uwot wrote: ↑Fri Feb 28, 2020 9:06 pm
We? I have never denied that time and gravity (what's with the capital?) are separate phenomena.
Great! That's sufficient. Time and Gravity are separate phenomena.
uwot wrote: ↑Fri Feb 28, 2020 9:06 pm
It's not your argument Skepdick, me old china, that's why it's called Planck distance. After Max Planck, dontcha know.
Your comment serves no purpose - call it cultural appropriation. I the Max Planck foundation would like me to pay royalties for sharing an opinion with Planck, they can reach out to me.
The implications of too much gravity is "no observation".
uwot wrote: ↑Fri Feb 28, 2020 9:06 pm
Not really, the goal of epistemology is not to do the impossible.
Observation is impossible without time.
But if gravity is a separate phenomenon to time, then it seems safe to ignore it for epistemic purposes, right?
uwot wrote: ↑Fri Feb 28, 2020 9:06 pm
Well, you keep changing it.
I am still defending the same position since I was TimeSeeker. Any movement you detect is your fluctuation.
A photon traveling at the speed of light is still traveling through a time-field at a constant speed.
This is a perspective I've borrowed from Linear logic (which was the first logic to localise time).
For ANY photon, its own timeline is
totally monotone.
uwot wrote: ↑Fri Feb 28, 2020 9:06 pm
Reality doesn't give two hoots for epistemologists.
It is epistemologists who gave it the name "reality".
It is epistemologists who are describing "reality" with Mathematics.
It is epistemologists who make predictions/perform experiments on reality.
To pretend that you are speaking on behalf of reality (ontology) is to take yourself a little too seriously.
uwot wrote: ↑Fri Feb 28, 2020 9:06 pm
Are you a Platonist? What does something's mathematical representation have to do with ontology?
You are speaking ABOUT ontology. You are using language to describe it. You are making claims about it. You know things about ontology.
But you are ONLY an epistemologist?!?!? How does this work?
Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent!
That which you are calling "ontology" is still "only" your epistemology! Mind-projection fallacy.
uwot wrote: ↑Fri Feb 28, 2020 9:06 pm
Maybe as far as mathematicians care, but QFT which you referred to above, is based on the premise that quantum fields have mechanical properties - they exist as physical entities, in other words. Based on that premise, the good people at CERN spent a shitload of money and man hours building and running the LHC precisely so that they could prove this by hitting the Higgs Field so hard they could make a Boson.
Every single description of a field, or a vector field, or a tensor field or its mechanical properties is EXPRESSED in Mathematics.
If it wasn't, you wouldn't be able to compute any consequences.
if you can't compute any consequences you can't make any predictions.
If you can't make any predictions you can't test anything empirically.
The consequences (predictions) come from computing the ontology which is EXPRESSED in Mathematics.
Einstein's description of the spacetime geometry/ontology is Mathematical.
But Einstein was only an epistemologist. How does this work?
The ontology/epistemology distinction does not exist in the mind of an epistemologist. It's all language!
uwot wrote: ↑Fri Feb 28, 2020 9:06 pm
So, no wiki page for 'time field'? Perhaps you could point us to some paper that has used the concept.
And that's what I am working on. Formalising what I know about time-fields from distributed/transactional systems in computer science.