Is philosophy relevant to science?

[owl]

The question for this thread is whether philosophy is relevant to science. As a scientist, swansont gets to decide.

 

Here is a brief review of the context around swansont's comment, "It doesn't matter," referenced above as what he "gets to decide":

me:

I am advocating the application of ontology to what it is they are talking about when they say "Mass curves spacetime." We have a good idea what mass is, down to a certain sub-atomic level anyway, but we have no idea at all what is supposed to be curved in the above statement.

...

So I keep asking, when GR constantly asserts that mass curves spacetime, if you refuse to talk about the ontology, how does that work? Mass curves whatever how, and how does that whatever guide objects in curved paths?

...

So calling physics models abstracts and constructs now means that they need no referents in the real world or explanation as to how mass effects whatever. It doesn't matter what it effects or how. It also doesn't matter how curved 'whatever' guides observable objects in curved paths, i.e., by what 'mechanism' if it is not just the work of fairies.

 

Swansont’s reply to the latter:

 

That's right. It doesn't matter. What matters is that the models work.

 

So a physicist participating in a philosophy of science discussion, specifically the above legitimate ontological challenges, simply dismisses that ontology with, "It doesn't matter." All that matters is "that the models work,"...*what* they describe doesn't matter. Philosophy is irrelevant. That is his opinion stated as presently prevailing physics, and, just incidentally, apparently intending to dominate over mere philosophy/ontology here.

 

Have any of those astronomers made measurements while traveling near the speed of light relative to Earth?

No. If they had would that change the shape of Earth or the distance to the Sun? (That is a philosophical question pertaining to the realism vs idealism debate as relevant to relativity.)

 

You should really stop using this example, since it blatantly does not contradict any prediction of relativity.

 

But you and Swansont (and others) keep insisting that the length contracted version is a legitimate alternative description of Earth, based on a hypothesis that has never been verified by observation. I have agreed that Earth might appear flattened (and the Au contracted), but that is not what you are insisting. There is a "world" of difference. (Realism vs idealism.)

 

Swansont repeatedly* demands that I show how my "philosophical objections" as above demonstrate "science that has been shown not to work."

But you want to gag my preferred example, also often repeated. What, he can repeat the challenge but I can't repeat my answer?

*Swansont:

You still have not provided me with a list of science that has been shown not to work based on philosophical objections.

my reply:

Claiming that Earth is or could be nearly flat or that the distance to the Sun or Alpha Centauri is extremely different than all astronomical measurements of them, all based on length contraction... does not work in the real world.

 

Swansont:

The way we know is that the model predicts future observations and fits current observations to the level of precision that we can measure.

me:

"To the level of precision that we can measure," Earth's shape is precisely known...

It "fits current observations."

 

me:

I have no such dogmatic belief, and it seems to me that you fit the dogmatist profile much better than I.

Swansont:

I am loath to pull of the d-word, but you contradict yourself. You admit that you have decided that realism is true. All pronouncements based on that is, in fact, dogma.

 

Pronouncements based on realism are, *in fact* dogma? Dogma is belief based on authority, like "everything is relative" or "there are no preferred frames of reference," based on relativity dictum (and in denial of any cosmic perspective, btw.)... or... "god created the world in seven days."

"Earth is nearly spherical" is not a dogmatic statement but rather based, as I've said dozens of times, on a huge body of *knowledge*, itself based on both reason and observed evidence... a-priori and a-posteriori epistemology, respectively.

You really should stick to physics and leave philosophy to philosophers.

[swansont]

So a physicist participating in a philosophy of science discussion, specifically the above legitimate ontological challenges, simply dismisses that ontology with, "It doesn't matter." All that matters is "that the models work,"...*what* they describe doesn't matter. Philosophy is irrelevant. That is his opinion stated as presently prevailing physics, and, just incidentally, apparently intending to dominate over mere philosophy/ontology here.

 

No, you've missed the point entirely. A physicist trying to do physics can dismiss ontology with "it doesn't matter," which is something I thought I made clear ages ago. The main issue is that you continue to make physics pronouncements, i.e. your repeated dismissals and misrepresentations of relativity — and that has been my objection all along. I would be quite content for you to stick to ontology. Answer the question yourself or find someone else interested in the subject, though it would behoove you to develop an understanding of relativity (which will require a little math) because you continue to present and attack a strawman version of it.

 

No. If they had would that change the shape of Earth or the distance to the Sun? (That is a philosophical question pertaining to the realism vs idealism debate as relevant to relativity.)

 

It must be a philosophical question, because as a physics question it is ill-formed, and the objection to the use of "change" has been previously noted. With little attempt on your part to try and clarify why this is so. I will not attempt to answer a loaded question. With a background in logic, you should understand why.

 

But you and Swansont (and others) keep insisting that the length contracted version is a legitimate alternative description of Earth, based on a hypothesis that has never been verified by observation. I have agreed that Earth might appear flattened (and the Au contracted), but that is not what you are insisting. There is a "world" of difference. (Realism vs idealism.)

 

The "hypothesis" is that of relativity, which has been verified many, many times. You are free to go back to my several posts on why demanding a specific bit of evidence is hypocritical and scientific chicanery. (The "Have you confirmed gravity's 1/r^2 nature in your dwelling?" discussions)

 

You insist that not only is the earth always a sphere, but that the distance from the sun to the earth is a constant value as well — as should any distance be. So I could take a bomb and put a timer on it and shoot it at the earth from a fixed distance D, with the timer set to go off after some time such that vt < D. That is, if length contraction is false, the bomb goes off well before hitting the earth. But if it's true, the distance decreases, and the bomb goes off after hitting the earth. Is that a fair test of length contraction?

 

Swansont repeatedly* demands that I show how my "philosophical objections" as above demonstrate "science that has been shown not to work."

But you want to gag my preferred example, also often repeated. What, he can repeat the challenge but I can't repeat my answer?

