Where is "here"?

[Obvious Leo]

If a person travels at 50 mph and another person travels at 1/2 the speed of light, their clocks will be different.

Different from what and relative to whom? I assume you're speaking only of inertial motion so these are very relevant questions. Certainly their clocks will run at different speeds but in which way these speeds will differ will depend entirely on the relative motion of the observer of these clocks.

[Obvious Leo]

Since you say that space is an illusion and only time exists, that implies that distance (a dimension ) is an illusion. Do you believe that all locations are one location? That only one thing exists? That I am the universe?

I have no idea what this question means. What is a location?

[raw_thought]

I am here at this location (USA) and you are in Australia (a different location).
Are you saying that distance is an illusion and we are actually at the same location?

[Obvious Leo]

I am here at this location (USA) and you are in Australia (a different location).
Are you saying that distance is an illusion and we are actually at the same location?

The metaphysical principles which underpin relativity are exquisitely simple. There is no state of absolute rest anywhere in the universe. Absolutely everything that is physically real is moving and therefore its location as it is moving can only be specified relative to another moving body. However Newton showed us that the motion of every physical entity in the universe is causally determined by the motion of every other because of gravity. This means that the location of any moving physical entity can only be specified in terms of the relativistic motions of every single moving physical entity in the universe.

In what way could you define "location" as a valid physical construct when the relativistic location of any body is dependent on every co-moving body in the universe? Heisenberg was trying to pass off a simple statement of the bloody obvious as a message of profound truth. You can't specify both the location and the momentum of a particle at the same time for the simple reason that it can't have both at the same time. You can't do this for a jumbo jet either.

A MOVING OBJECT HAS NO LOCATION.

[raw_thought]

I think calculus solved Zeno's paradoxes. A moving object does have a location.

[raw_thought]

But anyway, back to something more interesting. Since distance is an illusion (according to you) do you believe that seperation is an illusion and only one thing exists.

[raw_thought]

Even if location is relative. I agree with that. It still means that there is no distance separating two objects if distance is an illusion. I have pondered that. In particular, the identity of indiscernibles.(the philosopher Black in particular ).

[raw_thought]

Google, " identity of indiscernibles, stanford encyclopedia of philosophy " for a great article!! It says that the identity of indiscernibles fails at the quantum level!!!

[Obvious Leo]

Google, " identity of indiscernibles, stanford encyclopedia of philosophy " for a great article!! It says that the identity of indiscernibles fails at the quantum level!!!

No it doesn't. It means that the quantum theory as it is understood in QM contradicts the principle of the identity of the indiscernibles. Precision of language is important in philosophy and ALL philosophers of science and NEARLY ALL physicists accept that for this reason QM is not a valid model of reality.

To say that the quantum theory falsifies the identity of the indiscernibles principle is an example of logical positivism, which I knew fucking well you didn't understand properly. Logical positivism means that if your theory implies something which doesn't make sense then you must redefine what making sense means rather than assume there might be something wrong with your theory.

[Obvious Leo]

I think calculus solved Zeno's paradoxes. A moving object does have a location.

It doesn't. The calculus is a mathematical tool only and at the limits cannot be equated to a physically real world. This was pointed out in Cantorian set theory where an infinite set cannot be contained within a finite one. The calculus cannot model a quantised reality other than approximately and probabilistically.

[raw_thought]

Actually, Cantor proved the opposite. A finite line segment contains irrational numbers and so is a higher aleph than rational numbers.

[raw_thought]

Google, " identity of indiscernibles, stanford encyclopedia of philosophy " for a great article!! It says that the identity of indiscernibles fails at the quantum level!!!

No it doesn't. It means that the quantum theory as it is understood in QM contradicts the principle of the identity of the indiscernibles. Precision of language is important in philosophy and ALL philosophers of science and NEARLY ALL physicists accept that for this reason QM is not a valid model of reality.

To say that the quantum theory falsifies the identity of the indiscernibles principle is an example of logical positivism, which I knew fucking well you didn't understand properly. Logical positivism means that if your theory implies something which doesn't make sense then you must redefine what making sense means rather than assume there might be something wrong with your theory.

OK, the Stanford Encyclopedia is stupid. Whatever.

[raw_thought]

And Bohr, Schrodinger, Heisenberg....etc that accept QM are stupid also. Whatever.

[raw_thought]

Nearly all physicists reject QM????

[raw_thought]

Anyway, you are starting one of your rants again. I will return when you calm down.