Philosophy Now Forum

Philosophy Explorer wrote:Arising said:

"You need to chat to uwot as apparently Einstein was happy with the idea of an 'aether' despite MM and I thin the idea is coming back in fashion in some form or other."

I'll wait on uwot.

PhilX

Einstein was unambiguously an aether theorist and he made no bones about it. However he defined the dynamic space of GR as a "geometric aether", as opposed to the notion of the physical aether which was the legacy of Newton. If the term "geometric aether" doesn't define space as a mathematical entity rather than a physical one then our language has no meaning at all. I've never read of any mathematical philosophy at all which defines a space as anything but a mathematical object, Phil, and the convention in philosophy in all such cases is clear. Since you defend a minority position when you claim the physicality of the Cartesian space then the burden of proof lies with you. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof so kindly present this proof.

I also notice that you once again mis-represented my words even after I corrected you the first time. This is dishonourable conduct in a discussion forum and will not be allowed to pass without comment. I did NOT say that the real world does not exist. I said that the real world is unobservable because the speed of light is finite and this is a logic proposition which any philosophy undergraduate would be expected to understand.

Obvious Leo wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:Arising said:

"You need to chat to uwot as apparently Einstein was happy with the idea of an 'aether' despite MM and I thin the idea is coming back in fashion in some form or other."

I'll wait on uwot.

PhilX

Einstein was unambiguously an aether theorist and he made no bones about it. However he defined the dynamic space of GR as a "geometric aether", as opposed to the notion of the physical aether which was the legacy of Newton. If the term "geometric aether" doesn't define space as a mathematical entity rather than a physical one then our language has no meaning at all. I've never read of any mathematical philosophy at all which defines a space as anything but a mathematical object, Phil, and the convention in philosophy in all such cases is clear. Since you defend a minority position when you claim the physicality of the Cartesian space then the burden of proof lies with you. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof so kindly present this proof.

I also notice that you once again mis-represented my words even after I corrected you the first time. This is dishonourable conduct in a discussion forum and will not be allowed to pass without comment. I did NOT say that the real world does not exist. I said that the real world is unobservable because the speed of light is finite and this is a logic proposition which any philosophy undergraduate would be expected to understand.

Once again you're misrepresenting my position as defending a clearly mathematical model as being a physical one when I said several times that this thread wasn't about Cartesian space, but physical space.

You did say, in effect, that the real world doesn't exist as there is no other way to interpret your words. If you wish to retract, I would understand. If you wish me to repeat what you said exactly, I can do that as there is no dispute what you meant exactly. And saying that the real world is unobservable aren't the words I'm referring to.

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote:I said several times that this thread wasn't about Cartesian space, but physical space.

In that case you must define what you mean by a physical space because this is a philosophy forum and such a statement has no meaning in philosophy.

Philosophy Explorer wrote:You did say, in effect, that the real world doesn't exist as there is no other way to interpret your words. If you wish to retract, I would understand. If you wish me to repeat what you said exactly, I can do that as there is no dispute what you meant exactly.

Please find the statement of mine which you're referring to and quote the entire post. When I say that the world which we observe does not exist I intend that this statement should be taken literally because it's simply a statement of the bloody obvious. However you are not then free to draw the conclusion that I'm claiming that the real world does not exist because that's not what I said.

Obvious Leo wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:I said several times that this thread wasn't about Cartesian space, but physical space.

In that case you must define what you mean by a physical space because this is a philosophy forum and such a statement has no meaning in philosophy.

Philosophy Explorer wrote:You did say, in effect, that the real world doesn't exist as there is no other way to interpret your words. If you wish to retract, I would understand. If you wish me to repeat what you said exactly, I can do that as there is no dispute what you meant exactly.

Please find the statement of mine which you're referring to and quote the entire post. When I say that the world which we observe does not exist I intend that this statement should be taken literally because it's simply a statement of the bloody obvious. However you are not then free to draw the conclusion that I'm claiming that the real world does not exist because that's not what I said.

