Absoluteness, Objectiveness & Noumena

[Obvious Leo]

Isn't it correct to assume then that what each person experiences subjectively is dictated by the circumstances relative to the observer?

Yes.

My understanding of "absolute" is that is opposed to "relative."

This is both the scientific and the vernacular understanding of the term and it makes the theory of relativity breathtakingly easy to understand, even for those who are not of the scientific persuasion. The Theory of Relativity is generally credited to Einstein but in fact it dates back to Galileo. Einstein spoke of the relativity of space and time so in the Kantian metaphysic this means that Einsteinian relativity is all about the observed phenomena and not about the ding as sich. Galilean relativity, on the other hand, is all about the relativity of motion and this is something which a child could understand. There is no such thing as a a state of absolute rest anywhere in the physical universe. Everything which is composed of matter and energy is moving relative to every other thing which is composed of matter and energy. This means that it is physically impossible, even in principle, for any two observers to observe the same reality. Likewise it means that it is utterly impossible to specify both the location or the momentum of any physical entity without also specifying which other physical entity these metrics must be applied to because these metrics will hold true for only this one/one relationships. In Galilean Relativity the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is merely a statement about gravity and the nature of determinism and yet in spacetime physics it defines a universe which makes no sense. Therefore spacetime physics is modelling the wrong narrative.

[uwot]

Can I do this to your sentence and still have it be true?

The assumption is that there really is something that will cause similar phenomena for everyone, under similar circumstances, it is therefore noumena.

Well, without splitting logical and grammatical hairs, yes.
To add to Leo's post, Galilean relativity is generally referred to the principle of relativity; it basically means that what you observe in your own inertial frame stays the same, regardless how fast you are going. So, if you bounce a ball on a station platform, it bounces back up to your hand. The same thing happens if you are on a train. Part of the inspiration for special relativity was the idea that if (as Maxwell had demonstrated) the speed of light is constant, if you were to travel at the speed of light, holding a mirror in front of you, the image of you would disappear, because the light from your face could not catch up with the mirror to be reflected. This would violate the principle of relativity; since c is constant, Einstein decide to treat time and space as variables.
For a simple explanation of why time slows down the faster you go, check this out: http://willibouwman.blogspot.co.uk/2014 ... ou-go.html

[Obvious Leo]

Part of the inspiration for special relativity was the idea that if (as Maxwell had demonstrated) the speed of light is constant

This is in fact the central point of special relativity but unfortunately this assumption was never revisited in the light of further information. In fact it is grossly misleading to say that the speed of light is a constant because the real truth is that the speed of light is observed to be a constant in the referential frame of the observer. In fact the speed of light is proportional to the speed of the clock being used to measure it. This is not a trivial distinction because at the time when the speed of light was assumed to be a constant this assumption was predicated on another assumption, namely that clocks tick at the same speed in all referential frames. However in GR Einstein showed us that clockspeed is determined by gravity, which means that different clocks tick at different speeds in different gravitational environments. What this means is that the speed of light is not actually a constant at all because the clocks being used to measure this speed are not ticking at the same rate. Therefore the fact that the speed of light on the moon is measured to be the same speed as the speed of light on earth is complete and adequate evidence that the speed of light is NOT a constant. The clock on the moon is ticking faster than the clock on the earth which means that relative to earth the speed of light on the moon is faster. This is a logical proposition of such absurd simplicity that it simply can't be wrong because it makes a shitload of paradoxes in the current models of physics vanish back into the luminiferous aether which gave birth to them.

[uwot]

In fact it is grossly misleading to say that the speed of light is a constant because the real truth is that the speed of light is observed to be a constant in the referential frame of the observer.

All c means is that the speed of light is constant in a vacuum. (There is of course no such thing as an absolute vacuum, it's one of those mathematical ideals that never obtains.) It's a bit like saying if you drop an identical brick, down an identical well, under identical conditions, it will always behave the same way.

...the speed of light is not actually a constant at all because the clocks being used to measure this speed are not ticking at the same rate.

No, but they are in the same inertial/gravitational frame as the light you are measuring, hence subject to the same dilation.

