Earth at the center of the Universe?

How does science work? And what's all this about quantum mechanics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5688
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: Earth at the center of the Universe?

Post by SpheresOfBalance »

Obvious Leo wrote:
surreptitious57 wrote: I see no evidence that what I experience is simply a mental construct and nothing else
What evidence do you need? That an observation is an act of cognition is a completely uncontroversial proposition both in philosophy as well as in science. Therefore the convention is that the burden of proof lies with you. How on earth would you go about proving otherwise?
The sentence "observation is an act of cognition" says nothing at all! It's fucking ridiculous to then conclude that somehow what one sees is different from the truth of the thing in and of itself!

Here's how you can validate that there is absolutely NO DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER:

"LOOK" (sense one) at your hands right now. Now "FEEL" (sense two) your hands. They LOOK and FEEL EXACTLY the same; EXACTLY. Both senses corroborate the other. This bullshit that we are removed from the universe is utter new age metaphysical nonsense, the exact same thing as a belief in gods. FACT: we were CREATED by the universe, thus we cannot in ANYWAY be removed from it. That RELATIVE SIZE precludes our sensing of the extremely small or large is not grounds to then assume that what we sense is different than things in and of themselves. As a matter of FACT it proves RELATIVITY, HANDS DOWN, such that it can NEVER be disputed with CERTAINTY, EVER! RELATIVITY is a FACT!!!!!

Hold your hands apart, now bring them together, they touch as expected, you just witnessed them travelling through both SPACE & TIME, FACT!!!! Without SPACE there would be no such thing as INDIVIDUAL things, in and of themselves, EVERYTHING would be EVERYTHING, all combined into one thing, utter nonsense, as Leo and I would then not argue with one another as we'd be the EXACT same thing! Space is required for there to be anything more than one thing. I'm "here" and you are "there," spatially, but we are both "here" temporally, Leo!

Leo, look, I actually like you man, from one old hippy to another, we have at least a few things in common, enough for me to have an affinity towards you. And I understand your need to find something STRONG, in our LAST days, I FEEL that NEED too. I believe that EVERY really GOOD human feels it too. It's not just for our own glory alone, sure that's a very large part of it, it's how we can see ourselves living forever, so says Ernst Becker, a very good read indeed. That sheds light on the human being's needs. Actually his books subject matter is probably why there are so many far fetched theories circulating. This human need run-a-muck.

Back to the topic at hand, there is in fact, Time and Space, such as they are, we not necessarily understanding their maths, YET! You can in no way prove there is no space, we are not one in that way!

Sometimes, men, in order to serve their needs, invent concepts so amazing, that they don't even really understand them, they get lost in possibility, ignoring probability; the "Grand Illusion," of wanting to live forever, and knowing it's not possible, in any way that would actually please them!
Obvious Leo
Posts: 4007
Joined: Wed May 13, 2015 1:05 am
Location: Australia

Re: Earth at the center of the Universe?

Post by Obvious Leo »

SpheresOfBalance wrote: YET! You can in no way prove there is no space,
Yes I can. I can prove it in a very simple and elegant experiment which will leave no room for doubt. However this was already proven by Michelson and Morley in their quest for the luminiferous aether and then confirmed by Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen in the phenomenon of quantum entanglement. Unfortunately the empirical data from both of these findings was wrongly interpreted because of a false a priori assumption.

“(...) Truth, it is said, consists in the agreement of cognition with its object. In consequence of this mere nominal definition, my cognition, to count as true, is supposed to agree with its object. Now I can compare the object with my cognition, however, only by cognising it. Hence my cognition is supposed to confirm itself, which is far short of being sufficient for truth. For since the object is outside me, the cognition in me, all I can ever pass judgement on is whether my cognition of the object agrees with my cognition of the object”.....Immanuel Kant (from the Jasche lectures on logic)

Manny Kant observed the honourable German tradition of ensuring that his philosophy was unreadable but the meaning of this arresting statement is nevertheless quite clear and beyond dispute. It is also perfectly consistent with the modern science of the psychology of perception as well as with cognitive neuroscience. When we imagine we are observing the real world this intuition is illusory. What we are actually doing is creating a COGNITIVE MAP of it on the basis of raw data being received by our senses. It is our minds which construct this raw data into a meaningful representation of our external environment and it does this on the basis of a considerable raft of prior information which we accept as a priori. There are no logical grounds for assuming that any of this prior information is true.

