• [deleted]

Constantinos

"You write, "... it is what was physically received". And "what is" that?

Light, noise, vibration, heat, etc, etc. The same physical phenomena which would otherwise have been received by that brick wall behind you, had you moved out of the way. All that is different is that you are an entity which has sensory systems which can then utilise this physical input in order to enable awareness of physical existence. It makes no difference to physical existence, both in the sense of what was physically received, and what physically created that, because that all occurred previously, obviously. The only physical effect reception has is that the phenomenon received ceases to exist in that physical form. To put this another way, turning my head round so that my eyes are not in the line of travel of the photon based representation of the wardrobes, dog, waste basket, etc, does not mean that physical existence has ceased, or altered in any way. It continues. It is just that the back of my head which receives the light is unable to process it.

"The difference between our views is you believe we can know "physical existence" as is in itself and independent of our knowing mind"

No, that is not what I think, neither is it the difference between us. I am stating that physical existence, as in the form of existence which we can know (either directly or via properly constructed hypothesis), given the existentially closed system we are trapped in, is what we must identify and investigate. We need the sensory systems/mind in order to have an awareness of it, but then must eradicate the 'interference' that that particular component of the process introduces. Because it has nothing to do with the physical circumstance, it concerns awareness of the physical circumstance. Physical circumstance is not affected by awareness, a feature which, in terms of the duration of physical existence, is a new development.

Your view, as encapsulated in the quote you post, is that it is all metaphysical. Yes, obviously, in the sense that nothing can ever be proved absolutely. But that is the point, because the corollary of that is that whilst it cannot be proved against some unattainable absolute reference there is something which, of itself, is provable. If there was not, ie if there was no independent definitive form of existence, for us, we should all pack our bags and go and do something else. Because in that circumstance there is no reference for validity, ie 'anything goes'.

"In my view we cannot know "what is" but only our experiences of "what is".

Exactly, so why are you disagreeing with me? Answer: because within a validated closed system, you have not realised that one form of experience is correct. What we independently experience may be complete rubbish. Existence might be completely different from that which we are able to discern. But we can never know. We can only investigate existence as it is knowable to us. That is, there is one form of experience of 'what is', which can be deemed to be 'what is', because we are within a closed system which defines 'is'.

Paul

  • [deleted]

Tom,

You misunderstood. You write, "Physical laws are mathematical tautologies -- demonstrably false". This is not my position. What I have argued is physical laws SHOULD be mathematical tautologies in order to avoid physics morphing into metaphysics. I do agree that as currently formulated physical laws are NOT mathematical tautologies. But have shown, for example, Planck's Law can be derived as a mathematical tautology. Which does not depend on the physical assumption of the "quantization of energy hypothesis". And am arguing the same can be done with other Basic Law of Physics.

Rob's example of how F=ma does not apply to a rocket is totally absurd! This only shows that any formula (whether a physical law or a mathematical identity) can be misapplied when the premises to it are not satisfied.

Constantinos

  • [deleted]

Constantinos

"You write, "you are depicting all circumstances as being metaphysical". Wrong! I am arguing when we seek to describe "what is" the Universe (Nature) we ultimately fail because such knowledge is 'metaphysical' in essence"

See my reply in the other thread for a fuller response. Whether it is metaphysical "in essence" is irrelevant. Because that statement only hold true if the reference is a mythical absolute, which can never be obtained. If A, there is always the logical possibility of not-A. The point is that there is A, and from within it, A can be discerned without any intrusion of metaphysics, ie what it might not be. Another way of addressing what you are saying is to question how then do we know, having discerned, what is and what is not. There is some implicit validity reference there, otherwise anybody can discern anything, and declare it as what is. Which brings us all back to the fact that there is one form of physical existence that constitutes 'is', for us. Discerning, without first understanding this generically, might arrive at the answer, but it is presuming physical existence as an abstract concept, which it is not, and there is a very real danger of 'metaphysical creep' in that approach.

