owl

Some food for thought here before I take off for the feast of "real food." I think "What is it?" ontological questions are very relevant to science. Here are a few examples. What is a "dimension?" Context: Everyone is familiar with 3-D space. Some call time a dimension, and I can live with that as 'what elapses' as things move. But what kind of science adds seven more without any explanation as to what they are, or the ability to observe and verify their existence. String/M-theory is metaphysics parading as science. It needs a strong dose of ontology. They say dimensions are the "degrees of freedom" in which strings vibrate. Beyond line, plane and volume, or up-down, left-right, and forward-back, what other "direction" is there? That is a philosophical question, asked as if science should actually make sense! How about theories of gravity? We have GR which is an improvement over Newtonian physics, but it depends on a malleable mystery medium, spacetime to guide things around as mass attracts mass (and light.) How is "what is it?" not a relevant question? Quantum mechanics posits the hypothetical graviton as a massless "messenger particle" which somehow transfers the pull of gravity between masses. But, like spacetime, gravitons remain hypothetical. Science can not just make up new words for physical objects and processes/forces and say that "what it is" doesn't matter! They must refer to actual things and processes, not just concepts in models. So this is where epistemology (philosophy) comes in and demands to know how we verify our hypotheses. And ontology, paradoxically, is the 'metaphysics' of inquiry into the physical nature, if any, of the mechanisms involved in such theories as above (and countless others.) Gotta go. Happy turkey day to all. A follow up to Swansont's challenge, having a little 'delay before take off.' Me: ... the position that what is wrong? I know that GR's math is an improvement over Newtonian physics. Maybe quantum mechanics will not only improve on that but come up with the 'holy grail' of unified theory on all scales. But I do not see how knowing what it is that we are talking about when we use the terms spacetime and graviton is irrelevant to science. My quote above also applies to a part of relativity that I do think is wrong. I argued to the best of my ability in my 'objective vs subjective' thread in this section that the world/cosmos is real all by itself, independent of and not effected by measurements (from different frames of reference) and what knowledge is gained from our observations. Case in point: The part of epistemology that employs reason tells us that the distance between Earth and Sun varies only with its position in elliptical orbit, not with how it is observed from extreme frames of reference ( 'subjective' perception, even if just an abstract point of view.) Likewise with the shrunken solid meter rod, both examples of bogus "length contraction" applied on macro scale. We beat that to death with no concession on your part that our measurements of the Au, etc do not change the 'real world' distance/length.

Generally speaking, knowledge about 'the world' does not effect either what 'it' is (in any case) or how it works. So, no. But that should not keep 'inquiring minds' from asking the questions.

The coordinate system is the map. Curving paths of objects and light is the territory. Philosophy asks how well the map fits the territory. It asks what is it that is curved in "The region near the mass is curved..." Relativity fits it better than Newtonian physics. Granted. Now, lets move on to the 'mechanics' of how gravity works. Relativity's curved spacetime (what?) is one theory, but the parenthetical question still remains. Quantum gravity theory is another, but what the hell is a 'quanta' in that theory, anyway. Some care. Some don't. I care. Members of the International Society for the Advanced Study of Spacetime care. The physicists (and wanna be's) in this forum do not, but luckily it has a philosophy section where the questions can be discussed. This bears repeating from my post 50: The burden of proof remains with relativity, as the theory endorsing spacetime as "that" which guides things in their curved paths... to explain how that happens. Does "it" have grooves in it that guides stuff or what? How does "it" influence things to follow "its" curvature?

Quoting from last page for convenience: The goal of science, most generally speaking, is to investigate and understand "the world," cosmos and all its parts and dynamics. When relativity asserts that "space is curved" or "time slows down" or "mass curves spacetime," it is reasonable to ask, "to what do those terms refer in 'the real world.?' That is the function of ontology as a branch of the philosophy of sceince, whether you and the staff here* think it is important (relevant) or not. *They repeatedly tell me that it doesn't matter "what it is" in any case but only "how it acts" in all cases. This asserts that it doesn't matter if the 'map fits the terrain' or even if there is any real world 'terrain' (what it is) as referents for the words time, space and spacetime. So we end up with something like, "Whatever it IS (spacetime), mass distorts IT and guides objects in curved paths," as above. We all know that time elapses as everything moves, but that doesn't make time into 'something' that slows down. Physical processes slow down for various reasons. We all know that objects move through space, but that doesn't make space into 'something' with the property of curvature or shape in general as the various theoretical non-Euclidean "manifolds" (models) claim. This is what ontology addresses.

