Sample of my SR model"s interpretation
eel...@yahoo.com
resolves its paradoxes. I claim there is a more encompassing, static
4-D spacetime reality that we don't experience through our senses!
Note that I am not complaining about the number of physical sense
organs we have. We cannot see in radar, but we can build a radar
sensing machine and have it convert its sensitivities into secondary
perceptions that we CAN receive, like a radar screen outputting normal
light blips that are in our visual range. Like the deaf with
sign-language, I imagine that as long as we had ONE sense data organ,
we could in principle build machines to convert every other possible
sensation into analogs in that one sense we did possess (given
sufficiently advance technology).
But there is one sense organ we cannot replace by proxy. We
cannot 'see through time'. I believe each present moment of our
perceptual reality acts like a 3-D hyperplane screen, upon which our
ultimately real 4-D reality is projected. This is a "hyperscreen"
because it is 3-D space wide and 1 chronon of time deep. Without that
quantum-sized temporal thickness to our hyperscreen, we could not
perceptually experience change.
These perceptual realities are not just 'characterized' as
geometric projections. I claim they are actual physical projections.
All perceptually real matter is some given 'chronon' of time in
thickness. It may be that a succession of such (one chronon thick)
slices of 'immediate present' hyperplanes stack together to form some
kind of 4-D conglomerate that is polarized to the universe of all
(possible) 4-D projections being cast upon it, allowing only a single
projection that matches the the perceptual matter's relative speed
(i.e. its 'accelerative 4-D angle', to be explained)... I don't know.
What is obvious? Well, our paradoxical twins shared a common rate
of aging for twenty years of their lives together, with absolutely no
disagreement. Each brother continued to feel his own rate of aging
never changed, and perceived absolutely no physical sensation that ever
contradicted that judgment. Nevertheless, during that time, they
disagreed with each other during the one twin's flight away from earth.
The question is not whether these two 'opinions' can be made to share a
common reality and physically contradict each other within that common
reality. The question is whether we can define perceptual realities as
encompassing a TOTAL reality, when they make opposite claims about
various single perceptual experiences (e.g. the rate at which the
traveling twin ages). We DO know that no combination of mechanical
technology and human senses allow us to see through time, but that time
IS a part of our total 4-D spacetime reality.
The very matter out of which our body and senses are made, and
out of which machines are built, extends into time only by the most
infinitesimal amount. It is no wonder that perceptions made by such
matter lacks the ability to provide full knowledge of our ultimate 4-D
reality. It is as if we were watching ourselves on a TV hyperscreen,
but one in which we can not only see ourselves, but also FEEL
ourselves. I claim, as 'real' as the sensation of touch makes us feel,
we are not literally that body - not precisely that finger that gets
burned on the stove. By the slightest amount, this chronon extension
in time, the real 'us' is 4-D. But we are only equipped with 3-D
sensory devices. The real 4-D 'us' is 'somewhere else', looking at that
hyper-TV, and identifying with that TV's image. After all, when I want
to wave my hand, I see my hand wave. What could seem to be simpler?
Reviewing the twin paradox helps to highlight a flaw in using the
conventional, Agnostic-like default model of orthodox SR. While the
traveling twin makes his journey, the stay-at-home twin can investigate
conditions that hold for the traveling twin, by having surrogate (i.e.
also at relative rest to our stay-at-home twin) technicians, located
along the traveling twin's path, conduct extensive physical
observations, to see what is `really' going on with the moving brother.
As we all know, they find the traveling twin ages at a slower rate.
They find that this is real, that it is not some illusion due to
viewing transmission lags, Doppler effects, or any other such
interference with the validity of the observations.
The traveling brother is actually aging at a slower pace! It is
true, true, true. No god-damn "maybe's", mother-fucker! Now this is
what I call a "perceptual reality". Of course when the brother returns
back to earth, it is just gravy on the dinner, as they stand side by
side. We see the traveling brother IS years younger than his
stay-at-home twin. O.K. The only trouble is that the traveling brother
had also been monitoring himself. And he detected not the slightest
change in his aging rate throughout his round trip. Of course, we claim
that everything on the ship slowed down, so the brother had no way to
know that by comparison his aging rate had changed at all. But that is
irrelevant to my point. My point is that REGARDLESS of an explaining
reason, the traveling brother experienced a reality in which he aged at
the same rate as he always had. Within the spaceship there was no
physical test that he could make that would show that he had in fact
ever had a change in the rate at which he was aging, as he perceived
it. These are two conflicting PERCEPTUAL realities. Neither reality
ever concedes a logical priority to the other based on any possible
physical experiences within the capabilities of the observers.
In this particular case the stationary brother's reality seems
to be more 'correct' at the end of the trip than our traveling
twin's perceptual reality. But that is only because our traveling
twin agreed to RETURN back to his twin's stationary reality. If
instead the stationary twin had suited up and matched speed with that
of his departing brother, they would BOTH share in that OTHER
perceptual reality, and they would then agree on the 'opposite
truth', viz. that the stationary brother had aged less than his
piloting brother during his stay on earth. How could the stationary
brother under such conditions deny what he had earlier experienced as a
normal rate of aging? Well, any investigation of his previous history
on earth, taken from within this MOVING (in relation to earth)
perceptual reality forces him to admit that he did age less rapidly.
Of course any measurements made while he was at rest on earth showed
him to be aging more quickly. Our stationary brother has two separate
perceptual histories! In one, he was at rest and aged more quickly.
In the other, he and the planet earth were moving at a speed, -v, and
were aging at a slower rate. These are not two items within a single
perceptual reality. They are two of what I call, "3-D plus NOW time
horizon hyperplane - perceptual realities" co-existing within a
larger, static, ultimate 4-D spacetime reality. Also note that these
are not psychological states of mind. Each perceptual reality is a
consequence of a physical projection of a higher 4-D reality onto a
hyperplane reality that encompasses all that we can possibly
experience. Each observer's change from one perceptual reality to
another is the consequence of his motion being physically changing by
acceleration. An object's acceleration rotates the projection of its
4-D ultimate self onto observers' projection-hyperplane realities.
The largest observable consequence of acceleration is increased
motion, but that is just a secondary effect of acceleration.
Acceleration is at heart the rotation of an object about a 4-D
hyperaxis. As the object rotates its projected world-line revolves with
it and changes its orientation with respect to the object's former
stationary reference system. When the rotated object thereafter ceases
accelerating, it travels solely through its own post-accelerated
system's time-line. Just by standing still within its new perceptual
reality our post-accelerated object's world-line travels through the
old perceptual reality's space. And that notably shows up as velocity.
A less noticeable but more primary consequence of an object's
acceleration is the object's PIVOTING about its 4-D spacetime
rotational axis. A ship's front end is planted firmly in present
time, but the ship's self-propulsion kicks its rear end into the old
stationary perceptual reality's future. (See older posts of mine as to
how this specifically happens.) That causes the ship's rear to be able
to travel further forward not only in time but in distance, as its
increased future age allows it to 'spend more time' traveling (and
at greater speeds) than does the ship's present-aged front end. Since
the ship's rear end has moved disproportionately further forward than
its front end, the ship appears relativistically contracted to a
stationary observer. But the ultimately real 4-D spaceship has merely
been rotated (or more correctly, the PROJECTION of that ultimately real
4-D spaceship has been rotated), and the ultimately real 4-D ship is
not structurally damaged by that process.
Now when a ship drifts freely in space nearby a black hole, and
then falls headlong into that hole, its front end is accelerated by a
greater gravitational force than its rear end, due to being closer to
the gravitational source. That causes the free-falling ship's front end
to '4-D revolve' through more future space-time than the ship's rear
end. The ship's front end is seen by a stationary observer to have
traveled for relatively more time and at higher speeds than the ship's
rear end. As a consequence it is perceived to be traveling further
forward than the ship's rear end. Even though the ship is in free-fall,
this might be falsely interpreted, by those without a model, as a
grotesque stretching of the ship by gravitational tidal forces. But
that is as much a mistake as believing relativistic contractions
hideously compress ships' hulls. The only thing being 'touched' in
either case is a natural, physical projection process inherent to the
structure of 4-D spacetime as it projects itself into our three spatial
plus one chronon temporal dimensioned perceptual reality.
With the absence of true singularities at the centers of black
holes, and no fears of a free-falling ship's being ripped apart by
tidal forces, the way is clear for our ship's plunge into its black
hole... and into the unknown.
According to my model, accelerations cause angles of projection
(from an only INDIRECTLY viewed ultimate reality) to change between the
observer and that being observed. The 'ultimate Ding an sicht' (thing
in itself) is not really undergoing ANY absolute change. Rather, its
perceptual reality 'sight and touch picture' is being 'distorted' by
the acelerative change in the relative 4-D viewing angle between
observer and observed. To repeat my claim:
To a stationary observation ship, tidal forces appear to stretch
the infalling ship's material structure, etc. All of that is a
PERCEPTUAL REALITY 'illusion'! Yes, it is totally real, within the
observing ship's perceptual reality. But the ultimate 4-D infalling
ship has been 'squashed' about as much as you are when viewing yourself
in your own car's chrome fender. By "ultimately", I mean, that the
infalling ship may later make itself known to its former observing ship
- hopefully in a more peaceful place, not nearby any black holes -
demonstrating that it did not get 'all mangled up' in some absolute and
permanent fashion. This is like when the traveling twin returns to
earth. The earth-bound brother knows that the traveling twin aged at a
much slower rate, but this PERCEPTUAL REALITY need not be a 'permanent'
curse, as the earth-bound brother now sees after his brother's return,
when he measures the aging rate of his now stationary twin, and finds
it to be once again the same as his own. The infalling ship really did
get all squished up, but it also got 'unsquished' ... as viewed by the
stationary observation ship.
lee groth
Bill Hobba
<eel...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1100306262.1...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Philosophical wanking that indicates the poster does not understand what
science is about. It is not about creating theories that satisfy the
authors view of the world - it is about having theories in accord with
experiment. SR, in its domain of applicability, is fully in accord with
experiment so that is all that counts. As to why it is chosen over other
competing theories see an ancient post by Tom Roberts:
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=3838AA2A.829F46AD%40lucent.com
Bill
and...@attglobal.net
>
> Here is a sample of what I believe constitutes a model for SR that
> resolves its paradoxes.
You're flogging a dead horse. SR doesn't have paradoxes that need
resolving. They were resolved decades ago.
John Anderson
Patrick Reany
[snip]
>
> Philosophical wanking that indicates the poster does not understand what
> science is about. It is not about creating theories that satisfy the
> authors view of the world - it is about having theories in accord with
> experiment.
You're claiming that in the effort to invent a theory that works that
there is no room whatsoever for elements of the theory to be a prior
in the personal bias of the inventor's preferences? Both Lorentz and
Einstein invented predictively equivalent theories which satisfied
their "view of the world."
Einstein wrote:
In order to CONSTRUCT a theory, it is not enough to
have a clear conception of the goal. One must also have
a FORMAL POINT OF VIEW which will sufficiently
restrict the unlimited variety of possibilities.
[Einstein, Ideas and Opinions, The fundaments of
theoretical physics, p. 328, emphasis mine.]
You can't falsify a formal point of view, because it has no physical
content in itself, though it constrains how physical content is added
into a theory.
Patrick
Daniel Weston
VIEW". My understanding of what Einstein meant, was that a formal point
of view was what limited the endless ways that a theory could be
constructed. People who create theories meet this requirement
_naturally_ and _automatically_, even if they never heard of a "formal
point of view'. It naturally goes with the territory of theory
building. You are not telling anybody anything of unique value. It is
like saying that those who create theories should keep breathing during
the process. Einstein said it in passing, and you are trying to make it
a big deal by distorting it into a piece of special knowledge of which
you are the high priest, and we are the unenlightened supplicants.
Please give me some examples where the theory creator did not have a
"formal point of view". Are you trolling again ?
Bill Hobba
"Patrick Reany" <re...@asu.edu> wrote in message
news:844a1b64.04111...@posting.google.com...
Patrick if you read the article that Tom Roberts wrote, and I linked to, you
will see it is invoking philosophical reasoning. What the original poster
did is to demonstrate a lot of misconceptions about SR that shows he/she
does not understate it and dress it up in what I call 'philosphical mumbo
jumbo' - by which I mean philosophy that makes no sense rather than what Tom
wrote which is philosophy that makes sense. Regarding the original post
John Anderson's reply was better because it was more to the point - he said:
'You're flogging a dead horse. SR doesn't have paradoxes that need
resolving. They were resolved decades ago.'
His posts are often like that which is one reason I enjoy them.
Thanks
Bill
eel...@yahoo.com
with the following. If you do then the paradox follows. A beam of
light from Bert is split into two paths. One ends up in the eye of a
stationary Emma. The second in the eye of a moving Al. (to be
continued)
xxx Bert is at rest, D light years ahead of Al. Both their clocks
are
synchronized at t=0. Al quickly accelerates to velocity v and enters
a new perceptual reality in the process, where Bert is now fD ahead
of Al and Bert's clock reads "vD" (where f stands for the
"fraction" 1/gamma, associated with the speed v; i.e. f^2 + v^2 =
1). The beam of
light NOW entering Al's eye, came from Bert and traveled for a time
T= fD/1 + d/1 = fD + d, where d is the distance Bert has moved in
THIS perceptual reality since that beam left him in THIS perceptual
reality. So d = vT and light has traveled a distance 1T = fD + vT. Then
T = fD/(1-v) and the light
beam entering Al's eye 'pictures' Bert at a location whose distance
away equals 1T = fD + d = kD, where k = sqrt( (1+v)/(1-v) ) > 1. So in
this perceptual reality,
Bert is located fD < D ahead of Al, but the beam of light entering
Al's eye presently places him
at kD > D. That same beam of light shows Al that Bert's clock
read some time "TB" when the beam first left Bert on its trip towards
Al, T years
ago as measured in this new perceptual reality. And in this new
perceptual reality, Bert's clock now 'really'
reads, "vD". But T years ago, again in this new perceptual reality,
Bert was fT
years younger. Remember that although Al accelerated, Al is viewing
Bert as the one who is moving towards him, as Al is 'caught' within
this new perceptual reality created by his acceleration, and can only
make
observations from within that context. Like they say, "Everywhere you
go, there you are!" You can't 'run away' from your own perceptual
realities. So Al sees Bert's clock as reading "TB" = vD - fT = vD -
f*( f*D/(1-v) ) = D( v(1-v) - f^2 ) / (1-v) = D( v - (v^2 + f^2) ) /
(1-v) = D(v-1) / (1-v) = -D years.
Now back in the 'old stationary' perceptual reality, right before Al
accelerated, both Al's and Bert's clocks read "0" and the light coming
to Al from Bert was being produced D/1= D years before that. So Al
was also seeing light beams from Bert showing a clock reading "-D",
BEFORE he accelerated. So Al's acceleration did not change anything
with respect to how old he sees Bert to be. But Al did see Bert's
distance away from himself appear to change from D to kD, during the
period of his acceleration. When Al stops accelerating, Bert
is 'really' fD light years ahead.
xxx If we work out a similar example for Bert behind Al, we find
that
Bert again does not appear to change age during Al's acceleration.
But Bert does seem to move from a position D light years behind to
one D/k light years behind Al. When I wrote that a person
accelerating quickly to high speed would find himself pressed back
into his seat, while seeing himself apparently moving backward, I was
speaking loosely. Nearby objects would appear to be trying to run
away from him, but would be overtaken by his accelerating ship. But
objects further ahead of him would be fleeing at ever-greater speeds
and would create the general impression that his ship appeared to
be moving backwards during his acceleration.
xxx A good way to
understand all this is to imagine what it would be like for a 2-D
planar creature to float in our 3-D universe. If he saw a soap bubble
floating by, it would appear as a point growing into an ever larger
circle, then shrinking back to a point, and finally disappearing as
our 2-D creature's plane of vision intersected the bubble sphere, and
passed through that sphere from one tangent pole to its opposite. Or
imagine looking at our world through a large concave cut piece of
glass, while holding that glass at different angles to your line of
sight. You would see gross distortions of objects through that lens.
And they would continue to change shape and dimensions, as long as
you kept rotating that glass lens. The only difference here is that
time is part of what is seen distorted when an observer's
acceleration rotates his 'cut piece of glass lens'.
xxx Finally, I think
it is not possible for anyone to really accept my model as a valid
interpretation of SR, unless they can allow themselves to doubt the
reality of their own corporeal existence. That is to say, "The body
you feel with your fingers, may be mostly an illusion." That doesn't
mean that you shouldn't dodge bullets passing your way. If the person
you see in the mirror, dies, so do you - even though the mirror image
is not a 'real you'.. Similarly, there are real connections between
our illusory 3-D manifestation and our true 4-D existence, just as
between ourselves and our mirror images."
lee groth
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
<eel...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1100393673.7...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>I think I can demonstrate a paradox. First I must see if you agree
> with the following. If you do then the paradox follows. A beam of
> light from Bert is split into two paths. One ends up in the eye of a
> stationary Emma. The second in the eye of a moving Al. (to be
> continued)
>
> xxx Bert is at rest, D light years ahead of Al. Both their clocks
> are
> synchronized at t=0.
Light years apart, yet synchronized...
David A. Smith
Bill Hobba
> with the following. If you do then the paradox follows. A beam of
> light from Bert is split into two paths. One ends up in the eye of a
> stationary Emma. The second in the eye of a moving Al. (to be
> continued)
>
> xxx Bert is at rest, D light years ahead of Al. Both their clocks
> are
> synchronized at t=0. Al quickly accelerates to velocity v and enters
> a new perceptual reality in the process,
New perceptual reality?
where Bert is now fD ahead
> of Al and Bert's clock reads "vD" (where f stands for the
> "fraction" 1/gamma, associated with the speed v; i.e. f^2 + v^2 =
> 1).
Gamma has got nothing to do with how far Bert is ahead of Al - that has got
to do with how long Al accelerated and how long he remains at speed v.
This sort of thing can be tricky stuff. I suggest you fix up your notation
before preceding and consider avoiding terms like - new perceptual realty.
According to SR by the POR for both Al and Bert the laws of physics are the
same.
Bill
Patrick Reany
Bill, either physical theories are uniquely determined by empirical
data or they are not. Which is it?
Patrick
Bill Hobba
They are not. One example is EM - we have Maxwell's equations and Feynman
and Wheelers direct interparticle interaction theory which does away with
fields. We also have SR and LET which are different theories consistent
with exactly the same data. And you are right - a formal point of view, eg
the field paradigm, is not falsifiable. But be careful - not all formal
points of view are like that - some are not consistent with the facts - eg
if one took the formal point of view gravity went off as the third power of
distance that is not compatible with Newtonian gravity. We also have other
formal points of view that turn out to be equivalent eg Feynmans sum over
history approach to QM and bra and ket QM. Also it may not be possible to
do away with a formal point of view eg in Newtonian mechanics we can do away
wit the concept of force but it is required to discuss friction. - but its
role is different ie it is not a primary concept but a derived one used as
an aid to understanding a limited range of phenomena.
Thanks
Bill
>
> Patrick
Patrick Reany
One has to define "formal point of view" consistently. So, to me, if
the claim is empirically falsifiable, by definition, it cannot be a
formal point of view.
> We also have other
> formal points of view that turn out to be equivalent eg Feynmans sum over
> history approach to QM and bra and ket QM. Also it may not be possible to
> do away with a formal point of view eg in Newtonian mechanics we can do away
> wit the concept of force but it is required to discuss friction. - but its
> role is different ie it is not a primary concept but a derived one used as
> an aid to understanding a limited range of phenomena.
I'm no expert on Hertz, but he claimed to have eliminated force in his
version of mechanics. The point is though, that there's always
something that's not falsifiable and something that is, in good
theory.
>
> Thanks
> Bill
Is it not possible that those various methods could be used by those
their authors as their "creating theories that satisfy the authors
view of the world"?
Patrick
eelgro
experiment"
you might just as well have called me a witch. This is the common,
unthinking response I usually get from 'believers' of orthodoxy. So
knee-jerk reflexive. I have am not ‘challenging' the Lorentz
transform.
"…so that is all that counts."
No, that is not true. Equations provide answers to questions in their
domain of competence. But models provide some things that an equation
does not, namely ‘hints' as to further questions that might be useful
to ask; and at arriving at easier ways of solving problems, by so
doing, than are available only by using those equations. I will
illustrate this later using my Al and Bert example.
John Anderson :
"SR doesn't have paradoxes that need resolving. They were resolved
decades ago."
See my first comment to Bill above. You are accusing me of something
that I am not espousing. Like I said, this is the common type of
response made by uncritical readers blinded by their zeal.
Relativistic contradictions have always been resolvable. But
paradoxes mean something else. (See in what follows.)
(A more thoughtful) Bill:
"Gamma has got nothing to do with how far Bert is ahead of Al - that
has got to do with how long Al accelerated and how long he remains at
speed v."
Of course you are right. I am excerpting my writings, unfortunately
leaving out some details. I was assuming near instantaneous
accelerations taking practically no time to reach velocity v from a
standing start, in order to simplify discussion. Or you can view this
as two Al's – one at rest, at the moment he is passed by his
doppelganger, who has already been accelerated to velocity v.
"This sort of thing can be tricky stuff. I suggest you fix up your
notation before preceding and consider avoiding terms like – new
perceptual reality."
By thinking in terms of my model I am able to more clearly see the
problem. I am illustrating that here. So it is not as ‘tricky' as
might be thought by someone without the use of that model.
Now about those paradoxes. Reviewing what I have previously written:
We have Al at relative rest with Bert, seeing Bert's clock
showing a time reading "-D years" at a distance D light years ahead.
If Al had instead traveled at velocity v through that same spot, Al
would still have seen Bert's clock reading "-D years". But Bert's
clock would have appeared to be further distant, namely 1T = T =
f(1-v)D = kD light years away, k = sqrt( (1+v)/(1-v) ) > 1. Some of
this is easier to see from Bert's point of view. Regardless of Al's
speed, both he and his doppelganger, passing through the same spot,
SHOULD see the same clock image, as they are both hit in the eye by
the same ray of light. But how do we explain the discrepancy in how
far away things appear? After all the ray of light is the same in
both cases. It hasn't changed. (If both observers are present
simultaneously, we can split the beam into two paths, one for each
observer.) So the observers must be the things that are physically
different. By making the moving observer physically different, the
orthodox relativist can ‘justify' why the moving Al might differ in
his opinion as to how far away Bert appeared to be. The orthodox
relativist requires that the moving Al be relativistically contracted.
Then the lenses in Al's eyes and in any telescope he is carting along
with him must also be shallower, i.e. less convex and less concave
than when they were at relative rest to Bert. As the lenses become
shallower they more closely approximate panes of flat glass, thus
losing their former magnifying strength, thereby making objects appear
to be further away. The stationary Al claims the ‘real' distance to
Bert is –D lightyears and that the moving Al mismeasures this ‘true'
distance due to that ‘damaging' relativistic distortion introduced
into his moving instruments of observation, his eyes.
But the moving Al has absolutely no evidence that anything has
changed within his own physical makeup. The orthodox model defaults
to a single light beam in a single reality that contains two observers
who ‘agree to disagree' about their measurements. My model does not.
As viewed by stationary observers the moving observer MUST physically
change in the most incredible ways. His butt must teleport through
time so as to be slightly farther in the future than his dick. His
width must physically contract by a factor of f (f^2 + v^2 = 1).
These can't simply be affectations attributable solely to measuring
instruments being at rest. If the moving Al doesn't REALLY
relativistically contract, he won't ‘really' see Bert appear to be
further away than before. But he does! So these effects must be
genuine, as real as it is possible to physically subject such things
to examination. When a too-long pole flies through a too-short barn,
with both doors then temporarily closed, the pole must ACTUALLY be
physically contained within that barn. It must be physically shorter
than it was at rest with respect to the barn. These things must
REALLY happen.
On the other hand, such incredible changes are as completely
UNREAL to their moving subject as they are real to the stationary
observer. If such changes are so genuinely real, he asks, how come
they have absolutely no noticeable effect on him? While in flight,
parts of his body were teleported into the future for God's sake! And
yet not even a stretch mark to commemorate the event? The orthodox
relativist attempts to avoid the issue by proclaiming, "That is simply
the way things are!" But this begs the question. If time after time,
when a magician waved his wand and made a rabbit appear out of his
hat, would physicists simply conclude that was the way the world
works? No! They would attempt to discover what physical mechanisms
connected the rabbit's appearance to the magician's wave, the specific
actions that tied the two events together. In the process they might
learn quite more than is given through blind acceptance. Orthodox SR
does NOT do that with relativistic effects. The stationary observer
sees acceleration ‘causing' objects to weirdly contract. But
acceleration and contraction are physical processes. Where are the
series of physical linkages (as viewed by the stationary observer)
that concretely tie the two mechanisms, cause and effect, together?
