Is philosophy relevant to science?

[md65536]

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

Uhh... did you just quote something that defines mass according to its measure?

Are you sure you don't want to provide an owl-definition? Some alternative owl-mass to go along with owl-time that better fits owl-realism?

You wouldn't want someone to try to define spacetime by its measure.

 

 

[swansont]

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.

 

I can't call an abstraction or a concept a "thing"? I never said it was a physical thing, and good god, have you not read anything I've written? Is it that hard to apply context to a sentence based on what I've posted?

 

 

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."

 

Again, since it's math, I will ask yet again: why can't it be a nonlinear function, such that intervals do not have the same magnitude? That is what is meant by dilation.

 

 

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.

 

At this point, with what I've pointed out above and now this, I have to call into question your reading comprehension. From my previous post: Length is one that is not invariant. Is that not clear to you? Measurements of length in different frames of reference will not give the same answer.

 

The false dichotomy you presented was that either all properties are inherent, or none of them are. There are invariant terms.

 

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?”

 

No, you have been relying on the absence of experiment, owing to the difficulty of measurement. Which, of course is simply appeal to ignorance, a logical fallacy. Your position needs to be tested in an area where we actually have evidence that would either support or falsify it.

 

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

 

OK, so if we have a source that emits a single wavelength (call it L0) but it's moving relative to us, that wavelength shifts. We see some other color (L1). Are we being deceived somehow, because we aren't seeing the true wavelength of the source?

 

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:

 

Please define what spacetime is in equally clear terms.

 

"an object's resistance to the change of its speed" doesn't tell us what mass IS. It tells me the behavior of mass. Specifically, it tells me what acceleration I'll get of I exert a certain force on it. F=ma. It doesn't say how this resistance occurs or what actually resists the change in speed. So why is it OK to define mass in terms of how it behaves, but when it comes to spacetime, that is insufficient?

 

Spacetime can't be explained in terms as clear as F=ma because the math is more complicated. And you don't speak math, but you've made it clear you are willing to accept math as an explanation. Except in this case, for some reason.

[A Tripolation]

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.”

 

Not only that, but light curves are not consistent with the model of a recollapsing/cyclical universe. Sorry. It's pretty much a failed hypothesis unless the idea is drastically revised to better match reality.

[owl]

me:

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.

 

You:

I can't call an abstraction or a concept a "thing"? I never said it was a physical thing, and good god, have you not read anything I've written? Is it that hard to apply context to a sentence based on what I've posted?

 

You can call it a thing and treat it functionally like a thing, and say that “it dilates” like a thing, all of which is reification, but when asked what it IS in this annoying ontological inquiry, it still turns out to be nothing but a useful concept!

This conversation is like talking to a brick wall. I am sure you agree, but thinking am the brick wall. No progress.

 

 

Again, since it's *math*, I will ask yet again: why can't it be a nonlinear function, such that intervals do not have the same magnitude? That is what is meant by dilation.

 

“It” can be a “non-linear function” if it suits your math, and if “ ...such that intervals do not have the same magnitude...” is essentiial to your math, fine. But as far as physics and math are here to help us understand the real cosmos better, how do those math phrases help us to know whether Earth is shaped like a sphere or a fat pancake? You are still avoiding that challenge. ('It changes', or 'we can't know' because....?)

 

We have the science of astronomy telling precisely what the distance is between stars and such. Then we have the length contraction sub-theory of relativity saying "it varies with observation." Do all those distances vary with different observations from fast rocket frames of reference or does the cosmos exist with those distances inherent and intrinsic independent of measurement? The answer involves philosophy of science, specifically, idealism in the former case vs. realism in the latter case.

 

You again shout out:

 

At this point, with what I've pointed out above and now this, I have to call into question your reading comprehension. From my previous post:LENGTH IS ONE THAT IS NOT INVARIANT. Is that not clear to you? Measurements of length in different frames of reference will not give the same answer.

 

The false dichotomy you presented was that either all properties are inherent, or none of them are. There are invariant terms.

 

Maybe if you just shout louder it will make your argument true.

So if length, including Earth’s diameter “IS NOT INVARIANT”, then Earth changes shape, i.e., its diameter VARIES (that means "CHANGES.")

 

My dichotomy was vary specific. One choice was for an Earth that changes shape, as above... “NOT INVARIENT.” The other was for an Earth with a shape we can not know, given all the "equally valid" frames of reference from which it can be observed and measured. Yet you manage to duck the challenge.

 

Then, as a distraction, I must think, you insist on the ‘what color is the Sun?” diversion. I said already, parenthetically, that the wavelength of sunlight does not depend on how we see it. That is realism, with which you not only disagree but adamantly deny. (Reality depends on observation: idealism.)

S:

So why is it OK to define mass in terms of how it behaves, but when it comes to spacetime, that is insufficient?

 

Because we know what matter IS (as elements and all that atomic physics description of what it is made of... what it IS)... and we all know that “matter has mass,” as previously belabored. But we still don’t know a damn thing about what spacetime IS, because it is an abstract concept that is not a 'whatever' being bent/curved as claimed in “matter/mass curves spacetime.” It is a bogus claim, in that there is nothing there being curved but a concept in theoretical minds. Can you not see that?

Then here comes the old overused and condescending ‘the math is too complicated for you math morons’ attitude. (Not a quote, an attitude!)

S:

Spacetime can't be explained in terms as clear as F=ma because the math is more complicated. And you don't speak math, but you've made it clear you are willing to accept math as an explanation. Except in this case, for some reason.

