Eise

Hmm, you are already too long in relativity. People like you and Janus know relativity so well, that it has become intuitive for you. 'Intuition' is not a given, it is something to develop, it comes with experience. So to answer the question if relativity is intuitive, I think you should go back to the first time you heard about it. I remember my first 2 encounters: me reading a children-level book about astronomy, in which was an example of time dilation, a rocket flying to the Andromeda galaxy and back again. I think an important factor in accepting this was that when I told my father, he confirmed that he knew that (and that it was not understandable how that is possible). The second encounter I found really astonishing: that of the invariance of the speed of light. Now I am also pretty used to it, and I understand the absolute basics of special relativity. But still... You, @Markus Hanke take one of the postulates that nearly everybody would agree upon. Everybody who has been travelling in a train or even an airplane, knows that everything works exactly the same as on the surface of the earth. It is only in combination with the fact that the speed of light is invariant, and not infinite, that we get at the non-intuitive results of special relativity, like time dilation and the equivalence of mass and energy. Personally, I feel that a dynamic solution, based on the æther, is much more intuitive. It compares with the experience of air. I you walk slowly, you do not notice it, but as you go faster, you feel the effects, and see them. Airplanes are just not fast enough to feel the æther pressure... This is ridiculous. First you should know better, there are more than enough explanations of the basics of special relativity, and the invariance of the speed of light is essential in all explanations. Second, this invariance is a fact. So try the following: Take a muon: we know its half-life from laboratory experiments. Now we know that muons are produced by cosmic rays in the upper atmosphere. However given their half-lives, next to none should ever reach the earth's surface. But they do. This is explained by the time dilation we observe for the muons. Now take your explanation. Just assume the muon has a wristwatch that we can see. Now explain why its time seems slower for us, than for the muon itself.

@Markus Hanke: Is a quantum theory of gravity the only kind of solution for the singularity? E.g. just like when a neutron star is formed by combination of protons and neutrons, wouldn't it be possible that in a black hole all matter is compressed into a very compact form we do not know? In other works, instead of quantum gravity, might we not need an extended form of quantum mechanics?

But they had no children... And to make things complicated, Elsa, Albert's cousin: Relativity theory is simpler than these family relationships...

I hope I cite Mordred correctly: a dimension is a parameter that can change independent of other parameters. So e.g. you can move north, i.e. you change your 'north-south' coordinate, while staying at the same place when you only think about moving in the 'east-west' coordinate. What you also can do is staying where you are in space, and you will move through time only. So we get at 4 dimensions, 3 in space, and one time dimension. So this also means one dimension cannot be 'foundational' for the others. 'Dimensions' are used in all kinds of corners of physics, not just space and time: we have 'phase-space', sometimes useful for describing a collection of particles: for every particle we have its position in space (3 dimensions), their momentum in 3 directions (i.e. another 3 dimensions), and then we have every single particle. So if we study a system of 100 particles, we have a 600-dimensional phase-space', in which all 100 particles are characterised by one point with 600 coordinates. In quantum mechanics, we have Hilbert space, which has nothing to do with our familiar 3+1 dimensions, and even uses complex numbers (i.e. with components of the square root of -1), and can even be infinite-dimensional. No, you are completely misusing the concept of 'dimensions'. So I completely agree with MigL here: If I remember correctly, from the old Superman comics, he sometimes had opponents from 'another dimension'. But I assume that the idea that 'other dimensions' are alternate realities was not invented by the authors of Superman.

And it was only meant as that: a simple description of the quantum vacuum in our universe. Nothing more. That's why I said 'particles pop into and out of existence'.

Because of the uncertainty principle. One of its forms says that in a process energy and time cannot be defined precisely together. But from that follows that an absolute vacuum cannot exist, because you would now the exact energy: 0. So for short times particles can pop into existence, and pop out again. This is what you see in joigus' animation. We know these processes are real, because otherwise we cannot explain the exact spectroscopic lines we see; and then there is the vacuum pressure that can be measured in the Casimir Effect. Then you are not alone. The laws of nature are useful abstractions, i.e. abstract descriptions, of natural processes. The only thing we can say about nature is that obviously there are regularities, otherwise the formulation of any law of nature would be impossible. But how to apply the idea of regularity when we talk about a one-time event, like the big bang? How can we derive, from a situation of nothingness, that there are (will be?) regularities, and even stronger, that they can be described by our present laws of nature?

I am not a physicist, but in A Universe from Nothing, Lawrence Krauss says that "Nothingness" is unstable. The "Nothingness" that joigus talks about is the 'emptiest' we can reach in our universe. Nothingness in our universe is a bit like a water surface: it can be in complete rest when simply looking at it, but zooming in, you will see molecules bouncing in each other, some of them escaping the surface, some others (or the same) caught at the surface. So a "Nothingness" still less then absolute vacuum in our universe would be unstable, and could produce the Big Bang. However, somehow the laws of nature should somehow exist, i.e there must be a road from absolute nothingness to our universe.

