Is philosophy relevant to science?

[tar]

PeterJ,

 

 

But for the practioner both the inward and outward arrows would be important.

 

 

There you go again with the Shaman stuff. Like certain folks are "practitioners" of humaness and others are just farting around as something else.

 

Humbug. We are all human. Those of us who are...well, human.

 

What exactly is it that your practioner practices? Am I able to do this thing? Have I done it already? Could I have done it before, am not doing it now, but might do it again later?

 

What if both the inward arrow and the outward arrow ARE important to me, and I have decided the outward arrow is more easily shared and verified, and the inward arrow is somewhat limited and not required to "fit" reality.

 

I could easily notice that the world/universe is huge and ancient beyond comprehension, and detailed and numerous beyond comprehension as well...but also noticed that I am completely of it, and there is none of me that is not. I did not spring from nothing, I was born of the union of two other humans who in turn were each born likewise. This string of parents goes back to before humans had enough human characteristics to be called such. And the organisms before them were the offspring or peices of what came before them. The first cell perhaps a few organic molecules inside a bubble. But before that there were molecules and bubbles, crystals growing and repeating their pattern.

 

Kant might consider time, addition...the successive adding of like things.

And space geometry...the relative position of things.

 

But these are the two human intuitions. That which is already "given". The basis upon which other "understandings" are built.

 

If we are of the world, we are of it in more than one way or more than one sense. Our equipment evolved because it fit, it worked. Not only are we the patterns the universe is capable of producing, but we sense the patterns the universe is arranged in. And although our representations are not complete, they are "something like" what is actually so. And in a real sense, even the "representations" are built from actual patterns, with actual real arrangements of synapses and series of firings of neurons.

 

Any flight inward, is a flight outward, and any flight outward, an inward thing. The two are almost by defintion bound together. One could take any thing we think and do from this "combo" perspective.

 

But also, in deference to others in the same boat, one should, in my book, differenciate between flights of fancy that only one can take, and flights into reality that all can take.

 

You asked me once, (Either you or Immortal) about whether I felt somebody else could know something I don't.

Absolutely people can and do know more than me. And at the very least, different things than what I know.

 

We each hold a model of the world. And many have cataloged portions of their model for others to share.

 

But a Shaman is no more or less a practitioner than a researcher, or a mathematician, or an artist, or a doctor, or a preist, or a soccer mom, or a shoemaker, or a football player, or a movie star.

 

At least not in my book. Not till you show me where the Shaman is talking about a flight I can take, that "fits" reality.

 

And if its just a matter of interpretation, and I am "already aware", then what reality is the Buddah awake to, that I have my eyes closed to? Is it something only Shamans can do? Or is it a matter of definition?

 

What does it "mean" to reach Nirvana? Not what does it mean to the reacher, but what does it mean in terms that everybody else can use?

 

Regards, TAR2

 

and more importantly

What does one do the day after they reach Nirvana?

Edited November 22, 2011 by tar

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

When relativity adopted a non-Euclidean “model”, it was a concept of a four dimensional spacetime manifold without a referent in the real world for how space combined with time to “make” such a malleable “whatever” which is curved by mass and guides masses in curved paths.

What it is does matter? And if it remains just an abstract concept, then how is it necessary to the math describing how mass attracts mass (and light) to create curved paths. In other words, how does the observed “behavior” of masses in curved paths around other masses require a “four dimensional spacetime manifold” to make the improved predictive math work? If "it" is nothing, really, then Occam's razor can cut it out, and nothing will be changed.

A four-dimensional spacetime manifold is a mathematical object. If you cut it out, you have lost the ability of your theory to make useful predictions.

 

Since Earth orbits the Sun “as if’” gravity simply pulled on it constantly (without even knowing how it works), why is it necessary to introduce the concept of a four dimensional spacetime manifold, a non-entity to explain it?

Because the observed characteristics of gravity are more complicated than that.

 

See, for example: the precession of Mercury's orbit, black holes, gravitational lensing, etc.

 

Conventional models of gravity were inadequate to explain these phenomena. Modeling space as a four-dimensional spacetime manifold predicts observations much more accurately.