[Obvious Leo]

In fact it is grossly misleading to say that the speed of light is a constant because the real truth is that the speed of light is observed to be a constant in the referential frame of the observer.

All c means is that the speed of light is constant in a vacuum. (There is of course no such thing as an absolute vacuum, it's one of those mathematical ideals that never obtains.) It's a bit like saying if you drop an identical brick, down an identical well, under identical conditions, it will always behave the same way.

...the speed of light is not actually a constant at all because the clocks being used to measure this speed are not ticking at the same rate.

No, but they are in the same inertial/gravitational frame as the light you are measuring, hence subject to the same dilation.

Your allegiance to salvaging the theory is touching, uwot, although it comes at the price of Occam economy. The Fitzgerald-Lorentz contraction explanation is hauntingly reminiscent of the Ptolemaic cosmology, where you could simply tack on a new epicycle like a bandaid every time you turned up an inconvenient fact. The spacetime hypothesis has had so much of such sticky-tape and string applied to it over the years that nobody can see the wood for the trees anymore. The geeks have turned what was already an unholy mess into a mathematical extravaganza of such spectacular virtuosity that nobody in the world could possibly have any chance of making head nor tail of it. It's keeping their snouts securely in the public trough but it's not advancing the cause of science.

If you're serious about defending the theory why don't you explain the physical mechanism by which space contracts?

[uwot]

Your allegiance to salvaging the theory is touching, uwot, although it comes at the price of Occam economy.

I can drop a theory with the same alacrity that some people reserve for falling off a log if the evidence doesn't support it.

The Fitzgerald-Lorentz contraction explanation is hauntingly reminiscent of the Ptolemaic cosmology, where you could simply tack on a new epicycle like a bandaid every time you turned up an inconvenient fact.

What most people, including many physicists don't understand about Lorentz contraction is that it describes what you see. In that respect, it is similar to Ptolemy. It is also true that people confuse what you see with what is the case. In the same way that the sound of an approaching fire engine is compressed, due to the Doppler effect, so is the light from an approaching object. Looking shorter is not the same as being shorter.

If you're serious about defending the theory why don't you explain the physical mechanism by which space contracts?

No need.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Could someone please give a brief (I realize how silly it might be to ask that it might be brief) explanation of the relationship between these things?

Isn't objectivity the search for what is absolute, and isn't that the noumena?

That is claim that is made. Sadly as humans we are locked into and limited by the extent of our perceptual potential.
"Objective" is thus limited to what humans can agree upon. Subjective views are gathered and by subtraction of disagreements, what is left is thought to be objective. However it tends to reflect more about the beliefs of the group rather than absolute truths.

Noumena is that which we can aspire to but most importantly NEVER attain.

[Obvious Leo]

Obvious Leo wrote:
Your allegiance to salvaging the theory is touching, uwot, although it comes at the price of Occam economy.

I can drop a theory with the same alacrity that some people reserve for falling off a log if the evidence doesn't support it.

Spoken like a man of science. Now you can drop spacetime physics like a hot spud because it has been utterly refuted empirically by both Michelson/Morley as well as Einstein/Podolsky/Rosen. In the theoretical stable I could also mention Leibniz, Spinoza, Omar, Ernst Mach, Poincare and others but there's no need for overkill.

Ovious Leo wrote:
The Fitzgerald-Lorentz contraction explanation is hauntingly reminiscent of the Ptolemaic cosmology, where you could simply tack on a new epicycle like a bandaid every time you turned up an inconvenient fact.


What most people, including many physicists don't understand about Lorentz contraction is that it describes what you see. In that respect, it is similar to Ptolemy. It is also true that people confuse what you see with what is the case. In the same way that the sound of an approaching fire engine is compressed, due to the Doppler effect, so is the light from an approaching object. Looking shorter is not the same as being shorter.

Deep down I always knew you were a brother, uwot, because you've nailed it. Physics is modelling an observer effect and not a physically real phenomenon. Space does not expand and contract and bend and twist and curve because space has no physical properties with which to perform these miraculous feats. These statements are merely mathematical metaphors which are obscuring a vastly simpler underpinning ontology defined by the inversely logarithmic relationship between gravity and time.

