Page 2 of 6
Re: Plank length and what is between
Posted: Mon Jan 25, 2021 11:27 pm
by bahman
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 11:20 pm
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 11:17 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 11:10 pm
How would you say that that amounts to observing space as a substance?
Space-time according to general relativity theory bends. This theory is confirmed experimentally, the last observation being the existence of gravitational waves. It is empirically proven that space is something that bends, carries information, therefore it is something. It has properties as I mentioned.
Do you not buy instrumentalism? (just in case you need a reference, see
https://www.britannica.com/topic/instrumentalism or
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumentalism)
Of course, a theory must be confirmed experimentally. The theory however tells you what is happening between parameters so can invent an apparatus to confirm that the theory is correct. You cannot invent any apparatus without a theory though. So theory and experiment are interrelated.
Re: Plank length and what is between
Posted: Mon Jan 25, 2021 11:31 pm
by Terrapin Station
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 11:27 pm
Of course, a theory must be confirmed experimentally. The theory however tells you what is happening between parameters so can invent an apparatus to confirm that the theory is correct. You cannot invent any apparatus without a theory though. So theory and experiment are interrelated.
You're not telling me if you buy instrumentalism. If you buy instrumentalism, confirming a theory based on the idea that space is a substance doesn't imply that ontologically, space is a substance, thus that's what we're observing when we observe something the theory predicted. That only follows if you don't treat the theory instrumentally and you insist (for whatever reasons that you'd need to specify) that the theory must be pegging (ontologically) just what it says it is.
Re: Plank length and what is between
Posted: Mon Jan 25, 2021 11:49 pm
by bahman
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 11:31 pm
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 11:27 pm
Of course, a theory must be confirmed experimentally. The theory however tells you what is happening between parameters so can invent an apparatus to confirm that the theory is correct. You cannot invent any apparatus without a theory though. So theory and experiment are interrelated.
You're not telling me if you buy instrumentalism. If you buy instrumentalism, confirming a theory based on the idea that space is a substance doesn't imply that ontologically, space is a substance, thus that's what we're observing when we observe something the theory predicted. That only follows if you don't treat the theory instrumentally and you insist (for whatever reasons that you'd need to specify) that the theory must be pegging (ontologically) just what it says it is.
I disagree with instrumentalism when it comes to "According to instrumentalists, a successful scientific theory reveals nothing known either true or false about nature's unobservable objects, properties or processes." since a false theory cannot predict reality well as a correct theory can when it comes to unobservable objects, properties or processes.
Re: Plank length and what is between
Posted: Tue Jan 26, 2021 12:46 am
by Terrapin Station
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 11:49 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 11:31 pm
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 11:27 pm
Of course, a theory must be confirmed experimentally. The theory however tells you what is happening between parameters so can invent an apparatus to confirm that the theory is correct. You cannot invent any apparatus without a theory though. So theory and experiment are interrelated.
You're not telling me if you buy instrumentalism. If you buy instrumentalism, confirming a theory based on the idea that space is a substance doesn't imply that ontologically, space is a substance, thus that's what we're observing when we observe something the theory predicted. That only follows if you don't treat the theory instrumentally and you insist (for whatever reasons that you'd need to specify) that the theory must be pegging (ontologically) just what it says it is.
I disagree with instrumentalism when it comes to "According to instrumentalists, a successful scientific theory reveals nothing known either true or false about nature's unobservable objects, properties or processes." since a false theory cannot predict reality well as a correct theory can when it comes to unobservable objects, properties or processes.
Okay, but it's not saying that the theories in question are false. They're parsed as neither false nor true--they're seen as "utilitarian stories" that work for predictive purposes.
The whole point of this is that a theory that tells the story of spacetime being substantive and that makes predictions based on that story doesn't imply that that's what's really going on--especially when what we're actually observing isn't substantive spacetime but the supposed
effects of the same. There can be other reasons that the effects in question are observed.
Re: Plank length and what is between
Posted: Tue Jan 26, 2021 5:06 pm
by attofishpi
bahman wrote: ↑Sun Jan 24, 2021 1:33 am
This is believed to be the shortest distance between two points in space so-called Plank length. What is between two points? It cannot be nothing since otherwise two points obviously coincide. Therefore, there is something between the two points. This means that space is a substance. Following the same logic, it follows that time also is a substance.
..and right there is what I keep banging on about OUR REAL_IT_Y is binary.