If a 17th century naturalist looked through a lens and saw
objects magnified, would he say, "Looking through specially cut glass
makes things look bigger, and that is all I have to know about that,
as I have Snell's Law to give me the exact quantitative results"? No!
He would search for a model of how rays of light work that would
allow him to see how light rays should bend when going from air
through glass. A model shows him WHY and EXACTLY HOW the lens
magnifies. But we get none of that with SR orthodoxy. But by
refraining from using ANY model, the orthodox relativist gets one
anyway - a kind of default, agnostic booby prize. One that is most
certainly NOT correct. All of this is a historical legacy from
quantum theory. No one has been smart enough to model QT, so it has
become ‘post-modern chic' to claim that models are passé. Baloney!
Having a mathematical formula to give correct quantitative results is
no substitute for a model that shows more of what is actually going on
to CREATE that mathematical structure for the reality under
investigation.
So our FIRST PARADOX is that relativistic effects must actually
occur to the moving observer (as seen by the stationary observer) or
otherwise the accelerated observer wouldn't experience what he claims
that he does experience. Yet such exotic effects go completely
unnoticed by the moving observer himself. I know there are rationales
to ‘explain' all this away. (On the order of, "If the whole universe
shrank to half its size, nobody would notice because all our rulers
would also be half their original size. So guess what! The whole
universe HAS shrunk to half its size! Blah, blah, blah." Yeah,
sure.) But such a rationalization fails to explain why there is no
physical chain of events physically linking these weird
spatial-temporal consequences to the observer's original change in
velocity. This is a physics devoid of any physical plenum, any
physical substrate to reality. It is motivated solely by an
ectoplasmic ‘mathematical necessity' that demands "IT BE SO". A
brother's rocket ship is pushed forward by rockets, returning him
years younger than his twin, and no one asks how this was PHYSICALLY
accomplished. Mathematical modalities now ‘trump' the need to explain
physical processes in detail. (Second and Third Paradoxes are coming;
i.e. to be continued.)
lee groth
Bill Hobba
I understand better now what you mean by 'formal point of view'.
>
> > We also have other
> > formal points of view that turn out to be equivalent eg Feynmans sum
over
> > history approach to QM and bra and ket QM. Also it may not be possible
to
> > do away with a formal point of view eg in Newtonian mechanics we can do
away
> > wit the concept of force but it is required to discuss friction. - but
its
> > role is different ie it is not a primary concept but a derived one used
as
> > an aid to understanding a limited range of phenomena.
>
> I'm no expert on Hertz, but he claimed to have eliminated force in his
> version of mechanics. The point is though, that there's always
> something that's not falsifiable and something that is, in good
> theory.
The lagrangian approach entirely eliminates it but areas like friction
naturally lead to the reintroduction of the concept. But in principle it
can be done away with.
>
> >
> > Thanks
> > Bill
>
> Is it not possible that those various methods could be used by those
> their authors as their "creating theories that satisfy the authors
> view of the world"?
I do not quite know what you mean. Feynman and Wheeler for example showed
the field paradigm is not necessary for classical EM thus its assumption is
a non falsifiable formal point of view. Same for the PLA and force. These
counterexamples show that force and electric filed are not required. So
what you need are specific counter examples showing exactly what concepts
are not required - I do not think one can make generic statements about it
unless one has a specific counter example for a particular concept.
This is something I have been arguing with Tom Gee about who thinks
space-time is nothing but a math construct (whatever that is - I suspect he
means something along the lines of math theory you see cranks level against
GR and claim it can not be reality or some such rubbish that shows the
person understands nothing about the scientific method). Now I do not know
if it is possible to formulate a theory experimentally equivalent to GR
without the concept of space-time but for the sake of argument I conceded it
may be like the electric field in EM. Of course it in no way invalidates GR
but I would be more comfortable about such arguments if I knew of a specific
counter example.
Thanks
Bill
>
> Patrick
Bill Hobba
"eelgro" <eel...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:72d6a22b.04111...@posting.google.com...
> Bill:
> "SR, in its domain of applicability, is fully in accord with
> experiment"
> By accusing me of something unrelated to what I have been espousing,
> you might just as well have called me a witch.
You claimed it has paradoxes. It has none - they were all resolved years
ago.
> This is the common,
> unthinking response I usually get from 'believers' of orthodoxy. So
> knee-jerk reflexive. I have am not 'challenging' the Lorentz
> transform.
>
> ".so that is all that counts."
> No, that is not true.
A theories correspondence with experiment and logical consistency is all
that matters. If two theories meet he pervious criteria equally well then
the scientific method provides no way to tell which is better. However
other issues (eg elegance and simplicity) outside the scientific method can
be considered which forms, for example, the basis of why scientists believe
in SR over aether theories.
> Equations provide answers to questions in their
> domain of competence.
The usual temrinology is domain of applicaiblty.
> But models provide some things that an equation
> does not, namely 'hints' as to further questions that might be useful
> to ask; and at arriving at easier ways of solving problems, by so
> doing, than are available only by using those equations. I will
> illustrate this later using my Al and Bert example.
What is Maxwell's equations - is it a set of eqations, a theory, or is it a
mathematical model and why?
>
> John Anderson :
> "SR doesn't have paradoxes that need resolving. They were resolved
> decades ago."
> See my first comment to Bill above.
> You are accusing me of something
> that I am not espousing.
Stop wanking youself - you wrote:
'Here is a sample of what I believe constitutes a model for SR that
resolves its paradoxes.'
Johns reply was:
You're flogging a dead horse. SR doesn't have paradoxes that need
resolving. They were resolved decades ago.
Anyone with a brain can see it was addressing the exact issue raised.
Bill
>Like I said, this is the common type of
> response made by uncritical readers blinded by their zeal.
> Relativistic contradictions have always been resolvable. But
> paradoxes mean something else. (See in what follows.)
>
> (A more thoughtful) Bill:
> "Gamma has got nothing to do with how far Bert is ahead of Al - that
> has got to do with how long Al accelerated and how long he remains at
> speed v."
> Of course you are right. I am excerpting my writings, unfortunately
> leaving out some details. I was assuming near instantaneous
> accelerations taking practically no time to reach velocity v from a
> standing start, in order to simplify discussion. Or you can view this
> as two Al's - one at rest, at the moment he is passed by his
> doppelganger, who has already been accelerated to velocity v.
>
> "This sort of thing can be tricky stuff. I suggest you fix up your
> notation before preceding and consider avoiding terms like - new
> Bert is -D lightyears and that the moving Al mismeasures this 'true'
Bill Hobba
"eelgro" <eel...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:72d6a22b.04111...@posting.google.com...
> Bill:
> "SR, in its domain of applicability, is fully in accord with
> experiment"
> By accusing me of something unrelated to what I have been espousing,
> you might just as well have called me a witch. This is the common,
> unthinking response I usually get from 'believers' of orthodoxy. So
> knee-jerk reflexive. I have am not 'challenging' the Lorentz
> transform.
>
> No, that is not true. Equations provide answers to questions in their
> domain of competence. But models provide some things that an equation
> does not, namely 'hints' as to further questions that might be useful
> to ask; and at arriving at easier ways of solving problems, by so
> doing, than are available only by using those equations. I will
> illustrate this later using my Al and Bert example.
>
> John Anderson :
> "SR doesn't have paradoxes that need resolving. They were resolved
> decades ago."
> See my first comment to Bill above. You are accusing me of something
> that I am not espousing. Like I said, this is the common type of
> response made by uncritical readers blinded by their zeal.
> Relativistic contradictions have always been resolvable. But
> paradoxes mean something else. (See in what follows.)
>
> (A more thoughtful) Bill:
> "Gamma has got nothing to do with how far Bert is ahead of Al - that
> has got to do with how long Al accelerated and how long he remains at
> speed v."
> Of course you are right. I am excerpting my writings, unfortunately
> leaving out some details. I was assuming near instantaneous
> accelerations taking practically no time to reach velocity v from a
> standing start, in order to simplify discussion. Or you can view this
> doppelganger, who has already been accelerated to velocity v.
>
> "This sort of thing can be tricky stuff. I suggest you fix up your
Bill Hobba
"eelgro" <eel...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:72d6a22b.04111...@posting.google.com...
> Bill:
> "SR, in its domain of applicability, is fully in accord with
> experiment"
> By accusing me of something unrelated to what I have been espousing,
> you might just as well have called me a witch. This is the common,
> unthinking response I usually get from 'believers' of orthodoxy. So
> knee-jerk reflexive. I have am not 'challenging' the Lorentz
> transform.
>
> No, that is not true. Equations provide answers to questions in their
> domain of competence. But models provide some things that an equation
> does not, namely 'hints' as to further questions that might be useful
> to ask; and at arriving at easier ways of solving problems, by so
> doing, than are available only by using those equations. I will
> illustrate this later using my Al and Bert example.
>
> John Anderson :
> "SR doesn't have paradoxes that need resolving. They were resolved
> decades ago."
> See my first comment to Bill above. You are accusing me of something
> that I am not espousing. Like I said, this is the common type of
> response made by uncritical readers blinded by their zeal.
> Relativistic contradictions have always been resolvable. But
> paradoxes mean something else. (See in what follows.)
>
> (A more thoughtful) Bill:
> "Gamma has got nothing to do with how far Bert is ahead of Al - that
> has got to do with how long Al accelerated and how long he remains at
> speed v."
> Of course you are right. I am excerpting my writings, unfortunately
> leaving out some details. I was assuming near instantaneous
> accelerations taking practically no time to reach velocity v from a
> standing start, in order to simplify discussion. Or you can view this
> doppelganger, who has already been accelerated to velocity v.
>
> "This sort of thing can be tricky stuff. I suggest you fix up your
> perceptual reality."
> By thinking in terms of my model I am able to more clearly see the
> problem. I am illustrating that here. So it is not as 'tricky' as
> might be thought by someone without the use of that model.
>
> Now about those paradoxes. Reviewing what I have previously written:
> We have Al at relative rest with Bert, seeing Bert's clock
> showing a time reading "-D years" at a distance D light years ahead.
What do you mean by seeing? Are you using light to see with? What you are
talking about then is 'aberration' - see
http://www.fourmilab.ch/cship/aberration.html.
note what it says:
'Unlike the Lorentz contraction or the dilation of time, which are purely
relativistic effects with no counterparts in classical (Newtonian) physics,
the aberration of light is predicted by classical physics and was first
demonstrated in 1725, two years before Newton's death. Special relativity
modifies the classical formula for aberration, predicting results which
differ substantially from those of classical physics only for objects moving
at a substantial fraction of the speed of light.'
> If Al had instead traveled at velocity v through that same spot, Al
> would still have seen Bert's clock reading "-D years". But Bert's
> clock would have appeared to be further distant, namely 1T = T =
> f(1-v)D = kD light years away, k = sqrt( (1+v)/(1-v) ) > 1. Some of
> this is easier to see from Bert's point of view. Regardless of Al's
> speed, both he and his doppelganger, passing through the same spot,
> SHOULD see the same clock image, as they are both hit in the eye by
> the same ray of light.
That does not follow - see
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/reldop2.html.
It is obvious you understand little or nothing of relativity - it has
nothing to do with how you 'see' things. It is basically a theory about
symmetry specifically space-time symmetry implied by the POR - see
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0110076 and an ancient post by Tom Roberts
I humbly suggest you learn about it before coming up with you supposed
paradoxes.
Bill
> But how do we explain the discrepancy in how
> far away things appear? After all the ray of light is the same in
> both cases. It hasn't changed. (If both observers are present
> simultaneously, we can split the beam into two paths, one for each
> observer.) So the observers must be the things that are physically
> different. By making the moving observer physically different, the
> orthodox relativist can 'justify' why the moving Al might differ in
> his opinion as to how far away Bert appeared to be. The orthodox
> relativist requires that the moving Al be relativistically contracted.
> Then the lenses in Al's eyes and in any telescope he is carting along
> with him must also be shallower, i.e. less convex and less concave
> than when they were at relative rest to Bert. As the lenses become
> shallower they more closely approximate panes of flat glass, thus
> losing their former magnifying strength, thereby making objects appear
> to be further away. The stationary Al claims the 'real' distance to
> Bert is -D lightyears and that the moving Al mismeasures this 'true'
Patrick Reany
>
> This is something I have been arguing with Tom Gee about who thinks
> space-time is nothing but a math construct (whatever that is - I suspect he
> means something along the lines of math theory you see cranks level against
> GR and claim it can not be reality or some such rubbish that shows the
> person understands nothing about the scientific method). Now I do not know
> if it is possible to formulate a theory experimentally equivalent to GR
> without the concept of space-time but for the sake of argument I conceded it
> may be like the electric field in EM. Of course it in no way invalidates GR
> but I would be more comfortable about such arguments if I knew of a specific
> counter example.
>
> Thanks
> Bill
Space and time are absolutely needed in physics for the simplest
reason of all: Definition! Physics can be defined as the search for a
description of physical events. Events occur in space and time, but
there is an awful lot of freedom how one may choose to thinks about
space and time.
To me, space-time is nothing but a math construct in the same way that
the point particle and mass continuum is nothing but a math construct.
No model used in physics has to be identical to anything in so-called
reality. Models are justified in physics solely by their utility and
not at all by their metaphysical truth.
All a model has to do is to be a representation of something (real or
abstract "thing") for the purpose of extracting some useful
information about that something. The model stands in place of the
something.
Patrick
AllYou!
> "Bill Hobba" <bho...@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message
news:<facmd.37546$K7.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
> > "Patrick Reany" <re...@asu.edu> wrote in message
> [snip]
> >
> > This is something I have been arguing with Tom Gee about who thinks
> > space-time is nothing but a math construct (whatever that is - I suspect he
> > means something along the lines of math theory you see cranks level against
> > GR and claim it can not be reality or some such rubbish that shows the
> > person understands nothing about the scientific method). Now I do not know
> > if it is possible to formulate a theory experimentally equivalent to GR
> > without the concept of space-time but for the sake of argument I conceded it
> > may be like the electric field in EM. Of course it in no way invalidates GR
> > but I would be more comfortable about such arguments if I knew of a specific
> > counter example.
> >
> > Thanks
> > Bill
>
> Space and time are absolutely needed in physics for the simplest
> reason of all: Definition! Physics can be defined as the search for a
> description of physical events. Events occur in space and time, but
> there is an awful lot of freedom how one may choose to thinks about
> space and time.
You've got no evidence to support the assertion that events occur in space and time.
That's just a theory. If physics is the search for a description of physical events, what
is physical about time?
> To me, space-time is nothing but a math construct in the same way that
> the point particle and mass continuum is nothing but a math construct.
> No model used in physics has to be identical to anything in so-called
> reality. Models are justified in physics solely by their utility and
> not at all by their metaphysical truth.
Nonsense. If physics is the search for a description of physical events, then it's
invalid to create models aspects of which are soley abstractions. IOW, to get a model to
work by filling voids with abstractions of the human mind reders it useless as a
scientific tool.
> All a model has to do is to be a representation of something (real or
> abstract "thing") for the purpose of extracting some useful
> information about that something. The model stands in place of the
> something.
What is *some thing*? If physics is to concern itself with *physical* events, then models
which intermix *real or abstract things* are useless in physics.
Bill Hobba
Bill Hobba
Yea I see your point. I really can not envisage a theory that would to away
with the concept of space-time. It seems a lot more solid than the idea of
an electric field. The thing is of course I can not prove it so for the
sake of argument I concede it may be possible to formulate GR (or a theory
experimentally equivalent to it) without the concept of space-time. The
whole point being of course whether it can be done away with or not, is
directly falsifiable or not, or whatever other scientific misconceptions one
wants to level against it, GR is a theory in full accord with experiment so
is a valid theory.
>
> To me, space-time is nothing but a math construct in the same way that
> the point particle and mass continuum is nothing but a math construct.
> No model used in physics has to be identical to anything in so-called
> reality. Models are justified in physics solely by their utility and
> not at all by their metaphysical truth.
Sure - I do not mind terms like 'math construct' when one given them actual
meaning.
Bill
Bill Hobba
"AllYou!" <ida...@conversent.net> wrote in message
news:bYWdnSvDD4q...@conversent.net...
That we have devices called clocks.
>
> > To me, space-time is nothing but a math construct in the same way that
> > the point particle and mass continuum is nothing but a math construct.
> > No model used in physics has to be identical to anything in so-called
> > reality. Models are justified in physics solely by their utility and
> > not at all by their metaphysical truth.
>
> Nonsense. If physics is the search for a description of physical events,
then it's
> invalid to create models aspects of which are soley abstractions.
>
Every theory is based solely on abstractions.
> IOW, to get a model to
> work by filling voids with abstractions of the human mind reders it
useless as a
> scientific tool.
IOW, you are, as usual, simply confirming what Drik says: You are a troll. A
stupid one.
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/NotATroll.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Derivative.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/EveryLurker.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Cowardice.html
>
> > All a model has to do is to be a representation of something (real or
> > abstract "thing") for the purpose of extracting some useful
> > information about that something. The model stands in place of the
> > something.
>
> What is *some thing*?
Post to a philosophy forum.
> If physics is to concern itself with *physical* events, then models
> which intermix *real or abstract things* are useless in physics.
That people who actually understand theories (as opposed to idiots like you
who it is doubtful understate anything at all other than how to be a Troll)
are able to make predictions that can be cheeked by experiment trivially
disproves the above.
Bill
AllYou!
Me: "You've got no evidence to support the assertion that events occur in space and time"
Hobba: "We've got clocks"
LOL! Clocks produce a motion, that's it. Ohhhhhh, I get it.........you're now going to
tell me that clocks are your evidence because you've created a definition to say so? LOL!
What was that quote again about the usefulness of definitions to support scientific
arguments? You know, the one I had to explain to your three times before you got it?
> > > To me, space-time is nothing but a math construct in the same way that
> > > the point particle and mass continuum is nothing but a math construct.
> > > No model used in physics has to be identical to anything in so-called
> > > reality. Models are justified in physics solely by their utility and
> > > not at all by their metaphysical truth.
> >
> > Nonsense. If physics is the search for a description of physical events,
> then it's
> > invalid to create models aspects of which are soley abstractions.
> >
>
> Every theory is based solely on abstractions.
What has nothing to do with what I said, Dumbo.
>
> > IOW, to get a model to
> > work by filling voids with abstractions of the human mind reders it
> useless as a
> > scientific tool.
>
> IOW, you are, as usual, simply confirming what Drik says: You are a troll. A
> stupid one.
Yeah, I'm the troll who posted a responce to someone other than you but, for all of your
supposed superior intellect, snagged you on the line. BwaaaaaHaaaaHaaaaaa!
The difference between you and me is that while I readily admit that when it comes to
science, I'm stupid and ignorant, you, OTOH, are just plain stupid across the board and
can't admit it.
> > > All a model has to do is to be a representation of something (real or
> > > abstract "thing") for the purpose of extracting some useful
> > > information about that something. The model stands in place of the
> > > something.
> >
> > What is *some thing*?
>
> Post to a philosophy forum.
Exactly my point, Dumbo. The other poster, you know, the one to whom I'm responding,
claims, as do you, that everything is an abstraction anyway yet he, like you, still refers
to *things* and *real*. so I'm asking him to explain that. But, as I've said above,
you're just too stupid to see that.
Man, I love snagging a guy like you on the line. This is just too much fun.
Patrick Reany
> > reason of all: Definition! Physics can be defined as the search for a
> > description of physical events. Events occur in space and time, but
> > there is an awful lot of freedom how one may choose to thinks about
> > space and time.
>
> You've got no evidence to support the assertion that events occur in space and time.
> That's just a theory.
Physical concepts, theories, and measurements are all interdependent.
There is no absolute platform for founding physics on one of these
three, on top of which the other two are then dependent. Nor is there
any way to even define any one of them independently of the other two.
We get concepts from experiences; we interpret experiences according
to our already-accepted theories. If we keep an open mind, we can
adapt our theories to better explain (unify) the data, and to that end
we can freely invent any damn physical concept whatsoever, constrained
ONLY by the requirement that it finds a useful place in a theory that
works.
> If physics is the search for a description of physical events, what
> is physical about time?
An excellent question! I have thought about the question of what one
means by "physical entity" in physics in the context of a physical
theory for a long time now, and I have an answer which satisfies me,
anyway.
I reject out of hand the most naive notion of physical in physics,
being that a thing is physical only if it is some real thing that can
be directly experienced, by which its reality is actually assured (an
epistemology) by direct, unaided human observation. If we limited our
theories to merely those entities, we would be logical positivists and
our theories would be crippled, in my opinion.
We humans have limitations on the size of things we can directly
experience. They are restricted to those things which are at our same
scale of existence as our own bodies are, so to speak. Meaning, at
some point in the scaling up or down in size of the "objects" we
assume exist in the world, we loose the ability to directly intereact
with those "objects." Therefore, we have lost that direct means of
even establishing the existence of such objects. What are we to do
then? We are to proceed, then, by free creation of physical concepts!
I also reject the notion that physical existence is restricted to real
things in the sense of real physical objects. A field can be posited
as physical because it can be conceived of as inducing
cause-and-effect relationships on visible matter, and is established
conceptually on a theoretical basis.
But even that is too limited for what is physical. Any measurement of
any variable which is performed by physical instruments is also a
physical variable. Time is such a variable.
In the end, an entity or concept is physical if it lives within a
physical theory. A physical theory is a theory that make predictions
of measurements (made according to operational definitions) which can
in principle be performed.
>
> > To me, space-time is nothing but a math construct in the same way that
> > the point particle and mass continuum is nothing but a math construct.
> > No model used in physics has to be identical to anything in so-called
> > reality. Models are justified in physics solely by their utility and
> > not at all by their metaphysical truth.
>
> Nonsense. If physics is the search for a description of physical events, then it's
> invalid to create models aspects of which are soley abstractions.
Why not? Who's to say that we have any physical concept which is not
merely an abstraction, anyway? Your metaphysics is so naive.
> IOW, to get a model to
> work by filling voids with abstractions of the human mind reders it useless as a
> scientific tool.
Only if one conceives of the goal of physics as begetting metaphysics.
However, it is not. The goal of physics is to beget theories that
work. Physics is NOT metaphysics. Let's not forget that the scientific
method is itself a free creation of the human mind. Nature did not
invent it and does not use it.
When we say "metaphysics" unqualified, we mean absolute metaphysics,
that is, the true reality of existence. Physics, however, doesn't
opperate that way. In physics, we freely invent existence categories
(i.e., an ontology) -- often stacking the deck as we do so (i.e.,
claim existence categories which suit our personal preferences) -- and
then parse up the visible and invisible worlds according to that
arbitrary ontology and empiricial data. The human mind has invented
the hydrogen atom as a distinct conceptual "object" in the
unpartitioned universe. The hydrogen atom exists in physics as a
function of that arbitrary ontology and our set of measurements of
what is putatively, but not absolutely, assumed to be hydrogen atoms.
Physics has only a relative, not an absolute, metaphysics. And it
bootstraps the entire metaphysics by pure convention.
>
> > All a model has to do is to be a representation of something (real or
> > abstract "thing") for the purpose of extracting some useful
> > information about that something. The model stands in place of the
> > something.
>
> What is *some thing*? If physics is to concern itself with *physical* events, then models
> which intermix *real or abstract things* are useless in physics.
We don't know which of our models, if any of them, is really real
anyway, and the body of modern physics stands today as a direct
contradiction to your beliefs about how physics should operate, if one
judges the goals of physics from the pragmatic viewpoint, which is
what an instrumentalist does. Too bad that science instruction doesn't
even mention instrumentalism. An instrumentalist has neither the fear
of metaphysics that the positivist has, nor the obsession with finding
metaphysical reality that the realist, like yourself, has.
If you are an inveterate metaphysician, you should leave physics for
metaphysics. Physics is about whatever it can actually prove it can
accomplish. Everything else is natural philosophy.
The biggest misconceptions on this newsgroup are those concerning the
philosophical nature of the scientifc method, particularly as it
relates to physics.
Patrick
AllYou!
> "AllYou!" <ida...@conversent.net> wrote in message
news:<bYWdnSvDD4q...@conversent.net>...
> > "Patrick Reany" <re...@asu.edu> wrote in message
> [snip]
> > >
> > > Space and time are absolutely needed in physics for the simplest
> > > reason of all: Definition! Physics can be defined as the search for a
> > > description of physical events. Events occur in space and time, but
> > > there is an awful lot of freedom how one may choose to thinks about
> > > space and time.
> >
> > You've got no evidence to support the assertion that events occur in space and time.
> > That's just a theory.
>
> Physical concepts,
This is where your words betray you and let you roam pointlessly in search of some truth.
What is a physical concept?
Physical: Of or relating to material things
Concept: Something formed in the mind; a thought or notion.
While it might be possible to conceptualize something physical, the term *physical
concept* is an oxymoron. Please give me an example of one.