 

Whether you like it or not I am going to quote yet again a philosopher of science (physics, geometry, cosmology and math) whom you have ignored and dismissed as irrelevant in reply to my previous quotes. This just for newer participants here.

 

Kelley Ross, from "The Ontology and Cosmology of Non-Euclidean Geometry": (my emphasis)

 

http://www.friesian.com/curved-1.htm

Just because the math works doesn't mean that we understand what is happening in nature. Every physical theory has a mathematical component and a conceptual component, but these two are often confused. Many speak as though the mathematical component confers understanding, this even after decades of the beautiful mathematics of quantum mechanics obviously conferring little understanding.

 

Nevertheless, there is often still a kind of deliberate know-nothing-ism that the mathematics is the explanation. It isn't. Instead, each theory contains a conceptual interpretation that assigns meaning to its mathematical expressions.

 

Philosophy usually does a poor job of preparing the way for science, but it never hurts to ask questions. The worst thing that can ever happen for philosophy, and for science, is that people are so overawed by the conventional wisdom in areas where they feel inadequate (like math) that they are actually afraid to ask questions that may imply criticism, skepticism, or, heaven help them, ignorance.

 

These observations about Einstein's Relativity are not definitive answers to any questions; they are just an attempt to ask the questions which have not been asked. Those questions become possible with a clearer understanding of the separate logical, mathematical, psychological, and ontological components of the theory of non-Euclidean geometry. The purpose, then, is to break ground, to open up the issues, and to stir up the complacency that is all too easy for philosophers when they think that somebody else is the expert and understands things quite adequately. It is the philosopher's job to question and inquire, not to accept somebody else's word for somebody else's understanding.

[swansont]

You can call it a thing and treat it functionally like a thing, and say that “it dilates” like a thing, all of which is reification, but when asked what it IS in this annoying ontological inquiry, it still turns out to be nothing but a useful concept!

This conversation is like talking to a brick wall. I am sure you agree, but thinking am the brick wall. No progress.

 

So you can ask what spacetime IS and not be satisfied with a mathematical answer, but when I substitute mass into your argument, it's perfectly fine? How about some consistency in your position?

 

“It” can be a “non-linear function” if it suits your math, and if “ ...such that intervals do not have the same magnitude...” is essentiial to your math, fine. But as far as physics and math are here to help us understand the real cosmos better, how do those math phrases help us to know whether Earth is shaped like a sphere or a fat pancake? You are still avoiding that challenge. ('It changes', or 'we can't know' because....?)

 

It isn't science's job to answer philosophical questions. That's philosophy's job. Our best understanding concerning the shape of the earth is that it is not an invariant quantity. The measurement depends on the frame of reference. If you don't like that answer, too bad, but that's not avoiding answering the question.

 

We have the science of astronomy telling precisely what the distance is between stars and such. Then we have the length contraction sub-theory of relativity saying "it varies with observation." Do all those distances vary with different observations from fast rocket frames of reference or does the cosmos exist with those distances inherent and intrinsic independent of measurement? The answer involves philosophy of science, specifically, idealism in the former case vs. realism in the latter case.

 

How many f%$#ing times do I have to answer this? Length is not invariant.

 

You again shout out:

 

 

 

Maybe if you just shout louder it will make your argument true.

 

I "shouted" because you keep claiming that I haven't answered the question. Length is not an invariant quantity.

 

So if length, including Earth’s diameter “IS NOT INVARIANT”, then Earth changes shape, i.e., its diameter VARIES (that means "CHANGES.")

 

My dichotomy was vary specific. One choice was for an Earth that changes shape, as above... “NOT INVARIENT.” The other was for an Earth with a shape we can not know, given all the "equally valid" frames of reference from which it can be observed and measured. Yet you manage to duck the challenge.

 

Again, how many f%$#ing times do I have to answer this? Length is not invariant. Stop pretending I haven't said this a dozen or more times.

 

 

Then, as a distraction, I must think, you insist on the ‘what color is the Sun?” diversion. I said already, parenthetically, that the wavelength of sunlight does not depend on how we see it. That is realism, with which you not only disagree but adamantly deny. (Reality depends on observation: idealism.)

 

 

It's not a distraction. It gets us away from your fallacious argument based on argument from ignorance. Things (sorry, statements. Wouldn't want you to think that I think that a statement is a physical object) are not true simply because it has not been shown false.

 

Which is why I chose an area where experimentation has been done. Moving objects (or observers) will observe a shift in the wavelength — this is experimentally confirmed. So wavelength does depend on how you see it.

 

S:

 

 

Because we know what matter IS (as elements and all that atomic physics description of what it is made of... what it IS)... and we all know that “matter has mass,” as previously belabored. But we still don’t know a damn thing about what spacetime IS, because it is an abstract concept that is not a 'whatever' being bent/curved as claimed in “matter/mass curves spacetime.” It is a bogus claim, in that there is nothing there being curved but a concept in theoretical minds. Can you not see that?

 

The claim that the curvature is conceptual has always been the position presented to you. Curvature is a mathematical description. So is a=F/m. There's no real difference in the quality of the answers.

 

Then here comes the old overused and condescending ‘the math is too complicated for you math morons’ attitude. (Not a quote, an attitude!)

 

You're the one who has avoided math and admitted that you don't do math. It's the equivalent of the "ugly American" who goes to a foreign country and gets upset because the locals don't speak English and blames everyone but himself for the communications problems.

 

Which is why (with due respect to Kelley Ross) that quote (to me) translates as "I don't understand and it's your fault"

 

———

 

Added: part of the reason for the language you decry as reification is because of people who don't speak math, and need alternate explanations/descriptions.