Would you care to name a single philosopher in human history who has ever claimed that space is physically real? I can name dozens who have said that it isn't and proving it logically is child's play. The speed of light is finite which means it is always physically impossible to see the thing-as-it-is. All we can ever see is the thing-as-it-WAS and the further away from us that it appears to be then the longer ago it WAS. To suggest that a physical space could extend between an observer and that which merely WAS is a metaphysical absurdity of impressive calibre.

The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line
Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.

From “The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam”
User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5688
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: Earth at the center of the Universe?

Post by SpheresOfBalance »

Obvious Leo wrote:
SpheresOfBalance wrote: YET! You can in no way prove there is no space,
Yes I can. I can prove it in a very simple and elegant experiment which will leave no room for doubt. However this was already proven by Michelson and Morley in their quest for the luminiferous aether and then confirmed by Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen in the phenomenon of quantum entanglement. Unfortunately the empirical data from both of these findings was wrongly interpreted because of a false a priori assumption.

“(...) Truth, it is said, consists in the agreement of cognition with its object. In consequence of this mere nominal definition, my cognition, to count as true, is supposed to agree with its object. Now I can compare the object with my cognition, however, only by cognising it. Hence my cognition is supposed to confirm itself, which is far short of being sufficient for truth. For since the object is outside me, the cognition in me, all I can ever pass judgement on is whether my cognition of the object agrees with my cognition of the object”.....Immanuel Kant (from the Jasche lectures on logic)

Manny Kant observed the honourable German tradition of ensuring that his philosophy was unreadable but the meaning of this arresting statement is nevertheless quite clear and beyond dispute. It is also perfectly consistent with the modern science of the psychology of perception as well as with cognitive neuroscience. When we imagine we are observing the real world this intuition is illusory. What we are actually doing is creating a COGNITIVE MAP of it on the basis of raw data being received by our senses. It is our minds which construct this raw data into a meaningful representation of our external environment and it does this on the basis of a considerable raft of prior information which we accept as a priori. There are no logical grounds for assuming that any of this prior information is true.

Would you care to name a single philosopher in human history who has ever claimed that space is physically real? I can name dozens who have said that it isn't and proving it logically is child's play. The speed of light is finite which means it is always physically impossible to see the thing-as-it-is. All we can ever see is the thing-as-it-WAS and the further away from us that it appears to be then the longer ago it WAS. To suggest that a physical space could extend between an observer and that which merely WAS is a metaphysical absurdity of impressive calibre.

The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line
Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.

From “The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam”
Sorry Leo, but I see absolutely no proof whatsoever. I see reasoning, with absolutely no cognition whatsoever. That thing that you try and dispense with, sensing, is at the root of your reasoning, a-posteriori. Try and imagine that for all your life, you've had no senses at all, no inputs whatsoever, Now tell me your story. You wouldn't be able to, and the only things that would be real for your minds eye, would be both space and time, you in your singular space, and singular time. A mind drifting in forever darkness, until it was no more!

Leo, because all the crap you mentioned above, exists only in the minds of those choosing to cling to it, can it possibly be real? You can't prove it at all, because you can't 'show' any of it to me, it's definitely much more imaginary than space, because I can actually see space. In believing such things is to only ever take a mind trip, much like an acid trip, but then an acid trip one comes down from. One can maintain a mind trip forever if they choose to. But they can never ever show it to anyone, as it's only ever contained within their minds eye.

You've proven nothing Leo, SHOW ME! Your belief can only ever be that; BELIEF! Your mind is full of imaginary concepts, that shall only ever exist in your mind. Your mind has become a conceptual nightmare, of illusory substance, which can only ever be proven to never have any substance whatsoever. You would be a great fiction writer.

Your very argument disproves your argument, as those things you cling too, to disprove time and space, also disprove that which you offer in their stead! Conceptualization, without any necessary agreement, with any thing, in and of itself. Understand? It can only ever be seen as a pipe dream!

But I love you just the same, fellow old hippy and Yes lover! ;)

P.S. To me space has always been the absence of anything. If because I can't see it, it becomes something like an ocean, that I'm swimming in, so be it, as the two beliefs really don't disagree, as they are both containers for things. Whether I breath air or water to get my oxygen, it doesn't really matter to me, as I see them as synonymous in function.
Obvious Leo
Posts: 4007
Joined: Wed May 13, 2015 1:05 am
Location: Australia

Re: Earth at the center of the Universe?

