Normally I would side Thunderfoot, but I have to say that on this one I'm more conviced by this video. It's an interestering and logical video, but I stopped liking it at 2:06.
Well, he usually attacks subjects he can handle. Like "the earth isn't ten thousand years old" and "The Koran wasn't dictated by an angel with access to the secrets of the universe"
When he goes beyond the kiddie pools like that, he's pretty sad. Or funny, depends on your perspective. :p
my problem with this definition is how do you differentiate between time and motion? are they the same thing? if everything stop moving does that mean time stops? i'd argue that time is predicated on motion b/c it's just a comparison between motions. time is predicated on motion, which is predicated on location, which is predicated on distance, which is predicated on shape and space.
if shape and location are all we need to qualitatively distinguish between all existing objects then it immediately follows that two universes, no matter how similar, have different identities because they have location with respect to one another.
moreover, if an object's identity depends upon its behavior, as tf00t seems to imply, then the two universes were never identical to begin with.
and i think you are correct to point out that what he is "adding" to both universes is not equal. on one hand we can recognize time as a measurable quantity, but that's not what he's "adding." he's just giving us a statement of the facts about how two universes diverge in their similarity. the first frame of the movies are the same, but the subsequent frames are different, so obviously he hasn't "added" the same thing to both universes.
"if everything stop moving does that mean time stops?"
Essentially. More specifically, I'd say that time in a purely abstracted sense is simply not a viable concept (barring possible issues in the realm of physics, which I am of course either ignorant of or do not understand) It seems like your expressed position may be indistinguishable from my own.
"[universes] have location with respect to one another."
"time in a purely abstracted sense is simply not a viable concept"
agreed. in fact, i'd go further and argue that no concepts in physics are viable until you invoke shape and space. length, distance, location, motion, time, etc., if we want to use them consistently, have to be predicated on shape and space. unfortunately "physicists" fail to recognize this and instead constantly engage in the fallacy of reification.
I honestly think I see alot more of that coming from people who are not actually physicists. When I read the pop-science books written by actual physicists, it is not at all clear to me that they are themselves guilty of reification very often. On the other hand, maybe I just haven't read enough of them.
i'd argue that physicists engage in reification constantly.
one example would be "warped spacetime." "warped" implies shape, yet they can't draw for us the shape of this warped spacetime, or tell us what "spacetime" means. we are led to believe that the gravity well pushes on the earth to keep it in orbit, yet we are told the surface of the gravity well doesn't really exist, it's just a lower dimensional analogy. so what is doing the pushing?
we are led to believe that the real meaning of the theory is in the complicated mathematics, so it's best left up to trained physicists to really understand these theories. yet the variables in equations are just quantities, ie, relationships between objects. math symbols don't allow physicists to conceive of the inconceivable, like "spacetime." if they are going to claim something exists they should be able to communicate what they mean unambiguously.
if the theorist is going to claim that two universes exist, the onus is on them to define "existence." if exist means that with shape and location, and two universes exist, then it follows that their objects have location with respect to one another.
how is it possible to conceive of two universes existing without the objects having location with respect to one another? if i can imagine the shape of these universes then i can imagine the space which separates them.
well the only way to clear up these issues is to unambiguously define our terms. really, if we want to use "universe" consistently, then it means all the objects in existence. it follows then that there can only be one universe. if "universe" refers to a certain collection of objects within existence, then they must have location wrt one another. if they don't have location then in what manner do they "exist?"
That is why I put quotes around "universe," I mean to speak of everything theoretically (or, conceptually, at least) observable by travel at finite speed (including Faster Than Light) through the three spatial dimensions we intimately know.
I propose that it is possible that an object may exist without having a location with respect to everything that exists. I can not visualize it, but that is no proof of impossibility.
no sir, i argue that verification/falsification has no place in the scientific method. if existential claims are about something beyond our direct experience then they cannot ever be proven or disproven. those terms cannot be defined consistently with respect to existential claims, and so scientists are forced to agree upon conventions to determine when something becomes "accepted." they draw artificial lines i the sand based upon their authority.
"I propose that it is possible that an object may exist without having a location with respect to everything that exists. I can not visualize it, but that is no proof of impossibility."
Whether or not we can visualize something has no bearing on what is or is not possible in the universe. It only has consequences for our human ability to explain our experience, or talk meaningfully about hypotheticals such as these.
i think "existence" is an artificial definition we create to try to understand the world. if something can exist without having a location to everything else then what is your definition of existence?
also, if this mental representation you form of what exists is supposed to represent something "outside" of itself, how do you qualify that without invoking location? how can a surface exist without there being space between it and other surfaces?