 

Do you believe that such orbits follow intrinsically straight lines within an “extrinsically” curved manifold, (“spacetime”) as non-Euclidean geometry and cosmology asserts? Or are all these orbits just like they look, following curved, elliptical paths through empty space. Science doesn't care what space is (or time) but mass makes "it" (spacetime) curve?

Call me back when I've taken a general relativity course.

 

The burden of proof remains with relativity, as the theory endorsing spacetime as "that" which guides things in their curved paths... to explain how that happens. Does "it" have grooves in it that guides stuff or what? How does "it" influence things to follow "its" curvature?

Because objects follow straight lines in space -- as you know from Newtonian physics -- and if space is curved, the "straight lines" aren't quite. Just like how straight lines on Earth, like longitude lines, are actually curved.

 

At some point, however, asking "how" is pointless. I could answer by saying "All matter is made up of incredibly tiny gnomes which behave according to this set of mathematical rules. They conspire to prevent any experiment from ever directly observing them." You could argue that they are, in fact, elves, but we'd have no way of settling the dispute.

 

One must be careful to restrict scientific discussion to what can actually be tested. I can observe that objects follow certain paths, and that these paths would be straight lines if we modeled space as a four-dimensional space-time manifold, but I cannot perform an experiment in which I sit the manifold down on a leather couch and ask it why exactly it feels obliged to behave this way.

 

I think that quantum mechanics will blow "curved spacetime" right out of the water eventually. The "mechanics" requiring intermediate particles or "strings" or "the curved fabric of spacetime", or whatever will give way to "action at a distance", just like entangled particles, and science, I think, will give up on requiring intermediate particles or media like spacetime to "explain" gravity.

Intermediate particles are from quantum mechanics.

[superball]

So then why is the idea of circular orbits a conjecture rather than philosophy that was proven wrong?

 

Can my statements be considered as both, conjecture, and philosophy? In each case what statement makes the best argument?

 

1. In a perfect solar system, were the sun is at the center, all planets would exhibit more symmetric orbits. Assuming the system was stationary, and not revolving around the arms of a galaxy. Relative to a fixed point at the center of rotation of that system.

 

2. The reason for elliptical orbits is due to the age of the system, whereby symmetric orbits have dgenerated due to friction, heat, and movement around the outer bands of the system.

 

3. In a perfect solar system, the reason for elliptical orbits is due to the age of the system, whereby symmetric orbits have degenerated due to friction, and heat alone.

 

Thank you.

Sincerely super-ball

[swansont]

Since Earth orbits the Sun “as if’” gravity simply pulled on it constantly (without even knowing how it works), why is it necessary to introduce the concept of a four dimensional spacetime manifold, a non-entity to explain it?

 

Because the model that explains the earth orbit fails in some more extreme conditions. It is only approximately correct. The curved spacetime of relativity offers a better approximation.

[PeterJ]

If science tested Aristotle's orbital theory and it failed, then according to many people here that would prove it was a scientific theory. It would be self-defeating to argue that philosophical theories cannot be tested and then go on to argue that there is a philosophical theory that has been tested and failed. Aristotle's orbits were a conjecture, not a result.

 

Tar - I cannot answer your long post above chock full of scepticism. But I'll make a start...

 

 

You begin ...."There you go again with the Shaman stuff. Like certain folks are "practitioners" of humaness and others are just farting around as something else....

 

Humbug. We are all human. Those of us who are...well, human..."

 

 

Of course we are all human. That seems pretty obvious. On this we can agree.

 

..."What exactly is it that your practioner practices? Am I able to do this thing? Have I done it already? Could I have done it before, am not doing it now, but might do it again later?"

 

Ah. So, you are dismissing a view that you have not looked into. This would explain the irrelevance of your objections. I'll be happy to argue the issues with you all day, but you give me nothing to get my teeth into. You have to know your enemy.

 

..."What if both the inward arrow and the outward arrow ARE important to me, and I have decided the outward arrow is more easily shared and verified, and the inward arrow is somewhat limited and not required to "fit" reality...."

