Sum ergo cognito - or the other way round?

[Eckard B]

My question relates to train gedanken (Gedankenexperiment) printed by Vieweg 100 years ago and P1 of 1905.
Did Descartes obey causality? Well, we may use Cartesian co-ordinates for both rigid bodies, the train and the embankment. However, isn't the choice of a common positive direction for both systems a violation of symmetry?

I don't see the chicken-egg metaphor a valid argument against the causal direction of time. My existence is the precondition of my gedanken, not the other way round.

[Poutnik]

Dne 18/10/2017 v 07:12 Eckard B napsal(a):

> My question relates to train gedanken (Gedankenexperiment) printed by Vieweg 100 years ago and P1 of 1905.
> Did Descartes obey causality?

He died after he was born, woke up after felt asleep,
so probably yes, he obeyed causality.

Well, we may use Cartesian co-ordinates for both rigid bodies, the
train and the embankment. However, isn't the choice of a common positive
direction for both systems a violation of symmetry?

Violation of symmetry would be,
if we got different results
for different orientations of the coordinate systems.

--
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )

A wise man guards words he says,
as they say about him more,
than he says about the subject.

[Poutnik]

Dne 18/10/2017 v 07:12 Eckard B napsal(a):

>

> I don't see the chicken-egg metaphor a valid argument against the causal direction of time. My existence is the precondition of my gedanken, not the other way round.
>

SR does not reverse causal relations of timelike events.
Spacelike events cannot have causal relations.

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

W dniu środa, 18 października 2017 09:01:41 UTC+2 użytkownik Poutnik napisał:
> Dne 18/10/2017 v 07:12 Eckard B napsal(a):
>
> >
> > I don't see the chicken-egg metaphor a valid argument against the causal direction of time. My existence is the precondition of my gedanken, not the other way round.
> >
> SR does not reverse causal relations of timelike events.

Yes, poor idiot, it does. At least, it does if QM
is assumed too.

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Poutnik wrote:

> Dne 18/10/2017 v 07:12 Eckard B napsal(a):
>> I don't see the chicken-egg metaphor a valid argument against the causal
>> direction of time. My existence is the precondition of my gedanken, not
>> the other way round.
>>
> SR does not reverse causal relations of timelike events.
> Spacelike events cannot have causal relations.

timelike-_separated_ events
spacelike-_separated_ events


PointedEars
--
Q: Where are offenders sentenced for light crimes?
A: To a prism.

(from: WolframAlpha)

[Poutnik]

Dne 18.10.2017 v 14:35 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napsal(a):

> Poutnik wrote:
>
>> Dne 18/10/2017 v 07:12 Eckard B napsal(a):
>>> I don't see the chicken-egg metaphor a valid argument against the causal
>>> direction of time. My existence is the precondition of my gedanken, not
>>> the other way round.
>>>
>> SR does not reverse causal relations of timelike events.
>> Spacelike events cannot have causal relations.
>
> timelike-_separated_ events
> spacelike-_separated_ events

Sorry for using shortcuts. I do not object.
Or, I could use timelike/spacelike space-time intervals.

[Bud Cargo]

Thomas 'HARTZ-IV' Lahn wrote:

> Poutnik wrote:
>
>> Dne 18/10/2017 v 07:12 Eckard B napsal(a):
>>> I don't see the chicken-egg metaphor a valid argument against the
>>> causal direction of time. My existence is the precondition of my
>>> gedanken, not the other way round.
>>>
>> SR does not reverse causal relations of timelike events.
>> Spacelike events cannot have causal relations.
>
> timelike-_separated_ events spacelike-_separated_ events
> PointedEars

Idiot, event_s_ are _ALWAYS_ separated. You just display you lack of
proper education.