[ydoaPs]

Not only that, but light curves are not consistent with the model of a recollapsing/cyclical universe. Sorry. It's pretty much a failed hypothesis unless the idea is drastically revised to better match reality.

Not to mention, it's been essentially falsified by looking at large scale geometry. Either this is the last cycle, or it is the only one.

[owl]

me:

So if length, including Earth’s diameter “IS NOT INVARIANT”, then Earth changes shape, i.e., its diameter VARIES (that means "CHANGES.")

 

My dichotomy was very specific. One choice was for an Earth that changes shape, as above... “NOT INVARIANT.” The other was for an Earth with a shape we can not know, given all the "equally valid" frames of reference from which it can be observed and measured. Yet you manage to duck the challenge.

 

Swansont:

 

Again, how many f%$#ing times do I have to answer this? Length is not invariant. Stop pretending I haven't said this a dozen or more times.

 

Will someone please explain to Swansont that claiming "length is not invariant" means that length varies! "Not invarient" means variable. The claim is that Earth's diameter, an example of length, is variable with observational frame.

 

I can guess why he doesn't get this, but it would be rude.

 

So, speaking of Earth's diameter as the length in question, he is insisting that it varies. This means that Earth changes shape drastically, depending on frames of reference.

 

But science knows quite well what Earth's diameter is, both polar and equatorial, and it doesn't change, no matter how many times Swansont repeats the dogma "length is not invariant." (spelling edit.)

Good grief... and this is a science forum!

Edited December 22, 2011 by owl

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

But science knows quite well what Earth's diameter is, both polar and equatorial, and it doesn't change

Could you please point me to an experiment in which the Earth's diameter is varied in different reference frames and found to not change?

[owl]

Could you please point me to an experiment in which the Earth's diameter is varied in different reference frames and found to not change?

No. Earth's diameter does not vary, even though the dictum/dogma of length contraction insists that "length is not invariant,"i.e., that it varies with how it is observed... which is idealism. No. Earth stays the same shape (which is well known in science) even if we look at it from a high speed frame of reference... which may well distort the image, though you have often denied such distortion and claimed that a very oblate Earth is an equally valid description with the extremely well observed, measured and documented "nearly spherical" description.

Of course, you base your claim on the relativity dogma that "there are no preferred frames of reference," even though the at rest frame of observation has the fewest unknown variables and the squished Earth you advocate as equally valid is totally false and absurd.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

No.

Oh, I thought you said that science knew it didn't change.

[tar]

Owl,

 

Scientist try very hard to determine what is real.

 

If A and B are both found to be true but they contradict each other, they look for the C that must REALLY be the case.

 

Example: A rotating horizontal shaft. You stand at one end and tell me it is rotating clockwise. I stand at the other and tell you it is rotating counter-clockwise. We both know, and scientists would agree, that it is REALLY only rotating in one direction even though it is rotating clockwise for you, and counter-clockwise for me. It does not "change" its rotation because of our contrary descriptions. It really is rotating in one direction. And it really is rotating clockwise when viewed/measured from your reference point, and really is rotating counter-clockwise, when viewed from mine.

 

Regards (and the hope that you will see the reality of the situation), TAR2

 

and if you were attached to the shaft, it would not be spinning at all as far as you were concerned, I would be rotating, along with everything else, really

 

the sun does not stop shining at night, the Earth just rotates to put itself between us and it, so we can't see it shining

 

we know it continues to shine, when we see it shining on the moon and planets, or get reports from people on the other side of the Earth

 

left Japan one afternoon, flew Eastward through the night, and arrived in Newark NJ a little earlier the same afternoon

How could that have REALLY happened?

 

Gots to use a little science to explain it. Does not make much sense, but it really happened.

Edited December 22, 2011 by tar

[swansont]

Will someone please explain to Swansont that claiming "length is not invariant" means that length varies! "Not invarient" means variable. The claim is that Earth's diameter, an example of length, is variable with observational frame.

 

Funny, I was going to ask if you knew what invariant meant, because that was my answer to your question and has been for quite some time. I was wondering why you considered it unanswered. The measurement depends on your reference frame.

 

 

So, speaking of Earth's diameter as the length in question, he is insisting that it varies. This means that Earth changes shape drastically, depending on frames of reference.

 

But science knows quite well what Earth's diameter is, both polar and equatorial, and it doesn't change, no matter how many times Swansont repeats the dogma "length is not invariant." (spelling edit.)

Good grief... and this is a science forum!

 

No, what science knows quite well is that multiple measurements from the same reference frame all agree, which is exactly in accordance with relativity. The measurements that would show that the value changes have not been done, as you have pointed out. Claiming that we know that the values don't change is not true. You have assumed they don't change. Which is why I have been presenting a situation where we have done measurements. i.e. the change in the color of light emitted by a source.

 

And on the subject of vocabulary, please look up dogma. You keep using it incorrectly.

[owl]

Oh, I thought you said that science knew it didn't change.

Cap ‘n R:

In logic, one can not prove the negative. For instance, science can not prove there is no god. The burden of proof is on believers to prove there is.

 

Science has done an excellent job of ‘proving’ that Earth is nearly spherical and exactly how trivially oblate it is. If you claim that a severely oblate shape is equally valid, or that it changes shape then you would need to show evidence of that.

 

TAR:

Example: A rotating horizontal shaft. You stand at one end and tell me it is rotating clockwise. I stand at the other and tell you it is rotating counter-clockwise.