> theories, and measurements are all interdependent.
> There is no absolute platform for founding physics on one of these
> three, on top of which the other two are then dependent. Nor is there
> any way to even define any one of them independently of the other two.
> We get concepts from experiences; we interpret experiences according
> to our already-accepted theories.
We get? We develop, we generate, we create, but we do not get concepts. We interpret new
experiences on the basis of old experiences about which we've made some judgements.
> If we keep an open mind, we can
> adapt our theories to better explain (unify) the data, and to that end
> we can freely invent any damn physical concept whatsoever, constrained
> ONLY by the requirement that it finds a useful place in a theory that
> works.
Nonsense. If the purpose of using theories at all is to predict the experiences we might
encounter under certain circumstances, then those theories must be based upon actual data
obstained from previous experiences or assumptions about the behavior of a given
phenomenon. These theories are useless if they are based, in any way, on mere
abstractions, dreams, and fantasies.
> > If physics is the search for a description of physical events, what
> > is physical about time?
>
> An excellent question! I have thought about the question of what one
> means by "physical entity" in physics in the context of a physical
> theory for a long time now, and I have an answer which satisfies me,
> anyway.
>
> I reject out of hand the most naive notion of physical in physics,
> being that a thing is physical only if it is some real thing that can
> be directly experienced, by which its reality is actually assured (an
> epistemology) by direct, unaided human observation. If we limited our
> theories to merely those entities, we would be logical positivists and
> our theories would be crippled, in my opinion.
I accept that as a very legitimate opinion but one with which I fully disagree for the
reasons stated above.
> We humans have limitations on the size of things we can directly
> experience. They are restricted to those things which are at our same
> scale of existence as our own bodies are, so to speak. Meaning, at
> some point in the scaling up or down in size of the "objects" we
> assume exist in the world, we loose the ability to directly intereact
> with those "objects." Therefore, we have lost that direct means of
> even establishing the existence of such objects. What are we to do
> then? We are to proceed, then, by free creation of physical concepts!
Notwithstanding my objection to that last term, I would say that we are free to proceed on
the basis of assumptions about the behavior of phenomena which our experiences have not
already proven to be invalid, and we are even free to make assumptions about the existence
of yet to be experienced phenomena but, in this latter case, those assumptions must be
supported by some logical and reasoned rationale.
> I also reject the notion that physical existence is restricted to real
> things in the sense of real physical objects. A field can be posited
> as physical because it can be conceived of as inducing
> cause-and-effect relationships on visible matter, and is established
> conceptually on a theoretical basis.
Something which is physical need not be directly experienced by we humans. Indirect
observation, that which is observed by observing the effects of a phenomenon, is just as
valid provided we link our experiences to that indirectly observed phenomenon through a
reasoned and logical explanation.
> But even that is too limited for what is physical. Any measurement of
> any variable which is performed by physical instruments is also a
> physical variable. Time is such a variable.
It might be if that were not simply an assertion. To claim that an instrument measures a
variable, there must be some evidence that the variable exists in the first place. In the
case of time, the only evidence is a definition. It is claimed that clocks are the
instruments which measure time, but there is no evidence to support that claim. If the
creation of events which a clock produces is the output of that instrument, what is the
input? surely, as with all other instruments, there must be one.
> In the end, an entity or concept is physical if it lives within a
> physical theory. A physical theory is a theory that make predictions
> of measurements (made according to operational definitions) which can
> in principle be performed.
But measurements of time cannot be performed. The claim is hollow because it is based
upon the circular logic that it is that which measures it.
> > > To me, space-time is nothing but a math construct in the same way that
> > > the point particle and mass continuum is nothing but a math construct.
> > > No model used in physics has to be identical to anything in so-called
> > > reality. Models are justified in physics solely by their utility and
> > > not at all by their metaphysical truth.
> >
> > Nonsense. If physics is the search for a description of physical events, then it's
> > invalid to create models aspects of which are soley abstractions.
>
> Why not? Who's to say that we have any physical concept which is not
> merely an abstraction, anyway? Your metaphysics is so naive.
By definition of the term physical. You keep jumping in and out of that definition as it
suits your purposes.
> > IOW, to get a model to
> > work by filling voids with abstractions of the human mind reders it useless as a
> > scientific tool.
>
> Only if one conceives of the goal of physics as begetting metaphysics.
> However, it is not. The goal of physics is to beget theories that
> work. Physics is NOT metaphysics. Let's not forget that the scientific
> method is itself a free creation of the human mind. Nature did not
> invent it and does not use it.
Not true. The goal of physics is to understand physical phenomena as best we can and make
the most of the knowledge. And as to nature, that's exactly my point. Nature did not
invent the need to order events nor does it use it. In fact, an event is not a naturally
occurring phenomenon either. Time is a free creation of the human mind and has no place
in science.
Gobblygook. You freely use terms like physical and nature and then you run from them and
say that all things are likely abstractions anyway. Physics is the study of that which is
physical and that which is physical is that which can be directly or indirectly observed.
eel...@yahoo.com
ahead appear to recede even further away by a factor k. I also said
that objects behind our quickly accelerated Al would appear to move
closer to him by that same factor k. For example, quickly accelerating
Al to .8c would make objects behind Al appear to be three times closer
to him afterwards. What a way to improve a telescope's strength;
accelerate it AWAY from what you want it to observe more closely! Is
there anyone here competent enough to comment on this claim of mine?
How could this happen when I have already shown that relativistic
contraction will cause lenses to flatten out, thus LOSING their
magnifying strength for objects seen ahead. So how come rearward
objects don't also appear further away? I think all of you lack a
correct model to guide you to insights that would allow you to use the
Fitzgeral/Lorentz equations in such a manner as to explain why these
rearward objects would appear closer, not further, away. And this is
my SECOND PARADOX. A mathematical characterization may contain all
possible information about its subject, in THEORY. But without a
complementary correct model to go along with that, the answers to
problems, in PRACTICE, remain stubbornly hidden within the describing
equations.
As for Bill's comment. the accelerated Al sees a Doppler effect
that blue-shifts images of Bert's clock by a factor of:
(Bert's time passage as seen by accelerating Al) / (time of Bert's trip
actually experienced by Al) = ( D/v - (-D) ) / ( fD/v ) = (1+v)/f =
k = sqrt( (1+v)/(1-v) ).
But at Al's time zero, he still saw Bert's clock reading "-D years",
even though Bert's clock appeared to be moving k times faster than
before and with a bluish tint to boot! That is, the Doppler effect
doesn't change the picture of what you see at a given moment, it only
colors it more blue or red, and makes it speed up or slow down when
viewed over time. As for any aberration effect - there is none. No
component of Al's acceleration was perpendicular to Al's line of sight
towards Bert.
Bill is big on posturing with qualitative concepts, but lacks the
mathematical know-how to make accurate statements regarding them. He
needs to calculate first, or stifle his hot air! (It's not all his
fault. He isn't talking into a vacuum. I haven't gone over this
group's archives, but by his present behavior it would appear that no
one has bothered to correct him about such behavior... although I will
concede that boors in general do not hear well when lectured on such
matters.)
eel...@yahoo.com
accelerates forward, it relativistically contracts, bringing its rear
end closer to its front end. Thus the rear end must have travelled at
a faster speed than the ship's front end to have gotten closer to that
front end. But the rear end has aged more than the front end. Now how
can that be when increased speed guarantees a slower rate of aging?
This is the kind of thing that the orthodox model falls flat on.
lee groth
Patrick Reany
No. Based on previous data we invent theories; it is then those
theories that are used to interpret (make sense of) new data.
>
> > If we keep an open mind, we can
> > adapt our theories to better explain (unify) the data, and to that end
> > we can freely invent any damn physical concept whatsoever, constrained
> > ONLY by the requirement that it finds a useful place in a theory that
> > works.
>
> Nonsense.
You may disagree with my claim, but there is nothing
non-understandable about it.
> If the purpose of using theories at all is to predict the experiences we might
> encounter under certain circumstances, then those theories must be based upon actual data
> obstained from previous experiences or assumptions about the behavior of a given
> phenomenon.
I thought I've been saying that all along. (previous experiences AND
assumptions about the behavior of a given phenomenon)
> These theories are useless if they are based, in any way, on mere
> abstractions, dreams, and fantasies.
Prove it. Present a counterexample. Is the concept of matter or energy
abstract or not?
Don't make vacuous rules! Tell us the precise rules by which one knows
whether existence assumptions are "supported by some logical and
reasoned rationale." If you can't do that, don't pretend that you can.
>
> > I also reject the notion that physical existence is restricted to real
> > things in the sense of real physical objects. A field can be posited
> > as physical because it can be conceived of as inducing
> > cause-and-effect relationships on visible matter, and is established
> > conceptually on a theoretical basis.
>
> Something which is physical need not be directly experienced by we humans. Indirect
> observation, that which is observed by observing the effects of a phenomenon, is just as
> valid provided we link our experiences to that indirectly observed phenomenon through a
> reasoned and logical explanation.
Do fields REALLY exist, then?
>
> > But even that is too limited for what is physical. Any measurement of
> > any variable which is performed by physical instruments is also a
> > physical variable. Time is such a variable.
>
> It might be if that were not simply an assertion. To claim that an instrument measures a
> variable, there must be some evidence that the variable exists in the first place. In the
> case of time, the only evidence is a definition.
Since in a physical theory the existence of ANYTHING other than
measuring instruments and a place to use them is formal, your claim is
pointelss. It is the theory that declares the formal existence of time
or space or mass or energy or charge or action or quantum potential or
orgone energy or quarks or whatever.
> It is claimed that clocks are the
> instruments which measure time, but there is no evidence to support that claim.
Because it's NOT an empirical discovery; it's an invention of a
concept and of the concept's measuring devices and procedures. They
are both free creations of the human mind! When are you going to get
that. Time in physics is a free creation of the human mind.
> If the
> creation of events which a clock produces is the output of that instrument, what is the
> input? surely, as with all other instruments, there must be one.
Clocks just do what clocks do, then you need a procedure defined to
associate what clocks do with specific events. The result is an
ordering of events, usually metrically ordered.
>
> > In the end, an entity or concept is physical if it lives within a
> > physical theory. A physical theory is a theory that make predictions
> > of measurements (made according to operational definitions) which can
> > in principle be performed.
>
> But measurements of time cannot be performed. The claim is hollow because it is based
> upon the circular logic that it is that which measures it.
I agree that we do not know what is meant by a measurement of
metaphysical time, but physics does NOT deal with metaphysical time.
It deals exclusively with theoretical time, which is a free invention
of the human mind, made precise in a precise theory.
>
> > > > To me, space-time is nothing but a math construct in the same way that
> > > > the point particle and mass continuum is nothing but a math construct.
> > > > No model used in physics has to be identical to anything in so-called
> > > > reality. Models are justified in physics solely by their utility and
> > > > not at all by their metaphysical truth.
> > >
> > > Nonsense. If physics is the search for a description of physical events, then it's
> > > invalid to create models aspects of which are soley abstractions.
> >
> > Why not? Who's to say that we have any physical concept which is not
> > merely an abstraction, anyway? Your metaphysics is so naive.
>
> By definition of the term physical. You keep jumping in and out of that definition as it
> suits your purposes.
I rarely use dictionary definitions of philosophical terms. I reject
the definition you presented as inadequate and I stipulated my own
definition instead.
>
> > > IOW, to get a model to
> > > work by filling voids with abstractions of the human mind reders it useless as a
> > > scientific tool.
> >
> > Only if one conceives of the goal of physics as begetting metaphysics.
> > However, it is not. The goal of physics is to beget theories that
> > work. Physics is NOT metaphysics. Let's not forget that the scientific
> > method is itself a free creation of the human mind. Nature did not
> > invent it and does not use it.
>
> Not true. The goal of physics is to understand physical phenomena as best we can and make
> the most of the knowledge.
So, what are your absolute criteria by which we accomplish this
"understanding"?
> And as to nature, that's exactly my point. Nature did not
> invent the need to order events nor does it use it.
I don't think that your claim can be proved or disproved.
> In fact, an event is not a naturally
> occurring phenomenon either. Time is a free creation of the human mind and has no place
> in science.
If we take away from physic everything that's a free creation of the
human mind, what would be left?
Name one thing that is "indirectly observed"?
Patrick
AllYou!
Possibly, but the point of my comment was directed at concepts, not theories.
> > > If we keep an open mind, we can
> > > adapt our theories to better explain (unify) the data, and to that end
> > > we can freely invent any damn physical concept whatsoever, constrained
> > > ONLY by the requirement that it finds a useful place in a theory that
> > > works.
> >
> > Nonsense.
>
> You may disagree with my claim, but there is nothing
> non-understandable about it.
>
> > If the purpose of using theories at all is to predict the experiences we might
> > encounter under certain circumstances, then those theories must be based upon actual
data
> > obstained from previous experiences or assumptions about the behavior of a given
> > phenomenon.
>
> I thought I've been saying that all along. (previous experiences AND
> assumptions about the behavior of a given phenomenon)
But that's a whole lot different than "freely invent any damn physical concept whatsoever,
constrained ONLY by the requirement that it finds a useful place in a theory that works."
It is nonsense to me, not understandable to me, that any damned physical concept can be
invented. That's an oxymoron if ever there was one. In the general sense, we can
fantasize about flying carpets of magic beans in a one thousand foot high bean stalk, and
those would be examples of freely inventing a physical concept. But we'd better have some
logic or reason to believe that these concepts are actually affecting the physical realm
because physics is about the study of that realm. There might be a useful place in our
theories of the physical realm to plug in those beans (e.g., to explain the limit of c),
but that would be counter-productive to our understanding of our experiences.
> > These theories are useless if they are based, in any way, on mere
> > abstractions, dreams, and fantasies.
>
> Prove it. Present a counterexample. Is the concept of matter or energy
> abstract or not?
It's not for me to *prove*. To attempt that would be a metaphysical exercise. But
someone, maybe AE, said that the test of that which is physical is that which when you
kick it, kicks back. Remember, we're talking about that which lies within the scope of
science here, and within the context of the purpose of science, matter and energy kick
back in that they are observable. To that and within the context of science, no, they are
not abstract.
First of all, I'm not pretending anything. I'm not writing a complete thesis on all
things physical here but rather, giving you my opinions to the extent you wish to accept
or reject or discuss them. So calm down.
Secondly, I'm not making any rules, but again, my opinion of what the test of what belongs
in science should be. Hence "I would say that......".
Thirdly, I would say that you need look no further than SR or GR to see what I mean. AE
did not just plug magic beans into those theories (with the exception of time) but based
them on reasonable postulates plus huge doses of logic. If you want to include the
fantasy of *time* in any scientific theory, then present a reasoned and logical case for
doing so. Give me more than that something in motion measures it. Give me some reason to
believe that what I'm observing when I look at a clock (motion) is more than what I'm
observing other than fantastic definitions and models that work if I plug that fantasy
into them.
> > > I also reject the notion that physical existence is restricted to real
> > > things in the sense of real physical objects. A field can be posited
> > > as physical because it can be conceived of as inducing
> > > cause-and-effect relationships on visible matter, and is established
> > > conceptually on a theoretical basis.
> >
> > Something which is physical need not be directly experienced by we humans. Indirect
> > observation, that which is observed by observing the effects of a phenomenon, is just
as
> > valid provided we link our experiences to that indirectly observed phenomenon through
a
> > reasoned and logical explanation.
>
> Do fields REALLY exist, then?
Which feilds?
> > > But even that is too limited for what is physical. Any measurement of
> > > any variable which is performed by physical instruments is also a
> > > physical variable. Time is such a variable.
> >
> > It might be if that were not simply an assertion. To claim that an instrument
measures a
> > variable, there must be some evidence that the variable exists in the first place. In
the
> > case of time, the only evidence is a definition.
>
> Since in a physical theory the existence of ANYTHING other than
> measuring instruments and a place to use them is formal, your claim is
> pointelss. It is the theory that declares the formal existence of time
> or space or mass or energy or charge or action or quantum potential or
> orgone energy or quarks or whatever.
The existence of matter and energy is not a theory, it is taken as a given within the
scope of physics. And that's really at the heart of this discussion. Ignore the scope of
physics (the study of matter and energy), and you can have your fantasies. But when you
enter the realm of physics, leave those at the door.
> > It is claimed that clocks are the
> > instruments which measure time, but there is no evidence to support that claim.
>
> Because it's NOT an empirical discovery; it's an invention of a
> concept and of the concept's measuring devices and procedures. They
> are both free creations of the human mind! When are you going to get
> that. Time in physics is a free creation of the human mind.
I'm the one who gets it. That's what I've been saying all along! When are *you* going to
get *that*? It's how we apply these fantasies in science to which I object.
> > If the
> > creation of events which a clock produces is the output of that instrument, what is
the
> > input? surely, as with all other instruments, there must be one.
>
> Clocks just do what clocks do, then you need a procedure defined to
> associate what clocks do with specific events. The result is an
> ordering of events, usually metrically ordered.
But the model you've created, that which requires a fantasy, is misleading. We can order
things without the use of time. Look at the NFL standings and order the teams. That did
not require time. Ordering events does not either. All it requires is picking a motion
to use as a benchmark by which we can order all events. The use of the fantasy of time is
superfluous, unnecessary, and misleading.
> > > In the end, an entity or concept is physical if it lives within a
> > > physical theory. A physical theory is a theory that make predictions
> > > of measurements (made according to operational definitions) which can
> > > in principle be performed.
> >
> > But measurements of time cannot be performed. The claim is hollow because it is based
> > upon the circular logic that it is that which measures it.
>
> I agree that we do not know what is meant by a measurement of
> metaphysical time, but physics does NOT deal with metaphysical time.
> It deals exclusively with theoretical time, which is a free invention
> of the human mind, made precise in a precise theory.
What is that theory? Simply that it exists? Is this theory based upon a postulate or
two?
> > > > > To me, space-time is nothing but a math construct in the same way that
> > > > > the point particle and mass continuum is nothing but a math construct.
> > > > > No model used in physics has to be identical to anything in so-called
> > > > > reality. Models are justified in physics solely by their utility and
> > > > > not at all by their metaphysical truth.
> > > >
> > > > Nonsense. If physics is the search for a description of physical events, then
it's
> > > > invalid to create models aspects of which are soley abstractions.
> > >
> > > Why not? Who's to say that we have any physical concept which is not
> > > merely an abstraction, anyway? Your metaphysics is so naive.
> >
> > By definition of the term physical. You keep jumping in and out of that definition as
it
> > suits your purposes.
>
> I rarely use dictionary definitions of philosophical terms. I reject
> the definition you presented as inadequate and I stipulated my own
> definition instead.
Then it's going to be difficult to converse if your using a language unique to you.
> > > > IOW, to get a model to
> > > > work by filling voids with abstractions of the human mind reders it useless as a
> > > > scientific tool.
> > >
> > > Only if one conceives of the goal of physics as begetting metaphysics.
> > > However, it is not. The goal of physics is to beget theories that
> > > work. Physics is NOT metaphysics. Let's not forget that the scientific
> > > method is itself a free creation of the human mind. Nature did not
> > > invent it and does not use it.
> >
> > Not true. The goal of physics is to understand physical phenomena as best we can and
make
> > the most of the knowledge.
>
> So, what are your absolute criteria by which we accomplish this
> "understanding"?
I've explained that in this and other innumerable posts. We limit our study of the
physical realm to that which is physical, but in doing so, we do not ascribe the same
priority to fantasies that we do to that which is observable.
> > And as to nature, that's exactly my point. Nature did not
> > invent the need to order events nor does it use it.
>
> I don't think that your claim can be proved or disproved.
But it's your claim too! See the above.
> > In fact, an event is not a naturally
> > occurring phenomenon either. Time is a free creation of the human mind and has no
place
> > in science.
>
> If we take away from physic everything that's a free creation of the
> human mind, what would be left?
That which is observable.
X rays.
Patrick Reany
> constrained ONLY by the requirement that it finds a useful place in a theory that works."
> It is nonsense to me, not understandable to me, that any damned physical concept can be
> invented. That's an oxymoron if ever there was one.
You're still not getting it. If you want to rationally justify your
claim that there ought to be a distinction made between legitimate and
illegitimate physical conceptualizations in physics, you MUST supply
the rules by which one is objectively able to distinguish the two
case. So, please provide for us those RULES!
> In the general sense, we can
> fantasize about flying carpets of magic beans in a one thousand foot high bean stalk, and
> those would be examples of freely inventing a physical concept. But we'd better have some
> logic or reason to believe that these concepts are actually affecting the physical realm
> because physics is about the study of that realm.
There are two point here: First, how do you KNOW that flying carpets
or magic beans do NOT really account for some part of the behavior of
the world? Second, even assuming that flying carpets or magic beans
don't really acount for the behavior of any part of the world, if
someone could invent a theory that works to describe the behavior of
some part of the world using flying carpets or magic beans as
primitive elements of that theory, the best you could do is to
complain that you have personal reservations about the nature of the
theory. But a theory that works is a theory that works, regardless of
WHY it works.
You can't get away with just naming a few things that you disallow
unless that's the entire set of disallowed things. You have yet to
provide the rule that tells us the full set of concepts that are
disallowed in a phsyical theory.
> There might be a useful place in our
> theories of the physical realm to plug in those beans (e.g., to explain the limit of c),
> but that would be counter-productive to our understanding of our experiences.
How do you know ahead of time where a productive notion in the
understanding of the world is going to come from. At one time people
believed in phlogiston, a heat "fluid" to explain combustion. Nobody
believes in it today, yet it was useful in the evolution of the
physical concepts of thermodynamics.
>
> > > These theories are useless if they are based, in any way, on mere
> > > abstractions, dreams, and fantasies.
> >
> > Prove it. Present a counterexample. Is the concept of matter or energy
> > abstract or not?
>
> It's not for me to *prove*.
Yes, it is!
Prove to us that energy is NOT an abstraction, since you claim that it
isn't!
[snip]
>
> > > > > If physics is the search for a description of physical events, what
> > > > > is physical about time?
> > > >
> > > > An excellent question! I have thought about the question of what one
> > > > means by "physical entity" in physics in the context of a physical
> > > > theory for a long time now, and I have an answer which satisfies me,
> > > > anyway.
[snip]
> > Don't make vacuous rules! Tell us the precise rules by which one knows
> > whether existence assumptions are "supported by some logical and
> > reasoned rationale." If you can't do that, don't pretend that you can.
>
> First of all, I'm not pretending anything. I'm not writing a complete thesis on all
> things physical here but rather, giving you my opinions to the extent you wish to accept
> or reject or discuss them. So calm down.
And I am damn tired of all your vacuous opinions! Start giving us
explicit rules or or quit pretending that you're being rational. All
you're being so far is dogmatic. Prove to us the ratinality of your
beliefs system, if you really have one.
[snip]
> >
> > Do fields REALLY exist, then?
>
> Which feilds?
Pick any one and prove that it exists: Electric, magnetic,
gravitational, etc.
[snip]
> >
> > Since in a physical theory the existence of ANYTHING other than
> > measuring instruments and a place to use them is formal, your claim is
> > pointelss. It is the theory that declares the formal existence of time
> > or space or mass or energy or charge or action or quantum potential or
> > orgone energy or quarks or whatever.
>
> The existence of matter and energy is not a theory, it is taken as a given within the
> scope of physics.
Yes, the existence matter in physics is part of a theory which gives
operational meaning to it in terms of how we sense it and measure it
-- a part of the conventional metaphysical framework of physics, which
can never be proven without doing so in terms of something else which
would then take the place of unprovable entities.
Prove to us that energy is real. Pick any form of energy you want and
prove to us that it really exists, a part from human conceptualization
of it.
> And that's really at the heart of this discussion. Ignore the scope of
> physics (the study of matter and energy), and you can have your fantasies. But when you
> enter the realm of physics, leave those at the door.
Physics has chosen to use energy concepts in its theories, but this is
only a convenience, not a requirement. All physics really needs to do
is to describe the behavior in time of the inanimate visible material
realm.
>
> > > It is claimed that clocks are the
> > > instruments which measure time, but there is no evidence to support that claim.
> >
> > Because it's NOT an empirical discovery; it's an invention of a
> > concept and of the concept's measuring devices and procedures. They
> > are both free creations of the human mind! When are you going to get
> > that. Time in physics is a free creation of the human mind.
>
> I'm the one who gets it. That's what I've been saying all along! When are *you* going to
> get *that*?
But that's all physics could ever do. Physics never proves or
discovers any physical thing. It doesn't need to. The existence of a
thing which corresponds to a concept in a physical theory is left up
to our personal natural philosophies to decide for ourselves, person
by person.
> It's how we apply these fantasies in science to which I object.
What is the rule that distinguishes fantasies from nonfantasies? Is
the concept of the hydrogen atom a fantasy or not?
