Noax wrote: ↑Fri Dec 29, 2017 2:33 pm
ken wrote: ↑Fri Dec 29, 2017 9:32 amNoax wrote:So even if somebody managed to pull off the twins scenario, would you not accept the second-hand results because you are not personally both of the twins?
No, of course NOT. I obviously would have had first hand experience. You seem to still be missing the mark by a tremendous amount.
I seem to be unaware of what you consider to be first hand experience.
If you say so.
Noax wrote: ↑Fri Dec 29, 2017 2:33 pmEVERY person who has beliefs thinks that their beliefs, on any subject, are reasonably justified. Obviously they would not have those beliefs, otherwise.
Disagree. There are plenty of beliefs that are not reasonably justified. I have some myself.
Would you like to share any of yours? So that I can at least see an example of this seemingly, to Me, very bizarre behavior.
Noax wrote: ↑Fri Dec 29, 2017 2:33 pmIs there an actual 'stationary', which one could ever actually be in?
There can be if you want one. Nothing suggests itself. Many people use the ground under them, but that reference is different for every person. Perhaps some object, but I cannot think of one that is not accelerating. The mean velocity of the CMB is often used, but that defines a different inertial frame at every point in space, so again, it is an arbitrary choice.
So, are you saying that 'stationary' is more or less just a reference to some thing, which is solely dependent upon an observer, and what they want or choose it to be?
If that is not what you are saying, then could there be an actual 'stationary' anywhere?
Noax wrote: ↑Fri Dec 15, 2017 9:25 pmAt current times do human beings have the technology to take the trip in just 70 days, from ANY frame?
If I can choose ANY frame, I can go to where A-C is now in 70 seconds with no technology at all.
And without technology I can even do it in much less than 70 seconds. In fact I just did a round trip in a fraction of second. Sadly though most human beings in this thread are unable to imagine being able to do it this quickly.
Noax wrote: ↑Fri Dec 29, 2017 2:33 pmBut, unfortunately, you are unable to choose THE frame where you can go to where alpha centauri is now in no seconds, with no technology at all, is this right?
Not in zero time, no.
Why do you think or believe that you can not do it in zero time but you say you can do it in 70 seconds?
Noax wrote: ↑Fri Dec 29, 2017 2:33 pmDo you mean human beings lack the technology to make such a trip forever more, or human beings lack the technology to make such a trip in those times of when this is written?
I think we'll be extinct before we invent that one, but given time, some sort of technology might be able to achieve such acceleration without fatality or destruction of the planet.
Why do you think 'we' will be extinct before 'we' invent that?
And, who is the 'we' you are referring to here?
Also, when do you think the 'we' will become extinct, and what do you mean by 'extinct'?
Do you mean by 'extinct' that 'we', (
whoever that may be), will just completely stop existing BEFORE they have had a chance to evolve into some thing else, or, that there will be no more 'we' just because they have already evolved into some thing else?
Noax wrote: ↑Fri Dec 29, 2017 2:33 pmAnd perhaps that is NOT how I feel at all.
Your every post seems to suggest otherwise.
If that is how My EVERY post
seems to you, then just to clarify and make it clear, that is NOT what I am nor have been suggesting at all.
Noax wrote: ↑Fri Dec 29, 2017 2:33 pmAre the figures that others came up with, and which you accept as being true, and which you say are frame dependent, based upon a frame that is actually real and/or possible, or are they based upon a frame that does not even exist in reality?
My statements do not rely on the ontological status of the frames.
What do you mean by 'ontological status of the frames'?
Noax wrote: ↑Fri Dec 29, 2017 2:33 pmIs it possible to have these different frames separating, and then meeting up again?
Unclear. They describe the same spacetime, so I don't know what you mean by separating.
Are you saying ALL frames describe the same spacetime?
If so, then what is 'spacetime' to you?
There is only one Universe, so there is really only one frame that EVERY thing exists, behaves, and/or reacts with-and-in.
If, however, human beings want to choose to look at and from separate, individual, and different "frames", then that is certainly their prerogative. They have the solely exclusive right to do so. But, unfortunately, they will never see, discover, learn, and understand about the unifying of Everything, from those narrow, separated, and minuscule points of views.
Noax wrote: ↑Fri Dec 29, 2017 2:33 pmIf a person BELIEVES some thing, then they have already verified, and accepted that, to them self. That is how. If that thing has actually been "verified" is another matter.