Post by Obvious Leo »

Since you haven't responded to any of the points I raised there's nothing more I need to add. Refuting what I say simply by saying what I refute does not constitute an argument.
User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4389
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: Earth at the center of the Universe?

Post by Greta »

Ask Leo about relative space. He has no problems with relative space.

My understanding of his main point is that reality is all one thing rather than "things and space". Space, like us, is not empty but full of energy. So what we perceive of space is simply areas of relatively low concentration.
User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5688
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: Earth at the center of the Universe?

Post by SpheresOfBalance »

Obvious Leo wrote:Since you haven't responded to any of the points I raised there's nothing more I need to add. Refuting what I say simply by saying what I refute does not constitute an argument.
Let me explain so you understand:

jdbvflqujhfdvjurnfv wurgl viaurfjg;n qirfhgvounfhgjoqirhfgmqgv hjvg qivjhq[ gher qjetr [vi2qtvh thb

Respond to that point immediately above!

You can't because it is only contained in my mind!

I provided plenty of argument, that you just choose to ignore, because you're stubborn much like me! ;)

So be it, we're at an impasse, neither one willing to take on the others argument, instead sidestepping it, so as to infer that it contains nothing.

You do rely heavily upon others fictions though, don't you?

Basically I'm saying that your time only thing, does not "necessarily" counter space. That they can exist in the same moment, that your perspective, does not change the physics, as they apparently present themselves to human senses.

Time does not necessarily preclude space. Whether the universe is an event or not, changes nothing. As all events have things, and the space between them so as to differentiate between them, yet they are all part of the same thing.
User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5688
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: Earth at the center of the Universe?

Post by SpheresOfBalance »

Greta wrote:Ask Leo about relative space. He has no problems with relative space.

My understanding of his main point is that reality is all one thing rather than "things and space".
I totally agree, obviously the universe is one thing! That does not preclude space existing as he seems to be stating. The only reason things exist, is because the universe is extremely large with many, many differences in the way that it manifests, and we need a way to focus on any particular portion of it, so the concept of things was born, so as to differentiate, without having to think of the entirety of something we still don't fully understand. Are minds are relatively small by comparison to the universe.

Space, like us, is not empty but full of energy.
I have no problem with that at all.

So what we perceive of space is simply areas of relatively low concentration.
If true, that doesn't matter either.
I've never said, nor would I ever say that things are not part of the universe. I understand that the universe is one thing, with many, many, many, many, ad infinitum, parts.
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12314
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Earth at the center of the Universe?

Post by Arising_uk »

Obvious Leo wrote:
SpheresOfBalance wrote: YET! You can in no way prove there is no space,
Yes I can. I can prove it in a very simple and elegant experiment which will leave no room for doubt. ...
Then it's about time this experiment was done? As at the very least it might put Philosophy back on the map.
Obvious Leo
Posts: 4007
Joined: Wed May 13, 2015 1:05 am
Location: Australia

Re: Earth at the center of the Universe?

Post by Obvious Leo »

Greta wrote: My understanding of his main point is that reality is all one thing rather than "things and space".
More or less. What I'm saying is that physics models the universe as if it were a sequence of events occurring in a "place" but I deny that that this notion of place has any ontological status. The background on which the observer maps his perceptions of reality are simply other events which have previously occurred in his own past. It simply makes no sense to assume that a physical space can exist between an observer and an event which exists no longer because what the observer is observing is quite literally a hologram. Because the speed of light is so bloody fast this makes very little difference in our everyday lives but on the cosmological scale this makes all the difference in the world. You could be looking at a star in the night sky which quite literally no longer exists and even if it does it certainly no longer exists at the location at which you're observing it. How could the space which you're observing between you and this star possibly be real when the star itself may not even be?
JSS
Posts: 232
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2016 3:42 am

Re: Earth at the center of the Universe?

