Re: The Problem of Light and Speed in a Vacuum
Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2019 9:54 am
For the discussion of all things philosophical, especially articles in the magazine Philosophy Now.
https://forum.philosophynow.org/
Light in a complete vacuum requires it to inevitably have an inherent level of self consciousness to it due to its self referencing capability as a self moving system.Logik wrote: ↑Sun Jan 20, 2019 9:25 amEverything else is spot-on except point 7.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 06, 2019 4:40 am This I will respect.
1. Light in a complete vacuum is theoretical.
2. Physics is empirical, when it becomes theoretical it is no longer empirical...it is theoretical.
3. The identity of physics, in light of theory being core axioms, becomes muddled with metaphysics, math, logic, psychology, etc.
4. Light in a pure vacuum, because it is not empirically proven (as no perfect vacuum exists and what is close to a "perfect" is still inside a non vacuum framework) is not physics.
5. Physics delves outside it's own boundaries for certain core axioms.
6. Light in a pure vacuum is strictly 1 variable. The vacuum can have no other variable, nor can the vacuum be inside of a non vacuum framework as the light in turn is inside the other framework. Even light inside a vacuum with someone staring at it from the outside introduces a non vacuum state.
7. Because it is only 1 variable, and nothingness, the variable inevitable is self referencing.
Variables are mental constructs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind_projection_fallacy
Light in a vacuum travels at a constant speed. That is all you have to take away from it.
From there onwards. You require a mind to quantify this speed. A mind to assign it a unit such as 'meters per second".
Measurement. Experience. They are the same thing.
You are observing the symbol-grounding problem at play: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbol_grounding_problem
When you start asking "what are the meter and the second defined in terms of?" you will spot the circularity.
To say ANYTHING about light beyond "it has a constant speed" (both 'speed' and 'light' being concepts).Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 20, 2019 10:02 amLight in a complete vacuum requires it to inevitably have an inherent level of self consciousness to it die to its self referencing capability as a self moving system.Logik wrote: ↑Sun Jan 20, 2019 9:25 amEverything else is spot-on except point 7.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 06, 2019 4:40 am This I will respect.
1. Light in a complete vacuum is theoretical.
2. Physics is empirical, when it becomes theoretical it is no longer empirical...it is theoretical.
3. The identity of physics, in light of theory being core axioms, becomes muddled with metaphysics, math, logic, psychology, etc.
4. Light in a pure vacuum, because it is not empirically proven (as no perfect vacuum exists and what is close to a "perfect" is still inside a non vacuum framework) is not physics.
5. Physics delves outside it's own boundaries for certain core axioms.
6. Light in a pure vacuum is strictly 1 variable. The vacuum can have no other variable, nor can the vacuum be inside of a non vacuum framework as the light in turn is inside the other framework. Even light inside a vacuum with someone staring at it from the outside introduces a non vacuum state.
7. Because it is only 1 variable, and nothingness, the variable inevitable is self referencing.
Variables are mental constructs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind_projection_fallacy
Light in a vacuum travels at a constant speed. That is all you have to take away from it.
From there onwards. You require a mind to quantify this speed. A mind to assign it a unit such as 'meters per second".
Measurement. Experience. They are the same thing.
You are observing the symbol-grounding problem at play: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbol_grounding_problem
When you start asking "what are the meter and the second defined in terms of?" you will spot the circularity.
Empirical light is what it is, but abstractly and intuitively it is inevitablely linked to "reason" or a "rational faculty" as well.
The grounding of empiricism, as well as the philosophical nature of empiricism itself, requires interpretation through abstraction.Logik wrote: ↑Sun Jan 20, 2019 10:07 amTo say ANYTHING about light beyond "it has a constant speed" (both 'speed' and 'light' being concepts).Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 20, 2019 10:02 amLight in a complete vacuum requires it to inevitably have an inherent level of self consciousness to it die to its self referencing capability as a self moving system.Logik wrote: ↑Sun Jan 20, 2019 9:25 am
Everything else is spot-on except point 7.