 

You don't have any evidence to support your example. The experiment has not been done, so there is no failed experiment, and it's not philosophy that is preventing it. It's a complete hypothetical on your part.

 

Pronouncements based on realism are, *in fact* dogma? Dogma is belief based on authority, like "everything is relative" or "there are no preferred frames of reference," based on relativity dictum (and in denial of any cosmic perspective, btw.)... or... "god created the world in seven days."

"Earth is nearly spherical" is not a dogmatic statement but rather based, as I've said dozens of times, on a huge body of *knowledge*, itself based on both reason and observed evidence... a-priori and a-posteriori epistemology, respectively.

 

Relativity gets empirically tested, which is why it's not dogma. Dogma doesn't make GPS work.

 

Let's say one adopted a philosophy that says it is alway light outside, and had a bunch of people go outside at noon to see, and they all agree that it is light outside. Therefore, they conclude, it is light out at midnight as well. Nobody actually checks, mind you. They just make the pronouncement. "My philosophy tells me that it is true" That's dogma.

 

You really should stick to physics and leave philosophy to philosophers.

 

Quite happy to, if you would stop misrepresenting relativity and stop trying to use philosophy to falsify it. Only experimentation can falsify.

[PeterJ]

I think that the mystery of how masses are mutually attracted at a distance is beyond material science, struggling as it is with essentially metaphysical concepts like curved spacetime and gravitons. And "consciousness" is not a subject for material science.

There is work out there, like "The Intention Experiment" by Lynne McTaggart and The Journal of Consciousness Studies, which are often not well received by present day material science, but I think such studies will be the "wave of the future."

As you know from elsewhere, Owl, I am open minded about these things. All of what you say here I can agree with. I also see consciousness stuidies as the future, with physics playing its essential part. But that's just a hope.

 

The thing is that what you say here would make no difference to what Swansont and other have been repeatedly saying remarkably patiently. Physics is not ontology. They are not usually in the same building. Physics as commonly defined has no responsibility to think about ontology. For an individual physicist it would be a different matter. An individual physicist is just a person. It would be strange if a person did not apply their specialist knowledge to questions of ontology, and probably impossible to avoid doing it, and I bet every single one of them does it all the time and are really interested in it, But when they do this they are not doing physics. They are straying into ontology. A theory in physics, as I understand it, does not have to say a word about ontology. This is one of its defining features.

 

If you're into consciousness studies then you'll know all about Behaviorism, a theory for which consciousness is a black box. I think it would be correct to say that for physics the universe is a black box. David Chalmers has proposed a theory called 'naturalistic dualism' for which it would be a black box. All that matters to physics is how it behaves. If a phenomenon does not behave then it does not exist. It is not the job of physics to ask what the word 'it' actually stands for. I strongly agree with you that we should be working to create a theory that covers both physics and ontology. It never occured to me to try and do anything less. But you seem to be asking the physicists here to redefine physics just because you'd prefer it that way. How could they agree to this? It is not a reasonable demand. If a scientific theory is wonderful in physics but ridiculous in ontology then this would be a philosophical problem, not a scientific one. Whether it should be this way is a matter of opinion, but that's how it is. It only causes problems for very deep theories.

 

Like it or not, the physicists do physics, the philosophers do philosophy, the psychologist do ... and there is no name for the department responsible for comparing all the results.

 

We don't have to agree with you about how to define physics in order to discuss the ontological implications of SR. It may not even matter whether the earth changes shape or not, since I can't see what difference it would make to the argument between idealism and realism. Whether a thing changes shape depending on the relative velocity of the observer, or only appears to do so, does not seem to bear on the question of whether it's real or not. But there are so many variations of these two 'isms' that I may have missed your point.

Edited December 15, 2011 by PeterJ

[owl]

PeterJ:

...and there is no name for the department responsible for

comparing all the results. We have to do it in our spare time on internet forums.

 

Maybe I’m wrong but I thought that was the most important function of philosophy.

It can compare all the results, including science’s results, as I see philosophy. Philosophy is ultimately about what is real (and true.)

Usually empirical science just gathers information. Philosophy interprets it.

(I've italicized below.)

Nobody has to agree with you about how to define physics in order for you to discuss

the ontological implications of SR. (I'm) not even sure that it matters whether the

earth changes shape or not, since I can't quite see what difference it would make to

the argument between idealism and realism. Whether a thing changes shape depending

on its velocity or only appears to do so doesn't seem to bear on the question of

whether it's real or not.

 

Just a personal difference here, but I am interested in whether the Earth changes shape or not. My understanding of science is that “it” cares too. A basic difference with the relativity theorists here. “It is as we see it” remains idealism , and I do disagree.

 

Thanks for the nice lecture. I’ll get back to you on details.

[PeterJ]

PeterJ:

 

Maybe I'm wrong but I thought that was the most important function of philosophy.

It can compare all the results, including science's results, as I see philosophy. Philosophy is ultimately about what is real (and true.)

Usually empirical science just gathers information. Philosophy interprets it.

I agree. But it doesn't happen that way in real life. Professional philosophy these days is quite a narrow rut.

 

Thanks for the nice lecture. I'll get back to you on details.

Sorry. I am prone to lecturing, and not necessarily well. Bad habit. It was supposed to be helpful. I tend to be blunt because then it's easy for people to spot mistakes and put me right, but I expect it can seem arrogant. At any rate, to me it seems a mistake to suppose that philosophers examine all the evidence. Mostly its still footnotes to Plato.

[charles brough]

In all this long discussion, has anything of use materialized, anything new understood?

 

"To me, modern philosophers are the history-of-philosophy-loving professional students and academics who enjoy building up ivory tower edifaces of abstractions for the sole intent of carrying on a tradition that is now obsolete.

 

Ontology is the study of the nature of things, but each thing or entity has its own nature. What is important is the cause and effect process that has led to that nature and, hence, what comes next.