"Your depiction of "what is" as being "one physically existent state at a time" is 'metaphysical'.

Not so. It is a statement of fact concerning the existentially closed system we are trapped in. It derives from two facts about that form of existence, ie independence, and alteration.

Paul

  • [deleted]

Paul,

Let me try this. Consider the "what is" to be a person. Each of us will have different experiences of that person. But can we know that person as they are truly? I argue no we cannot. But can only know our experiences of that person.

Knowing Nature truly as Nature "is" is no more possible than knowing another human being. Don't you think?

Constantinos

  • [deleted]

Rob

Your post 24/2 15.58, re Einstein. Whilst this is repeating a post above (to Ananymousse), the only way I can respond to this is with the same paragraphs, the reference is 1905 section 1 part 1:

1 A and B were each attributed a time (local) of existence, ie t(a) and t(b). Either there was a relationship between these timings, or not. If there was a relationship, then there was no timing issue to resolve. If there was no relationship, then nothing further could have been discerned from this information since they were therefore variables defined on the basis of different references with no known relationship.

2 So there must have been a presumption that the timing devices were synchronised (ie working properly), even though this was not recognised. That is because the reference for timing was not understood, it being a conceptual constant rate of change, ie not the timing devices, which just 'tell' the time, and are only valid if related to this reference (ie synchronised), within the realms of practicality. This must be so, otherwise the timing system is useless.

3 Hence the timing relationship which supposedly needed to be inferred, ie "local time" to a "common time", was known already, and was a false distinction implying a extra layer of timing for which there was no physical justification. Presumption of the distance AB meant that A and B must have been existent at the same time, ie t(a) equalled t(b). Had the times been different, then A could not have been compared to B, and distance established, because they were not existent at the same time.

4 The comparison of AB to BA was effected in terms of time incurred with consecutive, not concurrent, timings. This was incorrect. Not only is there no duration in a spatial circumstance, but AB cannot be compared to BA on the basis of subsequent timings. Because such timings cannot be presumed to relate to AB, as either A and/or B could have altered over time, and therefore the distance could have altered. The measurement can only represent whatever was deemed to constitute A and B, and therefore AB, at a specific time.

5 The quantification of distance in terms of a conceptual duration incurred, was not an issue, had it been understood. Neither was the use of light to do this, with the condition that its speed be deemed constant, inherently a problem. Any method, involving any direction, would suffice, if properly calculated and represented. The errors were assuming physical existence, and hence any artefact thereof (eg distance), continues to exist in the same physically existent state over time, and a misunderstanding of the reference used in timing.

6 It is argued that the AB example is explainable in terms of observation. So time of existence, and time of observation (ie receipt of light), were asserted by Einstein to be the same if whatever was involved was in the "immediate proximity". This is correct as an approximation, though would need definition. But in reality there is always a difference, which is fundamental to highlighting the flaw in his argument.

7 Introducing the differential between time of existence, and time of observation of existence, is irrelevant. As before, the timing devices must be synchronised, otherwise these timings are meaningless, and if the distance AB is presumed, then A and B must have existed at the same time. Alternatively, if A and B did not exist at the same time, then there could not be a distance AB to observe.

8 Therefore, in the context of observation, assuming a simplification of the real conditions, any difference in these times could only be a function of the time delay for light to travel from B to A, or vice versa, and not a reflection of some other variance. That is, again there is no issue to be resolved. The difference in timing would have been because they were observations of reality (ie receipts of light). However, there was no observational light in Einstein's writings and theory anyway.

9 Physically, there is always a distance and therefore a delay whilst light travels; and there must always be light in order to observe. Indeed, what was the spatial relationship between the observer and the light as at the time of existence and creation of the light, could alter whilst the light is travelling. Neither is physical existence affected by observation, because it occurred before that, and was not involved in that interaction. That being with the physically existent representation of that reality (eg light), which then just ceases to exist in that physical form, in the same way as it would if the interaction had been with an inanimate entity.