This is part of the post you did on 12/7/2015:

"What we're observing is the world the way it WAS at a finite time in our own past and this is a world which no longer exists."

Now I focus more and note I'm not quoting out of context:

"...and this is a world which no longer exists." Your words exactly which you did say. Since this applies to any world, then it logically follows you're saying that this world doesn't exist, never has and never will. So I'll give you a chance to retract your statement.

Since this is the philosophy of science forum and physics is part of science, then technically I don't even need to define what physics is unless you don't happen to know what physics is.

PhilX

So what I said was that the world as it WAS is a world which no longer exists, which is exactly what I claimed to have said. Once an event has occurred it immediately becomes an event which no longer exists and as observers we can observe events only after they've actually occurred. This is hardly an intellectually demanding logic claim and neither is the only logical conclusion which must be drawn from it. If the event which we're observing no longer exists then the space between us and this no longer existing event no longer exists either. In fact the space only exists whilst an observer is observing it and for almost a century this has been one of the most bizarre conclusions of spacetime physics. Nevertheless, although this might strike a physicist as being extraordinarily bizarre to a philosopher this is nothing more than a statement of the bloody obvious. It has been known perfectly well for 2500 years that the space between the observer and his observation is a property of the consciousness of the observer and NOT a property of the physical universe.

Perhaps you would like to give us the name of a philosopher who does not share this view, Phil.

Obvious Leo wrote:So what I said was that the world as it WAS is a world which no longer exists, which is exactly what I claimed to have said. Once an event has occurred it immediately becomes an event which no longer exists and as observers we can observe events only after they've actually occurred. This is hardly an intellectually demanding logic claim and neither is the only logical conclusion which must be drawn from it. If the event which we're observing no longer exists then the space between us and this no longer existing event no longer exists either. In fact the space only exists whilst an observer is observing it and for almost a century this has been one of the most bizarre conclusions of spacetime physics. Nevertheless, although this might strike a physicist as being extraordinarily bizarre to a philosopher this is nothing more than a statement of the bloody obvious. It has been known perfectly well for 2500 years that the space between the observer and his observation is a property of the consciousness of the observer and NOT a property of the physical universe.

Perhaps you would like to give us the name of a philosopher who does not share this view, Phil.

Are you saying you're an event too? Do you doubt your existence?

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote: Are you saying you're an event too? Do you doubt your existence?

You may rest assured that I am in no doubt as to my own existence, Phil, but the answer is YES, I am not a place but an event. I locate myself spatially, just as everybody else does, but I am conscious of the fact that what I'm actually doing is locating myself in relation to other events which are continuously occurring all around me. My personal journey of existence is a journey through time and not one through space. Physical reality is NOT a collection of objects moving in space but a sequence of events occurring in time which the observer constructs into a cognitive map of objects moving in space. However this cognitive map is purely an epistemic construct of phenomena and it has no objective ontological status. This is basic Kant 101 and it is completely supported by the older schools of philosophy of both east and west as well as modern cognitive neuroscience. The fact that spacetime physics elects to take a different view is a complete and adequate explanation for why spacetime physics describes a universe which makes no fucking sense.

marjoram_blues wrote:Cerveny wrote: Thanks for trust, but as i can see present enthusiastic, naive physicists It would be rather contraproductive. But very briefly, for you:

-The History is a 4-D growing solid crystal of aether
-Elementary particles are structural defects there (see screw dislocaton, for ex.)
-"Now" is a last (only live),  just being condensed Planck time layer (surface of 4-D), quantum 3-D world
-The Future seems to be non-causal world of stem cells/elements, empire of ideas?!?!

next you can find in my story ....

--------
Me:

What is space? The place between my ears where my brain cells are locked in unarmed combat.
Cerveny, I appreciate you providing that summary. Of course I understood some words.
Elementary ones like History, Now and the Future. Oh, and Empire of Ideas. But as to the stringing of all of them together...as an explanation for the nature of physical space...well,....