[owl]

I agree. But it doesn't happen that way in real life. Professional philosophy these days is quite a narrow rut.

I would like to see a re-vitalization of contemporary philosophy of science. My opening post shared Feynman's and Hawking's opinions of philosophy, but the former was attacking Spinoza, and Hawking was 'diss-ing' traditional philosophical subjects like 'the meaning of life.' Philosophy seems to be just an old cliche' in both of their minds, a "straw man" for physics to ridicule as irrelevant to today's cutting edge, physics.

You said:

But you seem to be asking the physicists here to redefine physics just because you'd prefer it that way. How could they agree to this? It is not a reasonable demand.

 

Whether a thing changes shape depending on its velocity or only appears to do so doesn't seem to bear on the question of

whether it's real or not.

 

I think we could all agree that physics strives for a clear/accurate understanding of cosmos.

 

If relativity’s length contraction theory insists that, because lightspeed is constant (see my recent specific queries,) then shapes of planets and distances between cosmic objects vary with observational frame of reference,...then it is the job of philosophy of science to ask:

 

Does Earth really drastically change shape... and does the astronomical unit of distance and the distance between stars actually drastically shorten, in the real world, when/if observed to do so from extremely fast frames?

This of course, entails an understanding of the comparison between realism and idealism, as per the argument I continue to make in this forum.

 

If things are real and have intrinsic properties (shapes and distances between things) in and of themselves, then they do not change with how we observe them. (Realism.)

If the cosmos has no such intrinsic properties, then it all depends on how things are observed. (Idealism.)

 

The old idealism cliche’ claims that if a tree falls in the forest, it doesn’t make a sound if the sound is not heard (observed.) Realism says that it makes sound waves travel through the air whether ears hear them or not.

But how can we know that for sure if we don't hear it?... ask the idealists. Realist's answer: Because we know the nature of sound in such situations already without the need to observe (hear) each specific case.

 

What side of that argument do you like?

 

To swansont's objections, yet again, a piece at a time as I have time:

me:

No. If they had would that change the shape of Earth or the distance to the Sun? (That is a philosophical question pertaining to the realism vs idealism debate as relevant to relativity.)

 

Swansont:

It must be a philosophical question, because as a physics question it is ill-formed, and the objection to the use of "change" has been previously noted. With little attempt on your part to try and clarify why this is so. I will not attempt to answer a loaded question. With a background in logic, you should understand why.

 

You and I and Cap ‘n R have beat this to death already. I usually say something like... “*either* these shapes and distances change with observation *or* science can not know planet’s shapes or distances between objects, because all measurements from all frames of reference are different but equally valid.”

There is your logic. I have posed the choice many times. How about addressing that choice for a “change?”

 

I have a hard time taking your 'has gravity been tested in my living room' challenge (to tests of length contractions) seriously.

As I said a long time ago (and you ignored), every step anyone takes anywhere on Earth tests and verifies gravity, since we all stick to whatever we are walking on.

How about that test of length contraction that DrRocket said is in the works?

How about answering my specific questions about how the particle accelerator results (extremely complicated to interpret as true validation) transfer to the scales we are talking about here.

Next piece (by editing add- ons):

Your bomb is set to go off by a timer (clock.) I have never disputed that clocks slow down at high speed. That is your answer. Philosophically, it is your assumption that 'time dilates' and that the reciprocal is that 'length contracts.' That seems to be "philosophical baggage" of which you are not aware.

That would be a "no" to your question:

"Is that a fair test of length contraction?"

 

finally (last edit):

Let's say one adopted a philosophy that says it is alway light outside, and had a bunch of people go outside at noon to see, and they all agree that it is light outside. Therefore, they conclude, it is light out at midnight as well. Nobody actually checks, mind you. They just make the pronouncement. "My philosophy tells me that it is true" That's dogma.

 

You continue to argue by likening my arguments to obviously ridiculous examples that have no relevance at all.

Why would anyone living on Earth ever “say” that it is always light outside? If one were stupid/oblivious enough to say that and also stupid enough to bury their head at night and then claim that the sun shines at night...

 

Well... there you go... a cogent argument for how ridiculous and dogmatic the philosophy of realism is!

Sorry, it really doesn’t fly as honest debate.

Edited December 16, 2011 by owl

[owl]

Here's a A LINK to "What's Bad About This Habit" Swansont referred to earlier if anyone's interested.

 

Owl, you should read this.

Thanks. I finally got around to it. Study in progress. And thanks to Swansont for the original reference, though it escapes me how he thinks this supports his argument against mine, which has always been about debunking the reification of space and time and spacetime.

 

It is true that no cut and paste is allowed from that article, but I have transcribed a couple of gems that clarify the above reification.

 

Page 9, second column on spacetime was extremely insightful, I thought. One brief gem, transcribed:

 

“The devise of spacetime has been such a powerful abstract bookeeping devise that we often reify that structure, saying that we inhabit a world that is such a four (or for some of us ten) dimensional continuum. ( My edit: "ten"... he seems to like M-theory with no observable referents... tho that is now 11 dimensions...?)

The reifcation of abstract time and space is built into the very language we speak,making it easy to miss the intellectual sleight of hand.”

 

From column 3:

Space and time and spacetime are not qualities of the world we live in but concepts we have invented to help us organize classical events.

 

That does not seem to give science permission to think that all measurements of the world from extreme frames of reference are equally valid, i.e., that we can't tell what shape Earth is or how far from the Sun, etc. because of different frames with different measurements.

 

me:

"You really should stick to physics and leave philosophy to philosophers."

Swansont:

Quite happy to, if you would stop misrepresenting relativity and stop trying to use philosophy to falsify it. Only experimentation can falsify.

 

Your ignorance of epistemology is painfully evident in your last statement above.

Reason can also falsify ridiculous claims like 'the distances between stars and shapes of planets depend on how different frames of reference see them.'

Just more dogmatism on your part.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Your ignorance of epistemology is painfully evident in your last statement above.