 

To the case in point, looking at Earth from above the North Pole, it is rotating counterclockwise, while looking from above the South Pole, it is rotating clockwise. But no one (practically) is stupid enough to believe that it changes direction of rotation. This is a bogus argument, Tar.

 

... a lot like the claim that if we could observe Earth from a frame flying by at near lightspeed and it appeared very oblate, that would be just as valid a description as the extremely well documented nearly spherical shape observed from at rest with Earth.

 

Swansont:

The measurement depends on your reference frame.

 

The *actual* shape of Earth doesn’t. “Actual” in this context means that Earth’s shape is intrinsic, in and of itself (as per realism), and it does not change with extreme changes in frames of reference from which it is measured; at rest with Earth being the most accurate measurements... if anyone were actually wondering how to most accurately measure it ...

Hmmm... from orbit or flying by at near ‘c’?.... tough choice!

 

A straight answer to a previous challenge would have ended the debate:

me:

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?

 

... And I already answered your ‘what color is the sun?’ question. Here it is again:

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

The reality of the cosmos does not depend on how we observe it*, according to realism. It does according to idealism. You claim the latter, as in the claim that length varies with observation.

*Science's job is to always find the best way to observe whatever is being observed/measured.

For newcomers: I used to teach a college undergrad course including a section on experimental design, which made me somewhat of an expert on the subject.

 

I have given many examples of the italicized above, which are all conveniently ignored. Here again is one of my latest:

 

We have the science of astronomy telling precisely what the distance is between stars and such. Then we have the length contraction sub-theory of relativity saying "it varies with observation."

 

Ps; re:

Which is why (with due respect to Kelley Ross) that quote (to me) translates as "I don't understand and it's your fault"...

 

Your "translation" totally misses the main point. The whole piece is philosophy of science applied to the primary assumptions inherent in non-Euclidean geometry and resulting cosmology. The ontology is obviously over your head. The philosophy pertaining to math was well summarized as follows:

 

Many speak as though the mathematical component confers understanding, ...

 

Nevertheless, there is often still a kind of deliberate know-nothing-ism that the mathematics is the explanation. It isn't. Instead, each theory contains a conceptual interpretation that assigns meaning to its mathematical expressions.

 

When the conceptual meaning of length contraction insists that Earth drastically changes shape (or, alternatively, that we can not know its shape because of frame of reference *variation*), then philosophy is required to bring perspective to a clearly false assumption.

[ydoaPs]

Cap ‘n R:

In logic, one can not prove the negative. For instance, science can not prove there is no god. The burden of proof is on believers to prove there is.

 

That is quite false. As I have told you before, you need to actually go learn about philosophy before you try to act as though you know anything.

 

 

p->q

~q

~p

 

This is called Modus Tollens and is a very basic tool used in logic. It is the basis for a good deal of philosophical arguments and is the cornerstone of science. You see, this is how do do falsification.

 

In science, you use induction to come up with an idea and then you use deduction to test it.

 

Here is a brief run down of how science works:

 

PS₁->TT₁->EE₁->PS₂

 

Given a Problem Situation(PS), we come up with Tentative Theories(TT)[tentative theories can range from hypotheses to actual theories] which we then subject to Error Elimination(EE) via testing predictions. How do we test predictions? We can't do it by proving the positive:

 

If P, then Q

Q, therefore P

 

Is a logical fallacy known as affirming the consequent. The reason that it works is that there could be any number of reasons for Q aside from P. If we see Q exemplified, it could be because P is true, but it could also be due to a different reason and P happens to be false.

 

We test our tentative theories by proving the negative using Modus Tollens.

 

If P, then Q

Not Q, therefore not P

 

We perform our Error Elimination testing by setting up situations P, based on predictions produced by our Tentative Theory, and observe to see whether or not Q is exemplified. If Q is not exemplified, then we know our TT is wrong or at least not entirely correct; it needs replaces or refined. How do we know if it it needs replaced or refined? Well, many sciences have the great fortune of having a very precise mathematical underpinning such that we can predict Q accurately(and with a known allowable margin of error for the TT) based on the P from the TT. We can quantitatively see if we are close or orders of magnitude off the mark. This one test alone, however, is not sufficient to provide absolute validity for our TT as there is no viable method of induction; we must continue to test or TT and eliminate options to raise our confidence in our TT. With each test, the error bars on our set of possible theories shrinks. The end goal is to get them to shrink to the point that each of the possible theories inside the error bars are indistinguishable.

 

Theories such as Evolution and Relativity have been so accurately and exhaustively tested that it is absurd to think that they are flat out wrong. However, there's always room for refinement.

 

In effect, this one statement shows that you know nothing about either philosophy or science.

Edited December 22, 2011 by ydoaPs

[Iggy]

But science knows... it doesn't change

In logic, one can not prove the negative [it doesn't change].

good thing we have university professors of psychology, logic, and experimental design all present. one of them should be able to diagnose the problem here

[swansont]

The *actual* shape of Earth doesn’t. “Actual” in this context means that Earth’s shape is intrinsic, in and of itself (as per realism), and it does not change with extreme changes in frames of reference from which it is measured; at rest with Earth being the most accurate measurements... if anyone were actually wondering how to most accurately measure it ...

Hmmm... from orbit or flying by at near ‘c’?.... tough choice!

 

If some property is intrinsic, then you should be able to measure it in any frame and get the same answer, to within the experimental accuracy. But measurement accuracy is a completely separate issue from the theory. The theory predicts these differences — theory has no contribution from experimental error. And the experiments we can do all agree with theory.