I love it.
I will slip it into a Hogmanay toast. When the time comes.
Way cooler than 'yesterday is history, tomorrow is a mystery, today is a gift, a present from...
I'm not making fun of you, honest. Just my embarrassed ignorance, not seeing what you do.
Cheers.

Perhaps just one more, rather different, metaphor: a rolling, growing snowball is the history, its surface is the being and "God?" rolls it :) For those, who have problem with "crystalisation"...
PS: You have to add one dimension...

Cerveny wrote:

Perhaps just one more, rather different, metaphor: a rolling, growing snowball is the history, its surface is the being and "God?" rolls it For those, who have problem with "crystalisation"...
PS: You have to add one dimension...

You know I really like metaphors, and can usually get my head around them. As an explanatory force, they can result in a perfect 'Aha!' moment of crystal clarity.
But this time round, my imagination has given up the ghost. I think some kind of diagram might help, or not.
A BIG one with neat little labels and colourful arrows. Pointing the way to the truth...and the light...or summat.

marjoram_blues wrote:

Cerveny wrote:

Perhaps just one more, rather different, metaphor: a rolling, growing snowball is the history, its surface is the being and "God?" rolls it :) For those, who have problem with "crystalisation"...
PS: You have to add one dimension...

You know I really like metaphors, and can usually get my head around them. As an explanatory force, they can result in a perfect 'Aha!' moment of crystal clarity.
But this time round, my imagination has given up the ghost. I think some kind of diagram might help, or not.
A BIG one with neat little labels and colourful arrows. Pointing the way to the truth...and the light...or summat.

As for me, most of all helps good beer, but it could be a problem because the only good one is brewed here, in Bohemia ;)

Obvious Leo wrote:Einstein was unambiguously an aether theorist and he made no bones about it. However he defined the dynamic space of GR as a "geometric aether", as opposed to the notion of the physical aether which was the legacy of Newton.

Odd how the same information can lead to such different interpretations. My own view is that Einstein believed that the aether is physical, an opinion I attribute to his publicly saying so. (See http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk ... ether.html ) Besides, GR is predicated on a substantial spacetime that is physically warped by the presence of mass or energy, as Phil X says in his OP. (As it happens, the interchangeability of mass and energy is much easier to understand if you accept the concept of a physical aether. There was talk of 'fluid' earlier in the thread; one way to visualise energy and matter is to think of stirring your cup of tea. If you do it gently, you will create waves. Those waves will bash against the rim of your cup, bounce back or be absorbed. More energetic stirring will create whirlpools and eddies, which are analogous to matter. If you can get your head round that, it's relatively easy to see how energy can turn into matter and vice versa) Newton's law of universal gravitation, by contrast, is a purely mathematical relationship that was independent of any ontology; famously Newton refused to speculate on the cause. Google Hypotheses non fingo for the details.
Arising is correct that understanding various quantum fields as 'physical' is being taken more seriously, a case in point being the 'discovery' of the Higgs boson. The CERN website for instance describes the Higgs boson as a wave on the Higgs field; as a boson, it is not a 'matter' particle, but a 'virtual' force carrying particle (or just a storm in your teacup).
It can be useful to think in terms of epistemological (or mathematical, if it pleases you) fields and ontological fields. What Newton described was epistemological. In essence he described what you will observe, without any reference to what actually exists; two or more bodies will be drawn together according to the inverse square of their collective masses. You know, for instance, that if you drop your pint, it will fall to Earth. And in fact, how much the Earth falls towards your pint ( I don't want to spoil it for you, but it's not a lot). That's epistemological, you know what will happen. Einstein described what happens marginally better, he could account for the advance of the perihelion of Mercury, for instance, by 'natural' laws, whereas Newton believed that God occasionally intervened to make sure that everything ran according to Newton's own description.
You pays yer money and takes yer choice. But, as I am fond of saying, the most plausible explanation for all the phenomena that give the impression that there is a universe made of some stuff, is some stuff the universe is made of.