Reason can also falsify ridiculous claims like 'the distances between stars and shapes of planets depend on how different frames of reference see them.'

Reason must start from premises. What experimentally-verified premises lead to the falsification of this claim?

[owl]

Reason must start from premises. What experimentally-verified premises lead to the falsification of this claim?

 

You don't seem to understand what a-priori epistemology is either. It is the other branch of epistemology, not empirically derived from sense data and perception... not subject to an origin in "experimentally verified" empirical science, in this case.

 

In most simple language, a-priori knowledge is what we know already before we start devising experiments to refine that knowledge. We know already that the Earth we live on does not morph out of shape responding to how space travelers might see it. But that was an old issue, already resolved.

 

So that leaves the other alternative (referenced above), that we can not know the true shape of Earth with so many possible 'frame of reference' alternative descriptions.

 

'What we all know already' (as scientists in this case) is that the best way to observe anything is to look at it closely with the fewest possible unknown variables... like, 'how would it look passing by at near lightspeed?'

Basic experimental design.

I'll have to leave it there for now. Good evening.

[md65536]

You don't seem to understand what a-priori epistemology is either. It is the other branch of epistemology, not empirically derived from sense data and perception... not subject to an origin in "experimentally verified" empirical science, in this case.

 

In most simple language, a-priori knowledge is what we know already before we start devising experiments to refine that knowledge. We know already that the Earth we live on does not morph out of shape responding to how space travelers might see it. But that was an old issue, already resolved.

 

Oh. Well maybe you're right, after all of the arguing.

 

That also provides an answer for philosophy of science, which is concerned with the assumptions and foundations of science. It lets us choose our assumptions simply to be "what we already know". That also seems like it must be right.

 

I still disagree with most of your line of reasoning, but it's hard to argue in favor of an admittedly untested theory like relativity -- which, even if it makes sense to me, does in fact go against what I knew before I even heard of it! I was so sure of the math that I never even thought of it like that.

 

 

But can the math still be right while the theory is wrong? Or is the math flawed?

[swansont]

Thanks. I finally got around to it. Study in progress. And thanks to Swansont for the original reference, though it escapes me how he thinks this supports his argument against mine, which has always been about debunking the reification of space and time and spacetime.

 

Seriously? My position has been that physics doesn't reify them; that they are abstractions. Have you not been insisting that physics must tell you what spacetime IS? Isn't that reification?

[StringJunky]

Seriously? My position has been that physics doesn't reify them; that they are abstractions. Have you not been insisting that physics must tell you what spacetime IS? Isn't that reification?

 

That was the lesson you was trying to impart from Mermin's article wasn't it? Owl needs to get to grips with the concept of abstraction and that it is a consensually agreed and essentially mathematical method to describe things that can't be described in a classically verbal way.

[swansont]

That was the lesson you was trying to impart from Mermin's article wasn't it? Owl needs to get to grips with the concept of abstraction and that it is a consensually agreed and essentially mathematical method to describe things that can't be described in a classically verbal way.

 

It's been my claim (as well as others) all along. Mermin's article supports the position that virtually all of physics is abstraction. Since physics is based on math, it has to be. This points to the problem of people who want to understand physics but not delve into the math — it's basically impossible to do more than superficially. You are left with analogies, because analogies are based on real objects — comparing to an object gives you a list of attributes and behaviors — but analogies always fail at some level. However, that's probably why reification is tempting — it's a shortcut.

 

But here's a problem: when you ask what is it, what answer do you expect? I could say, "It's air." What does that mean? We identify air by its properties and behavior. If you didn't know what air was, how would you explain it? You can't see it, so I can't show it to you. You could say "it's made of molecules" but that's only possible because it's a composite and simply shifts the question to "what's a molecule?" And then "what's an atom?" etc. It's like the turtles all the way down joke. All definitions or models have to eventually meet an abstraction if you insist on avoiding circular referencing. So you will always hit this point. If someone ever comes up with an answer, the abstraction simply moves one layer down.

 

From that standpoint, you can get to what ydoaPs mentioned earlier — the math answers the ontological question, because how it behaves/what are its properties is really what you mean by what is it, and math does that exceedingly well.

 

 

You and I and Cap ‘n R have beat this to death already. I usually say something like... “*either* these shapes and distances change with observation *or* science can not know planet’s shapes or distances between objects, because all measurements from all frames of reference are different but equally valid.”

There is your logic. I have posed the choice many times. How about addressing that choice for a “change?”

 

Yes, I am well aware of how easy it is to recast a loaded question as a false dichotomy. Once you understand why this is a loaded question/false dichotomy, then we can stop beating it to death and proceed.

 

I have a hard time taking your 'has gravity been tested in my living room' challenge (to tests of length contractions) seriously.

As I said a long time ago (and you ignored), every step anyone takes anywhere on Earth tests and verifies gravity, since we all stick to whatever we are walking on.

 

Sticking to the earth does not scientifically confirm gravity. And what if you step someplace where nobody has ever stepped before? You are quite content to extrapolate the behavior of gravity, but are not willing to apply the same standard to other areas of physics.

 

How about that test of length contraction that DrRocket said is in the works?

How about answering my specific questions about how the particle accelerator results (extremely complicated to interpret as true validation) transfer to the scales we are talking about here.

 

We test the parts of the theory we can test. Anyone who taught a course about the scientific method should understand this.

 

Next piece (by editing add- ons):

Your bomb is set to go off by a timer (clock.) I have never disputed that clocks slow down at high speed. That is your answer. Philosophically, it is your assumption that 'time dilates' and that the reciprocal is that 'length contracts.' That seems to be "philosophical baggage" of which you are not aware.

That would be a "no" to your question:

"Is that a fair test of length contraction?"