 

What makes you think that 'inner' knowledge is not required to fit reality? This is an assumption of yours, and it is because of this assumption that you do not test your assumption and instead oppose my view, which would be that your assumption is false. At present you have no objections that are troublesome, since your assumption prevents you investigating what you're objecting to. I'm happy to bat the issues back and forth, but I can't actually read the books for you.

 

...."And if its just a matter of interpretation, and I am "already aware", then what reality is the Buddah awake to, that I have my eyes closed to? Is it something only Shamans can do? Or is it a matter of definition?...."

 

The idea is do away with interpretation. Interpreted evidence is not certain knowledge. And no, of course it's not something only shamans can do. It's like golf. Anyone can do it, but nobody can do it without a bit of practice. But I don't think this is the place to get into the details. Maybe somewhere else. I'll quote a useful passage from Alan Wallace and leave it there.

 

"Conceptually unstructured awareness which is nondual from the phenomena that arise to it is regarded as the ultimate reality, and the realisation of such nondual consciousness is the final goal of contemplative practice. In this experience, the very distinction between public, external space, in which physical phenomena appear to occur, and private, internal space, in which mental phenomena appear to occur, dissolves into a "mysterious space"," which is the very nonduality between the conceptually constructed external and internal spaces. The ultimate nature of objective phenomena, therefore, is found to be none other then the ultimate nature of subjective phenomena; and that is the nonduality of appearances and awareness. When one achieves perfect realisation of this state, in which there is no longer any difference between one's awareness during and after formal meditation sessions, it is claimed that one's consciousness becomes boundless in terms of the scope of its knowledge, compassion, and power. Hence, the contemplative pursuit of such realisation is said to be the most sublime of sciences."

 

Edit: Apologies to the moderators. I won't add more OT stuff here. .

Edited November 22, 2011 by PeterJ

[swansont]

If science tested Aristotle's orbital theory and it failed, then according to many people here that would prove it was a scientific theory. It would be self-defeating to argue that philosophical theories cannot be tested and then go on to argue that there is a philosophical theory that has been tested and failed. Aristotle's orbits were a conjecture, not a result.

 

That doesn't answer my question. What makes it a conjecture rather than saying it was philosophy? Wasn't it based on the premise that the earth was the center of the universe and that spheres represented perfection? Why isn't that philosophy?

[PeterJ]

I don't think it matters whether it's philosophy or not. What matter is whether it is a result or not. What I mean by a 'philosophical result' is something that philosophy can prove, not just anything a philosopher proposes. The theory of philostogen is scientific but it is not a scientific result, and cannot be used to illustrate the pointlessness of science. Philosophy should be judged on what it proves, not on what this or that philosopher has conjectured. To use a failed scientific or philosophical conjecture as evidence of the uselessness of either discipline would be an odd thing to do. Still, if A's theory was philosophical, as you suggest, and if it fails the tests, then at least your argument supports the idea that philosophical theories can sometimes be tested empirically, which would be my view also.

 

 

 

 

[swansont]

I don't think it matters whether it's philosophy or not. What matter is whether it is a result or not. What I mean by a 'philosophical result' is something that philosophy can prove, not just anything a philosopher proposes. The theory of philostogen is scientific but it is not a scientific result, and cannot be used to illustrate the pointlessness of science. Philosophy should be judged on what it proves, not on what this or that philosopher has conjectured. To use a failed scientific or philosophical conjecture as evidence of the uselessness of either discipline would be an odd thing to do. Still, if A's theory was philosophical, as you suggest, and if it fails the tests, then at least your argument supports the idea that philosophical theories can sometimes be tested empirically, which would be my view also.

 

Then give me some examples of philosophical successes — things that it has proved — that do not fall under the umbrella of science.

[PeterJ]

According to the gemeral view here all philophical results would not fall under the umbrella of science. This is why science cannot have a fundamental theory, for if it were fundamental it would be a metaphysical theory. But no matter.

 

Philosophy proves that all positive metaphyscial positions are logically indefensible. Whether they are false is for empiricism to determine, but at least we can work out that they don't make sense. I mention this because I feel it is the quite likely to be the most important result produced by philosophy. Other expressions of the result are that metaphysics does not produce a positive result, or, in Kant's words, 'all selective conclusions about the world as a whole are undecidable'.