Not really. Did you follow my piece about elapsed time in the natural world being independent of 'clocking' or measuring the duration of events? Relativity does the same thing with space as it does with time, and once they are reified they they can coalesce into "the fabric of spacetime" which mass can distort and which then guides objects in curved paths... even though they are 'nothing, really', certainly not "entities!" Do you see any problem with that?

"Time slows down" is a very different statement than "clocks slow down." Me: No. Look at the context. Do you see any difference at all between the two statements: “Physical processes (including atomic decay) slows down at high velocity...” and, “Time slows down at high velocity...”? “ The specific “event duration” above is how long it takes radioactive atoms to decay in an atomic clock at high speed as compared to an identical clock at lower speed. The event duration of that physical process is slower at high velocity. Your statement makes no sense to me. You go on: First sentence is unintelligible to me. Next, ontologically, in the world independent of clocks and clocking and different frames of reference, time elapses as everything moves. It doesn’t speed up and slow down just because observers with their clocks do. It takes the same amount of time for an earth revolution or orbit in the natural world whether or not it is “clocked” from a high speed frame of reference. Observation and measurement (“clocking” in this case) does not effect how fast or slow things move (event duration), even though making a clock travel faster makes it slow down. “Time slows down” (or ‘dilates’) is not the same assertion as “clocks slow down.” The difference is important because the first attributes entity status to time and the second does not. Ps; a point you seem to have missed from my last post:

Philosophically speaking, if spacetime is just a concept, not an entity, what curves?... and, as I asked Cap 'n R yesterday, how does this non-entity guide masses and light in curved paths? Cap ‘n R: ...”if space is curved...” Philosophy of science;Ontology of space; Analysis of the transition from Euclidean to non-Euclidean geometry and cosmology: What is space in the real cosmos? (Not talking only conceptual “manifolds” here.) Is it not the emptiness between “things?” What does it mean to say that empty* volume curves? *This is not meant to deny that forces pass through all space everywhere. We are talking about objects here. If almost all the empty space were compressed out of Earth, it would be about the size of a pea, so they say.... *that* space, but on all scales,including between large cosmic objects. To your last point: Yes, but why call curved arcs on a sphere’s surface “straight lines” in the first place? But saying that “space curves” without specifying what space IS (ontology) as above... 'something’ besides the volume between ‘things?”... is only saying that theorists can imagine such curvature without any ‘thing’ per se being actually curved. But that is a philosophical point. You say it doesn’t matter what spacetime IS, IT is curved by mass, ...what... in our minds and concepts only?... and the reality of it doesn’t matter? Well, you have said that science as you see it doesn’t care what stuff IS but only how “it” ... be it micro gnomes or elves or whatever... acts. Philosophy cares what the hell science is talking about when it uses nouns like space, time, spacetime... whatever it is that is curved, etc. Yes, the "quanta" in the mechanics... but also the supposed required “carrier” particles in the question, “what propagates gravitational force?”... the ‘whatever’ that fills in for the supposed impossibility of “action at a distance” on all scales.

I think my definition of time clarifies the reification factor, as explained above. That "clocks slow down" is an observable fact, but asserting that "time slows down" treats time like some kind of medium or entity which clocks can detect. Then relativity, having reified time, weaves "it" together with space to make the malleable medium "spacetime" which mass distorts, as an explanation of how gravity works. Ontology attempts to clarify what exactly time IS. The above distinction between 'time slows down' and 'clocks slow down' applies to our best, most accurate clocks. For clarity, I define time as event duration of physical processes. The internal physical process which makes all clocks "tick" slows down at higher velocities and in higher gravitational fields, the well documented relativity effect on clocks. Your last statement again "makes something of it" (time) and asserts that "it" (not just atomic decay) slows down. This may sound nit picky, but ontology is serious about what time is "supposed" to be. As above... the physical process of decay slows down. Time "elapses" between "ticks" of a clock. There is more elapsed time between "ticks" of a clock at higher velocity. But the clock is not detecting and monitoring some medium, "time" that it is traveling through, which has slowed down. My above distinction is central to the ontology of time. Relativity asserts that time is "that which clocks measure." This is a tautology which is not a meaningful definition. It says nothing about the nature or properties of time, as a true definition must. Hopefully my further explanation above has clarified the issue from my ontological perspective.

