Perfectly well understood.
If you have been paying attention to anything I type the Chomsky hierarchy of languages makes reference to context-sensitive and context-free grammars. Context-independent facts don't exist because meaning is holistic. Or as Quine says "the unit of measure of empirical meaning is all of science in its globality."
With all that said, it's trivial to get people to argue about anything. In a room of 10 people you will have 10 different opinions on the "nature of harm". But offer to punch everybody in the face and observe consensus emerge.
Sophistry disappears when the stakes are real.
That's probably because QFT doesn't admit "gravity" into its context? And if there's no gravity then there's nothing to be said about the effects of it on anything?
Perhaps you aren't aware that quantum gravity is the elephant in the physics world nowadays?
Well, you are going to have a hard time saying anything coherent about entanglement if the clocks of two "entangled" particles ran at different speeds.
Here ya go
We find that there exist fundamental limitations to the joint measurability of time along neighboring space–time trajectories, arising from the interplay between quantum mechanics and general relativity. Because any quantum clock must be in a superposition of energy eigenstates, the mass–energy equivalence leads to a trade-off between the possibilities for an observer to define time intervals at the location of the clock and in its vicinity. This effect is fundamental, in the sense that it does not depend on the particular constitution of the clock, and is a necessary consequence of the superposition principle and the mass–energy equivalence. We show how the notion of time in general relativity emerges from this situation in the classical limit.
Well, you can't really make that argument when entanglement maintains across distances significantly greater than the scale of any localised experiment.uwot wrote: ↑Sun Jul 05, 2020 9:31 am The thing with QFT is that the phenomena you are interested in occur on such minute scales that they are inevitably in the same inertial frame and at the same gravitational potential. You can therefore safely ignore relativistic effects like time dilation - malleable spacetime serves no purpose. That is not the same as “the real fact” is that time is absolute.
While the most sensitive atomic clocks can detect relativistic effects at room scale. You can literally use atomic clocks at altimeters even at distances of 1 meter or less.
You think the above paragraph is coherent?uwot wrote: ↑Sun Jul 05, 2020 9:31 am Dunno what FlashDangerpants’ intention is, but It looks to me as though he is being consistent in his use of ‘fact’. Thanks to which, his argument is easy to follow and coherent. You though flip between ‘fact’ of a given context and “real fact” as though they were interchangeable so casually that what you are saying becomes an incontinent stream of gibberish.
I am the one willing to default to "there are no facts, only interpretations". Remember?
If there are no such things as context-independent facts, then which context is The Context in which all facts are "real facts"?
I am only mirroring your use of the word "facts" (pretending that context-independence is a thing). You can see that it's incoherent bullshit when I am doing it, but you can't see that it's incoherent bullshit when you are doing it.
Quite ironic that you can see I am being inconsistent in doing what you do. And that's precisely why I am mirroring you.