 

If scientists want to argue that they cannot test this result then I'd be surprised, given its global implications. But then I'm often surprised.

Edited November 22, 2011 by PeterJ

[owl]

Because the model that explains the earth orbit fails in some more extreme conditions. It is only approximately correct. The curved spacetime of relativity offers a better approximation.

Philosophically speaking, if spacetime is just a concept, not an entity, what curves?... and, as I asked Cap 'n R yesterday, how does this non-entity guide masses and light in curved paths?

 

Cap ‘n R:

Because objects follow straight lines in space -- as you know from Newtonian physics -- and if space is curved, the "straight lines" aren't quite. Just like how straight lines on Earth, like longitude lines, are actually curved.

 

...”if space is curved...”

Philosophy of science;Ontology of space; Analysis of the transition from Euclidean to non-Euclidean geometry and cosmology:

 

What is space in the real cosmos? (Not talking only conceptual “manifolds” here.) Is it not the emptiness between “things?” What does it mean to say that empty* volume curves?

*This is not meant to deny that forces pass through all space everywhere. We are talking about objects here. If almost all the empty space were compressed out of Earth, it would be about the size of a pea, so they say.... *that* space, but on all scales,including between large cosmic objects.

To your last point:

Yes, but why call curved arcs on a sphere’s surface “straight lines” in the first place?

At some point, however, asking "how" is pointless.

 

But saying that “space curves” without specifying what space IS (ontology) as above... 'something’ besides the volume between ‘things?”... is only saying that theorists can imagine such curvature without any ‘thing’ per se being actually curved. But that is a philosophical point. You say it doesn’t matter what spacetime IS, IT is curved by mass, ...what... in our minds and concepts only?... and the reality of it doesn’t matter?

 

Well, you have said that science as you see it doesn’t care what stuff IS but only how “it” ... be it micro gnomes or elves or whatever... acts. Philosophy cares what the hell science is talking about when it uses nouns like space, time, spacetime... whatever it is that is curved, etc.

 

Intermediate particles are from quantum mechanics.

 

Yes, the "quanta" in the mechanics... but also the supposed required “carrier” particles in the question, “what propagates gravitational force?”... the ‘whatever’ that fills in for the supposed impossibility of “action at a distance” on all scales.

[PeterJ]

Tar - I see my reply to your objections came across a bit high handed even for me, esp. the bit about the books. I just meant that the view you are objecting to is not easier to understand than quantum mechanics, and it is even quite difficult to make reasonable objections to it. While it seems okay to answer some objections here, to fight its corner so to speak, that it will not automatically be assumed to be religious nonsense, it does not seem okay to start explaining it at any length. That would require discussing issues that have no place on this forum.

 

I believe that the question of whether philosophy is relevant to science can be settled by examining philosophy's claim that all positive metaphysical positions are logically indefensible. If this is not testable in the natural sciences, at least to some extent, then the relevance of philosophy to those sciences, or at least the relevance of its results, would be very limited.

 

It is for scientists to decide whether it is testable, of course, but it seems to me you guys test it every day.

[superball]

Try this on for size, quantum mechanics is defined as being derived, and is a form of metaphysics. That much is clear.

 

Cheers, super-Ball

 

 

 

My link

[tar]

Tar - I see my reply to your objections came across a bit high handed even for me, esp. the bit about the books. I just meant that the view you are objecting to is not easier to understand than quantum mechanics, and it is even quite difficult to make reasonable objections to it. While it seems okay to answer some objections here, to fight its corner so to speak, that it will not automatically be assumed to be religious nonsense, it does not seem okay to start explaining it at any length. That would require discussing issues that have no place on this forum.

 

I believe that the question of whether philosophy is relevant to science can be settled by examining philosophy's claim that all positive metaphysical positions are logically indefensible. If this is not testable in the natural sciences, at least to some extent, then the relevance of philosophy to those sciences, or at least the relevance of its results, would be very limited.

 

It is for scientists to decide whether it is testable, of course, but it seems to me you guys test it every day.