Both? I was sitting about 2 meters behind the flag, and zoomed in to the maximum. To be sure that the autofocus would not focus on the flag itself instead of the interference pattern, I focused manually, and exposed 2 stops (That is what they call it in Dutch) less than the lighting meter would normally do. And then on the computer I increased contrast, made it even a bit darker, and cropped to the pattern itself, so yes, it is pretty magnified. With my bare eyes I nearly could not see the colours. It was super, everything, everybody. I especially enjoyed the wine: very light, maybe only 6% alcohol, so I could drink much more than usual without getting tipsy or having a headache the next morning. Yes, that is definitely an advantage of living (and having salary) in Switzerland, nearly everything foreign including holidays, is cheap. Why, at the moment of writing, I realise I soon could buy the USA. I will think about a few improvements I could make then... ⚡

Yes. But I did not stay in Pisa, it was extremely hot, so we were there only one morning. And our stay was at the countryside. No, what is that? 😉 I looked at the official figures of Italy and compared them with Switzerland. Switzerland was worse: (New Infections, per Million inhabitants, against time, i.e. days since the first 0.1/million cases) We left August,4th. Maybe I should have decided to stay in Italy until Switzerland has solved its Corona-crisis?

Here, a mirror...

And three things are worth more or less mentioning in a science forum: In Pisa, I did not find any souvenir that somehow refers to Galileo throwing weights from the Leaning Tower. 😢 If in Newton's time such fine fabrics as nowadays used in flags would have existed, the question if light is particles or waves would have decided immediate against him: (My own picture of a patch of light seen through the Italian flag) I've been reading Einstein’s Clocks, Poincaré’s Maps: Empires of Time, by Peter Galison. It is a great book, showing how Poincaré and Einstein were in very close contact with the practical problems of timekeeping. Poincaré was even in charge in France for establishing good world-wide synchronised timekeeping for commercial and practical purposes, and especially for creating better maps. Einstein on the other hand, in his work at the patent office, had to evaluate many proposals for precise timekeeping devices, and for synchronising them. I think I agree with the linked review that Einstein would also have come with SR without his work at the patent office, but obviously the whole topic 'was in the air'. However, what I find convincing is the style of Einstein's On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies: it contains nearly no references to other authors or scientific articles: this was the usual style of patent requests, because of course these requests should show itself as original as possible. The book also explains quite well why Poincaré could not make the final step of completely abandoning the idea of the æther. Poincaré was a kind of conservative, in the good sense, i.e. he saw science as a gradual changing discipline, keeping all ideas that had proved to work so well for many years (Newtonian mechanics and Maxwell's electromagnetism), where Einstein was more or less a rebel, prepared to throw useless ideas overboard. The only other criticism I have on the book is its detailedness about all the expeditions in South America, negotiations between companies, governments etc about establishing coordinated time. A shorter overview would have done just as well. But for everybody interested in the history of science, and how it is embedded in wider culture, it is a must-read.

That is a pretty useless example of very bad philosophy. you state that only facts matter in life you state that only numerically quantifiable observations count as facts And that without even one simple argument. This reduces your viewpoint to an irrational (and none quantifiable and non-factual) mental jerk.

Yes. And I think compatibilism accounts for both views. Your talents, chances you have in your life, cultures in which you grow up determine who you are. But that has no impact on the compatibilist conception of free will: because that is about what you want (determined by all kind of external and internal factors), and the possibility to act according it.

I think I must agree with Markus to disagree. The only last possibility I see is to replace the word 'change', when not applied to the flow of time, with another one: maybe 'to vary' will do? Y varies dependent on the variation of x. And the observation that in a few English dictionaries, I always see a reference to time in the 'change'-lemmas.

Formally you are right. However the practical difference between solipsism and realism evaporates by the observation that also a solipsist is confronted with the fact that his influence on his virtual world is just as limited as that of the realist. Just because the sun exists in 'his imagination' only, he cannot 'think it away'. Same for the experience of his body, and the need for food. He has to see that his body is also just a projection of his mind, which must regularly be fed by projections of food. And as he shares this experience with all these other 'virtual' people doing exactly the same, he could just as well be a realist. The only step in the direction of solipsism I see, is the idea that we cannot observe the world as it is in itself, but this is more or less common sense for modern scientists. We create the models, sure, but they have to be tested against factual observations of 'reality'. For a solipsist however this would already be funny: why can't he have a full grasp of reality, when reality is just a product of is mind? So I think that only under a 'methodological hammer' solipsism makes sense, or better, as you say, is not unfalsifiable. But except on this methodological playground, solipsism is an empty idea. And @Markus Hanke: thanks for your explanations about Theravadin Thai Forest tradition, and your path. Interesting enough, I also made my first steps in Zen when I was in Ireland (Galway). I lived a year there (1998-1999). Since then I go into retreats at least once a year (except this year, due to COVID-19), since 2005 with Reb Anderson, who was ordained by Suzuki.