Variables are mental constructs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind_projection_fallacy
Light in a vacuum travels at a constant speed. That is all you have to take away from it.
From there onwards. You require a mind to quantify this speed. A mind to assign it a unit such as 'meters per second".
Measurement. Experience. They are the same thing.
You are observing the symbol-grounding problem at play: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbol_grounding_problem
When you start asking "what are the meter and the second defined in terms of?" you will spot the circularity.
Empirical light is what it is, but abstractly and intuitively it is inevitablely linked to "reason" or a "rational faculty" as well.
Requires entanglement with the observer. It requires empiricism.
Ultimately, Philosophy itself can be conceptualised as the human activity which attempts to address the problem of infinite interpretations. This is the same sentiment I express with 'change is the only constant'; or"change is the only real problem". System dynamics.
The infinite interpretations sets a constant foundation for philosophy as directed movement. I have a thread in the metaphysics section about this.Logik wrote: ↑Sun Jan 20, 2019 10:13 amUltimately, Philosophy itself can be conceptualised as the human activity which attempts to address the problem of infinite interpretations.
And you can conceptualise the science of Physics as an attempt to solve the symbol-grounding problem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbol_grounding_problem
If the symbol-grounding problem can be solved, then the need for interpretation (at least in Science) disappears.
Directed movement. Arrow of time.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 20, 2019 10:20 am As directed movement, symbolism effectively is grounded in directional properties where the symbols is directed towards another symbol while directed to an abstract or empirical reality simultaneously. The root of symbolism must be in spatial axioms similar to heiroglyphs.
The arrow of time, and heidegger observes this, is strictly a line between two points. The beginning point is directed to another point, inevitably the same point because all points are the same, and a circularity results.Logik wrote: ↑Sun Jan 20, 2019 10:24 amDirected movement. Arrow of time.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 20, 2019 10:20 am As directed movement, symbolism effectively is grounded in directional properties where the symbols is directed towards another symbol while directed to an abstract or empirical reality simultaneously. The root of symbolism must be in spatial axioms similar to heiroglyphs.
What's the difference?
Only when you abstract these 'points' to represent macrostates of an entire systems.
I am not limiting it to heidegger, quantum entanglement, as well as particle movement (moving from point A to point B) shows this as well....the example can go on.Logik wrote: ↑Sun Jan 20, 2019 10:56 amOnly when you abstract these 'points' to represent macrostates of an entire systems.
You have discarded any and all distinctions between the microstates.
I wouldn't read Heidegger on this. Read Boltzmann and Maxwell regarding statistical mechanics.
This is the micro-macro state distinction in statistical mechanics.
This is the general-particular distinction in philosophy.
Or reductionism-holism distinction in systems theory.
Scale.
Call it observation or call it a recognition.
Point space is the foundation of consciousness, yes.Logik wrote: ↑Sun Jan 20, 2019 11:08 amCall it observation or call it a recognition.
All human reasoning takes place on a continuum.
With the 'dualism' being the left/right, upper/lower, true/false, good/bad bounds of the continuum.
It's all binary classification! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_classification
Bounded rationality.
This links directly to your "morality is symmetry in time' thread. That which remains is the observer. The centre, the 0 of your axes, the line which divides the whole into two parts. Man is the measure of all things!
Until we solve the symbol-grounding problem. Then we enter the era of trans-humanism.
This is what physics is trying to do. Discover irreducible truth.
I don't think so. The human condition is what it is. You recognise that about the only thing that makes sense in this unexplainable place is creation.
ROFL!!!!!!!!!Logik wrote: ↑Mon Jan 21, 2019 5:58 amThis is what physics is trying to do. Discover irreducible truth.
I don't think so. The human condition is what it is. You recognise that about the only thing that makes sense in this unexplainable place is creation.
Create! Create mathematics. Create language. Create knowledge. Create self.
Part of philosophy, after all, is the very attempt to define yourself. No?
if we define human consciousness in a computer language we have transcended this physical form...
They are dead and mostly forgotten. But their knowledge benefits mankind. And yes - it is the world's oldest religion. The desire for determinism