 

PeterJ,

 

Well, I don't know if you are setting up a strawman here, or what. "Philosophy's claim that all positive metaphysical positions are logically indefensible" IS a positive claim in the first place. And might be considered a metaphysical position. Which would mean basically that you can not claim anything at all, ever. And I do not think that is either the goal of philosophy nor it's final conclusion.

 

I am trying to get at a point, that there is "meaning" behind what we all think and say.

And I am trying to float a hypothesis as to why humans (including you and me of course) tend to argue about obvious things.

 

Both philosophers and scientists have a skeptic streak. Show me the evidence. Show me the proof. I want to know what is true, and I want to know it for myself.

 

There is a litmus test that I believe we all use to determine what is real. It is that test that I am trying to locate and investigate. I am asking, what is it about us that is so grounded in reality, that we "KNOW" what is real, no matter what anybody else tells us?

 

It is interesting to me that the term "awake" is used by the Shaman/Buddah fellow asked about his particular nature.

 

I have a feeling that is very important. We dream when we are asleep, we experience reality when we are awake.

We all sleep. The rules are different when you are asleep and when you are awake. Asleep you are in control of the whole shooting match. Awake...not so much. In imagination and dream, your knowledge is of you, whatever is in your body/heart/brain. Awake your knowledge is of that which you can potentially know, that is much larger than you, that you have not yet internalized or found out about.

 

Consider the quote you posted for me, about how meditation's goal is to get to the point where there is no difference between meditating and not meditating. And this will give you complete knowledge and compassion, and energy.

 

Ask yourself if this is a possible thing on an inward flight.

Ask yourself if this is a possible thing on an outbound flight.

 

My answer is obvious. You are dreaming if you think you can contain it all. In reality its way to big, way to old, way to far away, for a human to contain, in any manner that is not an inward flight. The outbound flight allows for new knowledge to be attained. The inward flight just allows us to process and integrate what we have experienced on the outbound (awake leg of the journey) and to prepare and rehearse our next "real" flight. That we will take in the "waking world". (hey that last sentence works in two ways)

 

Philosophy in this answer, would be the thinking about, and ordering of the "so far internalized" waking world, and the integration of it into our "model of the world". Science would be the trial of our model against that which there is to internalize, which exists in truth in the "waking world".

 

Can't do one without the other. But there is a difference between being awake, and dreaming.

Likewise you can not do science without philosophising, nor do any philosophising without some "real" grist to mill.

There is a difference between doing science and philosphising. One is done in the waking world. The other can be done with your eyes closed.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

superball,

 

Read your link after I posted the above. Still think the above stands. And the waking world exists, much as we experience it. Any "higher order" objectivity is not real or available in the waking world. By definition. What use to a human is a reality a human can not awake to?

 

Regards, TAR2

[Jad]

Man kind never improved before encountering philosophy, it gave birth to all kind of sciences.

[DrRocket]

Just a thought but, in place of opinions from people who have not performed a lick of scientific research, one might inquire as to the opinion of people who have actually made major contributions to fundamental science.

 

http://depts.washington.edu/ssnet/Weinberg_SSN_1_14.pdf

 

http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/show/132077

 

http://evolvingthoughts.net/2011/09/more-feynman-on-philosophers/

 

Having no tolerance for discussion of the philosophy of science, in seminars [Linus] Pauling did not hesitate to bring matters to earth with the remark, "I thought chemistry was an experimental science."

 

http://peoplesworld.org/philosophy-is-dead-asserts-stephen-hawking-in-new-book/

[Appolinaria]

On Hawking;

 

 

 

 

"When asked by ABC News' Diane Sawyer about the biggest mystery he'd like solved, he said, "I want to know why the universe exists, why there is something greater than nothing.""

 

 

[PeterJ]

Yes. Banesh Hoffman writes in his book on QM that we cannot have physics without metaphysics, we can only have too much or too little of it.

 

 

Tar - You say ...."Philosophy's claim that all positive metaphysical positions are logically indefensible" IS a positive claim in the first place.

 

Yes it is. But it is not a positive result in the sense intended. What I'm saying here is bog standard stuff. Metaphysics cannot produce a positive result. End of story.