>
> > > If the
> > > creation of events which a clock produces is the output of that instrument, what is
> the
> > > input? surely, as with all other instruments, there must be one.
> >
> > Clocks just do what clocks do, then you need a procedure defined to
> > associate what clocks do with specific events. The result is an
> > ordering of events, usually metrically ordered.
>
> But the model you've created, that which requires a fantasy, is misleading. We can order
> things without the use of time.
I have told you before that by my definition of what time is, you
cannot order events without time. At the conceptual level, time IS the
ordering of events, usually metrically.
> Look at the NFL standings and order the teams. That did
> not require time. Ordering events does not either. All it requires is picking a motion
> to use as a benchmark by which we can order all events. The use of the fantasy of time is
> superfluous, unnecessary, and misleading.
You keep confusing how time is measure with how time is defined!
>
> > > > In the end, an entity or concept is physical if it lives within a
> > > > physical theory. A physical theory is a theory that make predictions
> > > > of measurements (made according to operational definitions) which can
> > > > in principle be performed.
> > >
> > > But measurements of time cannot be performed. The claim is hollow because it is based
> > > upon the circular logic that it is that which measures it.
> >
> > I agree that we do not know what is meant by a measurement of
> > metaphysical time, but physics does NOT deal with metaphysical time.
> > It deals exclusively with theoretical time, which is a free invention
> > of the human mind, made precise in a precise theory.
>
> What is that theory? Simply that it exists? Is this theory based upon a postulate or
> two?
Physics convention tells us how to conceive of an ideal clock.
Newton's theory assumed that one ideal clock reads the time for all
observers. SR does not accept this assumption. It developed other
rules for associating elapsed time with observers. GR is different
still.
[snip]
> > > > >
> > > > > Nonsense. If physics is the search for a description of physical events, then
> it's
> > > > > invalid to create models aspects of which are soley abstractions.
> > > >
> > > > Why not? Who's to say that we have any physical concept which is not
> > > > merely an abstraction, anyway? Your metaphysics is so naive.
> > >
> > > By definition of the term physical. You keep jumping in and out of that definition as
> it
> > > suits your purposes.
> >
> > I rarely use dictionary definitions of philosophical terms. I reject
> > the definition you presented as inadequate and I stipulated my own
> > definition instead.
>
> Then it's going to be difficult to converse if your using a language unique to you.
Not at all. I am far more specific and consistent in my set of terms,
which I stipulate clearly for all to read, than are dictionares, which
are designed to present a multitude of possible definitions of any
single term! I've been working on this theory and its terminology for
twenty years. How long have you been working on your terms?
>
> > > > > IOW, to get a model to
> > > > > work by filling voids with abstractions of the human mind reders it useless as a
> > > > > scientific tool.
> > > >
> > > > Only if one conceives of the goal of physics as begetting metaphysics.
> > > > However, it is not. The goal of physics is to beget theories that
> > > > work. Physics is NOT metaphysics. Let's not forget that the scientific
> > > > method is itself a free creation of the human mind. Nature did not
> > > > invent it and does not use it.
> > >
> > > Not true. The goal of physics is to understand physical phenomena as best we can and
> make
> > > the most of the knowledge.
> >
> > So, what are your absolute criteria by which we accomplish this
> > "understanding"?
>
> I've explained that in this and other innumerable posts. We limit our study of the
> physical realm to that which is physical, but in doing so, we do not ascribe the same
> priority to fantasies that we do to that which is observable.
But you are free to define "physical" any damn way you want, so it is
ludicrous to claim that your procedure has absolute significance. Why
can't you see that? It's whatever you want it to be.
>
> > > And as to nature, that's exactly my point. Nature did not
> > > invent the need to order events nor does it use it.
> >
> > I don't think that your claim can be proved or disproved.
>
> But it's your claim too! See the above.
My claim said NOTHING about how Nature uses or conceives of time. I
merely said what time is in physics. My claim has been simple and
consistent from the start: We do not and we cannot know the truth of
Nature. We should admit as much and search for the next best thing:
theories that work.
>
> > > In fact, an event is not a naturally
> > > occurring phenomenon either. Time is a free creation of the human mind and has no
> place
> > > in science.
> >
> > If we take away from physic everything that's a free creation of the
> > human mind, what would be left?
>
> That which is observable.
Name one thing which is observable.
[snip]
> > > > The biggest misconceptions on this newsgroup are those concerning the
> > > > philosophical nature of the scientifc method, particularly as it
> > > > relates to physics.
> > >
> > > Gobblygook. You freely use terms like physical and nature and then you run from them
> and
> > > say that all things are likely abstractions anyway. Physics is the study of that
> which is
> > > physical and that which is physical is that which can be directly or indirectly
> observed.
> >
> > Name one thing that is "indirectly observed"?
>
> X rays.
Since you claim that X rays are "indirectly observed," by what right
do you have to claim that the putative observation of x rays are
really about x rays, and not about something else that acts similar to
x rays judged by a x ray theory, but are not really x rays?
Patrick
AllYou!
> "AllYou!" <ida...@conversent.net> wrote in message
news:<OcCdnSfnT9S...@conversent.net>...
> > "Patrick Reany" <re...@asu.edu> wrote in message
> [snip]
> >
> > But that's a whole lot different than "freely invent any damn physical concept
whatsoever,
> > constrained ONLY by the requirement that it finds a useful place in a theory that
works."
> > It is nonsense to me, not understandable to me, that any damned physical concept can
be
> > invented. That's an oxymoron if ever there was one.
>
> You're still not getting it. If you want to rationally justify your
> claim that there ought to be a distinction made between legitimate and
> illegitimate physical conceptualizations in physics, you MUST supply
> the rules by which one is objectively able to distinguish the two
> case. So, please provide for us those RULES!
I have, so there's no need to SHOUT! Let's back up, shall we?
First of all, there's the whole body of communication. All the subject matter about
anything and everything you could imagine, from religion to politics to medicine to
science is all included in this. In that whole body of thought, what's real and what's
not and the philosophical and metaphysical questions which arise from it are perfectly
legitimate. However, that's not the issue here. Within that whole body of thought, is
science, and within that is physics. Physics has been variously defined as the study of
matter and energy or, as the study of the physical realm. As such, while what's real and
what's not may not be appropriate to determine through science, if physics is the study of
that which is physical (i.e., matter, energy), then there must be some evidence that a
phenomenon or property or whaterver else is under study in physics is *physical*.
So now we're left with a definition of what's physical. Abstractions like a point in
space or a line defined by the intersection of two planes, or the plane itself are
abstractions. We can use them as an aid to communications, but we must keep our eye on
the ball and never forget that as abstractions, they cannot be the subject of study or
presumed to be physical. They are an aid where a concept is needed to get a point
accross.
So what's physical? That which we can observe either directly or indirectly (i.e., with
the aid of instrumentation). Therefore, it's my contention that within the context of
physics, it's perfectly reasonable to assert that something exists if it's observable
because if it is observable, it's a valid focus of physics and therefore, it exists to
physics. It may not be real in the grand metaphysical sense, but, by definition, it
exists as a proper subject of study in physics. In this very limited way, it exists.
Those are the rules. That's not to say that there will not be debate as to which is
observable and what is not. But those rules will serve as a good basis for that debate.
As to time, I contend that it is not observable and that observing a motion is not the
same as observing observing time. Moreover, not only do I contend that time is an
abstraction and terms like spacetime are invalid, but because its use is
counter-productive, time is an abstraction that has no place in physics at all. Give me
some evidence that time is observable, other than definitions, and I'll change my mind.
AllYou!
"Patrick Reany" <re...@asu.edu> wrote in message
news:844a1b64.0411...@posting.google.com...
> "AllYou!" <ida...@conversent.net> wrote in message
news:<OcCdnSfnT9S...@conversent.net>...
> > In the general sense, we can
> > fantasize about flying carpets of magic beans in a one thousand foot high bean stalk,
and
> > those would be examples of freely inventing a physical concept. But we'd better have
some
> > logic or reason to believe that these concepts are actually affecting the physical
realm
> > because physics is about the study of that realm.
>
> There are two point here: First, how do you KNOW that flying carpets
> or magic beans do NOT really account for some part of the behavior of
> the world?
First, give me some evidence that they even exist........i.e., that they are physical.
Now once you've done that, give me some evidence or a reasonable theory that they do.
> Second, even assuming that flying carpets or magic beans
> don't really acount for the behavior of any part of the world, if
> someone could invent a theory that works to describe the behavior of
> some part of the world using flying carpets or magic beans as
> primitive elements of that theory, the best you could do is to
> complain that you have personal reservations about the nature of the
> theory. But a theory that works is a theory that works, regardless of
> WHY it works.
I beg to differ. The first test you must pass in theorizing that these beans do anything
is to demonstrate that they exist or even that there's some logical reason to believe they
exist. Anything else might be a theory, but it's not a scientifically valid one because
it would be based on pure speculation and fantasy.
> You can't get away with just naming a few things that you disallow
> unless that's the entire set of disallowed things. You have yet to
> provide the rule that tells us the full set of concepts that are
> disallowed in a phsyical theory.
As you have yet to define *physically*. What's your definition of physical?
BTW, I have provided the rules in the first post I sent to this one of yours.
> > There might be a useful place in our
> > theories of the physical realm to plug in those beans (e.g., to explain the limit of
c),
> > but that would be counter-productive to our understanding of our experiences.
>
> How do you know ahead of time where a productive notion in the
> understanding of the world is going to come from. At one time people
> believed in phlogiston, a heat "fluid" to explain combustion. Nobody
> believes in it today, yet it was useful in the evolution of the
> physical concepts of thermodynamics.
You're maiing my case for me. If the belief in the existance of that medium was not based
upon any evidence, then that would explain why it was found to be a fantasy. However,
more to the point, the productive notions come either from observations or from theories
that are based upon recognized precepts of science. Pulling notions from thin air with no
basis in fact is just fantasy.
> > > > These theories are useless if they are based, in any way, on mere
> > > > abstractions, dreams, and fantasies.
> > >
> > > Prove it. Present a counterexample. Is the concept of matter or energy
> > > abstract or not?
> >
> > It's not for me to *prove*.
>
> Yes, it is!
If you had not parsed my response, it would not appear as though I'm simply making
unfounded assertions as you are. Not fair.
> Prove to us that energy is NOT an abstraction, since you claim that it
> isn't!
>
> [snip]
You mean snipped the context of my assertion. Here it is again......To attempt that would
be a metaphysical exercise. But someone, maybe AE, said that the test of that which is
physical is that which when you kick it, kicks back. Remember, we're talking about that
which lies within the scope of science here, and within the context of the purpose of
science, matter and energy kick back in that they are observable. To that and within the
context of science, no, they are not abstract.
Within that context, energy is not an abstraction because it is observable.
> > > > > > If physics is the search for a description of physical events, what
> > > > > > is physical about time?
> > > > >
> > > > > An excellent question! I have thought about the question of what one
> > > > > means by "physical entity" in physics in the context of a physical
> > > > > theory for a long time now, and I have an answer which satisfies me,
> > > > > anyway.
> [snip]
> > > Don't make vacuous rules! Tell us the precise rules by which one knows
> > > whether existence assumptions are "supported by some logical and
> > > reasoned rationale." If you can't do that, don't pretend that you can.
> >
> > First of all, I'm not pretending anything. I'm not writing a complete thesis on all
> > things physical here but rather, giving you my opinions to the extent you wish to
accept
> > or reject or discuss them. So calm down.
>
> And I am damn tired of all your vacuous opinions! Start giving us
> explicit rules or or quit pretending that you're being rational. All
> you're being so far is dogmatic. Prove to us the ratinality of your
> beliefs system, if you really have one.
I've given it in this pair of posts as I have before. It's fine by me that you're tired
because it's not my problem. I'm tired of you establishing the parameters of this
discussion, but I won't com,plain about it. When I get too tired, I'll ignore you.
> > > Do fields REALLY exist, then?
> >
> > Which feilds?
>
> Pick any one and prove that it exists: Electric, magnetic,
> gravitational, etc.
They do exist and they do because they're observable.
> > > Since in a physical theory the existence of ANYTHING other than
> > > measuring instruments and a place to use them is formal, your claim is
> > > pointelss. It is the theory that declares the formal existence of time
> > > or space or mass or energy or charge or action or quantum potential or
> > > orgone energy or quarks or whatever.
> >
> > The existence of matter and energy is not a theory, it is taken as a given within the
> > scope of physics.
>
> Yes, the existence matter in physics is part of a theory which gives
> operational meaning to it in terms of how we sense it and measure it
> -- a part of the conventional metaphysical framework of physics, which
> can never be proven without doing so in terms of something else which
> would then take the place of unprovable entities.
Wrong because matter and energy define what physics is. Within the scope of physics,
matter and energy is not a theory, it is taken as a given.
> Prove to us that energy is real. Pick any form of energy you want and
> prove to us that it really exists, a part from human conceptualization
> of it.
Within the context of the concept of physics, heat energy exists because it's observable.
> > And that's really at the heart of this discussion. Ignore the scope of
> > physics (the study of matter and energy), and you can have your fantasies. But when
you
> > enter the realm of physics, leave those at the door.
>
> Physics has chosen to use energy concepts in its theories, but this is
> only a convenience, not a requirement. All physics really needs to do
> is to describe the behavior in time of the inanimate visible material
> realm.
Physics has chosen? A science chooses nothing. That's where your lofty but misguided use
of words betrays you. Physics is defined as the study of matter and energy. IOW, physics
did not come first and then was used to theorize about the existence or conceptualization
of energy. We humans developed the concept of physics to study the presupposed existence
of energy. From outside the narrow scope of physics, energy may well be just an
abstraction the real existence of which is debatable. But we humans postulated that it
did exist and then developed the science of physics to study it on the basis of that
postulate. And so within the context of physics, it's perfectly valid to insist on
evidence or a reasoned theory that an entity exists and not just fantasize that it does.
> > > > It is claimed that clocks are the
> > > > instruments which measure time, but there is no evidence to support that claim.
> > >
> > > Because it's NOT an empirical discovery; it's an invention of a
> > > concept and of the concept's measuring devices and procedures. They
> > > are both free creations of the human mind! When are you going to get
> > > that. Time in physics is a free creation of the human mind.
> >
> > I'm the one who gets it. That's what I've been saying all along! When are *you*
going to
> > get *that*?
>
> But that's all physics could ever do. Physics never proves or
> discovers any physical thing. It doesn't need to. The existence of a
> thing which corresponds to a concept in a physical theory is left up
> to our personal natural philosophies to decide for ourselves, person
> by person.
Do you actually believe the stuff you write?
> > It's how we apply these fantasies in science to which I object.
>
> What is the rule that distinguishes fantasies from nonfantasies? Is
> the concept of the hydrogen atom a fantasy or not?
If we've been able to observe, either directly or indirectly, a hydrogen atom, then it
exists as far as physics is concerned. If we've got strong evidence that it exists though
experimentation, then it's valid to proceed on the basis of a theory that it exists. If
we've got noting but a theory, but that theory is based upon reasonable postulates and
logic, then it may be valid to proceed on the basis of that theory. But if all we have is
a blind assertion that it exists, then it's not valid to proceed that it does. The degree
to which these things are valid may be somewhat subjective but it's a better standard than
unfounded fantasy. It's the difference between good and bad science, and fantasies are
bad science.
> > > > If the
> > > > creation of events which a clock produces is the output of that instrument, what
is
> > the
> > > > input? surely, as with all other instruments, there must be one.
> > >
> > > Clocks just do what clocks do, then you need a procedure defined to
> > > associate what clocks do with specific events. The result is an
> > > ordering of events, usually metrically ordered.
> >
> > But the model you've created, that which requires a fantasy, is misleading. We can
order
> > things without the use of time.
>
> I have told you before that by my definition of what time is, you
> cannot order events without time. At the conceptual level, time IS the
> ordering of events, usually metrically.
Fine. You're taking that which is under discussion and using nothing but a definition to
argue against it. That shows the emptiness of your argument. And so you also believe in
a spacetime continuum? If so, what more do you have but a definition to show it's
physical existence? You believe the time dilates? What do you have other than a
definition to show that time is physical?
> > Look at the NFL standings and order the teams. That did
> > not require time. Ordering events does not either. All it requires is picking a
motion
> > to use as a benchmark by which we can order all events. The use of the fantasy of
time is
> > superfluous, unnecessary, and misleading.
>
>
> You keep confusing how time is measure with how time is defined!
I confuse no such thing. Your assertion is that time is required to order events and I'm
clearly showing that any definition or measurement of time is not required to do so.
> > > > > In the end, an entity or concept is physical if it lives within a
> > > > > physical theory. A physical theory is a theory that make predictions
> > > > > of measurements (made according to operational definitions) which can
> > > > > in principle be performed.
> > > >
> > > > But measurements of time cannot be performed. The claim is hollow because it is
based
> > > > upon the circular logic that it is that which measures it.
> > >
> > > I agree that we do not know what is meant by a measurement of
> > > metaphysical time, but physics does NOT deal with metaphysical time.
> > > It deals exclusively with theoretical time, which is a free invention
> > > of the human mind, made precise in a precise theory.
> >
> > What is that theory? Simply that it exists? Is this theory based upon a postulate or
> > two?
>
> Physics convention tells us how to conceive of an ideal clock.
LOL! So now it's fair to abandon these strict rules you keep insisting upon in favor of
*convention*? Well, we may be able to conceive of an ideal clock, but until there's
evidence that there's something more to measure than a fantasy, the assertion that it
measures time is invalid.
> Newton's theory assumed that one ideal clock reads the time for all
> observers. SR does not accept this assumption. It developed other
> rules for associating elapsed time with observers. GR is different
> still.
I know that conventional wisdom is heavily weighted toward the current fantasy of time.
You've got a head lock on the obvious in that respect. So if that's the basis of your
argument, we've got nowhere to go. And neither does science for that matter.
> > > > > > Nonsense. If physics is the search for a description of physical events, then
> > it's
> > > > > > invalid to create models aspects of which are soley abstractions.
> > > > >
> > > > > Why not? Who's to say that we have any physical concept which is not
> > > > > merely an abstraction, anyway? Your metaphysics is so naive.
> > > >
> > > > By definition of the term physical. You keep jumping in and out of that
definition as
> > it
> > > > suits your purposes.
> > >
> > > I rarely use dictionary definitions of philosophical terms. I reject
> > > the definition you presented as inadequate and I stipulated my own
> > > definition instead.
> >
> > Then it's going to be difficult to converse if your using a language unique to you.
>
> Not at all. I am far more specific and consistent in my set of terms,
> which I stipulate clearly for all to read, than are dictionares, which
> are designed to present a multitude of possible definitions of any
> single term! I've been working on this theory and its terminology for
> twenty years. How long have you been working on your terms?
I don't care how long you've been working on your terms. If I don't know what they are,
or if they're completely different than I'm used to using, then communication will, at the
very best, be nearly impossible.
> > > > > > IOW, to get a model to
> > > > > > work by filling voids with abstractions of the human mind reders it useless as
a
> > > > > > scientific tool.
> > > > >
> > > > > Only if one conceives of the goal of physics as begetting metaphysics.
> > > > > However, it is not. The goal of physics is to beget theories that
> > > > > work. Physics is NOT metaphysics. Let's not forget that the scientific
> > > > > method is itself a free creation of the human mind. Nature did not
> > > > > invent it and does not use it.
> > > >
> > > > Not true. The goal of physics is to understand physical phenomena as best we can
and
> > make
> > > > the most of the knowledge.
> > >
> > > So, what are your absolute criteria by which we accomplish this
> > > "understanding"?
> >
> > I've explained that in this and other innumerable posts. We limit our study of the
> > physical realm to that which is physical, but in doing so, we do not ascribe the same
> > priority to fantasies that we do to that which is observable.
>
> But you are free to define "physical" any damn way you want, so it is
> ludicrous to claim that your procedure has absolute significance. Why
> can't you see that? It's whatever you want it to be.
No, you're the one who uses the term *physical concept* with no definition for what is
physical. Mine is that which is observable and I've said so over and over again.
> > > > And as to nature, that's exactly my point. Nature did not
> > > > invent the need to order events nor does it use it.
> > >
> > > I don't think that your claim can be proved or disproved.
> >
> > But it's your claim too! See the above.
>
> My claim said NOTHING about how Nature uses or conceives of time. I
> merely said what time is in physics. My claim has been simple and
> consistent from the start: We do not and we cannot know the truth of
> Nature. We should admit as much and search for the next best thing:
> theories that work.
See my first of this pair of posts.
> > > > In fact, an event is not a naturally
> > > > occurring phenomenon either. Time is a free creation of the human mind and has no
> > place
> > > > in science.
> > >
> > > If we take away from physic everything that's a free creation of the
> > > human mind, what would be left?
> >
> > That which is observable.
>
> Name one thing which is observable.
a rock.
> > > > > The biggest misconceptions on this newsgroup are those concerning the
> > > > > philosophical nature of the scientifc method, particularly as it
> > > > > relates to physics.
> > > >
> > > > Gobblygook. You freely use terms like physical and nature and then you run from
them
> > and
> > > > say that all things are likely abstractions anyway. Physics is the study of that
> > which is
> > > > physical and that which is physical is that which can be directly or indirectly
> > observed.
> > >
> > > Name one thing that is "indirectly observed"?
> >
> > X rays.
>
> Since you claim that X rays are "indirectly observed," by what right
> do you have to claim that the putative observation of x rays are
> really about x rays, and not about something else that acts similar to
> x rays judged by a x ray theory, but are not really x rays?
Certainly the X ray theory *is* required for indirect observations. Where did you get the
idea I claimed otherwise? But that theory, just like SR, is very detailed, very specific,
and is backed up by much evidence. IOW, good science was used to develop the theory and
not just fantasy.
eel...@yahoo.com
You bring up one of a collection of so called, "classical
paradoxes", which are not paradoxes at all, but faulty attempts to
find contradictory examples within SR. Your example rests on the
commonsense belief that if Al's moving three-foot yardstick appears
one foot long to a stationary observer Bert, then Bert's one-foot
long ruler should appear to Al like a three feet long yardstick, not
1/3 of a foot long. Well, surprise! The perceptual image of Bert's
ruler DOES stretch to one yard's length within Al's perceptual
reality!! But when Al accelerated, he rotated himself and his
yardstick through 4-D spacetime. So Al now receives images into his
perceptual universe at a relative hyper-angle slant of arcsin(v) from
Bert's original projections - both through Al's space AND Al's
time. So the stretched ruler's image has now also been smeared
across Al's time dimension within his perceptual universe. Since no
one can see (or devise a machine to see) through time, due to our
perceptual matter being only one chronon thick, Al cannot see the one
yard-long image of Bert's original ruler, even though it 'lies'
projected within his perceptual reality. What Al does see is a
'chimera-ruler', something that is contracted by a factor f, rather
than stretched by a factor 1/f (v^2 + f^2 = 1). The further you are
near to its rear end, the older the molecules are in this perceptual
image of Bert's one-foot long ruler, which is now only 4 inches long,
of course. This 'thing' is truly a weird object. It definitely is
NOT the original ruler Bert held in his hand. That original also lies
within Al's universe, stretched over a distance of three feet in
length from front to rear, but also stretched through vL/f of Al's
years, where L is 1 foot / c (expressed in feet).
So why does Bert's ruler end up contracting rather than
stretching? Well, the one chronon of thickness in everyone's 4-D
hyperplane (i.e. perceptual reality) physically acts to polarize every
hyperplane to accept only projections coming in perpendicularly to the
receiving hyperplane. Draw one-inch lines on two sheets, A and B, held
at some mutual angle to each other. Project A's line segment
perpendicularly onto sheet B, and that image is shorter than its
originator. Now do the same to B's line, projecting it
perpendicularly towards sheet A, and its image is also contracted by
the same proportion onto sheet A It is your dot product at work. If
you wish to see the original and where it has gone, you must invert a
projection, i.e. you project perpendicularly to the actual 4-D object
itself. You will see that its image now stretches.
(out of time)
Patrick Reany
> > reason of all: Definition! Physics can be defined as the search for a
> > description of physical events. Events occur in space and time, but
> > there is an awful lot of freedom how one may choose to thinks about
> > space and time.
>
> You've got no evidence to support the assertion that events occur in space and time.
> That's just a theory.
In order to do something artificial, like do physics, one has to
invent concepts which are not needed by Nature for it to operate, yet
are needed for humans to understand Nature metrically. Perhaps Nature
is not dependent on the concept of event, but human physics is. That's
why we use it. BTW, it is a free creation of the human mind. It works.
The concept of event is sometimes left primitive, but I will define it
as an occurrence having a specific place and time in all frames of
reference, and then leave 'occurrence' undefined.
Besides, anything that isn't obvious to 99.99% of the people must be
justified by a theory at best and by a hypothesis at worst. That's
just the reality of human understanding and justification. Theory and
hypothesis fills the gaping holes in our conceptual interpretations of
the world, which are the conceptual voids where things are not
"obvious."