Cap ‘n R, in post 21: The philosophy of science questions the relevance of the models to the real world, including what relativity means by “spacetime is distorted by mass.” You say: When relativity adopted a non-Euclidean “model”, it was a concept of a four dimensional spacetime manifold without a referent in the real world for how space combined with time to “make” such a malleable “whatever” which is curved by mass and guides masses in curved paths. What it is does matter? And if it remains just an abstract concept, then how is it necessary to the math describing how mass attracts mass (and light) to create curved paths. In other words, how does the observed “behavior” of masses in curved paths around other masses require a “four dimensional spacetime manifold” to make the improved predictive math work? If "it" is nothing, really, then Occam's razor can cut it out, and nothing will be changed. You say: Since Earth orbits the Sun “as if’” gravity simply pulled on it constantly (without even knowing how it works), why is it necessary to introduce the concept of a four dimensional spacetime manifold, a non-entity to explain it? Do you believe that such orbits follow intrinsically straight lines within an “extrinsically” curved manifold, (“spacetime”) as non-Euclidean geometry and cosmology asserts? Or are all these orbits just like they look, following curved, elliptical paths through empty space. Science doesn't care what space is (or time) but mass makes "it" (spacetime) curve? This is a philosophical challenge to the non-Euclidean nonsense that planetary orbits are straight lines through curved space. Reviewed the links. Summary: Physics models don't need real world referents, and the ontological inquiry into what the hell science is talking about when it refers to space, time, and spacetime is not relevant. Since the ontology I have studied in depth sees time (not an entity) as only event duration as thing move around and space as the volume (not an entity per se but the emptyness between things) through which they move, I will never hypothesize that " spacetime guides matter and light into curved paths..." The burden of proof remains with relativity, as the theory endorsing spacetime as "that" which guides things in their curved paths... to explain how that happens. Does "it" have grooves in it that guides stuff or what? How does "it" influence things to follow "its" curvature? I think that quantum mechanics will blow "curved spacetime" right out of the water eventually. The "mechanics" requiring intermediate particles or "strings" or "the curved fabric of spacetime", or whatever will give way to "action at a distance", just like entangled particles, and science, I think, will give up on requiring intermediate particles or media like spacetime to "explain" gravity. So epistemology* is not relevant to science? * Wiki: ....The branch of philosophy concerned with the nature and scope (limitations) of knowledge. *What is knowledge? *How is knowledge acquired? *How do we know what we know? So your philosophy is like "who cares?" Maybe something like, "Because Einstein (or whatever authority or textbook) said so" is enough for folks like you?

The ontology of time investigates what "it" is, if anything, specifically in this case, 'something' besides the clocks themselves that slows down and speeds up in different circumstances. If you think that clocks 'detect' time and that their slowing down means that 'time' is slowing down, then you have (relativity has) reifiied time. I'll take your next paragraph a piece at a time. No question about it; well proven. The ontological 'leap' is from 'clocks slow down' as above, to 'time passes slower.' Physical processes, including clocks' 'ticking' slow down at higher velocities. The 'time passes slower' statement assumes that time is some 'thing' which clocks detect, and that 'thing' slows down as above; not just the physical process of clocks 'ticking.' I think that "time dilation" reifies time, makes 'something of it' besides the observable phenomena of clocks slowing down. This is why ontology challenges relativity's philosophical assumption that time is an entity which elapses at different rates. I do not pretend to explain why physical processes slow down at higher velocities. Only that it is clocks, not "time itself" which slow down.

Do you understand that "mathematical constructs" require physical referents to be relevant to the empirical science of observable phenomena? Do you have an ontological analysis of what time IS that "it" can "run backwards?" The experiment you cite must assume that time is an entity or medium which can 'run backwards' and reverse what precedes what. My ontological understanding of "time" has concluded that it is not such an entity, but I may yet study the experiment in enough detail to see what the claim is based on. Note: Much of the belief in time travel is based on "time dilation" as if time were "something" detected and measured by clocks. The fact that clocks slow down when accelerated to high velocities does not mean that "time slows down", for instance. The slowing of physical processes, probably including human aging, does not equate to "time travel."

Cap 'n R: Here is where the philosophy of science is relevant. Relativity constantly uses the term "spacetime" without a 'real world referent' as you do above, and claims that mass distorts it, even though "it" is nothing but the concept that time and space coalesce into ?something?, a conceptual four dimensional manifold, that is distorted by mass. So, in the material universe, what are the 'mechanics' by which this non-entity, distorted by mass, "guides" matter and light into curved paths? This is a fair question which deserves an answer, not the usual 'dodge.'