 

Then ...."And might be considered a metaphysical position. Which would mean basically that you can not claim anything at all, ever."

 

Yes, it is a metaphysical position. How would that invalidate my claim that it is a correct metaphysical position?

 

...."And I do not think that is either the goal of philosophy nor it's final conclusion.*

 

Obviously not. This is not a matter of opinion, however, but of logic. I can point to two proofs of my position and I've never come across even an attempt at a counter-proof. It is widely accepted that extreme metaphysical positions are logically indefensible. It's why metaphysics is difficult to do. Wittgenstein, Carnap, Bradley, Kant, Hegel, Heidegger, Brown, Heraclitus, Spinoza etc etc., are you going to fight them all?

 

I think there is a misunderstanding of what I'm saying. Maybe I'm saying it unclearly. This result of metaphysics is well known, has been for millenia.

Edited November 23, 2011 by PeterJ

[swansont]

Philosophically speaking, if spacetime is just a concept, not an entity, what curves?... and, as I asked Cap 'n R yesterday, how does this non-entity guide masses and light in curved paths?

 

The coordinate system. This has been answered a number of times in your other threads. I have to wonder why I am obliged to repeat myself; we're covering the same ground.

 

Light that passes by a massive object will not travel a straight line according to the observer who is far from the mass. The flat coordinate system the observer is used to gives the wrong point of origin of the light if he tracks it back — the source is not where it appears to be. The region near the mass is curved rather than flat.

 

But this is math and you've already declared that you don't do math. It's a mystery to me how one could declare it to be wrong without understanding it, but not surprising. I had hoped this thread wouldn't trod down the same path as the others, but as this part of it has I will ignore it as best I can, as I have no desire to participate in the rehashing of the same material.

[PeterJ]

Two questions that seem relevant.

 

Would it be possible to say that physics establishes the conditions our models must meet, while philosophy is about making the models? I know physicists make models, but I wonder if model-making really counts as physics for the purposes of this discussion.

 

Then, is QM a theory? Or is it a just a description of what happens? What I wonder is whether QM in itself is a theory, or whether an interpretation would also be required in order for it to become a theory.

Edited November 23, 2011 by PeterJ

[superball]

Two questions that seem relevant.

 

Would it be possible to say that physics establishes the conditions our models must meet, while philosophy is about making the models? I know physicists make models, but I wonder if model-making really counts as physics for the purposes of this discussion.

 

Then, is QM a theory? Or is it a just a description of what happens? What I wonder is whether QM in itself is a theory, or whether an interpretation would also be required in order for it to become a theory.

 

In some cases yes, observation describes what you see, the ability of determining out come, and what you are actually seeing is a fundamental property philosophy. intuitive, but questions that answers, are not intuitive per se.

 

How was it derived is philosophy.

 

respectfully super-ball

Edited November 23, 2011 by superball

[imatfaal]

Yes. Banesh Hoffman writes in his book on QM that we cannot have physics without metaphysics, we can only have too much or too little of it.

Hoffman was a good mathematician/physicist but would you please make it clear what the above means. It strikes me as the sort of pat, cereal-box, philosophy that we can do without.

 

 

 

Obviously not. This is not a matter of opinion, however, but of logic. I can point to two proofs of my position and I've never come across even an attempt at a counter-proof. It is widely accepted that extreme metaphysical positions are logically indefensible. It's why metaphysics is difficult to do. Wittgenstein, Carnap, Bradley, Kant, Hegel, Heidegger, Brown, Heraclitus, Spinoza etc etc., are you going to fight them all?

Find one point they agree on and I will fight it

I think there is a misunderstanding of what I'm saying. Maybe I'm saying it unclearly. This result of metaphysics is well known, has been for millenia.

very little has been known and agreed for millennia - let alone any "result of metaphysics"

 

 

Two questions that seem relevant.