> If physics is the search for a description of physical events, what
> is physical about time?
To be physical, simply put, is to be modeled in a physical theory,
which includes all variables for which there are operational
definitions.
Patrick
Bilge
>The concept of event is sometimes left primitive, but I will define it
>as an occurrence having a specific place and time in all frames of
>reference, and then leave 'occurrence' undefined.
That isn't the definition of an even, and your definition isn't
consistent with relativity. Events are spacetime points. It doesn't
mean anything to say an event has any specific time or place. The
only thing which is physically meaningful is the intervals between
events, which are invariant.
AllYou!
> "AllYou!" <ida...@conversent.net> wrote in message
news:<bYWdnSvDD4q...@conversent.net>...
> > "Patrick Reany" <re...@asu.edu> wrote in message
> [snip]
> > > Space and time are absolutely needed in physics for the simplest
> > > reason of all: Definition! Physics can be defined as the search for a
> > > description of physical events. Events occur in space and time, but
> > > there is an awful lot of freedom how one may choose to thinks about
> > > space and time.
> >
> > You've got no evidence to support the assertion that events occur in space and time.
> > That's just a theory.
>
> In order to do something artificial, like do physics, one has to
> invent concepts which are not needed by Nature for it to operate, yet
> are needed for humans to understand Nature metrically. Perhaps Nature
> is not dependent on the concept of event, but human physics is. That's
> why we use it. BTW, it is a free creation of the human mind. It works.
Sure, as long as you keep your wits about you and cntinue to know the difference betweent
that which is physical and that which are the human abstractions. In the case of time,
the scientific community has confused the two.
>
> The concept of event is sometimes left primitive, but I will define it
> as an occurrence having a specific place and time in all frames of
> reference, and then leave 'occurrence' undefined.
>
> Besides, anything that isn't obvious to 99.99% of the people must be
> justified by a theory at best and by a hypothesis at worst. That's
> just the reality of human understanding and justification. Theory and
> hypothesis fills the gaping holes in our conceptual interpretations of
> the world, which are the conceptual voids where things are not
> "obvious."
>
> > If physics is the search for a description of physical events, what
> > is physical about time?
>
> To be physical, simply put, is to be modeled in a physical theory,
> which includes all variables for which there are operational
> definitions.
I disagree. To be physical, within the context of physics, is to be observable.
Patrick Reany
> "Patrick Reany" <re...@asu.edu> wrote in message
> news:844a1b64.04112...@posting.google.com...
> > "AllYou!" <ida...@conversent.net> wrote in message
> news:<bYWdnSvDD4q...@conversent.net>...
> > > "Patrick Reany" <re...@asu.edu> wrote in message
> [snip]
> > > > Space and time are absolutely needed in physics for the simplest
> > > > reason of all: Definition! Physics can be defined as the search for a
> > > > description of physical events. Events occur in space and time, but
> > > > there is an awful lot of freedom how one may choose to thinks about
> > > > space and time.
> > >
> > > You've got no evidence to support the assertion that events occur in space and time.
> > > That's just a theory.
> >
> > In order to do something artificial, like do physics, one has to
> > invent concepts which are not needed by Nature for it to operate, yet
> > are needed for humans to understand Nature metrically. Perhaps Nature
> > is not dependent on the concept of event, but human physics is. That's
> > why we use it. BTW, it is a free creation of the human mind. It works.
>
> Sure, as long as you keep your wits about you and cntinue to know the difference betweent
> that which is physical and that which are the human abstractions. In the case of time,
> the scientific community has confused the two.
Of course they have confused the two! The physics community today,
unlike 70 years ago, is overall very ignorant of philosophical issues
about physics. So, it naively thinks that its theoretical abstractions
deals directly with "reality," at least in part. However, most cranks
here also believe the same thing.
What you don't seem to get philosophically is
1) all concepts in physical theories are abstract, no matter what
perception of the human sensation-mind inspired the use of the
concept. All of them. Every last one! That means time, space, matter,
charge, velocity, etc. The concept invented to characterize or
represent the "real" thing is still NOT the thing itself. It's just a
model of it, at best.
However, models do not just represent material essence, they can also
represent behavior, even if the physicality aspect of the model is
highly questionable!! This form of abstraction is the single hardest
thing for cranks to get regarding the nature of physics. Theories are
only accountable to measurable behavior, not to physical essences
(metaphysics)! And, to stack the deck, it's the theory that tells you
want is measurable!
2) Physics is likely not much hurt by this general lack of
appreciation concerning the abstract nature of time. Physicists tend
to NOT keep their wits about them concerning time, yet they tend to be
able to invent principle theories that work anyway. The single biggest
error that the crank believes is that modern physics is not
successful. It is!
3) As Einstein told Schrodinger one day in 1925-6, it is the theory
that tells you want it can measure. It does this by freely inventing
physical concepts and by inventing operational definitions of how
those concepts relate to direct measurements. Defined operationally,
time is no worse off than any other variable of physics that gets
"measured."
4) You seem to follow the typical crank notion of the scientific
method, which is to decide a priori what is "real" and then confined
physical theories to decribing what is "real." The problem with this
is two-fold: First, nobody knows what's "real" in any absolute sense.
We only know what we sense, and we act on those sensations to build
conceptual abstractions. Second, physics has benefitted tremendously
from the use of abstract principles (such as least action and
conservation rules of all types) that have advanced the art far ahead
of your naive notions of what is "real."
So, why do you have all these misconceptions about the nature of
physics? Because the science educational establishment refuses to
teach ANY of this stuff to physics students.
>
> >
> > The concept of event is sometimes left primitive, but I will define it
> > as an occurrence having a specific place and time in all frames of
> > reference, and then leave 'occurrence' undefined.
Bilge reminds us that 'event' is also used to mean a point in
spacetime. He's right that it is ALSO used this way, creating an
equivocation of meaning, but my definition is also right.
> >
> > Besides, anything that isn't obvious to 99.99% of the people must be
> > justified by a theory at best and by a hypothesis at worst. That's
> > just the reality of human understanding and justification. Theory and
> > hypothesis fills the gaping holes in our conceptual interpretations of
> > the world, which are the conceptual voids where things are not
> > "obvious."
> >
> > > If physics is the search for a description of physical events, what
> > > is physical about time?
> >
> > To be physical, simply put, is to be modeled in a physical theory,
> > which includes all variables for which there are operational
> > definitions.
>
> I disagree. To be physical, within the context of physics, is to be observable.
I have told you this repeatedly and you're not getting it. How do we
really know when something is observable? Intuition? Common sense? No!
It's the theory that tells us what is "observable."
If you disagree, then tell us how YOU know when something is
measurable? That is, provide the general rule by which we can
objectively tell. I'll bet you won't even try to do this. And give an
example.
Patrick
AllYou!
And what you do not seem to get is that within the scope of physics, there's a need to
distinguish between that which is physical and that which is abstract. While it's true
that with the whole canvas of human thought, that which is real and that which is not is a
philosophical debate, however, we humans developed the science of physics to study matter
and energy. In short, to study that which is physical, whether it is real or not. And
what is it that defines something that's physical? Something which is observable. While
it might be true that we use models to describe what we observe, that does not give us
license to make models of that which we fantasize about and give it the same priority in
science as that which is observable.
I agree that there's a difference between the model of a thing and the thing itself. You
say that as though this is some great revelation. But in physics, we can build models of
that which is observable and we can build models of that which we fantasize about and we'd
better know the difference if we're going to stay true to the precepts of physics which is
the study of that which is physical.
> 2) Physics is likely not much hurt by this general lack of
> appreciation concerning the abstract nature of time. Physicists tend
> to NOT keep their wits about them concerning time, yet they tend to be
> able to invent principle theories that work anyway. The single biggest
> error that the crank believes is that modern physics is not
> successful. It is!
First of all, your use of the term *crank* betrays your arrogance and limited intellect.
Secondly, modern physics is never wholly successful or a failure. It is dynamic. Physics
partially failed when it tied itself to the science of Newton. Now, before you say that
this phase in scientific history did not represent a failure, but just part of the
evolution of our sophistication, then have it that way too. Either way, this demonstrates
that physics is in constant need of refinement and evolution, and to suggest that those
who propose such revisions are cranks is not only rediculous, but you really need to
introduce yourself to the head crank........AE.
> 3) As Einstein told Schrodinger one day in 1925-6, it is the theory
> that tells you want it can measure. It does this by freely inventing
> physical concepts and by inventing operational definitions of how
> those concepts relate to direct measurements. Defined operationally,
> time is no worse off than any other variable of physics that gets
> "measured."
Define *physical*. BTW, by your thinking, Einstein was just a crank anyway.
> 4) You seem to follow the typical crank notion of the scientific
> method, which is to decide a priori what is "real" and then confined
> physical theories to decribing what is "real." The problem with this
> is two-fold: First, nobody knows what's "real" in any absolute sense.
> We only know what we sense, and we act on those sensations to build
> conceptual abstractions. Second, physics has benefitted tremendously
> from the use of abstract principles (such as least action and
> conservation rules of all types) that have advanced the art far ahead
> of your naive notions of what is "real."
And as I've said to you many times, and as I repeated above, I do not attempt to get into
the discussion of what is real and what is not. You're inventing a straw man against
which to argue instead of me. That's no wonder. That you have to resort to derogatory
labels of me and now invent arguments I've not made is consistent with someone who knows
they cannot construct a logical argument for their position. The fact that you had to
start a new thread with this header further illustrates my point.
> So, why do you have all these misconceptions about the nature of
> physics? Because the science educational establishment refuses to
> teach ANY of this stuff to physics students.
The only misconception here is that which you think I argue. In short, you do not have
the intellect to grasp the concepts your attempting to discuss.
> > > The concept of event is sometimes left primitive, but I will define it
> > > as an occurrence having a specific place and time in all frames of
> > > reference, and then leave 'occurrence' undefined.
Define it as anything you wish, but what was under discussion here is what I was defining.
> Bilge reminds us that 'event' is also used to mean a point in
> spacetime. He's right that it is ALSO used this way, creating an
> equivocation of meaning, but my definition is also right.
I'm sure you fell that way.
> > > To be physical, simply put, is to be modeled in a physical theory,
> > > which includes all variables for which there are operational
> > > definitions.
> >
> > I disagree. To be physical, within the context of physics, is to be observable.
>
> I have told you this repeatedly and you're not getting it.
That statement, right there, is the height of arrogance and a closed mind.
> How do we
> really know when something is observable? Intuition? Common sense? No!
> It's the theory that tells us what is "observable."
No, the stimulation of our senses, directly or with the aid of instrumentation, tells us
what's observable.
> If you disagree, then tell us how YOU know when something is
> measurable? That is, provide the general rule by which we can
> objectively tell. I'll bet you won't even try to do this. And give an
> example.
If you weren't such an ass, you'd know that I've done this plenty of times. I know
something is physical if it stimulates my senses directly or with the aid of
instrumentation. That's not to say that it's always a clear cut case as what is and is
not observable. But that's where the study of the thing, the physics of it, comes into
play.
See your fingers moving on your keyboard? Your keyboard is just as observable as the
motion of your fingers and the distance between the keys.
Patrick Reany
I disagree and I have defined 'physical' for you many times. It's even
in this post from previous posts.
> While it's true
> that with the whole canvas of human thought, that which is real and that which is not is a
> philosophical debate, however, we humans developed the science of physics to study matter
> and energy.
What about matter and energy makes them "real"? In physical theories
they are abstractions. The whole trick in physics is to invent
connections between abstract ideas that live in theories and
measurements by instruments. You can't ake this for granted, which you
seem to do.
> In short, to study that which is physical, whether it is real or not. And
> what is it that defines something that's physical? Something which is observable. While
> it might be true that we use models to describe what we observe, that does not give us
> license to make models of that which we fantasize about and give it the same priority in
> science as that which is observable.
I asked you before to prove to us that there is anything real in the
universe that is a field, such as gravity or electricity or magnetism.
Why didn't you prove to us that these concepts do or do NOT correspond
to something real?
A mass spectrometer is supposed to "measure" the mass of a particle,
yet it can only do so within the context of the theory of
electrodynamics. The meaning of a measurement is theory dependent (a
notion first claimed by Kuhn, if I'm not mistaken). Another very
subtle concept.
>
> I agree that there's a difference between the model of a thing and the thing itself. You
> say that as though this is some great revelation. But in physics, we can build models of
> that which is observable and we can build models of that which we fantasize about and we'd
> better know the difference if we're going to stay true to the precepts of physics which is
> the study of that which is physical.
Are there any true fields in physics? Are there really point
particles? Is there really charge or mass continuums? Who cares? They
work as models.
>
>
> > 2) Physics is likely not much hurt by this general lack of
> > appreciation concerning the abstract nature of time. Physicists tend
> > to NOT keep their wits about them concerning time, yet they tend to be
> > able to invent principle theories that work anyway. The single biggest
> > error that the crank believes is that modern physics is not
> > successful. It is!
>
> First of all, your use of the term *crank* betrays your arrogance and limited intellect.
I do like to be obvious. Your problem is that you've got an idea that
you think is wonderful, but you closed your mind to the challenge of
others way too early in this challenge. Other people have been
thinking about these things a lot longer than you have. You should
have kept an open mind.
>
> Secondly, modern physics is never wholly successful or a failure. It is dynamic. Physics
> partially failed when it tied itself to the science of Newton. Now, before you say that
> this phase in scientific history did not represent a failure, but just part of the
> evolution of our sophistication, then have it that way too. Either way, this demonstrates
> that physics is in constant need of refinement and evolution, and to suggest that those
> who propose such revisions are cranks is not only rediculous, but you really need to
> introduce yourself to the head crank........AE.
>
> > 3) As Einstein told Schrodinger one day in 1925-6, it is the theory
> > that tells you want it can measure. It does this by freely inventing
> > physical concepts and by inventing operational definitions of how
> > those concepts relate to direct measurements. Defined operationally,
> > time is no worse off than any other variable of physics that gets
> > "measured."
>
> Define *physical*. BTW, by your thinking, Einstein was just a crank anyway.
I defined it and characterized enough now.
>
> > 4) You seem to follow the typical crank notion of the scientific
> > method, which is to decide a priori what is "real" and then confined
> > physical theories to decribing what is "real." The problem with this
> > is two-fold: First, nobody knows what's "real" in any absolute sense.
> > We only know what we sense, and we act on those sensations to build
> > conceptual abstractions. Second, physics has benefitted tremendously
> > from the use of abstract principles (such as least action and
> > conservation rules of all types) that have advanced the art far ahead
> > of your naive notions of what is "real."
>
> And as I've said to you many times, and as I repeated above, I do not attempt to get into
> the discussion of what is real and what is not.
Have you not told us that time is unreal?
> You're inventing a straw man against
> which to argue instead of me. That's no wonder. That you have to resort to derogatory
> labels of me
I actually didn't mean to direct it to you. But if the
characterization fits, so be it. You decide. I don't think you're a
crank, but I do think you have closed your mind to the views of
others. You don't seem to really hear what others are saying before
you reject their ideas.
All I am saying, is give my ideas a real chance. I have requestged
many challenges from you and you haven't replied to a single one of
them yet.
> and now invent arguments I've not made is consistent with someone who knows
> they cannot construct a logical argument for their position. The fact that you had to
> start a new thread with this header further illustrates my point.
>
> > So, why do you have all these misconceptions about the nature of
> > physics? Because the science educational establishment refuses to
> > teach ANY of this stuff to physics students.
[snip]
>
>
> > > > To be physical, simply put, is to be modeled in a physical theory,
> > > > which includes all variables for which there are operational
> > > > definitions.
> > >
> > > I disagree. To be physical, within the context of physics, is to be observable.
You are free to disagree, but the above constitues my characterization
of what it means to be physical in physical theories.
> >
> > I have told you this repeatedly and you're not getting it.
>
> That statement, right there, is the height of arrogance and a closed mind.
>
> > How do we
> > really know when something is observable? Intuition? Common sense? No!
> > It's the theory that tells us what is "observable."
>
> No, the stimulation of our senses, directly or with the aid of instrumentation, tells us
> what's observable.
You seem to treat the human mind as an etchisketch, an isomorphism
between reality and human conceptualization of reality. The statement
"Instrument X measures variable Y" is meaningless without an abstract
notion of the variable Y in the human mind inthe first place. In the
process of mind creating order from the chaos of sensory experiences,
the minds acts actively, not passively, to invent the notion that
human can make "measuring instruments." The universe doesn't make
measuring instruments. People do. We can make them up any damn way we
want. The only constraint is that whatever we invent has to compete
against what others invent. May the best concepts and their measuring
instruments win.
>
> > If you disagree, then tell us how YOU know when something is
> > measurable? That is, provide the general rule by which we can
> > objectively tell. I'll bet you won't even try to do this. And give an
> > example.
>
> If you weren't such an ass, you'd know that I've done this plenty of times. I know
> something is physical if it stimulates my senses directly or with the aid of
> instrumentation.
And this way of knowing is infallible and nonsubjective?
> That's not to say that it's always a clear cut case as what is and is
> not observable. But that's where the study of the thing, the physics of it, comes into
> play.
>
> See your fingers moving on your keyboard? Your keyboard is just as observable as the
> motion of your fingers and the distance between the keys.
Are fields or particles or atoms or hydrogen or photons real?
Patrick
AllYou!
you mean this?......"To be physical, simply put, is to be modeled in a physical theory,
which includes all variables for which there are operational definitions."
That's no definition. you used the word you were trying to define in the definition. To
be physical........physical theory. That's nothing but gobbledygook. And I don't want to
know what it *means* to *be* physical, I want to know how you're using the term physical
everywhere you've been using it. All the previous definition said is that you're free to
make shit up.
> > While it's true
> > that with the whole canvas of human thought, that which is real and that which is not
is a
> > philosophical debate, however, we humans developed the science of physics to study
matter
> > and energy.
>
> What about matter and energy makes them "real"?
When are you ever going to get this straight? I never said that they were real. The only
reason you keep force feeding this claim upon me is that you've got an argument all ready
to go but nowhere to use it. Matter and energy are physical and I've explained this
concept to you over and over again but you're so intent upon snipping and parsing that
you've lost it.
> In physical theories
> they are abstractions. The whole trick in physics is to invent
> connections between abstract ideas that live in theories and
> measurements by instruments. You can't ake this for granted, which you
> seem to do.
Not at all. But what you keep missing is the notion that measurements can only be made of
those things that are physical. I get the connection you're making, but I also get how
you either leave important parts of your grandiose explanations flapping in the wind
because to pin them down further would defeat your own position, or that you simply don't
get it.
> > In short, to study that which is physical, whether it is real or not. And
> > what is it that defines something that's physical? Something which is observable.
While
> > it might be true that we use models to describe what we observe, that does not give us
> > license to make models of that which we fantasize about and give it the same priority
in
> > science as that which is observable.
>
> I asked you before to prove to us that there is anything real in the
> universe that is a field, such as gravity or electricity or magnetism.
> Why didn't you prove to us that these concepts do or do NOT correspond
> to something real?
And I've responded to you before that I make no claims about reality, and so your question
is irrelevant to my position.
> A mass spectrometer is supposed to "measure" the mass of a particle,
> yet it can only do so within the context of the theory of
> electrodynamics. The meaning of a measurement is theory dependent (a
> notion first claimed by Kuhn, if I'm not mistaken). Another very
> subtle concept.
So your point? And try to keep it within the context of my position and not one which
you've assigned to me.
> > I agree that there's a difference between the model of a thing and the thing itself.
You
> > say that as though this is some great revelation. But in physics, we can build models
of
> > that which is observable and we can build models of that which we fantasize about and
we'd
> > better know the difference if we're going to stay true to the precepts of physics
which is
> > the study of that which is physical.
>
>
> Are there any true fields in physics? Are there really point
> particles? Is there really charge or mass continuums? Who cares? They
> work as models.
If they are physical, then physics cares. If they are not, then let the philosophers
care. Tell me, what the point of physics? Why pursue it? I'm not asking whether or not
we build models, I'm asking why we bother? Is it, as you said above, to link to
measurements? Measurements of what?
> > > 2) Physics is likely not much hurt by this general lack of
> > > appreciation concerning the abstract nature of time. Physicists tend
> > > to NOT keep their wits about them concerning time, yet they tend to be
> > > able to invent principle theories that work anyway. The single biggest
> > > error that the crank believes is that modern physics is not
> > > successful. It is!
> >
> > First of all, your use of the term *crank* betrays your arrogance and limited
intellect.
>
>
> I do like to be obvious. Your problem is that you've got an idea that
> you think is wonderful, but you closed your mind to the challenge of
> others way too early in this challenge. Other people have been
> thinking about these things a lot longer than you have. You should
> have kept an open mind.
It bothers me not how long an idea has been pondered and I certainly never thought I was
the first to have the idea that time is but a fantasy. But nothing in any of that
supports the calim of crank.
> > Secondly, modern physics is never wholly successful or a failure. It is dynamic.
Physics
> > partially failed when it tied itself to the science of Newton. Now, before you say
that
> > this phase in scientific history did not represent a failure, but just part of the
> > evolution of our sophistication, then have it that way too. Either way, this
demonstrates
> > that physics is in constant need of refinement and evolution, and to suggest that
those
> > who propose such revisions are cranks is not only rediculous, but you really need to
> > introduce yourself to the head crank........AE.
> >
> > > 3) As Einstein told Schrodinger one day in 1925-6, it is the theory
> > > that tells you want it can measure. It does this by freely inventing
> > > physical concepts and by inventing operational definitions of how
> > > those concepts relate to direct measurements. Defined operationally,
> > > time is no worse off than any other variable of physics that gets
> > > "measured."
> >
> > Define *physical*. BTW, by your thinking, Einstein was just a crank anyway.
>
> I defined it and characterized enough now.
Yeah, Physical is physical. Got it. And time is what clocks measure and clocks are what
measure time. Perfect.
> > > 4) You seem to follow the typical crank notion of the scientific
> > > method, which is to decide a priori what is "real" and then confined
> > > physical theories to decribing what is "real." The problem with this
> > > is two-fold: First, nobody knows what's "real" in any absolute sense.
> > > We only know what we sense, and we act on those sensations to build
> > > conceptual abstractions. Second, physics has benefitted tremendously
> > > from the use of abstract principles (such as least action and
> > > conservation rules of all types) that have advanced the art far ahead
> > > of your naive notions of what is "real."
> >
> > And as I've said to you many times, and as I repeated above, I do not attempt to get
into
> > the discussion of what is real and what is not.
>
> Have you not told us that time is unreal?
I've said that time is a fantasy. By that, I mean not only is it not is it not physical,
it's totally unnecessary to the study of matter and energy. It desrves no consideration
in physics at all.
> > You're inventing a straw man against
> > which to argue instead of me. That's no wonder. That you have to resort to
derogatory
> > labels of me
>
> I actually didn't mean to direct it to you. But if the
> characterization fits, so be it. You decide. I don't think you're a
> crank, but I do think you have closed your mind to the views of
> others. You don't seem to really hear what others are saying before
> you reject their ideas.
Bullshit. You label the post about cranks and then address it to me. At least have the
guts to admit it, chickenshit.
> All I am saying, is give my ideas a real chance. I have requestged
> many challenges from you and you haven't replied to a single one of
> them yet.
And that's bulshit too. Just like you continue to assert that I've made claims about
reality even though I have not, I've responded to every single challenge you've made. The
fact that you do not grasp them or disagree with them is wholly different than your
assertion that I've not replied to one. so here's a challenge for you........list the
challenges you made of me where I did not post a reply.
> > and now invent arguments I've not made is consistent with someone who knows
> > they cannot construct a logical argument for their position. The fact that you had to
> > start a new thread with this header further illustrates my point.
> >
> > > So, why do you have all these misconceptions about the nature of
> > > physics? Because the science educational establishment refuses to
> > > teach ANY of this stuff to physics students.
> [snip]
> >
> >
> > > > > To be physical, simply put, is to be modeled in a physical theory,
> > > > > which includes all variables for which there are operational
> > > > > definitions.
> > > >
> > > > I disagree. To be physical, within the context of physics, is to be observable.
>
> You are free to disagree, but the above constitues my characterization
> of what it means to be physical in physical theories.
But you are the one challenging me and so I'm giving you the answers to your challenge.
Now it's you who, instead of pointing out the flaw in my logic or reasoning simple walks
away with *I disagree*. No shit. I got that from your very first post to me. So lets'
summarize, shall we? The science of physics is the study of matter and energy within the
notion that matter and energy are physical, and that what's physical is what's observable
and what's observable is that which stimulates the senses.
> > > I have told you this repeatedly and you're not getting it.
> >
> > That statement, right there, is the height of arrogance and a closed mind.
> >
> > > How do we
> > > really know when something is observable? Intuition? Common sense? No!