To clarify, I mean that something can exist without having a relative location to "everything," ie "all that exists." Whether something can exist without having relative location to "anything" is a different question.
"how can a surface exist without there being space between it and other surfaces?"
Space itself may be a trait specific to a "universe" as we are speaking of that term here, and not a trait of "all reality"
space - that without boundaries, formlessness, nothingness, emptiness
space does not exist under my def of existence, only objects with location do. how can an object exist and yet not have a location with respect to, say, your body? are you saying there may be different "spaces" in which objects exist?
That is my "natural sense" of space, but unlike with time, where I am not sure if there are reasons to think it may be a thing itself, I am aware of many who claim the possibility of space itself being a "thing."
"are you saying there may be different "spaces" in which objects exist?"
"space" is just a noise that we make to point to something in the field of our experience, ie, your "natural sense" of space. the "reality" of space, ie, that which we are trying to represent with this "natural sense" mental model, is beyond the experience of the model. therefore we decide at the moment we define the term whether or not space is a thing. but "thing" implies physical shape. how do you distinguish between "thing" and "nothing" other than shape/space?
is there some kind of boundary between these different spaces? why can't i fly my spaceship into the other space? and what about the spaces themselves...do they have a boundary? where does one space end and the other begin? in what manner do these spaces qualify as being different?
"that which we are trying to represent ...is beyond the experience of the model"
It is beyond direct experience, as everything is, all we experience are "models"/"images".
However, as more evidence (accurate or not) is presented, we refine our understanding. Consider the old "what would it look like if the earth circled the sun?" and ask "what would it look like if space was a 'thing'?"
It remains "space" as we know it, but reality suddenly looks different
yet you can't analyze the evidence to determine something about space, you have to assume a definition for space. if i say i am looking for "gorp" and have no clue what gorp means then i have no way to interpret the evidence and decide whether or not i found gorp.
whether or not space is an object is a matter of definitions. "thing" implies physical shape, ie, that which occupies space. it would be inconsistent to refer to shape as space.
"you can't analyze the evidence to determine something about space, you have to assume a definition for space."
That is not true. There may exist evidence which points to the existence of a property which is necessary in order for "space" (however you conceive of it) to exist. There is theoretical evidence which points in this direction, but the empirical backing I have seen does not seem solid to me.
evidence is conveyed through the senses, right? how could there possibly be evidence which indicates a "property" which is necessary for space? how do we discover the property is necessary for space when we haven't first decided what space is? is the property necessary for gorp too?
and what could this "property" possibly refer to? it all boils down to the definition of "exist." in what way can this "property" be said to exist?
all of this ambiguity results from failure to define terms coherently. the words we use should point to the representations in the field of our experience. as long as we try to look for the "true" definition with evidence then you end up going in circles b/c it's impossible to analyze the sense data without first making assumptions about what does or doesn't exist outside of our direct experience that account for our sense data.
if "theory" is to be defined consistently then theories are just explanations. the purpose of theory is to explain the evidence. theories don't contain evidence, they contain assumptions.
theory - the stage of the scientific method where the theorist provides their account of how or why an event occurred
Evidence is our sensory experience whereas theory deals with existential claims, ie, mental representations of existence.
how is this possible? i look up into the night sky and i see blackness. does this blackness tell me anything about space? how could it, its just blackness. i can only reason that space explains the blackness. the emptiness means there is nothing for photons to bounce off of and transmit the signal to my retina, and then i reason that my brain translates that lack of a signal into blackness.
what i'm saying here is that i have to decide the definition of space before the experiment. if i think there is nothing between me and the wall, but then later i hypothesize the existence air atoms to explain some experiments i did, this doesn't affect the definition of "space." i am still separated from the wall by space, it's just that i now think the space is occupied by atoms.
"It is best to let reality determine definitions, when possible."
yet we can't even begin to talk about "reality" without first defining it. if "reality" refers to this alleged physical existence which we can only model with mental representations, then we have to make assumptions about it. "reality" in this sense can't tell us the definitions b/c we have no direct knowledge of reality. all we can hope to do is use mental representations to explain the sense data.
atheists like thunderf00t think that "philosophy" isn't important. "science works" they tell us over and over again, and then they expect us to immediately believe whatever claims "science" makes without question. any questioning then is just "philosophic," it has no relevance. i think all of this confusion is rooted in a failure to understand the distinction between explanation and prediction.
OK let's do some math to discredit thunderfoot.