Zeno's Paradox - eventually - either there is an EVENT or there is NOT an EVENT.
Re: Plank length and what is between
Posted: Tue Jan 26, 2021 9:21 pm
by bahman
attofishpi wrote: ↑Tue Jan 26, 2021 5:06 pm
bahman wrote: ↑Sun Jan 24, 2021 1:33 am
This is believed to be the shortest distance between two points in space so-called Plank length. What is between two points? It cannot be nothing since otherwise two points obviously coincide. Therefore, there is something between the two points. This means that space is a substance. Following the same logic, it follows that time also is a substance.
..and right there is what I keep banging on about OUR REAL_IT_Y is binary.
What do you mean by binary here?
attofishpi wrote: ↑Tue Jan 26, 2021 5:06 pm
Zeno's Paradox - eventually - either there is an EVENT or there is NOT an EVENT.
Which Zeno's paradox, you are talking about here?
Re: Plank length and what is between
Posted: Wed Jan 27, 2021 5:45 am
by bahman
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Jan 26, 2021 12:46 am
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 11:49 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 11:31 pm
You're not telling me if you buy instrumentalism. If you buy instrumentalism, confirming a theory based on the idea that space is a substance doesn't imply that ontologically, space is a substance, thus that's what we're observing when we observe something the theory predicted. That only follows if you don't treat the theory instrumentally and you insist (for whatever reasons that you'd need to specify) that the theory must be pegging (ontologically) just what it says it is.
I disagree with instrumentalism when it comes to "According to instrumentalists, a successful scientific theory reveals nothing known either true or false about nature's unobservable objects, properties or processes." since a false theory cannot predict reality well as a correct theory can when it comes to unobservable objects, properties or processes.
Okay, but it's not saying that the theories in question are false. They're parsed as neither false nor true--they're seen as "utilitarian stories" that work for predictive purposes.
The whole point of this is that a theory that tells the story of spacetime being substantive and that makes predictions based on that story doesn't imply that that's what's really going on--especially when what we're actually observing isn't substantive spacetime but the supposed
effects of the same. There can be other reasons that the effects in question are observed.
I don't think that the theory of everything exists. But there are theories that can approximately explain reality well. It is within the range of validity of the theory that we can say something that is not absolutely true but explain the subject well.
Re: Plank length and what is between
Posted: Wed Jan 27, 2021 2:12 pm
by Terrapin Station
bahman wrote: ↑Wed Jan 27, 2021 5:45 am
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Jan 26, 2021 12:46 am
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 11:49 pm
I disagree with instrumentalism when it comes to "According to instrumentalists, a successful scientific theory reveals nothing known either true or false about nature's unobservable objects, properties or processes." since a false theory cannot predict reality well as a correct theory can when it comes to unobservable objects, properties or processes.
Okay, but it's not saying that the theories in question are false. They're parsed as neither false nor true--they're seen as "utilitarian stories" that work for predictive purposes.
The whole point of this is that a theory that tells the story of spacetime being substantive and that makes predictions based on that story doesn't imply that that's what's really going on--especially when what we're actually observing isn't substantive spacetime but the supposed
effects of the same. There can be other reasons that the effects in question are observed.
I don't think that the theory of everything exists. But there are theories that can approximately explain reality well. It is within the range of validity of the theory that we can say something that is not absolutely true but explain the subject well.
Sure.
The idea is similar to the fact that we could explain observed planetary motion via either a heliocentric model or via retrograde motion. Both assumptions can make accurate predictions. An instrumental approach doesn't make a commitment that one or the other model is objectively correct. It's just two different stories to account for observations and enable accurate predictions for the same.
Re: Plank length and what is between
Posted: Wed Jan 27, 2021 8:36 pm
by bahman
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Jan 27, 2021 2:12 pm
bahman wrote: ↑Wed Jan 27, 2021 5:45 am
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Jan 26, 2021 12:46 am
Okay, but it's not saying that the theories in question are false. They're parsed as neither false nor true--they're seen as "utilitarian stories" that work for predictive purposes.
The whole point of this is that a theory that tells the story of spacetime being substantive and that makes predictions based on that story doesn't imply that that's what's really going on--especially when what we're actually observing isn't substantive spacetime but the supposed
effects of the same. There can be other reasons that the effects in question are observed.