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Poutnik wrote:

> Dne 18.10.2017 v 14:35 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napsal(a):
>> Poutnik wrote:
>>> Dne 18/10/2017 v 07:12 Eckard B napsal(a):
>>>> I don't see the chicken-egg metaphor a valid argument against the
>>>> causal direction of time. My existence is the precondition of my
>>>> gedanken, not the other way round.
>>> SR does not reverse causal relations of timelike events.
>>> Spacelike events cannot have causal relations.
>> timelike-_separated_ events
>> spacelike-_separated_ events
>
> Sorry for using shortcuts. I do not object.
> Or, I could use timelike/spacelike space-time intervals.

ACK. But to the uninitiated, the second version strikes me as requiring
even more explanation as it additionally begs the question “What is a
space-time interval?” or may cause the misconception of a
“timelike/spacelike space-time”.

BTW, it is more common nowadays to write “spacetime”, as indicated by
the redirection of <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-time> (neither
Google Book’s Ngram Viewer¹ nor Google Search are useful to determine that).


PointedEars
___________
¹ <https://books.google.com/ngrams>
--
I heard that entropy isn't what it used to be.

(from: WolframAlpha)

[Bud Cargo]

Poutnik wrote:

> Dne 18.10.2017 v 14:35 Thomas 'HARTZ-IV' Lahn napsal(a):

>> Poutnik wrote:
>>> SR does not reverse causal relations of timelike events.
>>> Spacelike events cannot have causal relations.
>>
>> timelike-_separated_ events spacelike-_separated_ events
>
> Sorry for using shortcuts. I do not object.
> Or, I could use timelike/spacelike space-time intervals.

You "do not object" wrong. There is no need for "separated".

[Poutnik]

Dne 18.10.2017 v 15:10 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napsal(a):

> Poutnik wrote:
>
>> Sorry for using shortcuts. I do not object.
>> Or, I could use timelike/spacelike space-time intervals.
>
> ACK. But to the uninitiated, the second version strikes me as requiring
> even more explanation as it additionally begs the question “What is a
> space-time interval?” or may cause the misconception of a
> “timelike/spacelike space-time”.

I agree, that is why I have not used it. :)

[Ned Latham]

Eckard B wrote:
>
> My question relates to train gedanken (Gedankenexperiment)
> printed by Vieweg 100 years ago and P1 of 1905.
> Did Descartes obey causality? Well, we may use Cartesian

> co-ordinates for both rigid bodies, the train and thei
> embankment. However, isn't the choice of a common positivei

> direction for both systems a violation of symmetry?
>

> I don't see the chicken-egg metaphor a valid argumenti

> against the causal direction of time. My existence is
> the precondition of my gedanken, not the other way round.

"I think, therefore I am" is not a statement that my thought
causes my exisatence; it is a statement that the fact of my
thought is proof of my existence.

[Eckard B]

Am Mittwoch, 18. Oktober 2017 21:21:04 UTC+2 schrieb Ned Latham:
> Eckard B wrote:
> >
> > My question relates to train gedanken (Gedankenexperiment)
> > printed by Vieweg 100 years ago and P1 of 1905.
> > Did Descartes obey causality? Well, we may use Cartesian
> > co-ordinates for both rigid bodies, the train and thei
> > embankment. However, isn't the choice of a common positivei
> > direction for both systems a violation of symmetry?
> >
> > I don't see the chicken-egg metaphor a valid argumenti
> > against the causal direction of time. My existence is
> > the precondition of my gedanken, not the other way round.
>
> "I think, therefore I am" is not a statement that my thought

> causes my existence; it is a statement that the fact of my

> thought is proof of my existence.

Of course. I didn't mistake René Descartes. I merely dared to criticize
his unability to antipicate misuse of his co-ordinates.

[Ned Latham]

Eckard B wrote:
> schrieb Ned Latham:
>> Eckard B wrote:
>> >
>> > My question relates to train gedanken (Gedankenexperiment)
>> > printed by Vieweg 100 years ago and P1 of 1905.
>> > Did Descartes obey causality? Well, we may use Cartesian
>> > co-ordinates for both rigid bodies, the train and thei
>> > embankment. However, isn't the choice of a common positivei
>> > direction for both systems a violation of symmetry?
>> >
>> > I don't see the chicken-egg metaphor a valid argumenti
>> > against the causal direction of time. My existence is
>> > the precondition of my gedanken, not the other way round.
>>
>> "I think, therefore I am" is not a statement that my thought
>> causes my existence; it is a statement that the fact of my
>> thought is proof of my existence.
>
> Of course. I didn't mistake René Descartes.

