Philosophy Now Forum

raw_thought wrote:"I made no mention of Plank's constant..."
Obvious Leo
"It is the briefist possible interval...in physics this is known an plank's interval".
Obvious Leo
Plank's constant is applied to time and distance.

I made no mention of Planck's constant. I spoke of the Planck interval. Don't you know the difference?

raw_thought wrote:No, Minkowski did not claim that all places are in the same location.
That is what is implied when one says that distance is an illusion.

If you can't understand what I'm talking about you need only ask me to clarify but you have no authority to misquote me. I said that Minkowski spatialised time in SR. Do you deny this?

Greta wrote:I don't think we can assume that the Planck interval is indivisible.

No we don't. I only use the Planck interval terminology because it has a definition as the smallest possible unit of time in which we can meaningfully say that something has actually happened. This definition must stand because whichever way we define it time cannot be infinitely divisible and must be quantised. In fact a quantised time is a quantised gravity because GR clearly demonstrates that time and gravity are two different ways of expressing the same thing and they must therefore be quantised equivalently. However we don't need to assume that this quantised interval should have the same value as that calculated for the Planck interval in spacetime physics.

Obvious Leo wrote:

raw_thought wrote:"I made no mention of Plank's constant..."
Obvious Leo
"It is the briefist possible interval...in physics this is known an plank's interval".
Obvious Leo
Plank's constant is applied to time and distance.

I made no mention of Planck's constant. I spoke of the Planck interval. Don't you know the difference?

raw_thought wrote:No, Minkowski did not claim that all places are in the same location.
That is what is implied when one says that distance is an illusion.

If you can't understand what I'm talking about you need only ask me to clarify but you have no authority to misquote me. I said that Minkowski spatialised time in SR. Do you deny this?

Plank's constant applies to both space and time because both are dimensions.
I do understand your confusion. I did not misquote you. At least give one example!

Plank's interval is (by definition ) indivisible. There is nothing (either temporal or spacial). smaller then plank's constant.

raw_thought wrote:Plank's interval is (by definition ) indivisible.

Good. We agree on something.

raw_thought wrote: Plank's constant applies to both space and time because both are dimensions.

Do you actually know what a dimension is? A dimension is a mathematical co-ordinate system. You speak of it as if it were a physically real thing so it's you that's got things confused, not me.

Planck interval: "definition as the smallest possible unit of time in which we can meaningfully say that something has actually happened".

My point was and is: Reality doesn't necessarily conform with what primates can meaningfully say.

Greta wrote: My point was and is: Reality doesn't necessarily conform with what primates can meaningfully say.

Are you suggesting that the universe is too complicated for the upright ape to figure out or are you making some other point? I've conceded many times that science can only model a particular procedure of thought which constitutes a subjective narrative of reality but surely this can't mean that the metaphysical principles which underpin this narrative are unknowable. Indeed most of the greatest scientists in history have expressed the view that a true cosmological model will be one of the most exquisite simplicity which a child could understand. I go a lot further than this and assert that young children not only can but do know what reality is and are then forced to unlearn it.

My point is exactly as I say it is - no agenda needed. The minimum length of time that's meaningful to us and our current equipment and models. There may be activity at smaller scales that can make sense - but only to a far more technologically enabled perspective with more mature physical models.

Obvious Leo wrote:

raw_thought wrote: Plank's constant applies to both space and time because both are dimensions.

Do you actually know what a dimension is? A dimension is a mathematical co-ordinate system. You speak of it as if it were a physically real thing so it's you that's got things confused, not me.

I am using the word dimension as Einstein did and everyone does . Please stop the distractions that have no substance.

raw_thought wrote:I am using the word dimension as Einstein did

So am I. Einstein understood perfectly well that a dimension is a mathematical object and not a physical one. This is also the mainstream position in any mathematical philosophy I know of but it doesn't accord with the way you seem to be speaking of a dimension. Please elaborate on what you understand by the term.

Both physics and astronomers agree that it is not the galaxies that are moving, it is that the space between them is expanding.

This is silly semantics. I suppose if I said that that house is 20 feet high (a dimension ) you would say that I am confusing a mathematical construct with a physical reality.

raw_thought wrote:Both physics and astronomers agree that it is not the galaxies that are moving, it is that the space between them is expanding.

How does space expand? Does it just spread itself out a bit or do you new bits of space get made to fill in the gaps?

How come space expands between some galaxies and not between others?

Is the space between here and Pluto expanding at the same rate as the space between here and the sun?

When you stand at the roadside and watch a car drive away from you does the space between you and the car expand or is the car just driving away from you. Does the space contract again when the car turns around and drives back.

What does space expand onto?

Why do you need to insist that the universe is expanding at all when exactly the same observations can be explained simply by saying the the universe is merely aging, just like everything within it. On the grounds of Occam economy why would this explanation not be preferred?

SR claims that if you had a spaceship that could travel at almost the speed of light then you could traverse the entire universe in a single lifetime because it would shrink to a manageable size for you. Do you believe this to be true?

If you google it, you will get a more indepth explanation then I can give.
Carl Sagan, kaku, Greene etc used a balloon with magic marker dots on it. When they inflated the balloon of course the dots traveled away from each other.