 

A straight answer to a previous challenge would have ended the debate:

me:

 

 

... And I already answered your ‘what color is the sun?’ question. Here it is again:

 

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

 

The reality of the cosmos does not depend on how we observe it*, according to realism. It does according to idealism. You claim the latter, as in the claim that length varies with observation.

 

But the wavelength of the light is different, depending on the frame in which it is measured. These experiments have actually been done. Doesn't that contradict realism?

 

And, as I have pointed out before, the either/or of realism vs idealism is a false dichotomy. I deny realism, but I do not claim idealism. Some quantities are invariant. Science is more nuanced than this simple choice.

 

*Science's job is to always find the best way to observe whatever is being observed/measured.

For newcomers: I used to teach a college undergrad course including a section on experimental design, which made me somewhat of an expert on the subject.

 

For the newcomers: owl has admitted to not being a scientist.

 

How did you acquire your "expertise" in experimental design? I mean, I've built vacuum systems, done spectroscopy, trapped atoms and done measurements of various stripes. I can discuss some aspects of what works and why.

 

 

I have given many examples of the italicized above, which are all conveniently ignored. Here again is one of my latest:

 

The implication that astronomy does not accept relativity boggles the mind.

 

 

Your "translation" totally misses the main point. The whole piece is philosophy of science applied to the primary assumptions inherent in non-Euclidean geometry and resulting cosmology. The ontology is obviously over your head. The philosophy pertaining to math was well summarized as follows:

 

 

 

When the conceptual meaning of length contraction insists that Earth drastically changes shape (or, alternatively, that we can not know its shape because of frame of reference *variation*), then philosophy is required to bring perspective to a clearly false assumption.

 

That the math does not confer understanding to you does not mean that it does not confer understanding to me.

 

Meanwhile, GPS works.

[owl]

Ydoaps:

That is quite false. As I have told you before, you need to actually go learn about philosophy before you try to act as though you know anything.

 

I used to think that your arrogance and condescension were disgusting. Now I have learned to take it with a grain of salt, and now it just varies between annoying and humorous.

 

Modus tollens applies to *evidence of absence.* Of course science can prove that there is no cat in a box, if in fact the absence of a cat is verified. (Apologies to Schrodinger... whether a present cat is dead or alive will not depend on the observation, tho it will confirm the fact one way or the other.)

But science can not in fact prove the non-existence of a disputed entity like “god.”

 

So, now to the example at hand. *Absence of evidence* is the basis of my claim that there is no evidence that Earth drastically morphs out of its *well documented* (a major body of evidence) nearly spherical shape.

 

Swansont:

Meanwhile, GPS works.

 

I have never disputed that GPS works. I’ve disputed that time is a thing that slows down. Clocks slow down in orbit, so the part of relativity that deals with that compensates (very well, btw) for all the differences between satellite clocks and the surface clocks that use these very accurate compensations for guidance.

(Edit: Sorry, I know that GPS does not depend on clock comaparison with the GPS units on the surface. Just so i don't have to deal with another trivial distraction from my point here... that Earth does not morph, and that we can know its shape, very precisely, even without relativity's "help.")

You have ignored me on the above constantly. I think I know why. My guess is that you don’t know the difference between clocks slowing down and the bogus concept of time slowing down. I have explained the difference dozens of times in many threads.

 

Interrupted. Back to finish asap.

 

Swansont:

That the math does not confer understanding to you does not mean that it does not confer understanding to me.

It is not about me. That math does not confer understanding is Ross's general philosophical assertion as an astute philosopher of science.

'Understanding what?,' is the ontological inquiry that you can not seem to grasp. Do you understand that Earth does not change shape under the scrutiny of observation from variously devised frames of reference? (Shape here meaning *length* of its diameter... here in dispute.)

Or... do you believe that we can not know its shape, as the other alternative... which you insist is a false dichotomy. (No answers to what other alternatives you would pose.)

 

Gone again... piecemeal here for my part in replies.

Edited December 22, 2011 by owl

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

It is not about me. That math does not confer understanding is Ross's general philosophical assertion as an astute philosopher of science.

'Understanding what?,' is the ontological inquiry that you can not seem to grasp. Do you understand that Earth does not change shape under the scrutiny of observation from variously devised frames of reference? (Shape here meaning *length* of its diameter... here in dispute.)

Or... do you believe that we can not know its shape, as the other alternative... which you insist is a false dichotomy. (No answers to what other alternatives you would pose.)

Relativity lets you exactly determine its shape as viewed by every reference frame. The shapes may be different, but that doesn't count as not knowing at all.

[swansont]

I have never disputed that GPS works. I’ve disputed that time is a thing that slows down. Clocks slow down in orbit, so the part of relativity that deals with that compensates (very well, btw) for all the differences between satellite clocks and the surface clocks that use these very accurate compensations for guidance.

(Edit: Sorry, I know that GPS does not depend on clock comaparison with the GPS units on the surface. Just so i don't have to deal with another trivial distraction from my point here... that Earth does not morph, and that we can know its shape, very precisely, even without relativity's "help.")

You have ignored me on the above constantly. I think I know why. My guess is that you don’t know the difference between clocks slowing down and the bogus concept of time slowing down. I have explained the difference dozens of times in many threads.

 

Why do clocks slow down, in predictable ways, if not due to relativistic effects?

 

It is not about me. That math does not confer understanding is Ross's general philosophical assertion as an astute philosopher of science.

'Understanding what?,' is the ontological inquiry that you can not seem to grasp. Do you understand that Earth does not change shape under the scrutiny of observation from variously devised frames of reference? (Shape here meaning *length* of its diameter... here in dispute.)