A=1; Initial time will be t1, and = 0; end time is t2, = 1000
A+t1=A+t1 is the same as 1+0=1+0 or 1=1
Thunderfoot's assertion is A+t1=A+t2
A+t1=A+t2 is the same as 1+0=1+1000
1 does not equal 1,001 as Thunderfoot asserts
And 1 not being 1,001 does not invalidate the law of identity
Slipknotyk06 2 months ago
@Slipknotyk06
You are missing a key element.
What is being added is not only "time," but also what happens over that time.
That is what I point out here. That not only "x amount of Time" is added, but also "change"
Unless the "change" in both cases is the same, the two "universes" can not be looked upon through this scope.
blackacidlizzard 2 months ago
say T1=t(0), T2=t(0)+7 (T1 is right now and T2 is in 7 years)
so A+T1=A+T2 is A+t(0)=A+t(0)+7
we then get A=A+7
which is the law of identity according to thundy.
and also 0=7 ... :(
peanarchist 2 months ago
Normally I would side Thunderfoot, but I have to say that on this one I'm more conviced by this video. It's an interestering and logical video, but I stopped liking it at 2:06.
Zaltor2 2 months ago
@Zaltor2
Well, he usually attacks subjects he can handle. Like "the earth isn't ten thousand years old" and "The Koran wasn't dictated by an angel with access to the secrets of the universe"
When he goes beyond the kiddie pools like that, he's pretty sad. Or funny, depends on your perspective. :p
blackacidlizzard 2 months ago
"time - observed change"
my problem with this definition is how do you differentiate between time and motion? are they the same thing? if everything stop moving does that mean time stops? i'd argue that time is predicated on motion b/c it's just a comparison between motions. time is predicated on motion, which is predicated on location, which is predicated on distance, which is predicated on shape and space.
junior00bacon00chee 2 months ago
@jbc
if shape and location are all we need to qualitatively distinguish between all existing objects then it immediately follows that two universes, no matter how similar, have different identities because they have location with respect to one another.
moreover, if an object's identity depends upon its behavior, as tf00t seems to imply, then the two universes were never identical to begin with.
junior00bacon00chee 2 months ago
@jbc
and i think you are correct to point out that what he is "adding" to both universes is not equal. on one hand we can recognize time as a measurable quantity, but that's not what he's "adding." he's just giving us a statement of the facts about how two universes diverge in their similarity. the first frame of the movies are the same, but the subsequent frames are different, so obviously he hasn't "added" the same thing to both universes.
junior00bacon00chee 2 months ago
@junior00bacon00chee
"if everything stop moving does that mean time stops?"
Essentially. More specifically, I'd say that time in a purely abstracted sense is simply not a viable concept (barring possible issues in the realm of physics, which I am of course either ignorant of or do not understand) It seems like your expressed position may be indistinguishable from my own.
"[universes] have location with respect to one another."
I am skeptical about this.
blackacidlizzard 2 months ago
@blackacidlizzard
"time in a purely abstracted sense is simply not a viable concept"
agreed. in fact, i'd go further and argue that no concepts in physics are viable until you invoke shape and space. length, distance, location, motion, time, etc., if we want to use them consistently, have to be predicated on shape and space. unfortunately "physicists" fail to recognize this and instead constantly engage in the fallacy of reification.
junior00bacon00chee 2 months ago
@junior00bacon00chee
I honestly think I see alot more of that coming from people who are not actually physicists. When I read the pop-science books written by actual physicists, it is not at all clear to me that they are themselves guilty of reification very often. On the other hand, maybe I just haven't read enough of them.
blackacidlizzard 2 months ago
@blackacid
i'd argue that physicists engage in reification constantly.
one example would be "warped spacetime." "warped" implies shape, yet they can't draw for us the shape of this warped spacetime, or tell us what "spacetime" means. we are led to believe that the gravity well pushes on the earth to keep it in orbit, yet we are told the surface of the gravity well doesn't really exist, it's just a lower dimensional analogy. so what is doing the pushing?
(continuing)...
junior00bacon00chee 2 months ago
@jbc
we are led to believe that the real meaning of the theory is in the complicated mathematics, so it's best left up to trained physicists to really understand these theories. yet the variables in equations are just quantities, ie, relationships between objects. math symbols don't allow physicists to conceive of the inconceivable, like "spacetime." if they are going to claim something exists they should be able to communicate what they mean unambiguously.
junior00bacon00chee 2 months ago
@blackacidlizzard
"I am skeptical about this."
what is there to be skeptical about?
universe - collection of objects
location - the set of distances from one object to all the others
distance - the space between physical surfaces
the objects in universe A must have location with respect to those in universe B, or else both universes can't exist.
junior00bacon00chee 2 months ago
@junior00bacon00chee
"what is there to be skeptical about?"