 

It is not an assumption. There is a thing we call time, and the theory predicts it will dilate. The theory is tested with experiment and is confirmed — that's how it works. Someone familiar with the scientific method should know this. Do you agree that time is a quantity used in science? Because if you don't then you have to reject basically all of science. Is there some procedural problem with the confirmation of relativity — something scientists have done or failed to do to keep in accord with the scientific method? If not, I don't see how you can hope to get away with a claim like "this is your assumption"

 

It's mathematical baggage. If you have time dilation, you must also have length contraction, or else the speed of light cannot be constant. It's a logical result.

 

You continue to argue by likening my arguments to obviously ridiculous examples that have no relevance at all.

Why would anyone living on Earth ever “say” that it is always light outside? If one were stupid/oblivious enough to say that and also stupid enough to bury their head at night and then claim that the sun shines at night...

 

I am glad you agree it's ridiculous. Now tell me how you are not following that script — tell me how you test your philosophical claim. How can you claim to know how the real world acts if you do not go out and do experiments to confirm that it is true? Making the same measurement multiple times is not the same as making measurement from different frames of reference. You have, in effect, only checked for the sunlight at one time. That's why the ridiculous story is an analogy for your position. You are in no position to make claims on how the real world works if you do not go and investigate the real world. Ideology is not a substitute. You do not get to dictate to the real world how it must work.

 

Well... there you go... a cogent argument for how ridiculous and dogmatic the philosophy of realism is!

Sorry, it really doesn’t fly as honest debate.

 

I agree. Dogmatic insistence on realism (or any philosophy/ideology) doesn't fly as honest debate. You have to have legitimate attempts at falsification, as anyone familiar with the scientific method knows. How would you falsify realism, anyway?

[md65536]

That was the lesson you was trying to impart from Mermin's article wasn't it? Owl needs to get to grips with the concept of abstraction and that it is a consensually agreed and essentially mathematical method to describe things that can't be described in a classically verbal way.

I don't think you understand what owl's been saying here. If you did it would be clear that he understands the concept of abstraction, as he sees it.

 

 

Look at it this way: Suppose you viewed Earth from a high-speed flyby vantage point, and it looked like it was squished. That is an abstraction, because it's only math that says that the Earth IS squished. Accepting reality as it is observed or measured just because it matches the math means that you're reifying the math. This description of the Earth as being actually physically squished, independent of the strictly mental math and observations that say it is, is called idealism.

 

But even if the Earth appears squished or is measured to be or if the math says it is, it is only the abstraction that gets squished. Apart from the abstraction, there is an Earth that still exists in its ideal shape: mostly spherical. Understanding this ideal Earth, even if it doesn't match observed reality, is called realism.

 

 

Having math that matches what you see is only an abstraction. But as soon as that abstraction matches what really IS, it's no longer an abstraction.

 

 

I know a lot of this seems ironically backwards, but that might be because you're subscribed to the dogma of scientific "consensual agreement". But what does science know about epistemology? Since these topics (squished Earth etc) are unprovable (because they haven't yet been and may never be), they belong to the realm of philosophy not science. As the only one of us with sufficient expertise on philosophy, owl is the authority here, the only one qualified to make assertions on these unprovable things.

 

This all makes sense if you forget your dogma, and instead appeal to owl's authority and assertions. Try turning around 180 degrees. From this vantage point, it's everything else that is backwards.

 

 

 

[owl]

me:

*either* these shapes and distances change with observation *or* science can not know planet’s shapes or distances between objects, because all measurements from all frames of reference are different but equally valid.”

There is your logic. I have posed the choice many times. How about addressing that choice for a “change?”

Swansont:

Yes, I am well aware of how easy it is to recast a loaded question as a false dichotomy. Once you understand why this is a loaded question/false dichotomy, then we can stop beating it to death and proceed.

 

You just dodged the choice by calling it a false dichotomy. You make a mockery of the principles of logical argument/debate.

How is the above a false dichotomy? The context here is the claim of length contraction advocates that distances (including shapes... planet diameters) are “not invariant,” i.e., they vary with observational frames. If distances actually vary that means they change, which is option one.

If the dictum of “no preferred frame of reference” means shapes/distances don’t “change” but measurements do, and we can not know which measurements/observations are correct because of the above dictum, that is option two.

 

If you have a third option in mind, just state it clearly and stop avoiding the choice above. We can then argue about the third option, if any. Otherwise your avoidance, calling it a false dichotomy without explanation is simply a quite transparent smoke screen.

More later.

 

I will be replying to your other points one piece at a time as I study all recent replies.

 

Seriously? My position has been that physics doesn't reify them; that they are abstractions. Have you not been insisting that physics must tell you what spacetime IS? Isn't that reification?

Look at any intro to GR. You will find that "mass curves spacetime." The unspoken anti-ontology policy is, to borrow a familiar phrase, "don't ask, don't tell" what spacetime IS.

As I said, we know a lot about what mass is, because elements are entities (discrete energy bundles of sorts) with observable properties. What about spacetime? Nada. It's treated like an entity (reified, a "bad habit")) in that it is supposed to have the property of malleability, ability to be curved by mass... and "space itself" it is supposed by some cosmologists to have shape on a cosmic scale, the common reification of space.

Still a piece at a time in reply... too much all at once.

 

Swansont:

Sticking to the earth does not scientifically confirm gravity. And what if you step someplace where nobody has ever stepped before? You are quite content to extrapolate the behavior of gravity, but are not willing to apply the same standard to other areas of physics.

 

That is where the "what we already know” part of epistemology comes in. We don’t have to “test” every square inch of Earth’s surface to see if gravity still works for each.

 

This does not apply to the theory of length contraction.

What do we “already know"

about length contraction, and how has it been verified, specifically. If you cite muons in the atmosphere, how does their living longer than in accelerators and therefore traveling further than expected translate to “therefore, *for muons* our atmosphere is much thinner” than “what we know” to be the case form all other atmospheric studies?