Post by JSS »

Obvious Leo wrote:
Greta wrote: My understanding of his main point is that reality is all one thing rather than "things and space".
More or less. What I'm saying is that physics models the universe as if it were a sequence of events occurring in a "place" but I deny that that this notion of place has any ontological status. The background on which the observer maps his perceptions of reality are simply other events which have previously occurred in his own past. It simply makes no sense to assume that a physical space can exist between an observer and an event which exists no longer because what the observer is observing is quite literally a hologram. Because the speed of light is so bloody fast this makes very little difference in our everyday lives but on the cosmological scale this makes all the difference in the world. You could be looking at a star in the night sky which quite literally no longer exists and even if it does it certainly no longer exists at the location at which you're observing it. How could the space which you're observing between you and this star possibly be real when the star itself may not even be?
Just because your observations are late coming doesn't mean that what you observe wasn't real. And for every event from a background that you observe, another follows. But the background frame of reference doesn't change. And that frame of reference is the "space" wherein it is expected that all things float about. Yes by the time you observe that they have moved, they have moved even more. But that doesn't change the background space they were in.
Obvious Leo
Posts: 4007
Joined: Wed May 13, 2015 1:05 am
Location: Australia

Re: Earth at the center of the Universe?

Post by Obvious Leo »

JSS wrote: Just because your observations are late coming doesn't mean that what you observe wasn't real.
I don't deny it. However this is not what SR says because SR makes no distinction between that which was, is or will be. However metaphysics is the study of the nature of being, not the nature of what has been or what might later be. What exists is what exists NOW and what doesn't exist NOW dosen't exist. End of story. If you thing you can make a logical case for the existence of nothing between two other nothings then knock yourself out.
JSS wrote: Yes by the time you observe that they have moved, they have moved even more. But that doesn't change the background space they were in.
We have moved on just a tiny bit since Aristotle, mate. This statement refutes GR AND QM, which is no small feat since they both refute each other.
JSS
Posts: 232
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2016 3:42 am

Re: Earth at the center of the Universe?

Post by JSS »

Obvious Leo wrote:
JSS wrote: Just because your observations are late coming doesn't mean that what you observe wasn't real.
I don't deny it. However this is not what SR says because SR makes no distinction between that which was, is or will be. However metaphysics is the study of the nature of being, not the nature of what has been or what might later be. What exists is what exists NOW and what doesn't exist NOW dosen't exist. End of story. If you thing you can make a logical case for the existence of nothing between two other nothings then knock yourself out.
What does it mean "to exist"?
Obvious Leo wrote:
JSS wrote: Yes by the time you observe that they have moved, they have moved even more. But that doesn't change the background space they were in.
We have moved on just a tiny bit since Aristotle, mate. This statement refutes GR AND QM, which is no small feat since they both refute each other.
Both GR and QP are ontologically invalid. Perhaps "we" should back up that bit and start over.
Obvious Leo
Posts: 4007
Joined: Wed May 13, 2015 1:05 am
Location: Australia

Re: Earth at the center of the Universe?

Post by Obvious Leo »

JSS wrote: What does it mean "to exist"?
I find it fascinating that this is a question which physics doesn't see fit to ask of itself. We can truthfully say that the universe has existed in the past and will exist in the future but it actually only currently exists at the nexus between the two and this nexus point is changing at the speed of light. It is simply a matter of physical fact that we can't observe the universe as it IS and the space between the observer and an observed event is ALWAYS different for every observer of this event. How can this space possibly be physically real if it is different for every observer of it and in all cases the space extends to an event which no longer exists? How could this have been so fucking obvious to the pre-Socratics millennia ago and yet the self-proclaimed geniuses of today can't see it at all? This latter question is a rhetorical one because this is the difference between the territory and the map, the Noumenon and the Phenomenon, the thing-as-it-is and the thing-as-it-appears-to-be. Call it what you will but this gross lack of understanding is the beginning, middle and end of the entire problem that physics is unable to resolve. It was only ever designed to be a map.
JSS wrote:Both GR and QP are ontologically invalid. Perhaps "we" should back up that bit and start over.
Now you're talking. Now you're getting to what Leibniz was banging on about. We need to back up a bit and start right from the very beginning with a statement which addresses a question of metaphysical first principle. Is the universe a "place" or is the universe simply an eternal sequence of events which the observer observes as a "place"? Physics is modelling the universe as if it were both and this is the exact bollocks which directly leads to all of the various paradoxes and metaphysical absurdities which are implicit in the models thereby devised. And I mean ALL OF THEM.
JSS
Posts: 232
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2016 3:42 am

Re: Earth at the center of the Universe?

Post by JSS »

Philosophy in the make .. from a clean slate:
What does it mean "to exist"
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12314
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Earth at the center of the Universe?

Post by Arising_uk »

Obvious Leo wrote:... Is the universe a "place" or is the universe simply an eternal sequence of events which the observer observes as a "place"? ...
Or is it just an 'ancestor sim', as you appear to be assuming the 'eternal' bit?
Post Reply