Bitte, entschuldigen Sie mich.

> I merely dared to criticize his unability to antipicate misuse
> of his co-ordinates.

Um. Of course. Howe *dare* he be so careless!

[Eckard B]

Am Freitag, 20. Oktober 2017 05:54:13 UTC+2 schrieb Ned Latham:
> Eckard B wrote:
> > schrieb Ned Latham:
> >> Eckard B wrote:
> >> >
> >> > My question relates to train gedanken (Gedankenexperiment)
> >> > printed by Vieweg 100 years ago and P1 of 1905.
> >> > Did Descartes obey causality? Well, we may use Cartesian
> >> > co-ordinates for both rigid bodies, the train and thei
> >> > embankment. However, isn't the choice of a common positivei
> >> > direction for both systems a violation of symmetry?
> >> >
> >> > I don't see the chicken-egg metaphor a valid argumenti
> >> > against the causal direction of time. My existence is
> >> > the precondition of my gedanken, not the other way round.
> >>
> >> "I think, therefore I am" is not a statement that my thought
> >> causes my existence; it is a statement that the fact of my
> >> thought is proof of my existence.
> >
> > Of course. I didn't mistake René Descartes.
>
> Bitte, entschuldigen Sie mich.

No reason for that. I have to apologize for hurting those who idolize Descartes.

>
> > I merely dared to criticize his unability to antipicate misuse
> > of his co-ordinates.
>

> Um. Of course. How *dare* he be so careless!

I am not very familiar with his life and thought. Some of his ideas continued and considerably further developed ancient geometry. I see him also in the context of others, in particular Wallis who introduced the symbol of infinity.
While Descartes intended avoiding arbitrariness, the application of his co-ordinates on the traditional notion of time implied the need to arbitrarily choose a point zero of reference. He was not at all careless but put into the religious belief in an alpha (creation of the world) and an omega (doomsday).

[Ned Latham]

Neither am I.

> Some of his ideas
> continued and considerably further developed ancient geometry.

We still call the non-polar co-ordinate system "Cartesian Co-ordinates".
But for me, his greatest achievement (one of the greatest achievemnents
of all time) is "Cogito, ergo sum".

> I see him also in the context of others, in particular Wallis who
> introduced the symbol of infinity.

Didn't know that.

> While Descartes intended avoiding arbitrariness, the application of
> his co-ordinates on the traditional notion of time implied the need
> to arbitrarily choose a point zero of reference.

I don't know how to read that. I do not accept the notion of time
as a phenomenon (let alone as a dimension of some continuum);
like number, it is a noumenon, a thing that exists only in the mind
of man. Indeed, the time line is just the number line with some minor
label changes.

> He was not at all careless

I was being ironic.

> but put into the religious belief in an alpha (creation of
> the world) and an omega (doomsday).

Hmm. Didn't know that either. Can't say I see any positive value in it.

[Mauricio Hopwood]

Poutnik wrote:

> Dne 18.10.2017 v 15:10 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napsal(a):
>> Poutnik wrote:
>>
>>> Sorry for using shortcuts. I do not object.
>>> Or, I could use timelike/spacelike space-time intervals.
>>
>> ACK. But to the uninitiated, the second version strikes me as
>> requiring even more explanation as it additionally begs the question
>> “What is a space-time interval?” or may cause the misconception of a
>> “timelike/spacelike space-time”.
>
> I agree, that is why I have not used it.

Hmm, can you have TWO or MORE events not being separated, before you "do
not object" that much?? You two guys are severely uneducated. I would
never let you two inside my research facilities, of which I own. You two
let alone, in a dark room for instance, with lasers and electric
equipment, would start a fire, even without touching anything.