> > > It's the theory that tells us what is "observable."
> >
> > No, the stimulation of our senses, directly or with the aid of instrumentation, tells
us
> > what's observable.
>
> You seem to treat the human mind as an etchisketch, an isomorphism
> between reality and human conceptualization of reality. The statement
> "Instrument X measures variable Y" is meaningless without an abstract
> notion of the variable Y in the human mind inthe first place. In the
> process of mind creating order from the chaos of sensory experiences,
> the minds acts actively, not passively, to invent the notion that
> human can make "measuring instruments." The universe doesn't make
> measuring instruments. People do. We can make them up any damn way we
> want. The only constraint is that whatever we invent has to compete
> against what others invent. May the best concepts and their measuring
> instruments win.
And again you skip right over the concept of what we choose to measure. Yes, of course we
invent instruments to measure, but to measure what? About what were we so curious that we
wanted to measure it? What is it that made us curious? How did our mind ever know what
it was we wanted to know more about? the mind is trying to "create order from the chaos
of sensory experiences", but what did we sense to give us those experiences? You've just
adopted my position. We humans get sensory impulses and we study them. We can invent
tools (tangible and abstract), instruments, abstractions, or anything else we want to help
us, but lets' keep them straight and not confuse these with that which stimulated our
senses in the first place.
> > > If you disagree, then tell us how YOU know when something is
> > > measurable? That is, provide the general rule by which we can
> > > objectively tell. I'll bet you won't even try to do this. And give an
> > > example.
> >
> > If you weren't such an ass, you'd know that I've done this plenty of times. I know
> > something is physical if it stimulates my senses directly or with the aid of
> > instrumentation.
>
> And this way of knowing is infallible and nonsubjective?
If you had not parsed my post, which is terrible disengenuous, you'd see that I
specifically addressed that See below:
>
>
> > That's not to say that it's always a clear cut case as what is and is
> > not observable. But that's where the study of the thing, the physics of it, comes
into
> > play.
> >
> > See your fingers moving on your keyboard? Your keyboard is just as observable as the
> > motion of your fingers and the distance between the keys.
>
> Are fields or particles or atoms or hydrogen or photons real?
Rephrase your question without the use of the term real. I've told you as many times as
you've tried to foist that term on me that I'm not addressing reality at all.
eel...@yahoo.com
yardstick and Bert's ruler, how they are actually being perceived by
Al and Bert, and how they 'seem' to be viewed by Al and Bert,
namely in their chimera-contracted forms. We do not get a single
perceptual reality by claiming Al's contracted yardstick corresponds
to Bert's stretched ruler. They do not 'correspond'. When Al
accelerates, his hyper-rotation through 4-D spacetime makes the
projection of both space AND time from Bert's perceptual reality
STRETCH. We already knew Bert's seconds stretched out to longer
temporal lengths from Al's point of view. But it is also true that
Bert's actual ruler image (not the chimera image) also stretches its
length from Al's point of view. Let me go over that again. Bert
measures one foot between the two ends of his ruler simultaneously.
Since Al accelerated himself, those ORIGINAL ruler ends are no longer
synchronous from his new point of view, but have some time interval
between them, namely (vd/f). In order that the ultimately real
ruler's 4-D spacetime interval remain unchanged even between
different viewers, we know from Bert's perceptual reality that the
simultaneous time of both ends (i.e. with no time difference) gives the
ultimately real ruler a time component zero squared, minus the length
component one foot squared; i.e. 0^2 - 1^2 = -1. That must match
the non-simultaneous time desynchronization between Bert's ruler's
ends, as experienced by our post-accelerated Al, namely (v*1)/ f
squared, minus its length as perceived by Al, D squared; i.e. (v/f)^2
- D^2. Thus D^2 = v^2/f^2 + 1 = (v^2 + f^2) / f^2 = 1/f^2. So D =
1/f. = gamma feet > one foot. Again, we see Bert's objects actually
stretch both in time AND distance in Al's perceptual reality. And
vice-versa. The incompatability in trying to subsume all this
within only one encompassing perceptual reality is NOT that both Bert
and Al appear thinner from each other's point of view. It is that
their ACTUAL images both appear FATTER to the other. It is just that
no one ever gets to NOTICE this oddity because we can't see through
time. In light of the above your Bomb Problem is easily resolved.
I, of course, leave that to you.
Lee Groth
Eric Gisse
[snippy]
5) ...a decent understanding of Linear Algebra. I have noticed an
amazing amount of incoherant babble about dimensions.
6) Calculus. A fair chunk of the cranks here just do not understand
calculus which indicates to me that it is either ignorance [curable]
or just simple lack of mental horsepower that drives them [incurable,
stupid is forever]. Cranks like Henri Wilson, Androcles, and eleaticus
come to mind.
7) An understanding that you can seperate the man from the theory. I
don't need to know Maxwell or his quirks to understand his theories,
nor do I need to know Einstein to know his theories.For example,
eleaticus keeps going on about how Einstein 'said' this and thus SR is
false, while completely ignoring the fact that Einstein doesn't
matter. Or Androcles, who consistantly whines about an old derivation
of SR that he obviously does not understand.
Bleeh.
Paul Stowe
>"AllYou!" <ida...@conversent.net> wrote in message news:<lIudndpoNPE...@conversent.net>...
>> "Patrick Reany" <re...@asu.edu> wrote in message
>> news:844a1b64.04112...@posting.google.com...
>>> "AllYou!" <ida...@conversent.net> wrote in message
>> news:<bYWdnSvDD4q...@conversent.net>...
>>>
>>> In order to do something artificial, like do physics, one has to
>>> invent concepts which are not needed by Nature for it to operate, yet
>>> are needed for humans to understand Nature metrically. Perhaps Nature
>>> is not dependent on the concept of event, but human physics is. That's
>>> why we use it. BTW, it is a free creation of the human mind. It works.
>>
>> Sure, as long as you keep your wits about you and cntinue to know the
>> difference between that which is physical and that which are the human
>> abstractions. In the case of time, the scientific community has
>> confused the two.
>
> Of course they have confused the two! The physics community today,
> unlike 70 years ago, is overall very ignorant of philosophical issues
> about physics. So, it naively thinks that its theoretical abstractions
> deals directly with "reality," at least in part. However, most cranks
> here also believe the same thing.
Well this dissident 'thinks' that there exists an objective, independent
reality. How we descibe it is dictated BY that reality. It chooses, we
don't! The universe IS mechanistic (causal chain limited).
> What you don't seem to get philosophically is
>
> 1) all concepts in physical theories are abstract, no matter what
> perception of the human sensation-mind inspired the use of the
> concept. All of them. ...
By you definition EVERYTHING humans do or say is absract. Hell, we
invented language. But WHY did we invent language?
> Every last one! That means time, space, matter, charge, velocity, etc.
Bullshit! It doesn't smell any sweeter with repetition. We assign
terms to descibe and, hopefully, quantify. But, without being able
TO descibe the causal chain ANY theory fails at it core.
> The concept invented to characterize or represent the "real" thing
> is still NOT the thing itself. It's just a model of it, at best.
Tell that to the chair you're sitting on...
> However, models do not just represent material essence, they can also
> represent behavior, even if the physicality aspect of the model is
> highly questionable!! This form of abstraction is the single hardest
> thing for cranks to get regarding the nature of physics. Theories are
> only accountable to measurable behavior, not to physical essences
> (metaphysics)! And, to stack the deck, it's the theory that tells you
> what is measurable!
Again, bullshit. Many theories deal in abstract unmeasurable entities.
> 2) Physics is likely not much hurt by this general lack of
> appreciation concerning the abstract nature of time. Physicists tend
> to NOT keep their wits about them concerning time, yet they tend to be
> able to invent principle theories that work anyway. The single biggest
> error that the crank believes is that modern physics is not successful.
> It is!
Of course. You can ALWAY putin placeholders for gaps in actual knowledge.
But it is, and will alway be, a lousy subsitute.
> 3) As Einstein told Schrodinger one day in 1925-6, it is the theory
> that tells you want it can measure. It does this by freely inventing
> physical concepts and by inventing operational definitions of how
> those concepts relate to direct measurements. Defined operationally,
> time is no worse off than any other variable of physics that gets
> "measured."
Playing Ostrich is a fools game.
> 4) You seem to follow the typical crank notion of the scientific
> method, which is to decide a priori what is "real" and then confined
> physical theories to decribing what is "real." The problem with this
> is two-fold: First, nobody knows what's "real" in any absolute sense.
> We only know what we sense, and we act on those sensations to build
> conceptual abstractions. Second, physics has benefitted tremendously
> from the use of abstract principles (such as least action and
> conservation rules of all types) that have advanced the art far ahead
> of your naive notions of what is "real."
I have the surrounding world to indicate what is 'real'. The issue
is to figure out that puzzle.
> So, why do you have all these misconceptions about the nature of
> physics? Because the science educational establishment refuses to
> teach ANY of this stuff to physics students.
Go peddle you droning some place else, we're well over stocked here!!!
>>> The concept of event is sometimes left primitive, but I will define it
>>> as an occurrence having a specific place and time in all frames of
>>> reference, and then leave 'occurrence' undefined.
>
> Bilge reminds us that 'event' is also used to mean a point in
> spacetime. He's right that it is ALSO used this way, creating an
> equivocation of meaning, but my definition is also right.
Bilge is an unimaginative drone.
>>> Besides, anything that isn't obvious to 99.99% of the people must be
>>> justified by a theory at best and by a hypothesis at worst. That's
>>> just the reality of human understanding and justification. Theory and
>>> hypothesis fills the gaping holes in our conceptual interpretations of
>>> the world, which are the conceptual voids where things are not
>>> "obvious."
>>>
>>>> If physics is the search for a description of physical events, what
>>>> is physical about time?
>>>
>>> To be physical, simply put, is to be modeled in a physical theory,
>>> which includes all variables for which there are operational
>>> definitions.
>>
>> I disagree. To be physical, within the context of physics, is to be observable.
>
> I have told you this repeatedly and you're not getting it. How do we
> really know when something is observable? Intuition? Common sense? No!
> It's the theory that tells us what is "observable."
Drop a rock on your foot & see how 'observable' it is! Hold your breath
become aware of how observable the atmosphere becomes...
> If you disagree, then tell us how YOU know when something is measurable?
> That is, provide the general rule by which we can objectively tell. I'll
> bet you won't even try to do this. And give an example.
For such an educated person you sure can ccome up with moronic comments.
Paul Stowe
Bill Hobba
Where the hell do you get that idea from? You might like to peruse the
physics curricula of an actual university eg MIT -
http://web.mit.edu/physics/undergrad/majors/degreereqs.html
Notice the specialization Philosophy of Science and its subjects:
24.111 (3-0-9) Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics
24.215 (3-0-9) Topics in the Philosophy of Science
The fact AllYou! confuses his inane semantic drivel with actual reasoned
philosophical discourse does not mean such is not taught nor studied by
those interested in such. One can only imagine the hilarity that would
result if AllYou! had to stand in front of such a group and justify his
ideas.
Bill
Patrick Reany
Wrong.
> Hell, we
> invented language. But WHY did we invent language?
>
> > Every last one! That means time, space, matter, charge, velocity, etc.
>
> Bullshit! It doesn't smell any sweeter with repetition. We assign
> terms to descibe and, hopefully, quantify.
Realists are ALWAYS hoping and NEVER proving.
> But, without being able
> TO descibe the causal chain ANY theory fails at it core.
Prove that anything really causes anything else to happen. Don't
appeal to commonsense. I will accept commonsense already as
suggestive, but not as proof.
>
> > The concept invented to characterize or represent the "real" thing
> > is still NOT the thing itself. It's just a model of it, at best.
>
> Tell that to the chair you're sitting on...
The chair pays more attention than you do.
>
> > However, models do not just represent material essence, they can also
> > represent behavior, even if the physicality aspect of the model is
> > highly questionable!! This form of abstraction is the single hardest
> > thing for cranks to get regarding the nature of physics. Theories are
> > only accountable to measurable behavior, not to physical essences
> > (metaphysics)! And, to stack the deck, it's the theory that tells you
> > what is measurable!
>
> Again, bullshit. Many theories deal in abstract unmeasurable entities.
Do tell us about them. Not that it makes any difference anyway because
all I referred to was what physical theories are accountable to
empirically.
>
> > 2) Physics is likely not much hurt by this general lack of
> > appreciation concerning the abstract nature of time. Physicists tend
> > to NOT keep their wits about them concerning time, yet they tend to be
> > able to invent principle theories that work anyway. The single biggest
> > error that the crank believes is that modern physics is not successful.
> > It is!
>
> Of course. You can ALWAY putin placeholders for gaps in actual knowledge.
> But it is, and will alway be, a lousy subsitute.
a lousy substitute for what?
>
> > 3) As Einstein told Schrodinger one day in 1925-6, it is the theory
> > that tells you want it can measure. It does this by freely inventing
> > physical concepts and by inventing operational definitions of how
> > those concepts relate to direct measurements. Defined operationally,
> > time is no worse off than any other variable of physics that gets
> > "measured."
>
> Playing Ostrich is a fools game.
As opposed to what?
>
> > 4) You seem to follow the typical crank notion of the scientific
> > method, which is to decide a priori what is "real" and then confined
> > physical theories to decribing what is "real." The problem with this
> > is two-fold: First, nobody knows what's "real" in any absolute sense.
> > We only know what we sense, and we act on those sensations to build
> > conceptual abstractions. Second, physics has benefitted tremendously
> > from the use of abstract principles (such as least action and
> > conservation rules of all types) that have advanced the art far ahead
> > of your naive notions of what is "real."
>
> I have the surrounding world to indicate what is 'real'. The issue
> is to figure out that puzzle.
How does that work, exactly? You experience something and then infer
deep reality from it? It this inference uniquely determined by your
experiences?
[snip]
> >>>
> >>> To be physical, simply put, is to be modeled in a physical theory,
> >>> which includes all variables for which there are operational
> >>> definitions.
> >>
> >> I disagree. To be physical, within the context of physics, is to be observable.
> >
> > I have told you this repeatedly and you're not getting it. How do we
> > really know when something is observable? Intuition? Common sense? No!
> > It's the theory that tells us what is "observable."
>
> Drop a rock on your foot & see how 'observable' it is! Hold your breath
> become aware of how observable the atmosphere becomes...
Your proffered examples are to contradict what in what I claimed? If
your height of sophistication regarding theories is this: "rock, drop,
hit foot, pain is experienced," then you're somewhat behind the times
in science, about 2000 years.
When was the last time you personally experienced a neutrino
interaction through human senses?
>
> > If you disagree, then tell us how YOU know when something is measurable?
> > That is, provide the general rule by which we can objectively tell. I'll
> > bet you won't even try to do this. And give an example.
>
> For such an educated person you sure can ccome up with moronic comments.
>
> Paul Stowe
If anything, it's a moronic question, which you failed to answer.
Patrick
AllYou!
> > 2) Physics is likely not much hurt by this general lack of
> > appreciation concerning the abstract nature of time. Physicists tend
> > to NOT keep their wits about them concerning time, yet they tend to be
> > able to invent principle theories that work anyway. The single biggest
> > error that the crank believes is that modern physics is not successful.
> > It is!
>
> Of course. You can ALWAY putin placeholders for gaps in actual knowledge.
> But it is, and will alway be, a lousy subsitute.
Perfectly said. I could not agree more.
Bilge
>> Of course they have confused the two! The physics community today,
>> unlike 70 years ago, is overall very ignorant of philosophical issues
>> about physics. So, it naively thinks that its theoretical abstractions
>> deals directly with "reality," at least in part. However, most cranks
>> here also believe the same thing.
>
> Well this dissident 'thinks' that there exists an objective, independent
> reality. How we descibe it is dictated BY that reality. It chooses, we
> don't! The universe IS mechanistic (causal chain limited).
You mean everything is connected with little gears and pullies?
>
>> What you don't seem to get philosophically is
>>
>> 1) all concepts in physical theories are abstract, no matter what
>> perception of the human sensation-mind inspired the use of the
>> concept. All of them. ...
>
> By you definition EVERYTHING humans do or say is absract. Hell, we
> invented language. But WHY did we invent language?
So that rational people could communicate and quickly weed out
the kooks who decided that the good old days of grunting and
foot-stomping were more meaningful than a page full of symbols.
[...]
>> Bilge reminds us that 'event' is also used to mean a point in
>> spacetime. He's right that it is ALSO used this way, creating an
>> equivocation of meaning, but my definition is also right.
>
> Bilge is an unimaginative drone.
Since you equate ``imaginative'' with rehashing a 150 year old
theory and doing it less credibly than the original, I'll take that
as a compliment. If you actually thought I was imaginative, I'd
have to stop and determine whether you were just insulting me or
if I had really thrown in the towel on understanding the physics
of this century and started rehashing the mistakes of long dead
physicists in a lame attempt to kid myself about being original.
ste...@nomail.com
: Paul Stowe:
: > Bilge is an unimaginative drone.
:
: Since you equate ``imaginative'' with rehashing a 150 year old
: theory and doing it less credibly than the original, I'll take that
: as a compliment.
It is also the sign of a hypocrite. I am quite sure
Mr. Stowe does not seek out the most imaginative doctors
or medicies when he is ill, but instead relies on things
that have been tried and tested. Nor does he buy the
most imaginative car design or go to the most imaginative
mechanic but instead relies on things that have been shown
to work.
This idea that one is unimaginative if they do not
reject the ideas of others that have been shown
to work is just ludicrous.
This is supposed to be science, not creative writing.
Imagination has its uses but it is not the ultimate goal
of science. Indeed, why would you even publish a theory
unless you just want a bunch of ``unimaginative drones''
following you around? Shouldn't you instead just encourage
them to be imaginative, and whether they agree with you on
anything is totally besides the point.
Stephen
Daniel Weston
which helps him write their stuff. Some days they are more mentally
challenged than others. They learned their philosophy in theology
school. At least they want to save Western Science. Their heart is in
the right place.
AllYou!
"Daniel Weston" <dani...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:10475-41A...@storefull-3134.bay.webtv.net...
Hey Danny, you arrogant dickhead! Although there are plenty of other here of your ilk
(arrogant assholes), you're the most pathetic because you are, by far and away, the
dumbest of them all. And to that end, see if you can address any of this?
Why have you not taken advantage of the opportunity to weigh in on the substantive issues
raised by this portion of this thread? Is it that far over your pin head?
Have you figure out what it means to debate an issue without taking that which is under
discussion as a given?
Have you figured out how totally ludicrous it is to argue a position simply on the basis
of definitions?
Tell us, Danny ole boy.........tell us how it's valid to argue against the assertion that
speed should be calculated by the ratio of distance to motion because of how speed is
defined. In fact, please tell us the difference between the definition of speed and the
science of quantifying it. IOW, how do you define speed separate from how you quantify
it? Then, when you're done with that, please explain that speed should not be quantified
differently than the ratio of distance to motion without simply asserting that it's not
the way we currently do so.
Please Danny, please enlighten all of us with your wisdom. Please show us that you
understand the concepts of *definitions* and *quantification*; how the two are different
and how they relate; and how you would construct an argument. This should be very
educational (snicker).
Patrick Reany
I expected you to do better than to be taken in by a mere platitude.
The claim you gave your assent to is vacuous!
If there is only one good thing about the study of philosophy it is
that it helps us from being taken in by a platitude.
Patrick
Patrick Reany
> Bilge <dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote:
[snip]
>
> This is supposed to be science, not creative writing.
> Imagination has its uses but it is not the ultimate goal
> of science.
You really believe that there is no creative thinking in the doing of
science and in the invention of theories that work? Newton did not use
creative thinking? Galileo did not use creative thinking?
Tell us what you think is the ultimate goal of science, and how
precisely it is to be achieved.
Patrick
AllYou!
Notwithstanding any point you were trying to make, tell me this, if physics is about
building models which work, what is the model for time and how does it work?
robert j. kolker
AllYou! wrote:
>
> Notwithstanding any point you were trying to make, tell me this, if physics is about
> building models which work, what is the model for time and how does it work?
An ideal pendulum. Any non-damped harmonic oscillator can be used to
operationally define time. Just count the cycles.
Bob Kolker
AllYou!
"robert j. kolker" <now...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:30k5u2F...@uni-berlin.de...
Those are models of motion. All you've done is assert the existence of time with no
scientific justification whatsoever.
Did you observe time? Which combination of your senses did it stimulate? If not
directly, which instrument did you use which received some sort of input from time so as
to render an output which you could observe?
Eric Gisse
Why ask the questions if you are simply going to argue the about
answer ad infinitum?
Paul Stowe
>Bilge <dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote:
>: Paul Stowe:
>: > Bilge is an unimaginative drone.
>:
>: Since you equate ``imaginative'' with rehashing a 150 year old
>: theory and doing it less credibly than the original, I'll take that
>: as a compliment.
>
> It is also the sign of a hypocrite.
For whom?
> I am quite sure Mr. Stowe does not seek out the most
> imaginative doctors or medicines when he is ill, but
> instead relies on things that have been tried and tested.
If I had a life threatening condition you can be DAMNED
CERTAIN that I will seek out the latest treatments that
were developed by imaginative researchers. I would not
be looking for those wielding leaches...
> Nor does he buy the most imaginative car design ...
On the contrary, I'm a proud owner of a 91 Volvo Bertone Coupe.
>... or go to the most imaginative mechanic
Hey, I like my imaginative mechanic :)
> but instead relies on things that have been shown to work.
>
> This idea that one is unimaginative if they do not reject
> the ideas of others that have been shown to work is just
> ludicrous.
Never said otherwise. OTOH that NOT the problem.
> This is supposed to be science, not creative writing.
It should be BOTH!
> Imagination has its uses but it is not the ultimate goal
> of science.
Really?
> Indeed, why would you even publish a theory unless you just
> want a bunch of ``unimaginative drones'' following you around?
Ego stroking...
> Shouldn't you instead just encourage them to be imaginative,
YES!
> ... and whether they agree with you on anything is totally
> besides the point.
Quite true. But, they would have to demonstrate some original
thought.
Paul Stowe
Paul Stowe
A quick, short question. Do the concept of time have any meaning without
physical motion?
Paul Stowe
Paul Stowe
>Paul Stowe <p...@acompletelyjunkaddress.net> wrote in message news:<lup7q05nslgaq7q51...@4ax.com>...
>> On 23 Nov 2004 06:18:03 -0800, re...@asu.edu (Patrick Reany) wrote:
>>
>> >"AllYou!" <ida...@conversent.net> wrote in message news:<lIudndpoNPE...@conversent.net>...
>>>> "Patrick Reany" <re...@asu.edu> wrote in message
>>>> news:844a1b64.04112...@posting.google.com...
[Snip...]
>>> Of course they have confused the two! The physics community today,
>>> unlike 70 years ago, is overall very ignorant of philosophical issues
>>> about physics. So, it naively thinks that its theoretical abstractions
>>> deals directly with "reality," at least in part. However, most cranks
>>> here also believe the same thing.
>>
>> Well this dissident 'thinks' that there exists an objective, independent
>> reality. How we descibe it is dictated BY that reality. It chooses, we
>> don't! The universe IS mechanistic (causal chain limited).
>>
>>> What you don't seem to get philosophically is
>>>
>>> 1) all concepts in physical theories are abstract, no matter what
>>> perception of the human sensation-mind inspired the use of the
>>> concept. All of them. ...
>>
>> By you definition EVERYTHING humans do or say is abstract.
>
> Wrong.
'Prove' it...
>> Hell, we invented language. But WHY did we invent language?
>>
>>> Every last one! That means time, space, matter, charge, velocity, etc.
>>
>> Bullshit! It doesn't smell any sweeter with repetition. We assign
>> terms to descibe and, hopefully, quantify.
>
> Realists are ALWAYS hoping and NEVER proving.
How does one 'prove'?
>> But, without being able TO descibe the causal chain ANY theory
>> fails at it core.
>
> Prove that anything really causes anything else to happen. Don't
> appeal to commonsense. I will accept commonsense already as
> suggestive, but not as proof.
Ah, the philospher's dilemma, 'proof'.
>>> The concept invented to characterize or represent the "real" thing
>>> is still NOT the thing itself. It's just a model of it, at best.
>>
>> Tell that to the chair you're sitting on...
>
> The chair pays more attention than you do.
Ah, but the 'chair' is quite real, and about as good of proof of
a 'real' thing as it gets...
>>> However, models do not just represent material essence, they can also
>>> represent behavior, even if the physicality aspect of the model is
>>> highly questionable!! This form of abstraction is the single hardest
>>> thing for cranks to get regarding the nature of physics. Theories are
>>> only accountable to measurable behavior, not to physical essences
>>> (metaphysics)! And, to stack the deck, it's the theory that tells you
>>> what is measurable!
>>
>> Again, bullshit. Many theories deal in abstract unmeasurable entities.