Or... do you believe that we can not know its shape, as the other alternative... which you insist is a false dichotomy. (No answers to what other alternatives you would pose.)

 

So Ross does not understand it either. Neither of you speaks the language, but somehow it's the fault of science that the answers are unsatisfactory.

 

Realism vs idealism is the false dichotomy.

[tar]

TAR:

 

 

To the case in point, looking at Earth from above the North Pole, it is rotating counterclockwise, while looking from above the South Pole, it is rotating clockwise. But no one (practically) is stupid enough to believe that it changes direction of rotation. This is a bogus argument, Tar.

 

... a lot like the claim that if we could observe Earth from a frame flying by at near lightspeed and it appeared very oblate, that would be just as valid a description as the extremely well documented nearly spherical shape observed from at rest with Earth.

 

 

Owl,

 

Not as bogus as you think, AND you are missing my point. Point is there IS only one direction the Earth is spinning, and that direction is the one that looks counter clockwise if "hypothetically" positioning yourself above the Earth and having it appear counter-clockwise, and looks like clockwise rotation from "above" the South Pole. But here is where the argument is also not bogus. If you maintain the North Pole as the "top" of the Earth, then you should not refer to "above" the South Pole, you should refer to it as "below" the South Pole. Otherwise, if you are, in your hypothetical vantage point "above" the South Pole, the Earth would be revolving around the Sun in a clockwise direction.

 

Consider the fact that the sundials in the North Hemisphere were the forerunners of the first clocks, and the first clockmakers where from the North Hemisphere, and the maps and globes made by NorthHemisphere navigators put the North star as the UP thing.

 

I believe "running a thought experiment" that the shadow of a stick in the southern hemisphere would point West in the morning, South at noon, and East toward sunset. The shadow would be proceeding in a "counter-clockwise' direction. In the Northern Hemisphere it points West-North-East, which is REALLY proceding in the opposite direction around the stick. Clockwise.

 

If our first clock makers were from the southern hemisphere, they may well have made the hands go around like a shadow would a stick, and clockwise would ACTUALLY have been the other way round. And since the UP thing, that the southern hemisphere first map and globe maker saw almost stationary in the sky, with the other stars circling 'round it had the South Pole pointing toward it, the globe would most likely have been made with the makers "standing" on it, rather than "falling" off the bottom. The whole solar system would likewise be turned upside down, and the Galaxy and Universe with it.

 

So clockwise is left-up-right-down and counter clockwise is right-up-left-down. We agreed on it. That is the convention. But you need an observer to determine the direction, and the hypothetical observer must be standing somewhere and facing in a direction, to make the call. And looking down at the stick in the northern hemisphere, and looking down at the stick in the southern hemisphere, the shadow will ACTUALLY go the opposite direction in each case. This is BECAUSE the Earth is only rotating in the direction it is really rotating.

 

So not a bogus argument. Transferring this REALITY to the "shape" of the Earth in the hypothetical high speed observer's eyes, he MUST see it as an oblate spheriod, BECAUSE IT REALLY IS THE SHAPE IT IS. And that is its REAL shape. The only shape it has, as it only has one direction of rotation, and only one direction of revolution. In spite of the observer, not because of the observer.

 

It is only when you take all hypothetical observers into account, that you can imagine the one true rotation of the Earth, and its one true shape.

 

To understand and imagine the Earth's true rotation, you must see it from both the clockwise underneath perspective and the counterclockwise above perspective, and then let both of them go and imagine the one real direction.

 

Turns out, you need to do the same kind of operation with distance. You have to let the measurement of it vary with the speed of the observer through it, inorder for it to actually be understood as the only true distance that it is.

 

Still bogus?

 

Imagine that SwansonT can do with distance what you can do with the direction of rotation of the Earth. That is, see it as one real thing BECAUSE you know how it looks from different perspectives.

 

Regards, TAR2

[ydoaPs]

I used to think that your arrogance and condescension were disgusting. Now I have learned to take it with a grain of salt, and now it just varies between annoying and humorous.

 

Fine, let's say I'm arrogant and condescending. That doesn't mean I'm wrong. To dismiss my post and use your claim of arrogance as the basis to do so is an example of a logical fallacy known as "ad hom". So, the position you find yourself in is one in which, to have any credibility at all, you must show that my supposed arrogance and and condescension are based upon falsities; you must prove me wrong. Unfortunately for you, you've been doing a bang up job of doing the exact opposite by consistently showing that you could pass neither an introductory philosophy course nor an introductory science course.

 

Modus tollens applies to *evidence of absence.* Of course science can prove that there is no cat in a box, if in fact the absence of a cat is verified. (Apologies to Schrodinger... whether a present cat is dead or alive will not depend on the observation, tho it will confirm the fact one way or the other.)

But science can not in fact prove the non-existence of a disputed entity like “god.”

 

So, now to the example at hand. *Absence of evidence* is the basis of my claim that there is no evidence that Earth drastically morphs out of its *well documented* (a major body of evidence) nearly spherical shape.

 

Modus Tollens is an argument form rather than an argument form. Just as Modus Tollens is an argument form rather than an argument, each of its premises and its conclusion are sentence forms rather than sentences.

 

The following argument (not argument form) is still of the form of Modus Tollens:

A->~B

~~B

~A

 

By use of a logical equivalence known as "Double Negation", we see that showing something to be true when it is predicted to be false means that the thing which made the prediction MUST be wrong. So, nice try, but you've yet again shown that you know absolutely nothing of philosophy. You're not doing very good at that proving me wrong bit.