Shall we grant equal validity to measurement of the depth our atmosphere as observed from a muon's frame of reference because their natural 'lifespan' is longer than that of their lab cousins? That is not "reasonable," not that "reasonable" "matters" to length contraction theorists.

You:

It is not an assumption. There is a thing we call time, and the theory predicts it will dilate.

 

This is an example of reification of time... the assumption that “it” is a thing because clocks slow down at high speed.

 

Swansont:

"Do you agree that time is a quantity used in science?"

 

As I've said all along, the fact that clocks slow down at high speed does not make time into some "thing" that expands (dialtes.) You've heard my definition of time dozens of times. Wanna hear it again?

Event duration of physical processes.

An Earth orbit around the Sun is such a duration, which we call a year. No problem. If there were no clocks/calendars measuring that duration, it would still be the same, even without a word for it.

That statement is based on realism, the reaonable proposition that Earth and Sun do their dance with or without your reality-defining observation/measurement/clocking.

 

But once you define time as "that which clocks measure," then, if clocks slow down, then time must slow down, and therein lies the reification of time.

Edited December 17, 2011 by owl

[swansont]

You just dodged the choice by calling it a false dichotomy. You make a mockery of the principles of logical argument/debate.

How is the above a false dichotomy? The context here is the claim of length contraction advocates that distances (including shapes... planet diameters) are “not invariant,” i.e., they vary with observational frames. If distances actually vary that means they change, which is option one.

If the dictum of “no preferred frame of reference” means shapes/distances don’t “change” but measurements do, and we can not know which measurements/observations are correct because of the above dictum, that is option two.

 

If you have a third option in mind, just state it clearly and stop avoiding the choice above. We can then argue about the third option, if any. Otherwise your avoidance, calling it a false dichotomy without explanation is simply a quite transparent smoke screen.

 

Some quantities are invariant. Some are not. Some of the "all measurements from all frames" don't vary.

 

Look at any intro to GR. You will find that "mass curves spacetime." The unspoken anti-ontology policy is, to borrow a familiar phrase, "don't ask, don't tell" what spacetime IS.

As I said, we know a lot about what mass is, because elements are entities (discrete energy bundles of sorts) with observable properties. What about spacetime? Nada. It's treated like an entity (reified, a "bad habit")) in that it is supposed to have the property of malleability, ability to be curved by mass... and "space itself" it is supposed by some cosmologists to have shape on a cosmic scale, the common reification of space.

 

It's treated like a mathematical abstraction. But since you are convinced that the question has been answered for mass, what is mass?

 

 

Swansont:

 

 

That is where the "what we already know” part of epistemology comes in. We don’t have to “test” every square inch of Earth’s surface to see if gravity still works for each.

 

This does not apply to the theory of length contraction.

 

Why not? How much confirming evidence do you have to gather before you accept a theory?

 

What do we “already know"

about length contraction, and how has it been verified, specifically. If you cite muons in the atmosphere, how does their living longer than in accelerators and therefore traveling further than expected translate to “therefore, *for muons* our atmosphere is much thinner” than “what we know” to be the case form all other atmospheric studies?

Shall we grant equal validity to measurement of the depth our atmosphere as observed from a muon's frame of reference because their natural 'lifespan' is longer than that of their lab cousins? That is not "reasonable," not that "reasonable" "matters" to length contraction theorists.

 

What objective reason do you have for rejecting the experiment? i.e. no ideology, no circular reasoning

 

This is an example of reification of time... the assumption that “it” is a thing because clocks slow down at high speed.

 

Swansont:

"Do you agree that time is a quantity used in science?"

 

As I've said all along, the fact that clocks slow down at high speed does not make time into some "thing" that expands (dialtes.)

 

How does this exclude the treatment that it is an abstraction described by math? Surely you can have a function representing time that is nonlinear depending on your frame, so that intervals in the two frames don't have the same value.

 

But once you define time as "that which clocks measure," then, if clocks slow down, then time must slow down, and therein lies the reification of time.

 

Well, no, there are other reasons a clock might slow down.

 

What about the converse: if time slows down, clocks must surely slow down. Is that true, or not?

[ydoaPs]

I'm obviously not a moderator, but this is yet another example of disrespectful and insulting crap which seems to be the norm here rather than respectful conversation about science and the relevance of philosophy to science, if any.

If you don't have the ability to take warranted criticism without getting your feelings hurt, then you're in the wrong place. If you use bad logic, we'll call you out on it. If pretend like you have a clue while you consistently show that you couldn't pass an introduction to philosophy class, you'll get called out.

 

You are saying that Tar is totally ignorant of philosophy, because if he "knew any philosophy at all"... he would know better and agree with your understanding of Kant, in this case.

It's not my interpretation. It's what it is. We cannot legitimately know things as they exist, since we only have phenomenological access to how things appear to us.

“Hence intelligible beings are thereby allowed only with the enforcement of this rule, which brooks no exception whatsoever: that we do not know and cannot know anything determinate about these intelligible beings at all, because our pure concepts of the understanding as well as our pure intuitions refer to nothing but object of possible experience”

 

Saying that this is merely my interpretation again betrays how little you actually know of philosophy. Anyone who has taken an introduction to Philosophy course knows that this is a theme of not only Kant, but also all of the Empiricists.

 

 

My arguments are mostly from epistemology and ontology and the philosophy of realism which does not believe that the shape of planets and the distances between stars all depend on how they are observed, which is idealism.

You're wrong and appear to have pretty much no knowledge of philosophy. It's very apparent to the philosophers here and it's even apparent to the scientists. Perhaps you'd get better results if you try to learn first. You appear to be the equivalent of the person who comes here claiming to have a grand unified theory, but doesn't even know calculus. It's great that you're interested, but you're at the point where you need to learn first.

 

Plus, you seem to agree with what's his name in the opening post, that "philosophy is bullshit" anyway, so you come to the philosophy section and insist that physics according to your beliefs is the only truth and all this philosophy about it is just a bunch of crap anyway.

