Re: Where is "here"?
Posted: Sat Sep 19, 2015 11:04 pm
It seems to me that you are saying that space (distance ) is not real because how we measure it is arbitrary. We can use feet, yards, miles etc. That is a silly argument.
For the discussion of all things philosophical, especially articles in the magazine Philosophy Now.
https://forum.philosophynow.org/
That's not what I'm saying at all and I can't imagine how or why you would put such a bizarre and false construction on my words. You do NOT have the authority to offer gratuitous translations of my views and I"ll thank you to stop doing so. You've been warned several times before.raw_thought wrote:It seems to me that you are saying that space (distance ) is not real because how we measure it is arbitrary. We can use feet, yards, miles etc. That is a silly argument.
Please answer those questions. See ya tomorrow!raw_thought wrote:Considering that you said that Einstein said that math can be used to prove anything, I do not trust the authenticity of your quotes. I googled that supposed Einstein quote and came up with nothing. Actually, I found many Einstein math quotes and they all say that math describes and helps us understand reality.
You never answered my question. If only time is real and space is a fiction that means that I can say that something will happen in 2 hours but I cannot say that I am 6 foot 2 inches tall. Why are time units OK and space units are not. And if space does not exist then it is meaningless to say that my car is moving at 55 miles per hour. Next time I get pulled over for a speeding ticket I will tell the cop that space is unreal and therefore it is absurd to say that I was speeding!
What I'm saying is that Einstein made perfectly clear that the above is not a physical statement because an entity with no physical properties cannot be said to curve.raw_thought wrote:Leo,
Are you actually claiming that Einstein did not say that gravity is curved spacetime?
Very glib! What physical theory is purely physical? I don't know of any.Obvious Leo wrote:In a physical theory they do.Dubious wrote: not all things have to be physical to be real.
Dubious wrote: The reality of Cartesian space are the coordinates it supplies to position, location, etc.
Yes! It's a mathematical map that defines position, vectors, forces etc within a 2 dimensional or 3 dimensional space indispensible to science and engineering. Is it supposed to be more and would it fail on that account?Obvious Leo wrote:In other words the Cartesian space is a mathematical co-ordinate system and nothing more.
Brilliant as they were they may have understood the rudiments which can even be derived from a chess board but it was Descartes who established the total application as we now know it.Obvious Leo wrote:The Persian philosopher/mathematicians knew this 600 years before Descartes was even born.
Dubious wrote: Whether due to space or due to time it's an indispensable map whose territory has not yet been confirmed as not existing either way.
Is Cartesian Space - actual physical space as you mention - the same as a luminous ether. You seem to be conjoining them as if they're the same thing consequently claiming that the existence of space has been disproven since the ether concept does not apply. Have I got this right, that the existence of space has been confirmed not to exist based on the quoted methodologies?Obvious Leo wrote:Yes it has. The physicality of the Cartesian space was disproven by Michelson and Morley and subsequently confirmed as disproven by Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen.
Neither do I. I agree with Einstein and Bohr that physics is a branch of mathematics.Dubious wrote:Very glib! What physical theory is purely physical? I don't know of any.
I don't think it needs to be more than this if making predictions is all we ask of our theories. However if we want them to have any explanatory authority then we must make a careful distinction between what is physically real and what is merely a mathematical contrivance.Dubious wrote:Yes! It's a mathematical map that defines position, vectors, forces etc within a 2 dimensional or 3 dimensional space indispensible to science and engineering. Is it supposed to be more and would it fail on that account?
Descartes was a religious zealot and a metaphysical dunderhead who didn't know his epistemological arse from his ontological elbow. The centuries long fallacy of mistaking the map for the territory originated with exactly this idiot.Dubious wrote: Brilliant as they were they may have understood the rudiments which can even be derived from a chess board but it was Descartes who established the total application as we now know it.
Yes. Einstein himself conceded that GR was still an action at a distance theory no different from Newton's because in the absence of an aether there was still no defined mechanism for gravity, even in principle. The way he described the problem was that replacing the physical aether with a geometric aether made the problem worse instead of better. This is still the case to the present day and absolutely no progress towards such a mechanical theory for gravity has been made in a century. This was Minkowski's fault.Dubious wrote: Is Cartesian Space - actual physical space as you mention - the same as a luminous ether. You seem to be conjoining them as if they're the same thing consequently claiming that the existence of space has been disproven since the ether concept does not apply. Have I got this right, that the existence of space has been confirmed not to exist based on the quoted methodologies?
Even though I find Descartes detrimental in some respects especially his view of animals as being merely soulless mechanical creatures which observation would have confirmed as thoroughly non sequitur, I definitely would not describe him as an idiot! That is truly tantamount to an absurdity. Neither was he a religious zealot as per the following words from Pascal:Obvious Leo wrote:Descartes was a religious zealot and a metaphysical dunderhead who didn't know his epistemological arse from his ontological elbow. The centuries long fallacy of mistaking the map for the territory originated with exactly this idiot
Based on what I know of Descartes but with some amendments, I wouldn't mind cradling his brains in my cranium. Wikipedia has an interesting article on him which categorically refutes everything you said about him.I cannot forgive Descartes; in all his philosophy, Descartes did his best to dispense with God. But Descartes could not avoid prodding God to set the world in motion with a snap of his lordly fingers; after that, he had no more use for God,
Since it was light that presupposed an ether as a conduit which was confirmed not to exist AND since light travels through space which, correct me if I'm wrong, you denote as Cartesian (which to me is nothing more than a mathematical description of points on a piece of paper or computer screen) how could the negation of said ether negate, to the point of proof, the dimensions of space? Can't see how that follows.Obvious Leo wrote:Yes. Einstein himself conceded that GR was still an action at a distance theory no different from Newton's because in the absence of an ether there was still no defined mechanism for gravity, even in principle.
Actually it was more Albert's fault since he allowed the inclusion of Minkowski's revision of SR into GR. Even though he was "dubious" in the beginning he was still the master of his own theory. The upshot is that the success of the theory as it stands, hasn't yet been negated even by those physicists who wish and strive for revision. I agree that prediction in itself does not confirm reality. From what I recall, Ptolemy's system as refined to the period leading to Copernicus was overall more predictive than the latter until Kepler distorted the circle into an ellipse.This was Minkowski's fault
Don't you reckon its about bloody time to get it sorted?Dubious wrote: Nothing yet is conclusively decided regarding the existence of time and space.
Bullshit. These are ontological questions not epistemic ones. The randomists will be useless.Dubious wrote:These fields seem more within the prerogatives of Quantum physicists searching the layers below what constitutes the quantum reality map.
The so -called bending of light by gravity is no more complicated than the bending of a stick in water. It's an observer effect because light travels at an inconstant speed. Gravity slows down light just as surely as water does and it needs no aether to do it.Dubious wrote: Also, I never heard of ether as being considered essential for gravity to operate since it has no electromagnetic foundation which presupposes a medium. Conversely, it's not unreasonable to think if an ether did exist gravity would bend it in accordance with how gravity is known to bend light only without said ether.
I'd have to agree since ultimately it was Einstein who was credited with the theory. However GR proved SR wrong and he should have picked up on this. It would have saved a shitload of problems for the QM theorists as well.Dubious wrote:Actually it was more Albert's fault since he allowed the inclusion of Minkowski's revision of SR into GR. Even though he was "dubious" in the beginning he was still the master of his own theory.