10 By substituting c for v, ie a specific velocity for a generic one, c was asserted to be: 2AB/(t'(a) - t(a)). Which was wrong because that time involved duration incurred from subsequent timings, apart from being deemed an elapsed time in both cases anyway, which it is not. Assuming the quantity is doubled, it should be either twice A to B or B to A, or the sum of A to B and B to A incurred at the same time. So it should be: c = 2AB/2(t(a) - t(b)). Or simply, as considering either direction is superfluous, c = AB/(t(a) - t(b)). Which, although correct, is a statement of the obvious. That is, the velocity is a ratio of total distance travelled to the time taken to do so, ie the definition of velocity.

11 A key point is that the light Einstein referred to was not observational light anyway. He was using it as an example of a conceptual constant reference against which to measure time and distance. There was just a dissassociated "ray of light", an entity referred to as an "observer", and the concept of "frames of reference", which can leave the reader with the impression that observation has been accounted for. Whereas, in fact, he only invoked a constant, the determining factor being how he deployed that in the narrative/equations, not what he called it. A timing/spatial reference is by definition, a constant, while in practice observational light approximates to a constant, which further disguises the mistake.

12 Einstein failed to differentiate physical existence from the physical representation of it (eg light). He equated the reality of light with physical reality, so there was no observation (ie receipt of light), and the time delay which does occur between time of existence and time of receipt of light, was consequently eliminated. This was counterbalanced by his failure to understand the reference for timing, which followed the flawed concept of simultaneity by Poincaré. In sum, Einstein shifted the time differential which does occur, from the finish of the physical process to the start, deeming it be to a characteristic of physical existence.

One point to add to this (which is obviusly an abstract), which has arisen in a subsequent post, is that if physical and light reality have been conflated, and c was not actually light speed anyway, but just a constant. Then the apparition of c, as in light speed, in so many equations and explanations of physical existence is incorrect. For example, how does the speed of the phenomenon which enables sight have a physical impact on energy?

Paul

  • [deleted]

Hector

Yes, as explained previously, timig is a measuring system, time being an alternative word for duration, which is the unit of the system. What is being measured is rate of alteration in physical existence. The precision of any given mechanism in manifesting a rate of change reference, is irrelevant. This does not change the intent of timing, neither does it change what actually occurred, it just means your measured rate will be somewhat out.

Continuous means the same physically existent state, which does not occur. As a statement of the blindingly obvious, physical existence alters.

Paul

  • [deleted]

Paul, you write

"there is one form of experience of 'what is', which can be deemed to be 'what is', because we are within a closed system which defines 'is' ". This does not make sense to me. Sorry!

Constantinos

  • [deleted]

You are like a detective who has not seen all the clues. There are hundreds of experimental results, and an exact proof from 1966-7 (the Rietdijk-Putnam argument) that the stadard view of SR leads to time only appearing to move. If you wish to argue that time does actually move, you need to show why that proof is wrong. It's based on simultaneity across a distance, as in Minkowski spacetime. But don't start into your intuition on that, or your definitions of words. Go to a philosophy site, but even there things will be more pinned down than you make them. And in physics we need specifics.

  • [deleted]

Hi Rob,

You write: "Regarding the statement that 'If Albrecht is right, no finite number of measurements can predict the cosmological initial condition,' I agree that is true. But I would add Rob's corollary 'If Albrecht is wrong, no finite number of measurements can predict the cosmological initial condition.'"

I find that a false dichotomy. What I mean, is that if an infinite number of cosmological initial conditions are consistent with the world we observe today, there is profound agreement with relativity that every observer frame is valid for every free choice of measurement in any spacetime locality.

The issue of whether any cosmological singularity (we know that general relativity cannot avoid singularities) is a unique initial condition for our present world is therefore mooted.