Thanks for informing me. See, I thought that I thought that philosophy is very valuable. In fact, physics is a subdiscipline of philosophy. And, yes, physics DOES indeed provide an ontology. You see, since we do lack the phenomenological access that I spoke of above, functionalism rules the day. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck.

 

It's the basic idea in the early part of Descartes' meditations. You know, "I think, therefore I am a thing which thinks"? Yeah, that. We can apply the same thing to space: it separates objects, so it is a thing which separates objects; its magnitude changes with energy density, so it's a thing which is dependent upon the energy density in a given frame of reference; etc. That IS what space is. It's described ever more precisely than you can handle right now, because it is done so in a language that you don't know. It just so happens that the language doesn't translate to English very efficiently. Being expressed in English does not give some higher level of meaning to an ontology; in fact, it lessens the understanding in this case.

 

So, again, drop the condescension and pick up a book.

 

Even the Big Bang cosmology that everything in the universe came from nothing (where did it come from?)

It does? Really? I don't think that's the case. See, last time I checked, energy was present at time epsilon of the Big Bang. That means there was no time at which energy did not exist. How, then, could the energy have "come from nothing"? Perhaps you should pick up a few science books as well. Edited December 17, 2011 by ydoaPs

[md65536]

That is where the "what we already know” part of epistemology comes in. We don’t have to “test” every square inch of Earth’s surface to see if gravity still works for each.

This is true. To deny it would be to assert the absurdity of cartoon physics. Before Newton discovered gravity, did people float off the Earth because they didn't understand the math? No. They "already knew" about gravity, because their feet stuck to the ground. They didn't have to do any math to tell their feet to do that.

 

Likewise, that the Earth is round and doesn't change shape is part of a-priori knowledge. We already know that it's round. It doesn't take measurements to tell us that. We've always known that. Even when people thought it was flat, they still "knew" it was round because you can't "know" something that is false.

 

It's not that hard to separate scientific "facts" like "the Earth is flat", from a-priori knowledge, because the latter is true. We didn't have to "discover" that the earth's diameter is invariant, because it's always been true.

 

[tar]

And of course, that is where the strawman shows up.

 

Just for fun, consider yourself looking in a mirror and making determinations of what your face looks likes, "for real".

 

we have light reflecting off your face, traveling to the mirror, reflecting off that, going through "two different" lenses, where the images are flipped upside down and backward and projected on the back of each eye, where rods and cones create chemicals that create electrical signals that proceed to change the "state" of the arrangement of synapse and neuron connections, creating an anolog re=presentation of what your face looks like "for real".

 

If someone else where to look directly at you, from some further distance, he might say, that "for real" you face was flipped horizontally and a bit smaller than you thought. "AHH bullpoop" Owl replies. I have a real face, I see it right there...non of this fancy 180 degree flipping and moving away is going to change the shape of MY face!

 

seems you have to do a bit of abstraction to come up with what reality is in the first place

[ydoaPs]

Look at any intro to GR. You will find that "mass curves spacetime." The unspoken anti-ontology policy is, to borrow a familiar phrase, "don't ask, don't tell" what spacetime IS.

You should actually do that at some point. Actual intro to GR texts will use this analogy to help familiarize students with a general idea so that the actual theory isn't as daunting. The rest of the book will be using a language better suited to the task than any you know to explain what spacetime is. You see, this "curving spacetime" is actually changing what is called the metric of spacetime. In terms of math you might know, it's almost analogous to the magnitude of the gravity vector changing. That's part of what spacetime is; it is a thing whose magnitude is dependent upon energy density. Functionalism rules the day.

 

It seems that once again, the xkcd comic is useful, so I'm going to quote mississippichem.

 

xkcd

 

These analogies are toys; they're not real understanding. The real understanding only comes when you learn the theory in a language capable of handling it.

Edited December 17, 2011 by ydoaPs

[owl]

Swansont:

Well, no, there are other reasons a clock might slow down.

 

What about the converse: if time slows down, clocks must surely slow down. Is that

true, or not?

Not.

It reifies time as “something,” independent of measurement, which slows down, and then clocks “detect” and measure that whatever which has slowed down. The physical process that slows down is the “ticking” of clocks. Why that happens is another debate... “What makes clocks slow down at high speeds?”

S:

Some quantities are invariant. Some are not. Some of the "all measurements from all frames" don't vary.

 

You have said that distance is not invariant. So it varies with observational frame, you say. Earth’s diameter is a length/distance. If it varies with observation, then Earth’s shape varies from nearly spherical to very oblate. Do you insist that this is true or not?

I summarized the other alternative in my last post. You called the choice a “false dichotomy,” and I challenged you to back up that claim. You again avoided the challenge.

Does Earth's diameter vary or not? If not, do you claim that we can not know Earth's shape because of the "no preferred frames of reference" dictum? If neither, what exactly are you claiming, besides that the choice is a false dichotomy?

S:

It's (ed; ref: curved spacetime) treated like a mathematical abstraction. But since you are convinced that the question has been answered for mass, what is mass?

I already compared what we know about mass as elements (quite a lot) to what we know about spacetime as a curved whatever, which is “nada.” But you simply ignore the comparison. In the statement, “mass curves spacetime,” we know a lot about the former and nothing about the latter, and physics wants to keep it that way, even as ontologists constantly challenge the use of the abstraction, spacetime, with absolutely no referent such as the atomic structures we know and call “mass.”

 

YodaPs:

It does? Really? I don't think that's the case. See, last time I checked, energy was

present at time epsilon of the Big Bang. That means there was no time at which

energy did not exist. How, then, could the energy have "come from nothing"? Perhaps

you should pick up a few science books as well.

 

Most Big Bangers I’ve studied will not deal with the “where did it all come from?” question, claiming that physics melts down at the "singularity" or whatever that went “bang.” They say that nobody knows "where it all came from," and, further that the answer is un-know-able for physics.