I was talking about belief based on scientific verification, not just on uniformed assumption.
'Belief' can have the exact same detrimental effect on human beings, no matter what source it has supposedly been gained from.
Noax wrote: ↑Fri Dec 29, 2017 2:33 pm Nobody thought a flat Earth needed proving until another choice appeared on the list of options.
EXACTLY, the power of BELIEF does NOT need proving.
Also, how do you think ANOTHER choice appeared?
If EVERY person BELIEVED (wholeheartedly) that the earth was flat, then nothing opposing that would have ever appeared.
Only from NOT believing some thing, and thus from being OPEN, that new/er things are imagined, dreamed of, contemplated, devised, invented, created, and thus LEARNED.
Do human beings LEARN MORE by; believing some things and by NOT being open to other things, or, by just being open?
Is it easier to learn ALL things by being open to ALL things, or only open to just some things while being closed to others?
Are new born human beings able to learn customs, values, language, far quicker than adult human beings can because the younger ones are more closed or more open compared to the older ones?
Noax wrote: ↑Fri Dec 29, 2017 2:33 pmIf you believe My example is meaningless for reasons given, then so be it.
Finally.
WHY did you state finally?
It was and has been always up to you to express what you believe is true. As soon as you express your beliefs, then I KNOW where you are closed and what you are NOT open to. Once I know how closed off you are, then I know, so be it.
I am NEVER going to try to show you any thing other than what you believe is true, because I KNOW how much of a fruitless task that is.
If you really do NOT want to hear what I have to say, then surely you would know to just stop reading, finally?
Whatever you BELIEVE, for whatever reasons you BELIEVE it, then I, for One, am certainly NOT here to show you otherwise.
You can BELIEVE whatever you want, whenever you want. You can only see and learn when you are OPEN, and NOT when you are closed.
Noax wrote: ↑Fri Dec 29, 2017 2:33 pmWHY do you still BELIEVE some of the lies that you are told?
They seem to be part of my core programming and not subject to alteration.
Do you really think or believe that 'you' are some how different from other people and that 'your'
core programming is different than others?
The reason you BELIEVE any thing is because of the exact same reason that ALL human beings LEARN to BELIEVE some things.
It is because of your past experiences you have learned and know what you know now. There is NO core programming of what any human being learns and knows. ONLY previous experiences influences that. ANY human being born and brought up in ANY place, culture, country, at any point in the past or future is CAPABLE of learning about the environment that they are living in. In fact it is the actual ENVIRONMENT that one is born into and lives in that "programs" what that one actually learns and KNOWS.
BELIEVING in some of the lies, that one is told and given, is just a natural progression, because it is the actual amount of BELIEF in, and from, the one telling the lie that influences just how much the other one will BELIEVE it also. Unfortunately, because the younger the human being is the more open they are, and because most see their parents as, dare I say it, A God, then the more things the parents believe, and the more belief they have, then the more the child sadly becomes to possess also. Thus, the very reason for how religious and cultural knowledge gets so easily past on, even though some of it is completely and utterly WRONG, to others who were NOT brought up in that way.
And, because human beings, up to the days of when this is being written, BELIEVE things, then just that "natural" continuation keeps teaching children to BELIEVE things, and so they NEVER experience being always open so they NEVER learn HOW to
remain always open.
Noax wrote: ↑Fri Dec 29, 2017 2:33 pm
Are you aware of, and know, ALL of the biases?
Nope. Always looking for new ones.
Okay.
They are much easier to notice and recognize when you are completely OPEN. In fact it is only when BELIEVING and/or assuming, et cetera when biases actually exist.
Noax wrote: ↑Fri Dec 29, 2017 2:33 pm
What is that one definition you so speak of?
"A lie is a misrepresentation of one's beliefs".
So, could a 'lie' like that exist if one did not have a belief at all?
Noax wrote: ↑Fri Dec 29, 2017 2:33 pm
What is the difference to you between 'actual time' and 'absolute time'?
I used the terms interchangeably. What has been falsified is the non-relativistic view that temporal separation between events is not frame dependent.
I am not sure how a 'non-relativistic' view could even exist. Absolutely every thing is 'relative' to the observer. So, every view has to be 'relativistic', in a sense.
Could a 'non-relativistic' view even exist?
