PeterJ

Hello again folks. Is the following of any interest if it can be proved? P: Relative to any finite set of primes there are infinitely many pairs of consecutive twin primes. Note 1. In case it's the wrong word - by 'relative' I mean that none of the primes in the set are factors of the pair of twin primes. Note 2. This is nothing like a proof of the TPC. Thanks for any replies.

Lighten up, Strange. You have no evidence that time is not just as religion says it is. You just have your opinion, same as Lizzie. Except that she seems to be less dogmatic. .

I'm not sure a thing has to physical in order to be real, except as a methodological restriction for physics. But we agree it's a metaphysical problem. My view on the reality of time is expressed mathematically by Hermann Weil in his book on the continuum. He places the continuum prior to spacetime, as the phenomenon from which spacetime (and mathematics and intentional consciousness) is emergent. Here physics merges into foundational mathematics and metaphysics, not to say religion and mysticism.

I don't think that works. It would mean that two things have to exist in order for one to exist. It would also mean that an observer has to exist before an observer can exist. Or would self-observation count as a proof of the existence of self? It's actually quite difficult to define existence, or what it means to say that something is 'real, without .a lot of messiness around the edges.

Yes, you're right. Emergence is not the same as illusoriness. Still, if something is emergent it is not real in some sense. I would say that physics cannot be more weird that philosophy, since philosophy has to interpret and explain physics. I would agree, though, that the ideas of most scientifically respectable philosophers are not nearly weird enough to be correct or even of much use.

I think it would be a good idea to define 'real'.

Is this just the recognition that logically-speaking difference requires identity, and identity requires difference?

Got to agree with Swansont here. It is a metaphysical or logical problem. Michel123456 - You say that the idea that time is an illusion is a defeat of our understanding. This may be so sometimes, but not necessarily. It is the idea proposed by many people who claim to understand time, together with a correlated claim, which would be the illusoriness of space. That is to say, both would be relative and emergent phenomena. This would be why neither time nor space make sense in philosophy once we have reified them.

Sorry, I just wondered why you didn't know what 'whoever' meant. Hi Stringjunky - I take your point. Fair enough. It is just that I see no purpose in trying to decide a metaphysical question in physics. It makes for an interesting discussion but it is not going go anywhere. We have to say that 'fabric of space-time' and 'curved space-time' is a metaphor. To establish that is it is any more than this would not be possible in physics. The idea that it is any more than a metaphor is not a testable scientific theory. I thought I was agreeing with Swansont but giving the reason for the necessity of his agnostic view. I didn't mean to suggest we should talk about metaphysics, just that there is a limit to the discussion within physics. Also, I felt that Alan (if he is proposing the reality of the 'fabric') might not realise that he was proposing a metaphysical theory.

Is English not your language?

I didn't bring it up. Whoever brought up the reality of space-time brought it up. It is a metaphysical question. Sorry. Problem with the link, Here it is again. http://publish.uwo.ca/~jbell/Hermann%20Weyl.pdf (Something weird is happening with my posts here, so apologies for any repetitions.) .

This link is to an article by John Bell discussing Hermann Weyl's views on the continuum. Weyl points out (as I read him) that a true continuum is not extended. I believe that it is mistake to think that Weyl is wrong, since when we do we have to reify space-time and create a paradoxical continuum. We have then reduced metaphysics to a muddle. http://publish.uwo.co/~jbell/Hermann%20Weyl.pdf

Wow. One comment and I get a patronising earful. That might be a record.

I bow to your expertise. I'd just want to award it a better mark than 'last generation's progress'. This generation has yet to catch up with Brown's metaphysics. But yes, on the maths I'm weak.

So, you don't agree that 'fabric of space-time' is a metaphor? Or can mass distort metaphors?

Probably a silly question, but would it be possible to model gravity as a distortion of time in a flat space, or a distortion of space in a flat time, or must it be a distortion of both?

Laws of Form is a solution for Russell's Paradox. Brown does not talk about your problem because it is not really relevant to his calculus, (for which such recursions do not occur). But somewhere Brown does talk about metaphysical problems and discusses the way they make us oscillate like an old-fashioned electric bell back and forth between two polarities. He introduces into ordinary logic a special value in order to solve the problem. He does not deal with your problem ('This statement is false') because (I think) he does not see R's paradox as taking this form.

That's an odd comment Alan. Space-time has not been shown to be a fabric or to distort. It is modelled that way. The existence of space-time is not a question.for physics but for metaphysics, same as for the existence of anything. As Ajb says, physicists can be sloppy in their language on existential questions. We should be careful when reading it. I mentioned Mohrhoff above because he has interesting things to say about this issue.

Thanks, but it made no difference. I'll try another browser.

Thanks. I'll give it a go. Let's hope sod's law has exceptions.

I have nothing intelligent to add, but I would like to recommend Ulrich Mohrhoff's recent book, The World According to Quantum Mechanics: Why the Laws of Physics make Perfect Sense After All. It seems directly relevant. He has a blog here http://ujm.thisquantumworld.com/wp/ . A tag at the top marked 'Book' links to the relevant stuff. And no, I am not the author. Just a fan.

Are there any problems associated with changing browsers? IE 11 will not let my view my sales data on my distributor's site (utterly ridiculous) but I've never changed browsers before. Can I just download Firefox and set it as default and expect it all to go without a hitch?

Yes. When you see a lot of people trying to prevent something escaping, then you know it will escape sooner or later. Reassurances of experts? Common sense usually trumps this. .

Apparently the greatest minds in human history are wrong and Materialism makes sense after all. That's a turn up. And it seems that the in principle inability of science to falsify a theory proves it is plausible. M - Of course we cannot observe anything to falsify Materialism. We cannot observe anything to verify it either. .A Materialist has adopted a metaphysical position against the results of logic and wih no evidence or any hope of any. This is the reason why the plotline of the Matrix is not just silly. I'd say this discussion nicely demonstrates the value of doing metaphysics and the danger to ones worldview of ignoring it. We should dismiss the conclusions of so many great thinkers over so many centuries so casually. It is hubris. I take it for granted that every trained physicist knows that Materialism is not a scientific doctrine since it's easy enough to work out, and there are a thousand good philosophers to read on the topic, and many famous physicists among them. It's a shame that on scienceforums we have to rehearse these ancient and long ago settled arguments over and over again and progress is impossible. This Materialism topic would have taken up two minutes on a philosophy forum. Anyway. Thanks to all for the chat. Time to get on with other things.

As far as I'm aware Krauss does not propose ex nihilo creation. As far as I'm aware nobody does. Even Christians who do have to start with God. There's always something there. God, the laws of physics, a quantum fluctuation or or whatever. The unfalsifiability of solipsism is the reason you cannot tell whether you are making it all up, dreaming, the victim of Descartes' evil demon, in the Matrix or whatever. There is no scientific evidence that would decide the question. This is why science cannot falsify the Buddhist idea that nothing truly, inherently or independently exists. I see that you're not a fan of ex nihilo creation either. This cannot be on scientific grounds since it is a metaphysical conclusion, and an unavoidable one. Now the task is to make sense of the idea that something has existed forever. Most people cannot do it. It would require an infinite quantity of turtles.