How would you describe the relative position of two points between which there is no path?
If you can not chart a path, how can you express a relation of location?
blackacidlizzard 2 months ago
@blackacid
if the theorist is going to claim that two universes exist, the onus is on them to define "existence." if exist means that with shape and location, and two universes exist, then it follows that their objects have location with respect to one another.
how is it possible to conceive of two universes existing without the objects having location with respect to one another? if i can imagine the shape of these universes then i can imagine the space which separates them.
junior00bacon00chee 2 months ago
@junior00bacon00chee
But that is assuming that there are spatial relations outside of "universes"
blackacidlizzard 2 months ago
@blackacidlizzard
well the only way to clear up these issues is to unambiguously define our terms. really, if we want to use "universe" consistently, then it means all the objects in existence. it follows then that there can only be one universe. if "universe" refers to a certain collection of objects within existence, then they must have location wrt one another. if they don't have location then in what manner do they "exist?"
junior00bacon00chee 2 months ago
@junior00bacon00chee
That is why I put quotes around "universe," I mean to speak of everything theoretically (or, conceptually, at least) observable by travel at finite speed (including Faster Than Light) through the three spatial dimensions we intimately know.
I propose that it is possible that an object may exist without having a location with respect to everything that exists. I can not visualize it, but that is no proof of impossibility.
blackacidlizzard 2 months ago
(you're not a verificationist, are you?)
blackacidlizzard 2 months ago
@blackacidlizzard
no sir, i argue that verification/falsification has no place in the scientific method. if existential claims are about something beyond our direct experience then they cannot ever be proven or disproven. those terms cannot be defined consistently with respect to existential claims, and so scientists are forced to agree upon conventions to determine when something becomes "accepted." they draw artificial lines i the sand based upon their authority.
junior00bacon00chee 2 months ago
@blackacidlizzard
"I propose that it is possible that an object may exist without having a location with respect to everything that exists. I can not visualize it, but that is no proof of impossibility."
Whether or not we can visualize something has no bearing on what is or is not possible in the universe. It only has consequences for our human ability to explain our experience, or talk meaningfully about hypotheticals such as these.
(continuing)...
junior00bacon00chee 2 months ago
@jbc
i think "existence" is an artificial definition we create to try to understand the world. if something can exist without having a location to everything else then what is your definition of existence?
also, if this mental representation you form of what exists is supposed to represent something "outside" of itself, how do you qualify that without invoking location? how can a surface exist without there being space between it and other surfaces?
junior00bacon00chee 2 months ago
@junior00bacon00chee
To clarify, I mean that something can exist without having a relative location to "everything," ie "all that exists." Whether something can exist without having relative location to "anything" is a different question.
"how can a surface exist without there being space between it and other surfaces?"
Space itself may be a trait specific to a "universe" as we are speaking of that term here, and not a trait of "all reality"
blackacidlizzard 2 months ago
@blackacidlizzard
how can space be universe specific?
space - that without boundaries, formlessness, nothingness, emptiness
space does not exist under my def of existence, only objects with location do. how can an object exist and yet not have a location with respect to, say, your body? are you saying there may be different "spaces" in which objects exist?
junior00bacon00chee 2 months ago
@junior00bacon00chee
That is my "natural sense" of space, but unlike with time, where I am not sure if there are reasons to think it may be a thing itself, I am aware of many who claim the possibility of space itself being a "thing."
"are you saying there may be different "spaces" in which objects exist?"
Yes.
blackacidlizzard 2 months ago
@blackacid
"space" is just a noise that we make to point to something in the field of our experience, ie, your "natural sense" of space. the "reality" of space, ie, that which we are trying to represent with this "natural sense" mental model, is beyond the experience of the model. therefore we decide at the moment we define the term whether or not space is a thing. but "thing" implies physical shape. how do you distinguish between "thing" and "nothing" other than shape/space?
junior00bacon00chee 2 months ago
@blackacid
is there some kind of boundary between these different spaces? why can't i fly my spaceship into the other space? and what about the spaces themselves...do they have a boundary? where does one space end and the other begin? in what manner do these spaces qualify as being different?
junior00bacon00chee 2 months ago
@jbc
"that which we are trying to represent ...is beyond the experience of the model"
It is beyond direct experience, as everything is, all we experience are "models"/"images".