>
> Do tell us about them.
Virtual photons for one example...
> Not that it makes any difference anyway because all I referred to was
> what physical theories are accountable to empirically.
All of 'reality' is empirical...
>>> 2) Physics is likely not much hurt by this general lack of
>>> appreciation concerning the abstract nature of time. Physicists tend
>>> to NOT keep their wits about them concerning time, yet they tend to be
>>> able to invent principle theories that work anyway. The single biggest
>>> error that the crank believes is that modern physics is not successful.
>>> It is!
>>
>> Of course. You can ALWAY putin placeholders for gaps in actual knowledge.
>> But it is, and will alway be, a lousy subsitute.
>
> a lousy substitute for what?
For actual understanding.
>>> 3) As Einstein told Schrodinger one day in 1925-6, it is the theory
>>> that tells you want it can measure. It does this by freely inventing
>>> physical concepts and by inventing operational definitions of how
>>> those concepts relate to direct measurements. Defined operationally,
>>> time is no worse off than any other variable of physics that gets
>>> "measured."
>>
>> Playing Ostrich is a fools game.
>
> As opposed to what?
As opposed to looking 'at' the 'man behind the curtain'...
>>> 4) You seem to follow the typical crank notion of the scientific
>>> method, which is to decide a priori what is "real" and then confined
>>> physical theories to decribing what is "real." The problem with this
>>> is two-fold: First, nobody knows what's "real" in any absolute sense.
>>> We only know what we sense, and we act on those sensations to build
>>> conceptual abstractions. Second, physics has benefitted tremendously
>>> from the use of abstract principles (such as least action and
>>> conservation rules of all types) that have advanced the art far ahead
>>> of your naive notions of what is "real."
>>
>> I have the surrounding world to indicate what is 'real'. The issue
>> is to figure out that puzzle.
>
> How does that work, exactly? You experience something and then infer
> deep reality from it? It this inference uniquely determined by your
> experiences?
How DOES one solve any puzzle?
> [snip]
>
>>>>>
>>>>> To be physical, simply put, is to be modeled in a physical theory,
>>>>> which includes all variables for which there are operational
>>>>> definitions.
>>>>
>>>> I disagree. To be physical, within the context of physics, is to be observable.
>>>
>>> I have told you this repeatedly and you're not getting it. How do we
>>> really know when something is observable? Intuition? Common sense? No!
>>> It's the theory that tells us what is "observable."
>>
>> Drop a rock on your foot & see how 'observable' it is! Hold your breath
>> become aware of how observable the atmosphere becomes...
>
> Your proffered examples are to contradict what in what I claimed? If
> your height of sophistication regarding theories is this: "rock, drop,
> hit foot, pain is experienced," then you're somewhat behind the times
> in science, about 2000 years.
It is perfect examples of the fact that theories 'tell us' NOTHING!
They, to varying degrees allow us to propose explainations and/or
emperical correlations of the independent surroundings.
> When was the last time you personally experienced a neutrino interaction
> through human senses?
Precisely! Show me an experiment that measure 'a' neutrino!
>>> If you disagree, then tell us how YOU know when something is measurable?
>>> That is, provide the general rule by which we can objectively tell. I'll
>>> bet you won't even try to do this. And give an example.
>>
>> For such an educated person you sure can ccome up with moronic comments.
>>
>> Paul Stowe
>
> If anything, it's a moronic question, which you failed to answer.
Are you playing Jeopardy???
Paul Stowe
Eric Gisse
Yes.
Where is the motion in radioactive decay?
I really am missing the point in the argument about the existance of
time...Although Allyou! is being an argumenative asshole on purpose,
im sure there was a legitimate reason for the asking of the question
hidden somewhere.
David McAnally
This was presumably why, when I was writing about the fact that Maxwell's
homogeneous equations are Galilean-invariant under the transformation law,
E_x' = E_x,
E_y' = E_y - v B_z,
E_z' = E_z + v B_y,
B_x' = B_x,
B_y' = B_y,
B_z' = B_z,
and Maxwell's inhomogeneous equations are Galilean-invariant under the
transformation law,
E_x' = E_x,
E_y' = E_y,
E_z' = E_z,
B_x' = B_x,
B_y' = B_y + v/c^2 E_z,
B_z' = B_z - v/c^2 E_y,
\rho' = \rho,
J_x' = J_x - v \rho,
J_y' = J_y,
J_z' = J_z,
Androcles responded by introducing completely irrelevant comments about
Einstein's 1905 paper. (By the way, I noted at the time that the full set
of equations was not Galilean-invariant since there is no transformation
law for the EM field which makes them all Galilean-invariant). He also
responded to my discussion about the fact that both the transformation
laws were symmetric between the primed and unprimed frames (replacing v by
-v while interchanging the frames) with more irrelevant comments about
Einstein's 1905 paper. At the time that Androcles did this, I had not
said anything about Einstein's 1905 paper (the paper was so irrelevant to
what I was saying at the time that I didn't even think about the paper).
It may also explain Androcles' obsession with the definition of x' = x-vt
that Einstein used in his 1905 paper (where Einstein used (x,t) for the
coordinates in one inertial frame, and (\xi,\tau) in the other).
Androcles pursued this to the point that, when I introduced the Lorentz
Transformation
x' = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2),
t' = (t-vx/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2),
Androcles objected on the basis that "x' = x-vt". Apparently, as far as
Androcles is concerned, one is not discussing special relativity unless
one sets x' = x-vt, and uses the same notation that Einstein used in his
1905 paper. Interestingly, in Einstein's book of 1916, where he was
writing for the layman, he was using (x',t') as the coordinates in the
transformed frame, in the same way as they are used in the Lorentz
Transformartion above.
Another odd behaviour from Androcles, which has not been covered here,
is that Androcles seems to rigidly believe that x' takes values like
0', 1', 2', etc, and not 0, 1, 2. For Androcles, the equation x' = 2
is meaningless since he believes that x' cannot take value 2, believing
instead that the value should be denoted by 2'.
David
-----
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"Paul Stowe" <p...@acompletelyjunkaddress.net> wrote in message
news:2pgaq0htch8ihqr0k...@4ax.com...
> On 24 Nov 2004 18:22:04 -0800, jow...@gmail.com (Eric Gisse) wrote:
...
>> Why ask the questions if you are simply going to argue the about
>> answer ad infinitum?
>
> A quick, short question. Do[es] the concept of time have any meaning
> without physical motion?
Yes. And no. Motion *locally* is not required. I've had some classes in
which boredom set in, and the only thing moving was the teacher's mouth...
"Change" might be a better constituent to the definition of time. Like a
bromate clock...
Happy Turkey Day, Paul!
Patrick Reany
> Paul Stowe: You have to take it easy on Patrick Reany and his friend
> which helps him write their stuff.
> Some days they are more mentally
> challenged than others.
Yeah, after four cups of coffee! What's your excuse?
> They learned their philosophy in theology
> school. At least they want to save Western Science. Their heart is in
> the right place.
Thought for the day:
It is better to pontificate than to argue; for with the
latter one might lose, but with the former, one always wins.
(-;
Patrick
Patrick Reany
First, we aren't gods. Human knowledge is at best a placeholder
substitute for truth. Get used to it! To everything we know, we must
admit that it is part free invention from the human mind.
Second, the long answer to your question:
Every variable in a physical theory, which is a direct measurable, has
three aspects:
1) abstract concepts (conceptual and formal),
2) measuring instruments,
3) operational definitions that connect the first two.
Abstract concepts are simply what is our mind's view of them. Formal
abstract concepts are the representations of our mind's view of the
concepts codified into a formal symbolic system, such as in the theory
of continuous variables in calculus, which is how time is usually
formally modeled. Time is usually taken as an independent continuous
variable.
By use of operational definitions the theorist and the experimentalist
are forced to speak the same language, and I mean this literally, as
the operational definition contains within it a unique public
semantics of the meaning of the variable being measured. You can
personalize the meaning of a variable for private use by adding to it
any additional meaning you care to add into your personal natural
philosophy. However, for communal discourse in physics, the
operational definition is the only allowable intersubjective meaning.
This is the place where metaphysics was removed from physics. And much
of the necessity for doing that goes to the requirement that physics
be intersubjective. We don't have to be concerned about whether
electrons and atoms "really" exist so long as they "exist" relative to
theories that work.
In the case of time, we conceive of time (making it abstract in that
act alone), in which time is used to order events, possibly even
continuously, and metrically (i.e., we can assign ordering by numbers
in such as way that the comparison of pairs of events has meaning
beyond mere ordering). Thus, the short answer: time is typically
modeled in theories as a continuous metrical variable.
We invent the notion of an ideal clock and DECLARE which real
instruments come close to realizing this idealization for particular
usages. The best we can hope for here is consistency of theory and
measurment. When that is satisfied then we invent an operational
definition that completely describes how time measurements are made.
There is no absolute platform we can get into by which to judge the
Truthfulness of any operational definition or judgment about which
clock is "true in reality." Either the theory works or it doesn't.
Hopefully, by now you can see that the entire question of the
existence of a "true clock" is meaningless from the viewpoint of
verification. Instrumentalists, like myself, prefer not to deceive
ourselves that we have more truth than we can prove. Realists don't
seem to have any problem with this kind of self-deception. How many
times I have asked realists to stop making vacuous claims and prove
the claims they repeat over and over, and not one of them has
succeeded in doing so even once.
Realism is the opiate of the masses (epistemologically speaking).
Physics is NOT about reality or truth; it is about the invention of
theories that work, because physics can PROVE that it can accomplish
that much! Hoping that something is true doesn't make it true.
The meaning of a time measurement has no provable absolute status, and
is, in fact, completely under the arbitrary authority of the theory
that uses the concept of time. Different theories can have differing
meanings to time.
And if it hasn't become painfully obvious to you yet, the central
concept in physics is the theory.
Patrick
Patrick Reany
I keep telling you that in physics it is a theory that DECLARES
arbitrarily what time is!! In physics, existence is relative to
theories, not relative to intuition!!
Neither Bob nor myself are trying to JUSTIFY the real existence of
time by the fact that we can "measure" time. "Real time" in physics is
meaningless!! Theoretical time, which is a free invention of the human
mind, can be meaningful.
Patrick
robert j. kolker
Patrick Reany wrote:
> And if it hasn't become painfully obvious to you yet, the central
> concept in physics is the theory.
Perceptions precede theory. What we call facts are perceptions cooked in
the oven of our minds. From perceptions/facts emerge a number of
artifacts which make sense of them. Theory is a Jedi Mind-Trick and a
very useful one at that.
There is nothing in our minds that was not first in our senses.
Bob Kolker
Patrick Reany
The question is ambiguous because of the huge latitude of
interpretation allowed to the phrase "any meaning." But the question
misses the point anyway. Your question amounts to a sort of "chicken
or the egg" argument.
The obvious intention of the question is to get the poster to
eventually admit that there are absolute fundamental variables in
Nature and that we are forced, thereby, to formally treat those
"fundamental variables" as independent in all physical theories. But
this is clearly false from the pragmatic viewpoint. The theorist is
free to decide on the relative fundamentalness of all variables in a
given theory quite arbitrarily, so long as the result is a theory that
works.
In short, the theorist is free to arbitrarily mix variables into a
physical theory independently of the psychology by which those
variables were first invented.
Patrick
Daniel Weston
examples? Radiation certainly entails motion, and I believe change of
mass. I am not arguing with you, I would just like to better understand
the premise.
Paul Stowe
>Paul Stowe <p...@acompletelyjunkaddress.net> wrote in message news:<2pgaq0htch8ihqr0k...@4ax.com>...
>> On 24 Nov 2004 18:22:04 -0800, jow...@gmail.com (Eric Gisse) wrote:
[Snip...]
>> A quick, short question. Do the concept of time have any
>> meaning without physical motion?
>
> The question is ambiguous because of the huge latitude of
> interpretation allowed to the phrase "any meaning." But the
> question misses the point anyway. Your question amounts to a
> sort of "chicken or the egg" argument.
You should be a politician
> The obvious intention of the question is to get the poster to
> eventually admit that there are absolute fundamental variables in
> Nature and that we are forced, thereby, to formally treat those
> "fundamental variables" as independent in all physical theories.
OK fine, name a (as in any) theory that is without (does NOT
contain the concepts of) motion and time.
> But this is clearly false from the pragmatic viewpoint.
Then it will be easy for you to answer the above question.
> The theorist is free to decide on the relative fundamentalness
> of all variables in a given theory quite arbitrarily, so long
> as the result is a theory that works.
Nature doesn't care.
> In short, the theorist is free to arbitrarily mix variables into
> a physical theory independently of the psychology by which those
> variables were first invented.
And all of this, form a simple question.
Paul Stowe
Paul Stowe
>Paul Stowe <p...@acompletelyjunkaddress.net> wrote in message news:<2pgaq0htch8ihqr0k...@4ax.com>...
>> On 24 Nov 2004 18:22:04 -0800, jow...@gmail.com (Eric Gisse) wrote:
>>
>> >"AllYou!" <ida...@conversent.net> wrote in message news:<AaCdnSn0Kbv...@conversent.net>...
>> >> "robert j. kolker" <now...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
>> >> news:30k5u2F...@uni-berlin.de...
[Snip...]
>>>> Did you observe time? Which combination of your senses did it stimulate? If not
>>>> directly, which instrument did you use which received some sort of input from time so as
>>>> to render an output which you could observe?
>>>
>>> Why ask the questions if you are simply going to argue the about
>>> answer ad infinitum?
>>
>> A quick, short question. Do the concept of time have any meaning without
>> physical motion?
>>
>> Paul Stowe
>
> Yes.
Really?
> Where is the motion in radioactive decay?
In its cause. An analogy to such decay is the following,
The classic carnival dunk tank requires that a ball strike a pad attached
to a lever which activates the drop. Hitting the pad with a ball thrown
with enough force. Too little speed (force) and the lever won't move.
Now, assume that those balls are from a form of Brownian motion. Then,
WHEN the lever is struck with enough force is probabilistic. It my happen
in a second , or a minute, or even longer... If the balls a flying around
with random speeds and directions when the strike occurs is unpredictable.
Now, place a lattice of small bubbles (on the order of the same size as
the balls) who's menbrane is, like the pad, when struck with a sufficent
force, penetratable (will pop). This releases a detectable substance
that's within. Now, the brownian motion will be striking the menbrane
surfaces of all of the clump of bubbles at some mean rate and some will
have sufficient speed to pop the bubble. There will result a statistically
characteristic rate at which the bubbles pop. The WILL be an exponential
process with a definable 'half life'.
> I really am missing the point in the argument about the existance of
> time...Although Allyou! is being an argumenative asshole on purpose,
> im sure there was a legitimate reason for the asking of the question
> hidden somewhere.
Well imagine a universe of filled with marbles spaced in a lattice and
NONE (nothing) moves, period. Does the concept of time have any
significance in such???
Paul Stowe
D:cox T:n...@nospam.com> wrote:
>Dear Paul Stowe:
>
>"Paul Stowe" <p...@acompletelyjunkaddress.net> wrote in message
>news:2pgaq0htch8ihqr0k...@4ax.com...
>> On 24 Nov 2004 18:22:04 -0800, jow...@gmail.com (Eric Gisse) wrote:
>...
>>> Why ask the questions if you are simply going to argue the about
>>> answer ad infinitum?
>>
>> A quick, short question. Do[es] the concept of time have any meaning
>> without physical motion?
>
> Yes. And no. Motion *locally* is not required.
Would not a region that is without motion be a region devoid of any
energy whatsoever?
> I've had some classes in which boredom set in, and the only thing
> moving was the teacher's mouth...
:)
> "Change" might be a better constituent to the definition of time.
> Like a bromate clock...
Well my definition of time is "the observed rate of process changes"
> Happy Turkey Day, Paul!
And to you and all. Enjoy and don't over eat :)
Paul Stowe
Bilge
>
>>Bilge <dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote:
>>: Paul Stowe:
>>: > Bilge is an unimaginative drone.
>>:
>>: Since you equate ``imaginative'' with rehashing a 150 year old
>>: theory and doing it less credibly than the original, I'll take that
>>: as a compliment.
>>
>> It is also the sign of a hypocrite.
>
> For whom?
>> I am quite sure Mr. Stowe does not seek out the most
>> imaginative doctors or medicines when he is ill, but
>> instead relies on things that have been tried and tested.
>
> If I had a life threatening condition you can be DAMNED
> CERTAIN that I will seek out the latest treatments that
> were developed by imaginative researchers. I would not
> be looking for those wielding leaches...
That is precisely the point. Your use of the term ``imaginative'' is
hypocritical. You believe 150 year old science that has been shown to be
incorrect is ``inaginative,'' but reject medical treatments by those
modern practioners of the ``imaginative'' medicine of the same era. Why is
that, paul? Modern medical techniques require the use of physics that you
reject, unless you think you know how to build things like an mri machine
or an electron microscope based upon maxwell's 1861 paper. If your ether
theory is quantum mechanical as you claim, you should be able to do this.
>> Nor does he buy the most imaginative car design ...
>
> On the contrary, I'm a proud owner of a 91 Volvo Bertone Coupe.
You're now 2 for 2 in making his point. Your car was designed using the
physics practiced by us ``unimaginative drones.'' Why don't you by a car
from an ``imaginative'' company that rejects quantitave analysis in favor
of following up on carnot's derivation of the carnot cycle from caloric?
Instead, you are driving a car based upon the ``unimaginative'' use of
physics developed by physicists and implemented by engineers who reject
the basis upon which carnot arrived at his theory of heat engines. I
would have to say that whatever is ``imaginative'' about your car is
more aptly called ``design trade-offs'' based upon the research done
by the marketing department in aiming for a particular target market.
>>... or go to the most imaginative mechanic
>
> Hey, I like my imaginative mechanic :)
>> but instead relies on things that have been shown to work.
>>
>> This idea that one is unimaginative if they do not reject
>> the ideas of others that have been shown to work is just
>> ludicrous.
>
> Never said otherwise. OTOH that NOT the problem.
That is _precisely_ the problem, paul and in every post you make, you
aruge ``otherwise''. What you mean by ``unimaginative drone'' is anyone
who expects you to provide quantitative support for your handwaving and
you just get pissed off when you post some hokum about ``benard cells''
to support your ``ether'' and you get called on it. It annoys you when
you say your theory is a ``quantum theory'' and you get asked to show
how it's quantized, rather than have your equivocation of quantum theory
and ``theory about little classical particles'', accepted on its face.
The real irony is that you use terms like ``unimaginative'' and
``drone'' in the same cliched way that every kook with an axe to
grind against modern science uses those terms rather than meet
the criticisms with scientific rebuttals.
>> This is supposed to be science, not creative writing.
>
> It should be BOTH!
Science is not ``creative writing.'' Science is quantitative and
any creativity in writing about is in the ability to communicate the
idea effectively. That often involves using well selected analogies
with the presumption that the reader knows that analogies are just
analogies, not physical processes.
>> Imagination has its uses but it is not the ultimate goal
>> of science.
>
> Really?
Really. The goal of science is to describe nature. Imagination in
science only extends as far as imagining how nature works in a way
that can be quantified. If it can't be quantified, it can't be used
to predict the outcome of an experiment. If it can't be used to
predict the outcome of an experiment, it isn't science.
>> Indeed, why would you even publish a theory unless you just
>> want a bunch of ``unimaginative drones'' following you around?
>
> Ego stroking...
>
>> Shouldn't you instead just encourage them to be imaginative,
>
> YES!
Which means what - that physicists ought to be writing literature based
upon wild conjecture with no quantitative evidence to support it? If so,
then you've failed to appreciate the level at which scientists are
expected to operate. Like everyone else, scientists probably have lots of
``imagintive ideas'', every day. Unlike everyone else, especially science
fiction writers, scientists are expected to turn an idea into something
more substantive than conjecture rather than litter the journals with
speculation. That involves being an unimaginative drone and reading the
physics literature to see if someone has already had a similar idea and
what problems existed with implenting it. There is nothing imaginative
about rehashing old physics based upon ignorance of the old objections
to it. The objections don't go away just because you rediscovered an old
idea that was abandonded for reasons you don't understand or of which you
aren't aware.
>> ... and whether they agree with you on anything is totally
>> besides the point.
>
> Quite true. But, they would have to demonstrate some original
> thought.
Physicists have to demonstrate more than that. They have to demonstrate
the ability to take that ``original thought'', quantify it and present it
clearly so that other physicists know precisely what they mean and how
to use the idea to calculate things. By contrast, you have refused to
provide even a list of assumptions with the mathematical statements that
quantify them.
Bilge
>[snip]
>>
>> This is supposed to be science, not creative writing.
>> Imagination has its uses but it is not the ultimate goal
>> of science.
>
>You really believe that there is no creative thinking in the doing of
>science and in the invention of theories that work? Newton did not use
>creative thinking? Galileo did not use creative thinking?
be science, not creative writing'', and your ``counter-argument''
is ``You really believe that there is no creative thinking in
the doing of science?''
How can you possibly expect anyone to believe that your proposals
to improve the educational system are anything but ludicrous when
you use arguments as blatantly fallacious as the one you just used?
If you are the beneficiary of the type of education you propose,
shouldn't your logical reasoning reflect the benefits you suggest
students will reap?
>Tell us what you think is the ultimate goal of science, and how
>precisely it is to be achieved.
The goal of science it to understand and quantify nature. It
makes little difference _how_ that is achieved, except insofar as
experience has led to the basic procedure nominally called the
scientific method as the most efficient path to that goal.
ste...@nomail.com
: ste...@nomail.com wrote in message news:<co29hk$2afc$2...@msunews.cl.msu.edu>...
:> Bilge <dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote:
: [snip]
:>
:> This is supposed to be science, not creative writing.
:> Imagination has its uses but it is not the ultimate goal
:> of science.
: You really believe that there is no creative thinking in the doing of
: science and in the invention of theories that work? Newton did not use
: creative thinking? Galileo did not use creative thinking?
As bilge pointed out, I did not say that.
What do you think is more important in science: that is makes
correct predictions, or that it is imaginative?
If a theory makes correct predictions is it worthwhile
for someone to learn and and understand that theory,
or is their time better spent ignoring the existing
theory and trying to think up a new one on their own?
Stephen
Paul Stowe
>Patrick Reany <re...@asu.edu> wrote:
>: ste...@nomail.com wrote in message news:<co29hk$2afc$2...@msunews.cl.msu.edu>...
>:> Bilge <dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote:
>: [snip]
>:>
>:> This is supposed to be science, not creative writing.
>:> Imagination has its uses but it is not the ultimate goal
>:> of science.
>
>: You really believe that there is no creative thinking in the doing
>: of science and in the invention of theories that work? Newton did
>: not use creative thinking? Galileo did not use creative thinking?
>
> As bilge pointed out, I did not say that.
The phrase "This is supposed to be science, not creative writing."
is suggestive otherwise. THAT is what Patrick responded to.
> What do you think is more important in science: that is makes
> correct predictions, or that it is imaginative?
What is important to science is that it correctly descibe the
actual functionality of the natural physical universe. If it
does this, correlation, quantification, and predictive power
is a natural outcome...
> If a theory makes correct predictions is it worthwhile for someone
> to learn and and understand that theory, or is their time better
> spent ignoring the existing theory and trying to think up a new one
> on their own?
If a theory quantifies but does not explain itself those 'someones'
are duty bound to try to come up with one that does. If that means
invent something new yes they should. If an existing older idea
can be revised & updated to fit then they also should consider
them.
Paul Stowe
Robert Langston
>Realism is the opiate of the masses (epistemologically speaking).
>Physics is NOT about reality or truth; it is about the invention of
Physical theories try to form a picture of reality... We want the
observed facts to follow logically from our concept of reality.
Without the belief that it is possible to grasp the reality with our
theoretical constructions, without the belief in the inner harmony of
our world, there could be no science. This belief is and always will
remain the fundamental motive for all scientific creation.
Einstein and Infeld, "The Evolution of Physics"
Bilge
>
>>Patrick Reany <re...@asu.edu> wrote:
>>: ste...@nomail.com wrote in message news:
>>: [snip]
>>:>
>>:> This is supposed to be science, not creative writing.
>>:> Imagination has its uses but it is not the ultimate goal
>>:> of science.
>>
>>: You really believe that there is no creative thinking in the doing
>>: of science and in the invention of theories that work? Newton did
>>: not use creative thinking? Galileo did not use creative thinking?
>>
>> As bilge pointed out, I did not say that.
>
> The phrase "This is supposed to be science, not creative writing."
> is suggestive otherwise. THAT is what Patrick responded to.
select the arguement he wants to make. I didn't read into that
sentence what you say is ``suggestive.''
>> What do you think is more important in science: that is makes
>> correct predictions, or that it is imaginative?
>
> What is important to science is that it correctly descibe the
> actual functionality of the natural physical universe. If it
> does this, correlation, quantification, and predictive power
> is a natural outcome...