Albrecht's hypothesis is consistent with my own research conclusion that Einstein's equations for general relativity, describing a universe finite in time and unbounded in space, remain unchanged for a universe finite in space and unbounded in time. This is also consistent with Perelman's proof of the Poincare Conjecture for 3-manifolds; i.e., using Ricci flow with surgery, he proves that every singularity is extinguished in finite time -- this being true, requires finite space because the manifold must accommodate finite fundamental group (a loop shrunk to a point) at every location.

I share your admiration for Kepler. His observations certainly qualify as a case of Popper's "bold conjectures." What's more, though, we get the first hint in Kepler that "perfection" in the universe is not a geometric property -- orbitals that are almost perfect circles are only perfect when reconciled with perturbative relative motions. Of course, Einstein's desire is to have a non-perturbative complete theory free of singularities -- and I think the current research makes great progress toward that goal.

Tom

  • [deleted]

Tom,

Really. Time is a measure of action.

And it goes to Albrecht's problem of trying to find one clock.

Rather than assuming there are multiverses.

  • [deleted]

Doug -

You are wrong and keep mixing up things, again. I know. Remember simply that GRAVITATION = ACCELERATION when thinking time dilation. Think the elevator experiment.

The lower the gravitational potential (the closer the clock is to the source of gravitation), the more slowly time passes.

Your analogy above then is corrected as follows:

"Each field is different, Each clock is different in each field (because a faster clock on earth sees a more dense hand ticking, alternately, in spacial orbit, the hands are spread out into the field they are within, and hence tick slower)" SHOULD READ :

Each field is different, Each clock is different in each field (because a slower clock on earth sees a more dense hand ticking, (more resistance) alternately, in spacial orbit, the hands are spread out into the field they are within, and hence tick faster (less resistance).

They (the clocks) attempt to reach equilibrium with their surrounding field.

Full gravity = black hole (one time vector direction in MTS)

Full Acceleration = Vacuum Energy (the other time vector in MTS)

To maintain biblical accuracy, I believe that we should make the vector Matter from Space as being forward time (Genesis: out the void/nothingness, etc.). Then reverse vector time would be matter accelerating.

Therefore the equation is STM.

Standard Theoretical Madness

Peter, are you with me?

  • [deleted]

Constantinos,

"Rob's example of how F=ma does not apply to a rocket is totally absurd!"

It's totally correct. He didn't say F = ma does not apply to a rocket, just that the continuous function of the rocket's change of position with respect to time does not apply to F = ma. Newton's equation satisfies the state of the rocket at any fixed moment. More than arithmetic is required here; Newton invented the calculus just for the purpose of calculating the rate of change of the rate of change (rate of change squared).

Tom

  • [deleted]

Tom,

You are now being sophistic! Arguing words and avoiding reason. Let me quote Robert directly on this: "if you think this[F=ma] truly describes the behavior of objects like rockets, then you are mistaken" [Robert H McEachern replied on Feb. 24, 2013 @ 00:45 GMT].

Have I suggested anywhere we do not need math to solve problems in physics?

Why do you do that! So disingenuous!

Constantinos

  • [deleted]

Constantinos,

I resent being accused of disingenuousness. Rob's explanation and my concurrent explanation are quite straightforward. Your claim that physical laws are mathematical tautologies is either falsified -- if you believe it falsifiable (though falsification does not and cannot apply to a logical tautology) -- or trivial, otherwise, because as you acknowledge, the mathematical language is independent of the physical phenomenon. That the language and the phenomenon coincide only constitutes a logical tautology if you choose to call it that. The physical laws would still be physical laws, however; and the mathematical language would still be independent of them. There are any number of mathematical tautologies that have nothing to do with physics.

Tom

  • [deleted]

Constantinos,

To be as clear as I can -- you write, " ... Planck's Law can be derived as a mathematical tautology. Which does not depend on the physical assumption of the 'quantization of energy hypothesis'. And am arguing the same can be done with other Basic Law of Physics."