Would it be possible to say that physics establishes the conditions our models must meet, while philosophy is about making the models? I know physicists make models, but I wonder if model-making really counts as physics for the purposes of this discussion.

model-making is about all that modern science does. there is very rarely any claim of any discernment of underlying truth - science tends to restrict itself to postulating models that accurately depict nature in a limited set of circumstances. philosophy is ill-suited to model making because of the fetish for underlying truth, ethical underpinning, moral basis etc

 

 

Then, is QM a theory? Or is it a just a description of what happens? What I wonder is whether QM in itself is a theory, or whether an interpretation would also be required in order for it to become a theory.

Any hypothesis or theorem can always be re-presented by an alternative interpretation which opens new vistas and allows different understandings; I do not think that Quantum Mechanics, because it can be explained in less mathematical terms, is altered/lessened in any way. QM is a highly predictive and accurate theory; as per my above comment, science no longer calls for some metaphorical reinforcement from an underlying truth. A description of what happens, with a mathematical basis that allows for both empirical testing and future predictions is a theory. A data set is clearly not a theory, and neither is a blank prediction; a physical theory tends to say, we have observed X situation gives rise to Y results, we have derived a mathematical model in which X gives rise to Y, the theory would predict that in a situation W we will see the results Z, we can test this by looking at this real world scenario in which W will occur and thus should give rise to Z .... there is no need to attempt to drill down to an unarguable truth - we have more or less decided that this is unobtainable

[owl]

The coordinate system. This has been answered a number of times in your other threads. I have to wonder why I am obliged to repeat myself; we're covering the same ground.

 

Light that passes by a massive object will not travel a straight line according to the observer who is far from the mass. The flat coordinate system the observer is used to gives the wrong point of origin of the light if he tracks it back — the source is not where it appears to be. The region near the mass is curved rather than flat.

 

But this is math and you've already declared that you don't do math. It's a mystery to me how one could declare it to be wrong without understanding it, but not surprising. I had hoped this thread wouldn't trod down the same path as the others, but as this part of it has I will ignore it as best I can, as I have no desire to participate in the rehashing of the same material.

The coordinate system is the map. Curving paths of objects and light is the territory. Philosophy asks how well the map fits the territory. It asks what is it that is curved in "The region near the mass is curved..." Relativity fits it better than Newtonian physics. Granted.

 

Now, lets move on to the 'mechanics' of how gravity works. Relativity's curved spacetime (what?) is one theory, but the parenthetical question still remains. Quantum gravity theory is another, but what the hell is a 'quanta' in that theory, anyway.

 

Some care. Some don't. I care. Members of the International Society for the Advanced Study of Spacetime care. The physicists (and wanna be's) in this forum do not, but luckily it has a philosophy section where the questions can be discussed.

 

This bears repeating from my post 50:

The burden of proof remains with relativity, as the theory endorsing spacetime as "that" which guides things in their curved paths... to explain how that happens. Does "it" have grooves in it that guides stuff or what? How does "it" influence things to follow "its" curvature?

[swansont]

The coordinate system is the map. Curving paths of objects and light is the territory. Philosophy asks how well the map fits the territory. It asks what is it that is curved in "The region near the mass is curved..." Relativity fits it better than Newtonian physics. Granted.

 

Now, lets move on to the 'mechanics' of how gravity works. Relativity's curved spacetime (what?) is one theory, but the parenthetical question still remains. Quantum gravity theory is another, but what the hell is a 'quanta' in that theory, anyway.

 

Some care. Some don't. I care. Members of the International Society for the Advanced Study of Spacetime care. The physicists (and wanna be's) in this forum do not, but luckily it has a philosophy section where the questions can be discussed.

 

This bears repeating from my post 50:

The burden of proof remains with relativity, as the theory endorsing spacetime as "that" which guides things in their curved paths... to explain how that happens. Does "it" have grooves in it that guides stuff or what? How does "it" influence things to follow "its" curvature?

 

Since this applies in general, let me ask this: Does knowing how it works affect whether or not it does work?

[owl]

Since this applies in general, let me ask this: Does knowing how it works affect whether or not it does work?

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

[swansont]

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

 

Asking questions is one thing. But taking the position that it is wrong is quite another. Science doesn't address the questions you are asking, but you admit that it doesn't affect the veracity of the model, and the veracity of the model is what science cares about.