Well, that is certainly a point in favor of relativity.
>> If a theory makes correct predictions is it worthwhile for someone
>> to learn and and understand that theory, or is their time better
>> spent ignoring the existing theory and trying to think up a new one
>> on their own?
>
> If a theory quantifies but does not explain itself those 'someones'
> are duty bound to try to come up with one that does. If that means
> invent something new yes they should. If an existing older idea
> can be revised & updated to fit then they also should consider
> them.
Relativity does ``explain itself.'' No theory is limited to only those
explanations you like. You're even a hypocrite about the explanations you
require. Yu expect relativity to provide some ``cause'', for minkowski
geometry, yet you ether provides no such cause for the three dimensional
geometry you simply assert. Why is relativity obligated to explain
something you don't explain? Your theory assumes geometry. Relativity
assumes geometry. The fact that you choose the wrong geometry and incur a
lot of unnecessary difficulties that require convoluted explanations is
your fault and you can't penalize relativity for your poor choice of
geometry.
ste...@nomail.com
: On 24 Nov 2004 15:32:04 GMT, ste...@nomail.com wrote:
:> This is supposed to be science, not creative writing.
: It should be BOTH!
So people should just make up whatever they want?
That is what they do in creative writing.
:> Imagination has its uses but it is not the ultimate goal
:> of science.
: Really?
Yes. The goal of science is not to be as imaginative
as possible, but to develop useful descriptions of
reality. If you are trying to be as imaginative
as possible shouldn't your theory include dragons,
and invisible demons and magic rings?
:> Indeed, why would you even publish a theory unless you just
:> want a bunch of ``unimaginative drones'' following you around?
: Ego stroking...
:> Shouldn't you instead just encourage them to be imaginative,
: YES!
:> ... and whether they agree with you on anything is totally
:> besides the point.
: Quite true. But, they would have to demonstrate some original
: thought.
So you put more value in someone who just makes up original
stuff that has no experimental basis than in someone who
understands an established theory and knows how to apply
that theory in order to explain experimental results?
That seems to be the case. Why bother with experiments
in any case? It seems like an unnecessary constraint
on imagination.
Psychic surgeons seem much more imaginative than a normal
surgeon. They have the ability to imagine that they
can reach into a person's body and remove tumors
and other anomalies without even breaking the patient's
skin. That's imagination! Not like those stuffy old
drone's who think that following established procedures
and using knives is the only way to perform an operation.
Stephen
Paul Stowe
>Paul Stowe <p...@acompletelyjunkaddress.net> wrote:
>: On 24 Nov 2004 15:32:04 GMT, ste...@nomail.com wrote:
>
>:> This is supposed to be science, not creative writing.
>
>: It should be BOTH!
>
> So people should just make up whatever they want?
> That is what they do in creative writing.
Now don't go complaining about Patrick twisting phrases
Stephen! One wonder what about 'BOTH' don't you
understand? If it is BOTH one cannot "make up whatever
they want" because the natural universe dictates &
constrains. So your simple little mind can understand,
that's the science part of BOTH.
>:> Imagination has its uses but it is not the ultimate goal
>:> of science.
>
>: Really?
>
> Yes. The goal of science is not to be as imaginative
> as possible, but to develop useful descriptions of
> reality. If you are trying to be as imaginative
> as possible shouldn't your theory include dragons,
> and invisible demons and magic rings?
If you can correlate them into observation of the world
around us yes. I've yet to see a dragon, have you?
>:> Indeed, why would you even publish a theory unless you just
>:> want a bunch of ``unimaginative drones'' following you around?
>
>: Ego stroking...
>
>:> Shouldn't you instead just encourage them to be imaginative,
>
>: YES!
>
>:> ... and whether they agree with you on anything is totally
>:> besides the point.
>
>: Quite true. But, they would have to demonstrate some original
>: thought.
>
> So you put more value in someone who just makes up original
> stuff that has no experimental basis ...
No where in all of the above do you conclude this? This is
pure fantasy from YOUR mind not my responses...
> than in someone who understands an established theory and
> knows how to apply that theory in order to explain experimental
> results? That seems to be the case. Why bother with experiments
> in any case? It seems like an unnecessary constraint on
> imagination.
>
> Psychic surgeons seem much more imaginative than a normal
> surgeon. They have the ability to imagine that they
> can reach into a person's body and remove tumors
> and other anomalies without even breaking the patient's
> skin. That's imagination! Not like those stuffy old
> drone's who think that following established procedures
> and using knives is the only way to perform an operation.
I'm not responsible for your flights of fancy...
Paul Stowe
xxein
xxein: Amaturish. Once you learn all there is about a seemingly
viable current theory and that it is still lacking - THEN you use your
imagination to attempt to fill the void between the incomplete and
another best guess for a real universal logic. Damn the theories,
full speed ahead: unless you are a confirmed believer that the
relativity theory approach holds all the answers.
Eric Gisse
[snip]
>
> > I really am missing the point in the argument about the existance of
> > time...Although Allyou! is being an argumenative asshole on purpose,
> > im sure there was a legitimate reason for the asking of the question
> > hidden somewhere.
>
> Well imagine a universe of filled with marbles spaced in a lattice and
> NONE (nothing) moves, period. Does the concept of time have any
> significance in such???
With your latticework universe, on the macroscopic scale there is no
time because there is no observable change. That does change on the
microscopic, but I understand the example.
Im still missing the point of the argument. What are you trying to
prove with all this? Im reasonably sure this will boil down very fast
into a question of philosophy which I can't argue...
xxein
xxein: C'mon Patrick. What was that?
Put a little meat on the line, chicken. Or, today, turkey.
Eric Gisse
[snip]
>
> Another odd behaviour from Androcles, which has not been covered here,
> is that Androcles seems to rigidly believe that x' takes values like
> 0', 1', 2', etc, and not 0, 1, 2. For Androcles, the equation x' = 2
> is meaningless since he believes that x' cannot take value 2, believing
> instead that the value should be denoted by 2'.
>
> David
>
> -----
Cool summary. Good thing you let Uncle Al include [most of] that in
his regular response to eleaticus.
I too think the 0', 1', 2' ... notation is kinda odd. But this is
merely a symptom and not the cause of the problem. Androcles and
eleaticus are both idiots. I'm sure you have read the "Unskilled and
Unaware of it" page.
I still wonder who pawned Androcles off onto Einstein's 1905 paper
that is harder to understand than should be.
and...@attglobal.net
>
[stuff delteted]
Reality! What a concept.
Experiments define acceptability of physics
theories, not philosophy.
John Anderson
Androcles
I've yet to see a dragon, have you?
Hey, I had a mother-in-law once. You bet I have!
Androcles.
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"Daniel Weston" <dani...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:17792-41A...@storefull-3136.bay.webtv.net...
It is not that you seek change without motion. Motion is not sufficient.
Everything you see around you is in motion. To exhibit a temperature above
absolute zero is to be in motion. If everything is motion, how can you
differentiate one instant from the next is some repeatable way? You look
for a repeatable event, a change, that provides the resolution required.
You seek change that is periodic, repeatable, stable. Each tool made makes
each successive generation sharper.
David A. Smith
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"Paul Stowe" <p...@acompletelyjunkaddress.net> wrote in message
news:6v5cq01f5qhi9ikiq...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 08:34:11 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N:
> dlzc1
> D:cox T:n...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>>Dear Paul Stowe:
>>
>>"Paul Stowe" <p...@acompletelyjunkaddress.net> wrote in message
>>news:2pgaq0htch8ihqr0k...@4ax.com...
>>> On 24 Nov 2004 18:22:04 -0800, jow...@gmail.com (Eric Gisse) wrote:
>>...
>>>> Why ask the questions if you are simply going to argue the about
>>>> answer ad infinitum?
>>>
>>> A quick, short question. Do[es] the concept of time have any meaning
>>> without physical motion?
>>
>> Yes. And no. Motion *locally* is not required.
>
> Would not a region that is without motion be a region devoid of any
> energy whatsoever?
No. A region without motion is not localizeable.
>> I've had some classes in which boredom set in, and the only thing
>> moving was the teacher's mouth...
>
> :)
>
>> "Change" might be a better constituent to the definition of time.
>> Like a bromate clock...
>
> Well my definition of time is "the observed rate of process changes"
As good as any, as a start. The bromate clock is a process that doesn't so
much change as oscillate around some equilibrium point (until more oxygen
is absorbed from the envitronment). So is this really indicative of a
"process change"?
>> Happy Turkey Day, Paul!
>
> And to you and all. Enjoy and don't over eat :)
Too late.
David A. Smith
Paul Stowe
Look, I started with s single, simple question. The point was to
get readers 'thinking' about the issue, that's all. I've defined
my 'concept' of what time is but, observationally, it IS always
associated with energy (energetic systems). Thus motion seems to
be inexorably linked. That's all. If observation is philosophy
OK, but I cannot think of any example of when time is used where
speed isn't involved. E = mc^2 even IF c = 1... That's it in a
nutshell.
Paul Stowe
Ilja Schmelzer
"Patrick Reany" <re...@asu.edu> schrieb
> 3) As Einstein told Schrodinger one day in 1925-6, it is the theory
> that tells you want it can measure. It does this by freely inventing
> physical concepts and by inventing operational definitions of how
> those concepts relate to direct measurements. Defined operationally,
> time is no worse off than any other variable of physics that gets
> "measured."
>
> 4) You seem to follow the typical crank notion of the scientific
> method, which is to decide a priori what is "real" and then confined
> physical theories to decribing what is "real." The problem with this
> is two-fold: First, nobody knows what's "real" in any absolute sense.
> We only know what we sense, and we act on those sensations to build
> conceptual abstractions. Second, physics has benefitted tremendously
> from the use of abstract principles (such as least action and
> conservation rules of all types) that have advanced the art far ahead
> of your naive notions of what is "real."
As well as the theory defines what can be measured it is the
theory which postulates what is real. (At least there are theories,
named realistic theories, which define what is real. Or, in science
speak, have an ontology.)
Thus, there is no difference between the problem "what is real"
and the problem "which theory is true". The answer of the last
question defines the answer of the first one.
Ilja
Patrick Reany
> On 25 Nov 2004 08:59:57 -0800, re...@asu.edu (Patrick Reany) wrote:
>
> >Paul Stowe <p...@acompletelyjunkaddress.net> wrote in message news:<2pgaq0htch8ihqr0k...@4ax.com>...
> >> On 24 Nov 2004 18:22:04 -0800, jow...@gmail.com (Eric Gisse) wrote:
>
> [Snip...]
>
> >> A quick, short question. Do the concept of time have any
> >> meaning without physical motion?
> >
> > The question is ambiguous because of the huge latitude of
> > interpretation allowed to the phrase "any meaning." But the
> > question misses the point anyway. Your question amounts to a
> > sort of "chicken or the egg" argument.
>
> You should be a politician
>
> > The obvious intention of the question is to get the poster to
> > eventually admit that there are absolute fundamental variables in
> > Nature and that we are forced, thereby, to formally treat those
> > "fundamental variables" as independent in all physical theories.
>
> OK fine, name a (as in any) theory that is without (does NOT
> contain the concepts of) motion and time.
There is no theory in physics I can think of that completely gets rid
of motion and time. Perhaps Newtonian statics and electrostatics come
close, though I hardly see what difference it makes. Generally,
physics is the description of the material realm as it evolves over
time, so time is by definition important, but Nature didn't make it
so, the human mind arbitrarily made it so.
More to the point is a theory which treats time as dependent. Say we
have a clock which travels on a known curve in space at a speed v
(never equal to zero) which is known at all points along the curve.
Then, we can solve for the elapsed time T on the clock by the formula
T = \int ds / v
over appropriate limits, where ds = |dx| and dx is the vector
differential secant segment between two points on the curve.
Note that the motion of the clock along the path is not the motion
that presumably runs the clock.
If you are claiming that all clocks require the prior use of motion of
some mechnical thing in motion, I have my doubts. In any case,
theories are free to arbitrarily declare what the appropriate
instruments are for measuring its variables, without presenting a
theory of how those measuring instruments work.
Patrick
Patrick Reany
(Empiricism, archephors, and the mind creating order)
That's the old empiricist view. Like Kant believed, I believe that the
senses simulate in our minds to form models of the world. I believe
that the nature of those models is tainted by the entire sensory
mechanism and by the our in-born archephors (explained below), which
are intended to be pragmatic, not epistemological. The mental model we
end up with only has to be sufficiently like the "real" thing in order
for us to live and move and have our being within this entity called
"reality." I point out strongly that this purpose is very different
than to give us metaphysical truths, indeed! Thus, I depart from Kant
in his notion of what he called intuitions, by which we supposedly
have a priori synthetic knowledge of the way the world really is.
Kant believed, iirc, that we have a priori intuistic knowledge that
the world is Euclidean. Whereas I believe that we have perhaps a
Euclidean archephor that guides our interpreting the local world as
Euclidean for the pragmatic purpose of our living and guessing the
behavior of the local world. So, whereas Kant regarded these
intuitions as epistemological, I regard the archephors as heuristic
and practical to the end that if at all possible they aid the person
using them to live at least until tomorrow morning. So, it is easy to
conceive of situations where the truth is not as survival enhancing
as, say, an "approximation" of the truth, if the literal truth of
"reality" is meaningful at all. Perhaps the "truth" of non-Euclidean
geometry is so onerous and complicated that it interfers with survival
at the elementary stages of development (childhood). But, as the child
grows, he or she lives less directly on top of raw archephors and more
on top of the metaphors he or she has invented along the way, in much
the same way as mathematicicans build advanced theorems using proofs
of other theorems but not of always running back to the postulates of
the subject itself. After all, Euclidean geometry is LIKE built on top
of based in the archephors.
Now, I don't believe that the world is ever the way we conceive it to
be. First, because the human mind must actively create order out of
the kaleidoscopic morass of sensations it receives, and this requires
the passive and active interpretation of this data to find the "order"
that is in it. We take this so for granted that it is only when we
read about or watch people who were once normal and then had some head
trauma that caused them to lose some part of their ability to
rationalize the world that we come to see how important the mind is in
actively creating order.
In the unborn child must be the ability to passively-actively create
meaning from sensations, or it would never happen. We never just 'see
the world as it really is.' What we do is to draw on our primitive
engrams of meaning which exist prior to experience and lie within our
brain tissues. I call them archephors. Without them nothing we
experience would be meaningful. Within these archephors lie the
ability to create the next level of meaning: prediction or inference
-- that is, the ability to formulate theories of behavior! At this
level we have moved beyond passive to active creation of meaning of
sensory data. Any time there's a choice, the meaning is actively
produced.
Whenever the archephors are stimulated to provide meaning
spontaneously, that meaning is passively produced. It's when one has
to choose the use of archephors or metaphors to produce meaning that
the meaning is actively produced.
The only reason that inference is meaningful is because of the
archephors. From the crib, the child see momma in his or her field of
view. She smiles. Because of our archephors the child is able to
differentiate momma from the background of images behind her, and to
recognize smiling as meaningful from non-smiling. Without these
archephors, momma show up only as a meaningless collage of meaningless
background images in the set of all the kaleidoscope of meaningless
images he or she see.
To grow intellectually, though, we have to be able to perfom the next
level of magic with our brains: We have to be able to build new levels
of meaning by use of analogies to the primitive level of meaning
afforded for free by the archephors themselves directly (which
bootstrapped the whole cognitive structure). This is yet another
example of the mind actively creating meaning by use of two other
archephors: 1) there must be a primitive archephor for "relationship"
and 2) another one for "analogy," which, although it is a type of
relationship, it is not completely characterized by the relationship
archephor. (Thus we have the need for a taxonomy of archephors.)
I do not have a well developed theory of archephors, but I have a
start. I don't even have a well-thoughtout taxonomy of them, nor can I
even estimate how many there are. But I presume that an estimate of
thousands or millions is probably right. The ability to arbitrarily
mix together archephors provides us with a combinatorial explosion of
possible meaningful groupings. I leave the development of the theory
to cognitive psychologist who have the time and interest. But even my
primitive version of this theory fascinates me, for by it, I reduce
the HUGE black box of meaning down to the sum of the tiny black boxes
of archephors.
My theory of archephors began by my looking for a simple answer to a
simple question: How is it that humans are able to find any meaning
from any set of sensations? My answer is that the question has no
ultimate answer. Primitive meaning is unanalyzable! And that what an
archephor is: an irreducible nugget of pure unanalyzable meaning --
whatever the hell that means! My theory of archephors (a standard
reductive theory) merely treats the archephors themselves as black
boxes which get used for building complex meanings. (This question
arose in me 20 years ago when I read Ayn Rand's book Objectivist
Epistemology.)
The implication of my theory is that we can attain no meaning of the
world that is not ultimately contained within our archephors.
......................................................
The analysis of the perception of nature (or whatever is really being
perceived) is the arena of psychology, not physics, at least not as I
differentiate the two disciplines.
Even psychology must have theories.
Besides, to say what is central in physics today from the viewpoint of
the philosophy of physics is not necessarily determined by what is
historically prior in the development of physics. And, the meaningful
interpretation of perceptions requires a theory. And lastly,
perceptions are only heuristics to inventing devices for making
precise measurements.
Is the moon really larger as it looms above the horizon than when it
is directly overhead? This is a battle between preception and
measurement (preception says yes but direct measurement says no). In
the end, it's Newton's theory that gives us the confidence to
rationally decide which to believe.
Patrick
Patrick Reany
Explain in detail, please.
Patrick
Daniel Weston
operating with our senses perceived order directly. Those minds that
could not see order when nature put it in front of our faces, were
de-selected. Idealism takes us from
silly statements to meaningless statements, and back again to silly
statements. That is why scientists, of which you are not, adhere to the
Naturalist interpretation of nature, not your Idealism junk.
robert j. kolker
Patrick Reany wrote:
>
>
> (Empiricism, archephors, and the mind creating order)
>
> That's the old empiricist view.
Old and still true. Empiricism is the true understanding of understanding.
David Hume got it right (mostly) and noone before or since has done
better than he.
Kant's brains were scrambled by the problems Hume raised the the
philosophy is -Critique of Pure Reason- is humbug. There is such thing
as a synthetic a priori.
Bob Kolker
Paul Stowe
>Paul Stowe <p...@acompletelyjunkaddress.net> wrote in message news:<cf4cq0p18lnjma6vb...@4ax.com>...
>> On 25 Nov 2004 08:59:57 -0800, re...@asu.edu (Patrick Reany) wrote:
>>
>> >Paul Stowe <p...@acompletelyjunkaddress.net> wrote in message news:<2pgaq0htch8ihqr0k...@4ax.com>...
>> >> On 24 Nov 2004 18:22:04 -0800, jow...@gmail.com (Eric Gisse) wrote:
>>
>> [Snip...]
>>
>>>> A quick, short question. Do the concept of time have any
>>>> meaning without physical motion?
>>>
>>> The question is ambiguous because of the huge latitude of
>>> interpretation allowed to the phrase "any meaning." But the
>>> question misses the point anyway. Your question amounts to a
>>> sort of "chicken or the egg" argument.
>>
>> You should be a politician
>>
>>> The obvious intention of the question is to get the poster to
>>> eventually admit that there are absolute fundamental variables in
>>> Nature and that we are forced, thereby, to formally treat those
>>> "fundamental variables" as independent in all physical theories.
>>
>> OK fine, name a (as in any) theory that is without (does NOT
>> contain the concepts of) motion and time.
>
> There is no theory in physics I can think of that completely gets
> rid of motion and time.
There is no theory in physics tht CAN 'get rid' of speed.
c = speed!
> Perhaps Newtonian statics and electrostatics come close, though
> I hardly see what difference it makes. ...
Oh, actually, I think you do :)
> Generally, physics is the description of the material realm as it
> evolves over time, so time is by definition important, but Nature
> didn't make it so, the human mind arbitrarily made it so.
If nature didn't have time we'd not be discussing the issue.
Thus to nature time is of FUNDAMENTAL importance.
> More to the point is a theory which treats time as dependent. Say
> we have a clock which travels on a known curve in space at a speed
> v (never equal to zero) which is known at all points along the
> curve. Then, we can solve for the elapsed time T on the clock by
> the formula
>
> T = \int ds / v
>
> over appropriate limits, where ds = |dx| and dx is the vector
> differential secant segment between two points on the curve.
>
> Note that the motion of the clock along the path is not the motion
> that presumably runs the clock.
>
> If you are claiming that all clocks require the prior use of
> motion of some mechnical thing in motion, I have my doubts.
That depends upon one's definition of mechanical. But yes,
all clocks are dominated by the speed of something measurable.
> In any case, theories are free to arbitrarily declare what the
> appropriate instruments are for measuring its variables, without
> presenting a theory of how those measuring instruments work.
So, how the measuring instruments work are not important to a
theory???
Paul Stowe
Patrick Reany
Because no theory could ever be proposed if it had to explain
everything first. Newton's theory of mechanics was not a theory of the
stability of bulk matter, including the rigid body used as a measuring
ruler. Don't they teach anything important in school these days?
Patrick
Patrick Reany
> "Patrick Reany" <re...@asu.edu> schrieb
> > 3) As Einstein told Schrodinger one day in 1925-6, it is the theory
> > that tells you want it can measure. It does this by freely inventing
> > physical concepts and by inventing operational definitions of how
> > those concepts relate to direct measurements. Defined operationally,
> > time is no worse off than any other variable of physics that gets
> > "measured."
> >
> > 4) You seem to follow the typical crank notion of the scientific
> > method, which is to decide a priori what is "real" and then confined
> > physical theories to decribing what is "real." The problem with this
> > is two-fold: First, nobody knows what's "real" in any absolute sense.
> > We only know what we sense, and we act on those sensations to build
> > conceptual abstractions. Second, physics has benefitted tremendously
> > from the use of abstract principles (such as least action and
> > conservation rules of all types) that have advanced the art far ahead
> > of your naive notions of what is "real."
>
> As well as the theory defines what can be measured it is the
> theory which postulates what is real. (At least there are theories,
> named realistic theories, which define what is real. Or, in science
> speak, have an ontology.)
An ontology is a classification of possible kinds of existence. A
metaphysics is a decision about what kinds of existence fits to the
ontology and observation together. Thus the ontology constrains the
kind of metaphysics one can get, a priori allowing or disallowing
certain kinds of existence.
>
> Thus, there is no difference between the problem "what is real"
> and the problem "which theory is true".
It takes truth to beget truth, and you don't have truth to begin with.
> The answer of the last
> question defines the answer of the first one.
>
> Ilja
All I've ever gotten from realists is a bunch of wishful thinking and
exaggerated claims about what they think is real, and no proofs about
what is real. Physics is not metaphysics.
Ilja, are physical theories uniquely determined by empirical data?
Patrick
Patrick Reany
> On 25 Nov 2004 19:49:36 GMT, ste...@nomail.com wrote:
>
> >Patrick Reany <re...@asu.edu> wrote:
> >: ste...@nomail.com wrote in message news:<co29hk$2afc$2...@msunews.cl.msu.edu>...
> >:> Bilge <dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote:
> [snip]
> >:>
> >:> This is supposed to be science, not creative writing.
> >:> Imagination has its uses but it is not the ultimate goal
> >:> of science.
>
> >: You really believe that there is no creative thinking in the doing
> >: of science and in the invention of theories that work? Newton did
> >: not use creative thinking? Galileo did not use creative thinking?
> >
> > As bilge pointed out, I did not say that.
>
> The phrase "This is supposed to be science, not creative writing."
> is suggestive otherwise. THAT is what Patrick responded to.
>
> > What do you think is more important in science: that is makes
> > correct predictions, or that it is imaginative?
It's not a matter of choosing between them. Every theory is
imaginative! That's the point. Theories are born in the imagination of
the human mind.
Patrick
Patrick Reany
> Patrick Reany wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > (Empiricism, archephors, and the mind creating order)
> >
> > That's the old empiricist view.
>
> Old and still true. Empiricism is the true understanding of understanding.
I expected better from you than crass dogmatism.
>
> David Hume got it right (mostly) and noone before or since has done
> better than he.
>
> Kant's brains were scrambled by the problems Hume raised the the
> philosophy is -Critique of Pure Reason- is humbug. There is such thing
> as a synthetic a priori.
>
> Bob Kolker
synthetic a priori, eh. Do tell us more.
Patrick
Patrick Reany
Einstein was entitled to that belief in his personal natural
philosophy. However, what motivates a person to do something and what
that doing can provably achieve are in some cases (this one in
particular) two very different things.
Look what else Einstein believed:
Physical concepts are free creations of the human mind,
and are not, however it may seem, uniquely determined
by the external world.
--- Einstein & Infled, The Evolution of Physics, p. 31.
If one set of empirical data can produce more than one theory to
explain it, how do you know which one, if any of them, is the real
one?
Patrick