As I noted elsewhere, you neglect that Planck's law applies only in the case of blackbody radiation. There are infinitely many more radiation spectra. To take this special case -- (albeit an important case, since it is the limiting case of a body's heat content, which is why it is a "law") -- and declare that it is general, ignores, e.g., radiation effects in out of equilibrium conditions, such as LASER, which do depend on the quantization hypothesis.

If you are just saying that the mathematics describes a limiting case in every instance of physical law, how is that nontrivial?

Tom

  • [deleted]

Tom,

OK. If not "disingenuous" than certainly "sophistic", or something worse.

I will address your other points in subsequent posts.

Constantinos

  • [deleted]

" If not "disingenuous" than certainly "sophistic", or something worse."

Not that, either! The physics is well understood and amply validated. Enough.

Tom

To quote from the first page of Goldstein's "Classical Mechanics":

"The essential physics involved in the mechanics of a particle is contained in Newton's Second Law of Motion, which may be considered equivalently as a fundamental postulate or as a definition of force and mass. For a single particle, the correct form of the law is: F=dp/dt, where F is the total force acting on the particle and p is the linear momentum."

In other words, force is the first derivative of linear momentum, with respect to time.

Since p = mv, F = ma v(dm/dt )

Consequently, F =ma is valid, only if the first derivative of the mass, with respect to time, (dm/dt), is zero.

Rob McEachern

  • [deleted]

Constantinos

"Consider the "what is" to be a person".

OK, so we have a complex physical entity of blood, water, bone, etc, etc. What is the problem, in generic terms. It is the same as considering a brick. Obviously, establishing the physically existent state of such a complex entity as at any given time, is an impossible task. But that is a practical, not existential point. In respect of the label 'person' you are intimating non-existent characteristics that we 'experience'.

"Knowing Nature truly as Nature "is" is no more possible than knowing another human being. Don't you think?"

No. You can see (ie you are receiving a light representation thereof) a wall in front of you. Now kick it. Did you feel it? There is a physical existence independent of the mechanism whereby sentient organisms are aware of it. You did not create that wall. You could invite several friends over, and each would confirm the existence of that wall. The question is, what physical process is underpinning this. And just in case you want to argue ( I almost know you do not), that there is some form of collective telepathy at work, ie physical existence is a function of sensory/brain systems, ie 'actually' there is nothing there/it is 'really'completely different, that is a logical possibility, but we can never know it, so it is irrelevant.

Re your second post. We are trapped in an existentially closed system, because we are part of existence, so we cannot transcend it. So within that, assuming it is defined correctly, what is 'of ' the system is real, within it. There is 'of the system', 'not of the system', and again that depends on answering the question, what independent physical process underpins this. We can then deem validated knowledge to be 'is', ie correct, ie the system as knowable to us. We cannot know what is not 'of the system'. And as I keep on saying, this might be complete rubbish, but we cannot view the system extrinsically, so we can never know. We can only know what it is possible for us to know, and there is a simple (well, generically!) physical process determining that. What your sensory sytem/brain makes of the physical input is not physics.

Paul

  • [deleted]

Hi Hector and Paul,

I agree with a lot of what you`ve both said.

I wrote in the thread on my essay in the `Nature of Time` contest, entry dated June 13th, 2,010, "Time is a measurement system that actually measures duration elapsing. It`s measurement baseline is the duration that elapses while the planet rotates."

I wrote in the thread on Amrit Srecko Sorli`s essay in the second essay contest, entry dated September 10th, 2,009, "Events do have duration. We have duration and motion in our timeless universe. In our conscious experience of duration, we assume time is passing.

We move at a surface speed in excess of 1,600 kilometers per hour. The constant physical changes that this planetary rotational motion creates, supports the illusion of time passing. Our clocks are in concert, since we use this same motion as the measurement baseline for our time keeping systems.

For most intent and purpose, time exists on a rotating planet for it`s conscious inhabitants. Had we evolved on the moon, it would be easier to see that time passing is an illusion, that it`s really a case of duration elapsing, that there is no such thing or force as time, in reality."