If i may back up to yesterday's unanswered questions and Cap 'n R and I going around in circles... Cap ‘n R in post 17: “...It’s observable behavior ?” What is being observed but the paths of objects effected by gravity? End of my post 16: (Einstein's improved gravity equations over Newton.) End of my post 20: Cap 'n R; One can not 'prove the negative.' If "it" did exist, the burden of proof would be on its theorists to prove that "it" does exist. Again, if "it" doesn't exist, then the claim that mass distorts "it" is ludicrous. Take a look at M-theory's strings. Do they exist? No one will ever observe "them," so the "theory" is safe from being falsified, but many think that it is metaphysics without the possibility of scientific verification, not science. Yet they say that the complex math ends up with the same value on each side of the equation, so it has some kind of internal integrity as math without the "dimensions" having referents in the material universe. The same can be said for (against) "spacetime."

Cap 'n R, Excuse me but we are still not communicating. I said,"If you (relativity theory) leave it as a non-entity, then you don't have to devise an experiment to test "it?" You said, "I didn't say I don't have to devise an experiment. I asked whether there is such an experiment. There isn't." Huh? No, there is no experiment to test whether spacetime is an entity in the material world, because it isn't! But relativity insists that "it" is distorted by mass anyway. Surely you see how this makes no sense.

TAR2: Thanks for your perspectives. I studied Kant in depth in college, but in this thread am trying to show that, as in the intro post, physicists like Feynman and Hawking are bashing classical philosophy (and philosophers) as totally irrelevant to science. Strawmen!, as Swansont never tires of saying. I countered Feynman's tirade against Spinoza by saying that modern philosophers of science are raising contemporary questions about science's assumptions. They challenge "dimensions" without referents in the observable world or the possibility of ever falsifying them, as in M-theory's seven extra "dimensions." Not science but metaphysics. Likewise the four dimensional "spacetime manifold" with an assumption of "block time" or a "block universe" in which all that ever was or will be is somehow present now. Quite an assumption based on reification of space and time and their "weaving together" into the now famous and largely unchallenged "fabric of spacetime."

This really makes no sense to me. If you (relativity theory) leave it as a non-entity, then you don't have to devise an experiment to test "it?" You can just keep saying that mass distorts "it" without a hypothesis as to what "it" is? That looks like the ultimate "dodge" to me. Like good ol' Cool Hand Luke said, "What we have here is a failure to communicate!" Edit for clarification: The math describes the path (of masses mutually pulled by gravity.) And Einstein's math describing such paths was clearly an improvement over the Newtonian concept. But how is this mystery medium a required part of that improved theory and its math?

If you (or Einstein or Minkowski) say that mass distorts spacetime is it not incumbent on you (them) to also 'theorize' what that distorted medium IS in the material universe? Agreed. Yet the "picture" is constantly used to "explain" how mass distorts this non-existent whatever. You continue to assert that even though "it" is nothing, really, "it" is useful in the theory and the math. A non-existent non-entity is distorted by mass, and this is called science today! It is my sincere hope that this nonsense is cleared up by the time (not far away) my grandchildren seriously study how mass and energy and all the forces interact.

So the question: "What is the relationship between the abstract world of mathematics and the material universe?"... has no relevance to science. It just doesn't matter? Likewise with physics " questions concern the nature of space and time."? I really liked your likening spacetime to a "tie died rabbit pelt" way back in another of my threads. It illustrates your "it doesn't matter" point above. But, for instance, last night on NOVA's "Elegant Universe" program, they drug out the old rubber fabric of spacetime (metaphor) again with the Sun in the middle making it sag and Earth earth rolling around the depression with the perennial "explanation" that mass distorts the fabric of spacetime... "like this... see?" It is just a metaphor, but it looks very much like a sagging rubber sheet distorted by the mass of the sun. How far can science take a metaphor without considering what it "actually" is that is being "distorted?" Why not just use a few question marks in the equations...????... to stand for the "Glorious Non-entity, Spacetime?" (Brown and Pooley) rather than continue to show "it" and explain "it" as an actual entity?

Moth: This is highly technical, and I would need to study the experimental design in minute detail to find the (presumed*) fallacy in the assumption that it demonstrates an effect preceding its cause. * The later does violate causality (causes always precede effects.) It assumes that time is an entity or medium which can 'run backwards' and reverse what precedes what. I suspect that the answer lies in the deep mystery of how entangled particles, including photons, "keep in touch" at a distance, i.e., that info seem to travel between them instantaneously, in "no time."

