists and technologists (engineers and such like) armed with
simple
> realism have delivered your wealth and prosperity. What have the
> philosolphers produced. Three thousand years of philosophical
> speculation and what have they produced? The conclusion that Socrates
is
> Mortal.
Ah, so now the net has been sneakily widened to include technologists.
Just as well for you.
The fact is that science alone has delivered no more fructiferous
benefit than philosophy. So what if we can predict QED quantities to 12
dp? Does that put bread on the table? It's *technology* that brings the
benefit to mankind.
It's true that philosophy is full of unanswered questions, but what it
has succeeded in doing over the past 3000 years is ruling out many
incorrect answers. In the process, philosophers paved the way for
science.
Robert Kolker
> But a philosopher nonetheless and one who was hugely influential on the
> development of philosophy (particularly Hume, who you seem to have some
> respect for).
Newton did the first thorough deconstruction of philosophy with his
rules for abducing hypotheses from the observed phenomenon. He started
what Hume finished. What you see is what you get.
Bob Kolker
Robert Kolker
>
> It's true that philosophy is full of unanswered questions, but what it
> has succeeded in doing over the past 3000 years is ruling out many
> incorrect answers. In the process, philosophers paved the way for
> science.
Actually science was forged by riding roughshod over the bones of dead
philosophers. Particularly Aristotle. Honest to goodness science has
emerged from the cocoon of philosophy. The ways are parted to the
benefit of science.
Bob Kolker
robert j. kolker
> The fact is that science alone has delivered no more fructiferous
> benefit than philosophy. So what if we can predict QED quantities to 12
> dp? Does that put bread on the table? It's *technology* that brings the
> benefit to mankind.
Modern electronics technology is the child of quantum theory.
Bob Kolker
robert j. kolker
Agent Cooper wrote:
>
> When we add (as you would not) Quinian doubts about the draw-ability of
> the demarcation line between philosophy and science in the first place,
> this anti-philosophy-ism begins to look like yet another relic from the
> superannuated days of logical positivism...
Quine was wrong on this and Popper was right.
Popper was actually opposed to Logical-Positivism which is why he
emphasized falsifiability.
Bob Kolker