 

Furthermore, your first example is false for multiple reasons. It is not that we "cannot prove a negative" (which, as I have shown is trivially false) that we cannot prove that no deities exist; it is that the concept of deity is so vague and unagreedupon as to have no meaning. In addition, there exist several valid logical proofs of the nonexistence of specific classes of deity.

 

As for your example with the earth, there is an immense amount of evidence which makes us believe that its shape is not invariant. You see, there are mountains of evidence (Bayes' Theorem says your denial is more than misplaced) that length contraction is real (please, for one example, show us how during an eclipse we can see galaxies whose line of sight with us is blocked by an enormous sphere of fusing plasma if mass does not "curve" spacetime). In addition to that, saying that relativity claims the earth "drastically morphs out of its *well documented* (a major body of evidence) nearly spherical shape" is (whether intentionally or not) a straw man of the actual claim of relativity which is that its shape depends on the frame of reference from which it is viewed.

 

I offer up to you a challenge I've offered several other relativity deniers. It is rather simple and required very little math (none of which is above the level of that of a teenager). It is even done using classical physics:

 

Imagine a universe which operates exactly as ours does in every single way. This universe, however, only contains three objects. These objects are spheres of a mass of 1kg. Spheres 1 and 2 are at rest with respect to each other. In reference frame A, spheres 1 and 2 are at rest and are approached by sphere 3 which is traveling at 100 m/s. In reference frame B, sphere 3 is at rest and is approached by spheres 1 and 2 each traveling at 100 m/s. Assuming the amount of kinetic energy in a system is given by the equation KE=(1/2)mv² where KE is kinetic energy, m is mass, and v is velocity, how much kinetic energy is there in our hypothetical universe? I was even nice and gave you units that give you an answer in Joules.

 

There is a second question based upon the above situation. Your denial of length contraction and time dilation implies a preferred reference frame; that is, it implies that there is one reference frame from which we get the "real" answers. In the above scenario, which reference frame is the preferred frame?

 

I have never disputed that GPS works. I’ve disputed that time is a thing that slows down.

 

What else would it be?

 

Why do clocks slow down, in predictable ways, if not due to relativistic effects?

 

The better question to ask is why ALL clocks slow down in predictable ways, if not due to relativistic effects. Were the effects due to some feature of the clocks rather than that which clocks in general measure, then the effect would vary by type of clocks. Grandfather clocks would vary differently than digital wristwatches which would vary differently than atomic clocks which would vary differently than the half lives of particles in an accelerator. A key part of the question which swansont rightly pointed out is that it is a PREDICTION. This effect isn't something we expected at all. It is something that was predicted about time itself and then observed to happen in reality.

 

So, if time does not dilate, then why do all clocks vary with remarkable accuracy that reflects the way relativity says time itself should be affected?

 

It is not about me. That math does not confer understanding is Ross's general philosophical assertion as an astute philosopher of science.

 

That assertion is a trivially false one which shows neither you nor Ross know anything about philosophy of language. And your name drop as your sole support of this assertion is what another logical fallacy known as "appeal to authority". Why is it that you feel that English (which is unimaginably less precise than mathematics) is better suited to the task of ontology than mathematics? Because some other guy said so? That's not good enough.

 

Mathematics is a man-made descriptive formal generalized abstraction of how the universe appears to work. The very definition of mathematics implies that it is designed for the task of understanding the universe. As a formal language, it leaves astonishingly little room for vagueness when compared to natural languages such as English.

 

We use this language to make precise predictions and then test the predictions using the argument form of Modus Tollens. Each test narrows the error bars. This language tells us how the universe appears to behave. And as anyone who has taken an introductory course knows that both the rationalists and empiricists (and even Kant for that matter) all agree that we cannot know things in themselves, but only as they appear to us since our knowledge of them comes solely from observations of them and deduction based on such observations. Because we cannot know anything but how they appear, behaviourism rules the day. How a thing behaves tells IS the description of what it is. Even as Descartes deduced that because he thinks he is a thing which thinks, we know that because electrons appear to act as though they have a charge they are things which appear to have a charge. To go further than that, to try to ascertain things about the 'essence' (if that is even meaningful) of a thing is forever beyond the scope of human reason regardless of the magistra you use in your attempt to ascertain such things. So far as ontology goes, physics is as good as it gets, and physics is written in mathematics.

 

You, good sir, appear to be fractally wrong.

Edited December 23, 2011 by ydoaPs

[Iggy]

Furthermore, your first example is false for multiple reasons. It is not that we "cannot prove a negative" (which, as I have shown is trivially false) that we cannot prove that no deities exist; it is that the concept of deity is so vague and unagreedupon as to have no meaning. In addition, there exist several valid logical proofs of the nonexistence of specific classes of deity.

My understanding is that Popper distinguished between universal and singular statements.

 

You cannot prove true, but could prove false, a purely universal statement (eg all swans are white). Purely universal statements are the negation of purely existential statements and they likewise cannot be proven true but can be proven false (eg non-white swans don't exist).

 

owl's statements on the matter, such as:

 

Earth stays the same shape

are either purely universal and cannot be proven true, or...

 

Earth's diameter does not vary

 

are equivalently the negation of a purely existential statement and likewise can't be proven true. In other words, the quote above could be rephrased "there exists no frame in which the diameter varies".

 

owl is correct, you cant prove them true. Problem is... he is the one saying they are true.

 

In other words, to prove "there exists a variation" true, you need only one experiment. No amount of experiments would ever prove "no variation exists" true.