I don't think that the theory of everything exists. But there are theories that can approximately explain reality well. It is within the range of validity of the theory that we can say something that is not absolutely true but explain the subject well.
Sure.
The idea is similar to the fact that we could explain observed planetary motion via either a heliocentric model or via retrograde motion. Both assumptions can make accurate predictions. An instrumental approach doesn't make a commitment that one or the other model is objectively correct. It's just two different stories to account for observations and enable accurate predictions for the same.
Ok. Back to the business. Empty space doesn't have any property but volume. We know that what looks like empty space is not empty at all since has other properties.
Re: Plank length and what is between
Posted: Wed Jan 27, 2021 8:38 pm
by Terrapin Station
bahman wrote: ↑Wed Jan 27, 2021 8:36 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Jan 27, 2021 2:12 pm
bahman wrote: ↑Wed Jan 27, 2021 5:45 am
I don't think that the theory of everything exists. But there are theories that can approximately explain reality well. It is within the range of validity of the theory that we can say something that is not absolutely true but explain the subject well.
Sure.
The idea is similar to the fact that we could explain observed planetary motion via either a heliocentric model or via retrograde motion. Both assumptions can make accurate predictions. An instrumental approach doesn't make a commitment that one or the other model is objectively correct. It's just two different stories to account for observations and enable accurate predictions for the same.
Ok. Back to the business. Empty space doesn't have any property but volume. We know that what looks like empty space is not empty at all since has other properties.
A "nothing" that has some volume doesn't exactly make any sense.
Re: Plank length and what is between
Posted: Wed Jan 27, 2021 9:00 pm
by bahman
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Jan 27, 2021 8:38 pm
bahman wrote: ↑Wed Jan 27, 2021 8:36 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Jan 27, 2021 2:12 pm
Sure.
The idea is similar to the fact that we could explain observed planetary motion via either a heliocentric model or via retrograde motion. Both assumptions can make accurate predictions. An instrumental approach doesn't make a commitment that one or the other model is objectively correct. It's just two different stories to account for observations and enable accurate predictions for the same.
Ok. Back to the business. Empty space doesn't have any property but volume. We know that what looks like empty space is not empty at all since has other properties.
A "nothing" that has some volume doesn't exactly make any sense.
I am not talking about nothing. I am talking about space. Space is not just an empty volume.
Re: Plank length and what is between
Posted: Wed Jan 27, 2021 9:23 pm
by Terrapin Station
bahman wrote: ↑Wed Jan 27, 2021 9:00 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Jan 27, 2021 8:38 pm
bahman wrote: ↑Wed Jan 27, 2021 8:36 pm
Ok. Back to the business. Empty space doesn't have any property but volume. We know that what looks like empty space is not empty at all since has other properties.
A "nothing" that has some volume doesn't exactly make any sense.
I am not talking about nothing. I am talking about space. Space is not just an empty volume.
Then it has some property other than volume.
Re: Plank length and what is between
Posted: Wed Jan 27, 2021 9:44 pm
by bahman
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Jan 27, 2021 9:23 pm
bahman wrote: ↑Wed Jan 27, 2021 9:00 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Jan 27, 2021 8:38 pm
A "nothing" that has some volume doesn't exactly make any sense.
I am not talking about nothing. I am talking about space. Space is not just an empty volume.
Then it has some property other than volume.
And according to these properties, space bends and can carry information.
Re: Plank length and what is between
Posted: Wed Jan 27, 2021 9:58 pm
by Terrapin Station
bahman wrote: ↑Wed Jan 27, 2021 9:44 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Jan 27, 2021 9:23 pm
bahman wrote: ↑Wed Jan 27, 2021 9:00 pm
I am not talking about nothing. I am talking about space. Space is not just an empty volume.
Then it has some property other than volume.
And according to these properties, space bends and can carry information.
But above you just wrote "Empty space doesn't have any property but volume."
Re: Plank length and what is between
Posted: Wed Jan 27, 2021 10:08 pm
by bahman
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Jan 27, 2021 9:58 pm
bahman wrote: ↑Wed Jan 27, 2021 9:44 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Jan 27, 2021 9:23 pm
Then it has some property other than volume.
And according to these properties, space bends and can carry information.
But above you just wrote "Empty space doesn't have any property but volume."
I make a distinction between "space" and "empty space". The first one is the one that we are dealing with in which has properties rather than volume. The second one just has volume as a property.