Do you think these above quoted questions/comment are relevant to relativity's assumptions about space, time, and spacetime as entities? Re math: Re physics: ... Do you think it matters at all whether or not spacetime (and its component "parts") even exists as a malleable entity, a "fabric" guiding things in their curved gravitationally influenced paths? edit: ...Or is the above an example of "...philosophical baggage... taken on board without examination," from the introductory Dennett quote?

I had intended to 'flesh out' the background for this topic in the opening post yesterday, but I was interrupted. Here it is in some detail. —Daniel Dennett, Darwin's Dangerous Idea, 1995.Epistemology is an integral part of science. Wikipedia on Epistemology: Epistemology encompasses not only empirical, a-posteriori knowledge, the 'backbone of science', but also reason as a tool of knowledge. The latter falls in the category of a-priori knowledge. By reason alone we know, for instance, that everything in the universe can not be and never was contained in a "point of zero volume" as one famous physicist once theorized. I encourage readers to study the branches of epistemology. (Wikipedia is an adequate intro.) Many physicists think that the empirical branch is the only one that matters. But idealism (not specifically 'subjective idealism') is the branch that depends on reason. Wiki: Then there is rationalism. (Wiki): Then there is constructivism. Now back to "philosophy of science" as applied specifically to math and physics (still quoting Wiki with my bold for emphasis.) Though most if not all physicists in this forum seem to think that 'philosophy of physics' is an oxymoron, here is Wiki's take on it (with, again, my bold): So the above provides more to 'chew on' as background. Chew on.

Moth: Ontology examines what exists, applied to whatever. Causality exists as "cause and effect." Ontology employs reason as one of its tools. Reason dictates that causes precede effects (unless time can "run backwards," which it can not.) As I said, "Present events do not cause events that have already happened (past events) to change." Also, "...the past has already happened and can not be changed... can not become the present." If you think that this experiment demonstrates that a present event effected a past event, please explain how you see that being verified. I don't see it. You say:... We observe what is happening, what has already been caused. For instance, in the "Schrodinger's cat" example, the cat in the box is either dead or alive, but we don't know which until we open the box and observe. That observation does not effect whether the cat is alive or dead, due to whatever cause, independent of the observation.

http://physicshead.blogspot.com/2008/03/feynman-philosophy-is-bullshit.html Physicshead, 3/11/’08: Feynman--”Philosophy is bullshit”.... How about the "block time" universe proposition? But that depends on contemporary philosophy of science. The classical philosophers are strawmen for Feynman and Hawking. (See below.) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/8520033/Stephen-Hawking-tells-Google-philosophy-is-dead.html Hawking: From Philosophy Now magazine, Sept/Oct , ‘11 Hawking contra Philosophy: http://www.philosophynow.org/issue82/Hawking_contra_Philosophy (Final quote from intro): “ So our physics heroes are down on philosophy. Yet when they endorse (relativity endorses) a model of the universe based on “block time” or a “block universe” which, in turn, is based on a nice model of the entity/medium “the (four dimensional) fabric of spacetime”... no one thinks that the ontological questions (mere philosophy) “what is space?,” what is time?,” "what is spacetime’, or even “what is a dimension?”... are important. They are no longer open philosophical/ontological questions. They are assumed as established and proven entities, interwoven into a malleable medium, with no concern at all as to what they *are*, actually, in the (excuse the ontological phrase) “real world.” I was not done with the intro post, but must go now. I’ll just post it and invite commentary.

First, I am not an expert in quantum physics. For instance, it remains very mysterious to me how "entangled particles" interact at a distance. Also I don't understand how it is that the experimental design here claims to demonstrate, as you said, that "... an event that occurred in the past (can) be affected by current events?" I said, "it can't" because that would violate causality. Present events do not cause events that have already happened (past events) to change. But at the very basic level, the ontology of time examines what "it" is. Everything moves. As anything moves from "here to there" we say that "time elapses." But that does not mean that time is an entity or medium of some kind, a "timescape" through which one can "travel." Physics folks like to say that "time is that which clocks measure." But if there were no clocks or intelligent beings measuring event duration, everything would still be in motion, and "time would elapse" as everything moves, whether "as a whole," cosmologically speaking or in whatever specific part, like say one Earth revolution or an orbit around the Sun... or photons traveling through slits to hit a wall. There is no "rewind" to make the past present again. And time is not a medium through which things move. Again, as things move "time elapses." In any case, on whatever scale, including the quantum eraser experiment, the past has already happened and can not be changed... can not become the present.

I understand that the past does not still exist now and that the future does not exist yet. What do you think I am missing about what exists now in the above? Grappling? Your "theory of time" doesn't deal with "this past present and future nonsense?" Have at it.