[A Tripolation]

Modus tollens applies to *evidence of absence.* Of course science can prove that there is no cat in a box, if in fact the absence of a cat is verified. (Apologies to Schrodinger... whether a present cat is dead or alive will not depend on the observation, tho it will confirm the fact one way or the other.)

 

Nope. The cat is both alive and dead. The possibilities are in superposition with one another. That is the entire point of that particular gedanken. Do not try to dismiss that which you do not understand.

[Iggy]

Nope. The cat is both alive and dead. The possibilities are in superposition with one another. That is the entire point of that particular gedanken. Do not try to dismiss that which you do not understand.

I think Schrodinger's point was actually to illustrate the absurdity of the Copenhagen interpretation. But, at least according to wikipedia, the Geiger counter in the box would serve as an observer collapsing the wave function so that the cat is definitively dead or alive before the box is opened.

 

While catching up on the thread I stumbled into the article Swansont mentioned -- a really good read. It brings up the wave function as an example of physics abstraction that is best not reified.

[owl]

Relativity lets you exactly determine its shape as viewed by every reference frame. The shapes may be different, but that doesn't count as not knowing at all.

That still leaves us with the challenge, are length contraction and time dilation based on idealism (reality depends on observation) ? If so, there is no ‘real world’ independent of observation. Realism claims that there is. My claim is that the at rest frame yields the most accurate description of that world, be it shapes of objects (diameters) or distances between them (Earth to Sun or to Alph Centauri.)

 

If you had a life or death choice to make based on your answer to “What shape is Earth?” (posed by realists who say it has an intrinsic/objective shape), what would you say?

If you say “if you are flying by very fast, it “*is* severely oblate; and if you are in orbit it *is* almost spherical... you will die, because the answer is based on an Earth with an *actual shape of its own*... which science determines by choosing the best frame from which to observe it.

 

TAR:

But here is where the argument is also not bogus. If you maintain

the North Pole as the "top" of the Earth, then you should not refer to "above" the

South Pole, you should refer to it as "below" the South Pole. Otherwise, if you

are, in your hypothetical vantage point "above" the South Pole, the Earth would be

revolving around the Sun in a clockwise direction.

 

I made no assertion about the North Pole being the “top of Earth.” “Above” Earth in both cases is sufficient to make the point, which was about the direction of its revolution on its axis, not about its orbit. But you could apply the same argument from “above the sun” on either side of the plane of the ecliptic. It would not change the direction of Earth’s orbit.

 

This is a silly diversion. Earth’s spin and orbit do not need labels relative to observational perspective like clockwise from here, counterclockwise from there. Point is, the dance (spin and orbit) in the real world is as it is regardless of our perspective and which “wise” we use to describe it metaphorically relative to an analog clock.

Ydoaps:

In addition to that, saying that relativity claims the earth "drastically morphs out of its *well documented* (a major body of evidence) nearly spherical shape" is (whether intentionally or not) a straw man of the actual claim of relativity which is that its shape depends on the frame of reference from which it is viewed.

 

Try to understand the difference between these two statements:

 

A: Earth’s shape depends on the frame of reference from which it is viewed.

 

B: The appearance of Earth’s shape depends on the frame of reference from which it is viewed.

 

I do not dispute B. I dispute A. I dispute the claims that it either changes shape or that we can not know its shape.

 

Y:

Your denial of length contraction and time dilation implies a preferred reference frame; that is, it implies that there is one reference frame from which we get the "real" answers. In the above scenario, which reference frame is the preferred frame?

 

My answer does not require playing your game, because in the real world (asserted as a realist as the basis of my argument), ‘A’ above is false and ‘B’ above is true. The variability of *appearances* is already granted.

 

Likewise with the assertion that the distance between stars varies with observational frames of reference. It’s quite a fanatical assertion (of relativity) that the distance between Earth/Sun and Alpha Centauri *actually* “contracts”,i.e., *is* way less than the standard astronomical 4.3 light years under any observational circumstance.

 

As my detailed thought experiment on that case demonstrated, it was the ship’s clocks which slowed down so that “it” and its passengers “experienced” less elapsed time than those they left behind on Earth. Earth orbited the Sun 8.6 during their round trip. So then take the reciprocal of slowed down clocks (misnamed “time dilation”, reifying time) and you have contracted length, a very shortened distance to our neighboring star. But that does not mean that our system *actually* (in the “real cosmos”) moved way closer to our neighboring star. That would require adherence to idealism: that observation creates/changes reality. Realism does not grant that kind of power to observation by high speed interstellar travelers.

 

Yes, as one who has in fact taught experimental design, I do claim that an at rest frame with that which is observed/measured will give the more accurate measurements than the near ‘c’ frames so popular among length contraction advocates as equally valid descriptions of objects/distances observed.

 

me:

I have never disputed that GPS works. I’ve disputed that time is a thing that slows down.

You:

 

What else would it be?

 

Please refer to the recently discussed paper on science's “bad habits,” one of which is reifying time. I have beat it to death already in many threads. Clocks do not “detect” something mysterious called time and then measure “it.” They just “tick”, and that slows down at high speeds. I am not here theorizing about why high speed (or higher gravity fields) makes clocks tick more slowly.

 

Tripolation:

The cat is both alive and dead.

 

You can not be serious! The Schrodinger’s cat thought experiment simply demonstrates that we can not know which (dead or alive) until we open the box and examine the cat. The cat was alive when put into the box, but there was a lethal mechanism in the box, if I

remember correctly, which the cat may or may not have tripped.

 

I've made a mess of editing. sorry.

Edited December 24, 2011 by owl