Obvious Leo wrote:
If you're serious about defending the theory why don't you explain the physical mechanism by which space contracts?

No need.

By this I assume you mean that no such mechanism exists.

[uwot]

Now you can drop spacetime physics like a hot spud because it has been utterly refuted empirically by both Michelson/Morley as well as Einstein/Podolsky/Rosen.

What specific hypotheses/theories/laws do you think I hold, that I need to drop?

[Obvious Leo]

Now you can drop spacetime physics like a hot spud because it has been utterly refuted empirically by both Michelson/Morley as well as Einstein/Podolsky/Rosen.

What specific hypotheses/theories/laws do you think I hold, that I need to drop?

I have no idea what theories you hold to, mate, because I'm only talking about the theory you're defending, which is the 4D manifold hypothesis of spacetime. I doubt that you'd be foolish enough to believe it, because it makes no fucking sense, so I assume you're just playing the role of devil's advocate, as is perfectly right and proper in a forum such as this.

[uwot]

...I'm only talking about the theory you're defending, which is the 4D manifold hypothesis of spacetime.

I wasn't aware I was defending it. What have I said that makes you think so?

[Hobbes' Choice]

.

The chicken is the noumenon.

The dog is the objectiveness.


The boy is the absolute.

No, Bill.

You think you are the boy but you are in fact the dog.
The brain is the chicken.
And your reason and common sense is the place the dog cart started 3 days ago.

[Obvious Leo]

...I'm only talking about the theory you're defending, which is the 4D manifold hypothesis of spacetime.

I wasn't aware I was defending it. What have I said that makes you think so?

Forgive me if I've misunderstood you because I'm making a general observation based on your comments in a number of different threads over a considerable length of time. I am aware of the fact that you're not defending spacetime physics in the same mathematical form of language that the official priesthood uses but you still seem to be defending the notion that space can expand and contract and bend and twist and curve. I regard this as metaphysical horseshit where the geeks are mistaking the map for the territory but if you actually share this view with me then it would be helpful if you simply came out and said so. We share many ideas in common but we still appear to differ in some fundamental respects when it comes to the ontological status of space and time. As is often the case in the course of argument in applied metaphysics a mutual understanding of the other's ontological commitment often rests on a common understanding of the definitions of the terms being used and I'm not convinced that we've even got that far yet. It remains possible that we're saying much the same thing without actually realising it but I'm not sure that you've grasped the central plank of my entire philosophy, which is that the universe is a non-linear dynamic system and thus a non-Newtonian entity. Although this notion dates back to the pre-Socratics this is a fundamentally different paradigm from that which is used in modern physics.

[uwot]

...you still seem to be defending the notion that space can expand and contract and bend and twist and curve.

As I say, it seems probable that the universe is made of some stuff. I think the data that suggests the universe is expanding is compelling, and the inference that it used to be very small reasonable. Hence the universe, and therefore everything in it, is very likely made of big bang stuff. An expanding 'field' for want of a better term, but which has mechanical properties and can do just as you suggest. I think labelling this stuff 'spacetime' is confusing, especially to those mathematicians that don't know their ontological arse from their epistemological elbow, as it gives them the impression that dimensions are 'real'.

...the universe is a non-linear dynamic system and thus a non-Newtonian entity.

That doesn't really help. I think I get what you are saying about encoding at the Planck scale, but as I said elsewhere, the Planck scale is epistemological, rather than ontological. You also seem to infer from the fact that local galaxy groups can merge under the force of gravity that this is the fate of the entire universe, but again, the evidence of the red shift persuades me that this is not so. I'm sure we Agee on many things, but I'm fairly certain there are things we take opposing views on.

Although this notion dates back to the pre-Socratics this is a fundamentally different paradigm from that which is used in modern physics.

There are many different paradigms in modern physics, my money is on some unified field theory, but one which leaves out gravity, because as I have explained elsewhere, I think the best explanation for a phenomenon that looks exactly like refraction, is that it is refraction.

[uwot]

One thing I imagine we agree on, Leo, is how to spell agree.