Your metaphysical belief system along with your version of historical accounts and your interpretations of quotes are not of use to me. You are certainly welcome to have your own thoughts. There seem to be others who have interest in discussing those with you. I don't. Happy New Year to you and all others.
James Putnam
Paul,
This is metaphysics:
"The problem with t is if it is presumed to be present in any given physically existent state, rather than being associated only with changes between physically existent states. And apart from that being a common human assumption, t is reified through the misuse of x=vt. Distance has no duration, it is the spatial difference between existent states at any given time, ie there is only distance when the existent states involved exist at the same time. Conceptually, distance can be measured in terms of the duration which would have been incurred had any given entity been able to travel along it, either way. But it must be understood that there is no duration as such, this is just an alternative to, and the equivalent of, a spatial measure, ie a singular quantity. Because, existentially, it must be presumed that as at any other given time, some alteration has occurred to the existent states involved what could have affected the distance, ie in physical existence there is no time during which the hypothetical travelling could occur."
James putnam
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Jan. 2, 2013 @ 18:57 GMT
Paul,
There will be no detailed debating about your individual points. That would just open a door that you keep trying to push open. It is a door to neverending discussion filled with your enthusiastic teaching of misreported historical accounts. Misrepresentations of the works of past physicists. Misinterpretations of their quotes. I have no interest in your false teachings. No progress can be made that way. You don't understand what you don't understand. You gave the wrong meaning for the word 'normal'. You made no progress there. You 'know' that you're right past the point where corrections are possible. You have a slideshow universe with your full confidence in it and your personally described 'iron clad logic' that led you to it. What is the empirical evidence for it?
James Putnam
report post as inappropriate
Paul Reed replied on Jan. 3, 2013 @ 09:07 GMT
James
"What is the empirical evidence for it?"
The physical input which sentient organisms receive (receive being in the line of travel of and thereby interacting with, not the subsequent processing thereof) has two identifiable features:
-it is independent of the mechanism effecting the receipt (what it 'actually' is can never be known, but there is 'something' and as we (all sentient organisms) are in an existentially closed system, that can be identified, but only from within)
-it alters (comparison of such inputs reveals difference)
This means the physical existence we can know of is existential sequence, which has a number of innate features. Remember, we can only ever be 'aware of', we never 'have' it in any sense, because we cannot externalise ourselves from it. So whether this particular form of existence is the only one, or whether there are alternatives, is irrelevant, because we cannot know them.
We can, as a consequence of that subsequent processing, invoke many beliefs which are not substantiated by experienceability. The latter, which is the basis of proof, includes hypothesis, ie it is not a case of only being reliant on what is actually received. Indeed,one of the reasons which justify hypothesis is that the physical process involved is not physically perfect. The point being that the deployment of hypothesis must be to overcome these physical issues, but not to enable beliefs.
Paul
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Jan. 3, 2013 @ 14:17 GMT
Paul,
Your opinion consists of your version of metaphysics. I asked for the empirical evidence for your slideshow universe. Your opinion is not empirical evidence. Your opinion is not physics.
James Putnam
report post as inappropriate
Paul Reed replied on Jan. 3, 2013 @ 15:28 GMT
James
We (and indeed all entities) receive physical input, and when these inputs are compared there are differences, which means there is alteration. How is that not "empirical evidence"? Indeed, it is the only physical evidence of physical existence, and the only basis of knowledge (hypothesis being effected within this context). The problem being extrapolating what was physically received from the individually articulated perception of that (which is not a physical issue), eliminating any physical issues in the processes which caused the physical input received, and then, based on an understanding of the physics invoved, identifying what caused the physical input received.
You are sitting on something, watching a monitor, touching a keyboard, etc, etc, etc. You are not creating the existence of thee entities (which includes you). If anybody else came into the room you would be able to agree on their existence, without some form of telepathic communication first. Indeed, if a dog came into the room it would sit on the chair, ie demonstrate awareness of its existence. And you (and the dog, etc) are aware of their existence, because you receive physically existent representations of them, known as light, noise, vibration, etc.
What is the problem?
Paul
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Jan. 3, 2013 @ 17:02 GMT
Paul,
The problem is that your evasive message does not give evidence for your slideshow universe. I didn't ask for you to demonstrate the obvious existence of change. Nor did I ask you to give evidence that dogs can see. What is the empirical evidence for your slideshow universe?
