Philosophy Now Forum

tillingborn wrote: ↑Thu Feb 11, 2021 9:40 am 3. There are many underdetermined theories about what causes gravity, but all reason, rationality, plausibility and anything else you care to include being exhausted, the thing that tips the decision one way or the other, is some personal preference; an aesthetic choice.

That's a persuasive definition fallacy.

You've left the backdoor open to expand the notion of "aesthetics" to broadly encompass any and all personal preferences even those which are not about aesthetics. You've rigged the stage so any argument agrees with your conclusions. It's intentionally unfalsifiable.

Different folks have different backgrounds - some might find a geometric theory being more intuitive; others may prefer an algebraic theory.
This is not aesthetic - it's about how well the theory integrates with the rest of their knowledge.

Either way, the fact that they are deciding without a coin-toss means that something makes theory A better than theory B for that person. You are calling any "something" aesthetics.

Which is what you are doing with gravity also. ANY explanation for the apples falling is "gravity".

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Feb 11, 2021 9:48 amYou've left the backdoor open to expand the notion of "aesthetics" to broadly encompass any and all personal preferences even those which are not about aesthetics. Really: you've rigged the stage so any argument agrees with your conclusions. It's intentionally unfalsifiable.

tillingborn wrote: ↑Thu Feb 11, 2021 9:40 am all reason, rationality, plausibility and anything else you care to include being exhausted, the thing that tips the decision one way or the other, is some personal preference; an aesthetic choice.

Nobody has to like my definition of aesthetic, but yes, it is pretty much anything that makes people like something. Bearing in mind its antonym, anaesthetic, it basically means you are awake and responding to the world in ways that please you/you are hard wired to.

tillingborn wrote: ↑Thu Feb 11, 2021 10:03 am Nobody has to like my definition of aesthetic, but yes, it is pretty much anything that makes people like something.

Even if that thing which makes them "like" something is their DNA? Or an autonomous reflex-response by the brain?

Where I am kinda going with this... even if people's preferences are predictable? e.g there's multiple non-undertetermined theories about your very own behaviour.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Feb 11, 2021 9:48 amWhich is what you are doing with gravity also. ANY explanation for the apples falling is "gravity".

Guilty as charged. Yes, gravity is the measurable influence that massive objects have on each other. Whatever the reason for the measurable effect, the measurable effect is called gravity.

tillingborn wrote: ↑Thu Feb 11, 2021 10:13 am

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Feb 11, 2021 9:48 amWhich is what you are doing with gravity also. ANY explanation for the apples falling is "gravity".

Guilty as charged. Yes, gravity is the measurable influence that massive objects have on each other. Whatever the reason for the measurable effect, the measurable effect is called gravity.

That's the same as saying "God did it" to any phenomenon you don't understand.

Whatever the theory.
Whatever the measurement.
Whatever the mechanism.

That's God.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Feb 11, 2021 10:14 amThat's the same as saying "God did it" to any phenomenon you don't understand.

No, it is saying that there is an observable influence that massive bodies have on each other. Then instead of saying God did it, you devise experiments to eliminate as many theories as you can, to narrow down the field of research into what causes the measurable influence called gravity, or whatever other phenomenon you happen to be interested in - you know, for some aesthetic reason.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Feb 11, 2021 10:14 amWhatever the theory.
Whatever the measurement.
Whatever the mechanism.

That's God.

That's a persuasive definition fallacy.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Feb 11, 2021 10:14 am

tillingborn wrote: ↑Thu Feb 11, 2021 10:13 am

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Feb 11, 2021 9:48 amWhich is what you are doing with gravity also. ANY explanation for the apples falling is "gravity".

Guilty as charged. Yes, gravity is the measurable influence that massive objects have on each other. Whatever the reason for the measurable effect, the measurable effect is called gravity.

That's the same as saying "God did it" to any phenomenon you don't understand.

Whatever the theory.
Whatever the measurement.
Whatever the mechanism.

That's God.

God and Nature are the same,but only for a pantheist. For a theist God transcends narratives.

tillingborn wrote: ↑Thu Feb 11, 2021 10:22 am No, it is saying that there is an observable influence that massive bodies have on each other.

So do you consider an apple to be a "massive" body? What's your measurement unit for that?