However, as more evidence (accurate or not) is presented, we refine our understanding. Consider the old "what would it look like if the earth circled the sun?" and ask "what would it look like if space was a 'thing'?"
It remains "space" as we know it, but reality suddenly looks different
blackacidlizzard 2 months ago
@blackacidlizzard
yet you can't analyze the evidence to determine something about space, you have to assume a definition for space. if i say i am looking for "gorp" and have no clue what gorp means then i have no way to interpret the evidence and decide whether or not i found gorp.
whether or not space is an object is a matter of definitions. "thing" implies physical shape, ie, that which occupies space. it would be inconsistent to refer to shape as space.
junior00bacon00chee 2 months ago
@junior00bacon00chee
"you can't analyze the evidence to determine something about space, you have to assume a definition for space."
That is not true. There may exist evidence which points to the existence of a property which is necessary in order for "space" (however you conceive of it) to exist. There is theoretical evidence which points in this direction, but the empirical backing I have seen does not seem solid to me.
I am not using "thing" in that sense.
blackacidlizzard 2 months ago
@blackacidlizzard
evidence is conveyed through the senses, right? how could there possibly be evidence which indicates a "property" which is necessary for space? how do we discover the property is necessary for space when we haven't first decided what space is? is the property necessary for gorp too?
and what could this "property" possibly refer to? it all boils down to the definition of "exist." in what way can this "property" be said to exist?
junior00bacon00chee 2 months ago
@jbc
all of this ambiguity results from failure to define terms coherently. the words we use should point to the representations in the field of our experience. as long as we try to look for the "true" definition with evidence then you end up going in circles b/c it's impossible to analyze the sense data without first making assumptions about what does or doesn't exist outside of our direct experience that account for our sense data.
junior00bacon00chee 2 months ago
@junior00bacon00chee
"evidence is conveyed through the senses, right?"
Theory also provides evidence.
"how could there possibly be evidence which indicates a "property" which is necessary for space?"
1. Theory and, 2. examining "empty space"
"how do we discover the property is necessary for space when we haven't first decided what space is?"
It is best to let reality determine definitions, when possible.
blackacidlizzard 2 months ago
@blackacid
"Theory also provides evidence."
if "theory" is to be defined consistently then theories are just explanations. the purpose of theory is to explain the evidence. theories don't contain evidence, they contain assumptions.
theory - the stage of the scientific method where the theorist provides their account of how or why an event occurred
Evidence is our sensory experience whereas theory deals with existential claims, ie, mental representations of existence.
junior00bacon00chee 2 months ago
@jbc
"examining 'empty space'"
how is this possible? i look up into the night sky and i see blackness. does this blackness tell me anything about space? how could it, its just blackness. i can only reason that space explains the blackness. the emptiness means there is nothing for photons to bounce off of and transmit the signal to my retina, and then i reason that my brain translates that lack of a signal into blackness.
junior00bacon00chee 2 months ago
@jbc
what i'm saying here is that i have to decide the definition of space before the experiment. if i think there is nothing between me and the wall, but then later i hypothesize the existence air atoms to explain some experiments i did, this doesn't affect the definition of "space." i am still separated from the wall by space, it's just that i now think the space is occupied by atoms.
junior00bacon00chee 2 months ago
@jbc
"It is best to let reality determine definitions, when possible."
yet we can't even begin to talk about "reality" without first defining it. if "reality" refers to this alleged physical existence which we can only model with mental representations, then we have to make assumptions about it. "reality" in this sense can't tell us the definitions b/c we have no direct knowledge of reality. all we can hope to do is use mental representations to explain the sense data.
junior00bacon00chee 2 months ago
atheists like thunderf00t think that "philosophy" isn't important. "science works" they tell us over and over again, and then they expect us to immediately believe whatever claims "science" makes without question. any questioning then is just "philosophic," it has no relevance. i think all of this confusion is rooted in a failure to understand the distinction between explanation and prediction.
junior00bacon00chee 2 months ago
"its content-free philosophical handwaving"
*sigh* It's difficult for me to believe that people are stupid enough to say such things.
AnarchistOpposition 2 months ago
@AnarchistOpposition
The whole disrespect for philosophy thing really sucks.
blackacidlizzard 2 months ago
@blackacidlizzard
Richard Feynman: Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds.
Jonathan Schaffer: It is likely that ornithological knowledge would be of great benefit to birds, were it possible for them to possess it.
AnarchistOpposition 2 months ago
@AnarchistOpposition
Nice one :)
blackacidlizzard 2 months ago