I disagree.

I subscribe to the Bang Crunch theory, and the answer there is that it all came back from the the last Bang after reversing into the Crunch half of the cycle. Of course that will require finding the “missing matter,” which is still in progress, whether just a lot more unseen regular matter or exotic forms of “dark matter and energy.”

Edited December 19, 2011 by owl

[md65536]

You have said that distance is not invariant. So it varies with observational frame, you say. Earth’s diameter is a length/distance. If it varies with observation, then Earth’s shape varies from nearly spherical to very oblate. Do you insist that this is true or not?

I summarized the other alternative in my last post. You called the choice a “false dichotomy,” and I challenged you to back up that claim. You again avoided the challenge.

Does Earth's diameter vary or not? If not, do you claim that we can not know Earth's shape because of the "no preferred frames of reference" dictum? If neither, what exactly are you claiming, besides that the choice is a false dichotomy?

If it's not a false dichotomy, then which option is it that you're claiming is true?

In case it's "we (or 'science') can not know Earth's shape", then how do you know Earth's shape? Isn't it "observations and measurements"?

 

 

[swansont]

Swansont:

 

Not.

It reifies time as “something,” independent of measurement, which slows down, and then clocks “detect” and measure that whatever which has slowed down. The physical process that slows down is the “ticking” of clocks. Why that happens is another debate... “What makes clocks slow down at high speeds?”

 

Correction: YOU reify time in your interpretation. You do not get to speak for others, and certainly not for science. Reification helps some people with concepts because of the abstraction due to the math, but the trap here is in assuming that the reification is built-in. It's not.

 

It also doesn't answer the question, because it was a conditional: If time slows down. Or, put another way, if it is nonlinear. You are simply denying the premise, which allows you to avoid dealing with the conclusion. It's that pesky ideology again. Time must be treated as a real thing in order to support a position. If it's an abstraction then the argument crumbles.

 

 

You have said that distance is not invariant. So it varies with observational frame, you say. Earth’s diameter is a length/distance. If it varies with observation, then Earth’s shape varies from nearly spherical to very oblate. Do you insist that this is true or not?

I summarized the other alternative in my last post. You called the choice a “false dichotomy,” and I challenged you to back up that claim. You again avoided the challenge.

Does Earth's diameter vary or not? If not, do you claim that we can not know Earth's shape because of the "no preferred frames of reference" dictum? If neither, what exactly are you claiming, besides that the choice is a false dichotomy?

 

Your position is based on realism and you gave me a choice: either properties are inherent, or they vary. I explained why this is a false dichotomy: some properties/values vary with reference frame, others do not. Length is one that is not invariant.

 

Another one is color. Does each object (e.g. the sun) have an inherent color? According to realism it has to, right?

 

 

S:

 

I already compared what we know about mass as elements (quite a lot) to what we know about spacetime as a curved whatever, which is “nada.” But you simply ignore the comparison. In the statement, “mass curves spacetime,” we know a lot about the former and nothing about the latter, and physics wants to keep it that way, even as ontologists constantly challenge the use of the abstraction, spacetime, with absolutely no referent such as the atomic structures we know and call “mass.”

 

But I asked what mass IS. You implied that you knew. Atomic structures are not mass, they have mass.

[owl]

Correction: YOU reify time in your interpretation.

 

You don’t seem to know the meaning of reification. You claim that time is a “thing”* (reification) and I claim that it is not.

From a previous post:

*

There is a thing we call time, and the theory predicts it will dilate.

...

Time must be treated as a real thing in order to support a position. If it's an abstraction then the argument crumbles.

 

Time must be treated as a real thing in order to support your position. It is an abstraction (event duration of physical processes, as I define it), not a "thing" that "dilates," and that is why your "argument crumbles."

...

Your position is based on realism and you gave me a choice: either properties are inherent, or they vary. I explained why this is a false dichotomy: some properties/values vary with reference frame, others do not. Length is one that is not invariant.

 

I was specific in the choice I posed, as to whether the length of Earth's diameter varies (changes) or whether we simply can not know its diameter, if 'all frames of reference are equally valid.' You dodged the choice... yet again.

Here it is again:

You have said that distance is not invariant. So it varies with observational frame, you say. Earth’s diameter is a length/distance. If it varies with observation, then Earth’s shape varies from nearly spherical to very oblate. Do you insist that this is true or not?

 

Another one is color. Does each object (e.g. the sun) have an inherent color? According to realism it has to, right?

Maybe if we focus on the challenge at hand first instead of going into a debate about “what color is the Sun?” before we agree on “What shape is the Earth?”

 

(Color is, of course dependent on specific wavelengths of light, and the Sun doesn't care how we see it... according to realism.)

 

But I asked what mass IS. You implied that you knew. Atomic structures are not mass, they have mass.

 

You continue to ignore my comparison of what we know about mass vs what we know about curved spacetime. We know a lot about what mass* IS, composed as it is of elements, which we know a lot about ... as compare to “curved spacetime,” about which we know nothing. Yet you want to quibble about the definition of “is.” I can hardly believe I am having this conversation.

 

*Edit: I am, of course referring to matter as composed of elements and matter as having mass.

What does spactime "have" that allows it to be curved and by which it guides objects in curved paths?

If the dictum were, "matter curves spacetime," the sense would not be changed, as everyone agrees that matter "has" mass.

Final edit:

One would hope that we all could agree on what mass is, but here is the Wikipedia version:

In physics, mass (from Greek μᾶζα "barley cake, lump (of dough)"), more specifically inertial mass, can be defined as a quantitative measure of an object's resistance to the change of its speed. In addition to this, gravitational mass can be described as a measure of magnitude of the gravitational force which is

 

1. exerted by an object (active gravitational mass), or

2. experienced by an object (passive gravitational force)

 

when interacting with a second object.

Please define what spacetime is in equally clear terms.

Edited December 20, 2011 by owl