James Putnam
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Jan. 3, 2013 @ 17:41 GMT
Here is Paul's description, from his message to Eckard, of that which I refer to as his slideshow universe:
"...And that the apparent continuousness of physical existence is actually a sequence of discrete physically existent states, because that is the only way that physical existence can occur. The rate of turnover of these in any given sequence being what is being timed. ..."
What is the empirical evidence for this?
James Putnam
report post as inappropriate
Paul Reed replied on Jan. 4, 2013 @ 06:43 GMT
James
I am not sure what I am being "evasive" about.
As said in my first response, there are two key features we can discern of whatever this physical existence is, physical input therefrom being what we receive.
1 It is independent of the mechanism that enables that receipt
2 It alters, because comparison of the physical inputs received reveals difference
So existence as knowable to us is existential sequence. Whatever the substance is which comprises that can only occur (ie exist) in one physically existent state at a time. Existence must involve definitiveness and no form of change.
Paul
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Jan. 4, 2013 @ 14:50 GMT
Paul,
This is just your version of metaphysics. It is not physics:
"As said in my first response, there are two key features we can discern of whatever this physical existence is, physical input therefrom being what we receive.
1 It is independent of the mechanism that enables that receipt
2 It alters, because comparison of the physical inputs received reveals difference
So existence as knowable to us is existential sequence. Whatever the substance is which comprises that can only occur (ie exist) in one physically existent state at a time. Existence must involve definitiveness and no form of change."
This strange metaphysical reasoning has no empirical support because there can be none for it. The '...physical input therefrom...', having been given the name 'electromagnetic-radiation', is the empirical evidence and it consists only of innumerable changes of velocities of particles.
James Putnam
report post as inappropriate
Paul Reed replied on Jan. 6, 2013 @ 14:13 GMT
James
"It is not physics". "This strange metaphysical reasoning has no empirical support because there can be none for it."
Really? So, according to you, there is not: 1) something (does not matter what it is, etc) 2) alteration in that something (does not matter how, what, etc).
You therefore need to a) provide "empirical evidence" for this not being so, b) provide "empirical evidence" for an alternative.
Whether your technical point about "changes of velocities" is correct or not is irrelevant, the point I had already made, and repeated in response to your repeated question was about physical existence as sequence.
Paul
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Jan. 6, 2013 @ 16:49 GMT
Paul,
Me: Your sequence of 'no change states' can have no empirical evidence.
"Really? So, according to you, there is not: 1) something (does not matter what it is, etc) 2) alteration in that something (does not matter how, what, etc)."
Me: This is just plain silly.
"1 It is independent of the mechanism that enables that receipt
2 It alters, because comparison of the physical inputs received reveals difference
So existence as knowable to us is existential sequence. Whatever the substance is which comprises that can only occur (ie exist) in one physically existent state at a time. Existence must involve definitiveness and no form of change."
Me: Your conclusion does not follow from your two points.
"You therefore need to a) provide "empirical evidence" for this not being so, b) provide "empirical evidence" for an alternative."
Me: The alternative is called reality. It is an everchanging universe and its empirical evidence is photons that inform us about the change of velocities of particles.
Your history is wrong also: Special Relativity was introduced in 1905. It included both length contraction and time dilation and it still applies today in addition to General Relativity effects. Force is not the cause. Your interpretations of your quotes are wrong.
Please go teach others your error-filled 'corrections'. I will return to posting on-topic messages.
James Putnam
report post as inappropriate
Paul Reed replied on Jan. 7, 2013 @ 07:10 GMT
James
So according to you:
1 Physical existence does not involve something which is altering. That, according to you, is not “empirical evidence” indicating its generic form. Neither do you substantiate any valid alternative form.
2 SR is 1905. Despite the fact that the man who wrote it specified to the contrary. He stated that SR involved fixed bodies, uniform rectilinear and non-rotary motion only, and rays of light travelling in straight lines at a constant speed. Whereas, as you point out, 1905 involved something else. This is why when introducing the two postulates in 1905 he states that they are “only apparently irreconcilable”. He knew he had a problem in 1905. The ‘reconciliation’ is explained in section 7 1916, with the theoretical circumstance of SR, where there is no gravitational force.
Paul
report post as inappropriate
hide replies