Also, are you suggesting that 'temporal separation between events' is frame dependent?
If so, then another way this could be expressed is that the one 'temporal continual flow of the One event' is dependent upon the One and ONLY frame some times known and called by 'Life', 'Existence', 'spacetime', or the 'Universe'.
The only separation between events are the ones human beings conceive of or perceive, from the different separate frames that they, themselves, want to choose and look from?
Noax wrote: ↑Fri Dec 29, 2017 2:33 pm The philosophical position that there is a time that it actually is (presentism) has not been falsified, lacking an empirical difference.
Well depending on exactly what you are actually proposing here, then it could very easily be falsified.
Noax wrote: ↑Fri Dec 29, 2017 2:33 pmIf the theory of relativity has some thing to do with 'time dilation', and some people want to insist that "time" dilates, then I would have thought a discussion about if 'time', itself, is an actual thing or not would arise in this type of discussion.
But unfortunately most of My questioning is usually NOT wanted to be looked at, discussed, nor answered when the questioning gets deeper and/or into looking into the subject far more thoroughly. People, for obvious reasons, tend to WANT TO STOP at a level of answering, of which they are only capable of.
So answer the question yourself. Say it is real or not.
You say, "So answer the question yourself." Then you write, "Say it is real or not."
What EXACTLY is the question? And,
What EXACTLY is the 'it' that you want Me to say is real or not?
Noax wrote: ↑Fri Dec 29, 2017 2:33 pm This is philosophy of science section after all. Unless it makes a difference, I find it irrelevant to this topic.
As I more or less said, people tend to WANT TO STOP when things get past their comfort level. When things start becoming unknown to them or uncomfortable to them, then most people tend to quit and/or walk away.
By the way, to you, what is the difference between a 'philosophy' section, a 'philosophy of science' section, and a 'science' section?
Noax wrote: ↑Fri Dec 29, 2017 2:33 pmBy the way if you are unaware, EVERY thing, including the theory of relativity, leads to ontological issues, that is if any one is prepared enough to go that deep, and to look that thoroughly. ONLY from doing these things is WHERE ALL the meaningful answers LIE.
Agree, but we were looking for scientific answers, not meaningful ones. The twin aging 140 days is not a philosophically deep quesiton.
I find it that way because it has NEVER been tested, yet.
By the way I do NOT recall looking, specifically, for scientific answers. In fact I am NOT sure how we could find "scientific" answers to questions that some people say are impossible or not yet even possible. That is partly why I am here, in a philosophy forum, and NOT in a scientific forum.
Noax wrote: ↑Fri Dec 29, 2017 2:33 pmIs a frame presumed, or is the frame in the answer?
Presumed.
Thank you.
Noax wrote: ↑Fri Dec 29, 2017 2:33 pmDo you presume a frame when I ask you how long does light actually take light to get from the sun to earth?
Normally, I probably would, but not not in the context of this topic.
So, in "normal" circumstances if a human being walked up to you and asked, "How long does it actually take light to get from the sun to earth?" what is the "frame" that you would "normally presume"? And, what is the answer you would give from that frame? Also, would you "normally" explain that the answer you are giving is "frame dependent"?
Also, why would you 'presume a frame' "normally" but not in the context of this topic? Or, did you actually mean the other way around?
Noax wrote: ↑Fri Dec 29, 2017 2:33 pmNoax wrote: If the question concerns a different frame, then it needs to be called out.
Do some questions concern a different frame?
If so, which ones?
Any discussion of relativity.
I was just about to ask, How would a 'lay one' like Me KNOW when I am asking a question about relativity, but then I just remembered we are in a discussion labelled 'relativity?' (with a question mark).
Now, if 'relativity' is, as some people here suggest, being backed up and supported continually with "empirical data", then that would suggest that the Universe works in 'relativistic way', for lack of better terminology, which would then suggest that it would be much better for clarity and understanding in just about every thing that gets discussed that we ALL come to an agreement on in which 'frame' are we actually talking about, is that about right?
Or, if some people here think it better that we only clarify the differing frames in any discussion of relativity, then how do 'lay ones' like Me exactly when a discussion actually starts and/or ends about 'relativity'? Some might suggest that when we are in a thread labeled 'relativity' then that might be a good clue, but surely this whole thread has not be just a discussion of relativity. Just so I am absolutely clear what does 'relativity' mean, to you?