I am simply looking for you to quantify your reference frame and be a bit more scientific with your adjectives.

tillingborn wrote: ↑Thu Feb 11, 2021 10:22 am Then instead of saying God did it, you devise experiments to eliminate as many theories as you can, to narrow down the field of research into what causes the measurable influence called gravity, or whatever other phenomenon you happen to be interested in - you know, for some aesthetic reason.

Well, what "causes gravity" in General Relativity is ... nothing. Gravity is an illusion.

What you are observing is objects traveling in straight-line on the geodesics curvature of spacetime.

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Feb 11, 2021 10:24 am God and Nature are the same,but only for a pantheist. For a theist God transcends narratives.

God is whatever the explanation for nature, like gravity is whatever the explanation for....

Gravity transcends narratives too.

tillingborn wrote: ↑Thu Feb 11, 2021 10:24 am

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Feb 11, 2021 10:14 amWhatever the theory.
Whatever the measurement.
Whatever the mechanism.

That's God.

That's a persuasive definition fallacy.

Yes. Precisely like your definitions for "gravity" and "aesthetics"

So there's a question that needs asking: is it possible that your definitions are wrong?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Feb 11, 2021 10:29 amSo do you consider an apple to be a "massive" body? What's your measurement unit for that?

You're kidding, right? What makes an apple massive is that it falls when dropped and resists acceleration. How you measure that and what units you use make no difference to the thing you are measuring.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Feb 11, 2021 10:29 amI am simply looking for you to quantify your reference frame and be a bit more scientific with your adjectives.

If I were to be a bit more scientific, I would attach the appropriate SI unit to my adjectives. The SI unit for mass in countries that use the metric system is a kilogram. Like all SI units, a kilogram is a bunch of values assigned to the relevant variables which are agreed to, so that not every calculation has to be performed ab initio.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Feb 11, 2021 10:29 amWell, what "causes gravity" in General Relativity is ... nothing. Gravity is an illusion.

Apples falling is not an illusion. That something causes apples to fall is not an illusion.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Feb 11, 2021 10:29 amWhat you are observing is objects traveling in straight-line on the geodesics curvature of spacetime.

Yes, that is one way of explaining it.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Feb 11, 2021 10:31 amSo there's a question that needs asking: is it possible that your definitions are wrong?

More or less in the same way that 'kilogram' might be wrong. You don't have to use the same definitions any more than you have to use the same units.

tillingborn wrote: ↑Thu Feb 11, 2021 1:00 pm You're kidding, right? What makes an apple massive is that it falls when dropped and resists acceleration. How you measure that and what units you use make no difference to the thing you are measuring.

But it does!

How have you determined that it "resists acceleration"? Acceleration with respect to WHAT?

What would you have observed if it didn't resist acceleration?

You keep assuming Newton's reference frame! But you also keep saying Newton's falsified. Awkward!!!

tillingborn wrote: ↑Thu Feb 11, 2021 1:00 pm If I were to be a bit more scientific, I would attach the appropriate SI unit to my adjectives. The SI unit for mass in countries that use the metric system is a kilogram. Like all SI units, a kilogram is a bunch of values assigned to the relevant variables which are agreed to, so that not every calculation has to be performed ab initio.

I am not interested in your units. I am interested in the assumptions you have made about YOUR OWN circumstances.

Are you currently accelerating?
Are you currently moving?

tillingborn wrote: ↑Thu Feb 11, 2021 1:00 pm Apples falling is not an illusion. That something causes apples to fall is not an illusion.

From the reference frame of of General Relativity - they aren't falling.

They are only falling from Newton's reference frame... but you falsified that one so why are you using it?

tillingborn wrote: ↑Thu Feb 11, 2021 1:00 pm Yes, that is one way of explaining it.

It is one way of explaining it, but you aren't going to like the implications. The apple is always moving. Even when it isn't falling.

tillingborn wrote: ↑Thu Feb 11, 2021 1:03 pm More or less in the same way that 'kilogram' might be wrong. You don't have to use the same definitions any more than you have to use the same units.

Let me paraphrase.

Is it POSSIBLE that you are using definitions other than the ones you claim to be using?

Say, when you claim to be measuring X using General Relativity, but you are actually measuring it using Universal Gravitation?