Exactly. You have to imagine going from top to bottom, to get a change in colour. Yep, time does not just equal change. In my view however, they are strongly related: you can see it in two opposite ways: change is always change in time. That means time is some (local?) background dimension time is the highest abstraction of change But certainly time and change are not the same. I can see it: by letting my gaze/attention/imagination move from top to bottom...

It is an obsession with correct language. It would not be the first time that metaphoric thinking leads to absurd conclusions. I think you will find a reference to time in every meaning in a dictionary. Why do you understand me if I would talk about a universe where nothing changes. Do you think then automatically about a universe that is uniformly filled with a continuous substance, or completely empty? If I say to you 'Imagine a universe where nothing changes', would you then ask for clarification 'you mean no change in space or no change in time?' Wouldn't people wonder when somebody says 'the difference between a TV set and a picture, is that at a TV the picture is changing continuously', and then you react 'but a picture changes too. if you go from left to right, its colour changes'. They would think you are a nerd, weirdo, or the like.

But no one has been saying this...? Well, at least I interpreted your remark so: In the literal sense, yes, because you put something in that implies time: 'from to to bottom'. that is a movement. Where (nearly) everybody fully understands what you mean, it is metaphorical speech. less metaphorically formulated, I would say 'if you move from top to bottom, at a certain moment you will see that the colour changes from black to white'. And statically I would say 'the top half is black, the bottom half is white'. Nothing changes, the knob looks what it looks like, and that's it.

I had never heard of it. Could one say, in a few single words, it is Buddhism 'back to the roots'? Pity Ireland is a bit far away to be there at the ceremony. And who knows where we are with COVID-19. Same for me. Just to add (not for you, you already know that for sure), there is of course also a lot of suffering that does not start with bodily pain, but raises from our false understanding of what and who we are. I would nearly say, no need for that. It will only increase confusion, and create a lot of 'fake problems', similar to 'How many angels can dance on a pinpoint'.

Dennett wrote two books about free will: Elbow Room (1984) and Freedom Revolves (2003), many articles, gave many talks, interviews, and discussions (e.g. with Sam Harris). So I do not think his criterion for free will is 'hasty'. Quite the opposite: he is one of the deepest thinkers about that subject. Even that I learned most from Peter Bieri, Das Handwerk der Freiheit, but yeah, that is German, and it is not translated in English. Ah, 'graded' is not really a problem, quite the opposite. 'Free will' is a bit of a wide concept, one reason that I sometimes go to the preciser formulation, that some actions are free (i.e. 'not coerced'), and when a person is able to act freely, one can say she has free will. Here you go again! What does 'really free' mean? Why would you be interested in this mirage? Oh yeah. And I think that what you call a 'working definition' is in fact the definition of free will. Or a bit more precise: I think you would call my definition a 'working definition'. The error you probably make is similar to find a purely physical explanation of what a book is. It is definitely not a 'working definition', because meaning of the text is involved in what a real book is. I do not quite understand your remark between brackets, but I fully agree with your main sentence. E.g. better not publish a book that is printed with the same colour as the paper. That is a physical criterion for real books. Isn't that a contradiction to your point 1)? Maybe you are, but I think as long as you are prepared to enter a serious discussion, as you do, this doesn't bother me at all. Just be aware of the special rules for posting in the philosophy forum. (Ups, they do not exist. Yet?)

Well, at least cladking has shown us extensively one example of bad philosophy. Ill informed about what science and philosophy are, or better, what scientists and philosophers do, cladking vents his ideas about them. To look back one the criteria I proposed earlier in this thread: Nope Hardly Nope Nope. Done.

Can you explain this more. I don't get what you are trying to say.

No, of course not. I said: Maybe I should have written that activities exist in time, and therefore a 'change of x' exists in time. So your example of the electrostatic objects does not work. Yes, because only observers that exist in time can say 'if you change x, then y changes according f(x)'. Otherwise, an observer would just see an object, a static form. I think the subtle point here is that one must take care to distinguish between what we observe, and how we speak about it. I might be wrong, but I have the impression that you and Markus discuss what we observe, and I talk about how we speak about an observation.

As long as you just look at a teacup, or a graph of a function, I fully agree with you. I would say, yes, you do it, and time is the parametrisation you use. In my opinion, if somebody says that 'y changes as function of the change of x', she is saying 'if you change x from a to b, then y changes according f(a) to f(b)'. But a change of x is an activity of an observer, and observers exist in time. And concerning your points with MigL: of course change can occur without observers. But observing a change means either a passive observer sees things changing (you are sitting quietly at a veranda, and you see the streets changing from dry to wet (a very common experience in Ireland...)) or you look at an non-changing object, but you let wander your gaze from one place of the object to another, and e.g. see how the colour 'changes' dependent on the place of the object where you look. But the latter also means a change in time. But the change is in the observer, not in the object. The object is static.

You can read: o Yes o No Two trees are explicitly mentioned: the tree of life, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. 'Accepted as true' is not the same as 'true'. Therefore no science should stick to axioms, and philosophy neither. Taking them temporary for granted is ok, but one should always be prepared to drop these 'axioms'. I slowly get the impression you have no idea how science and philosophy work.