Is Reinterpreting Einstein's Theory a Valid Scientific Endeavor?

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Lifegazer

Ultimately, I agreed: "Yet; since all minds are observing a fundamentally singular-universe, with singular-laws, I am also in a position to conclude that all minds are centred within One Mind."

We are all of one mind, which is of "the moment."


From the thread, "What is is about the moment?" ...

Originally posted by Iacchus32

So what is it about the moment? Except that it stands outside of time and space? Or, does time and space stand within it? Ahh, could this be the origin of both eternity and infinity?

Originally posted by Iacchus32

If just for one moment we took a snapshot of Creation, everything would exist in the here and now, including time and space, which are infinite. Therefore the moment itself must encompass (i.e., stand outside of) everything. Just picture in your mind for "one moment," the universe as a bubble, and you'll see what I mean.

 

[quantumdude]

Could we please not have two wacked-out philosophies in a single thread? LG's is exasperating enough.

Thank you.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Tom
Could we please not have two wacked-out philosophies in a single thread? LG's is exasperating enough.
Thank you.

.
I won't have time to reply to your main posts till much later today, unfortunately. But thanks for responding.

 

[Another God]

GW tom.

 

[N_Quire]

These endless threads are exasperating. As a reader, I have two choices: ignore them or participate in them. From now on I will choose the former course. This thread has nothing to do with philosophy or science. It is an exercise in extreme and idiosyncratic introspection and bends the rules of science and philosophy to fit one person's view of the world. As such, I firmly believe it belongs in pseudo-science.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by N_Quire
These endless threads are exasperating. As a reader, I have two choices: ignore them or participate in them. From now on I will choose the former course. This thread has nothing to do with philosophy or science. It is an exercise in extreme and idiosyncratic introspection and bends the rules of science and philosophy to fit one person's view of the world. As such, I firmly believe it belongs in pseudo-science.

I'm taking no crap from anyone. If you want to rubbish my argument, then deal with the argument I have presented. Okay? Otherwise, take a hike. I'm not interested in hearing unsupported conclusions about my overall-philosophy. Nor am I interested in what you think about my capabilities. I'm only interested in my argument.
If this argument is to be condemned, then it shall be condemned by reason. Not by evasive snobbery.

 

[(Q)]

If this argument is to be condemned, then it shall be condemned by reason.

That was accomplished some time ago.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by [Q]

Originally posted by Lifegazer

If this argument is to be condemned, then it shall be condemned by reason.

That was accomplished some time ago.

Then why waste your time arguing about it? Like he said, take a hike!

Lifegazer, can you explain your theory in more simplified terms? I'm not a scientist and, although I've had some exposure to the theory of relativity, I'm not totally up on it (to say the least). Can you explain it in a nutshell, without so much of the jargon?

Also, do any of your assertions have anything to do with the speed of thought? and/or the perception of time? Because this I believe is something which is variable.

 

[(Q)]

Then why waste your time arguing about it? Like he said, take a hike!

Who are you - the forum police? Or an internet nazi?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by (Q)
Who are you - the forum police? Or an internet nazi?

Yeah, do you "see guile" anyone? I'm just pointing out that you contradicted yourself, that's all.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Tom
On speed…

First, what do you mean when you say that time and space are “experienced”? Time and space are not observable, apart from objects moving within space.

Our whole understanding of the universe comes from sensory-experience. The reason that we know that time and space exist, is because we experience them through our subjective sensations (and feelings), and then proceed to define that reality of experience using labels and mathematics (of our own making). Never forget that the Laws of Physics are founded upon human experience.

Second, what does it mean for speed to be “as reliant as our universal-experience of ‘1 second’ and ‘1 meter’”?

See previous paragraph. 'Mathematical reality' is founded upon human experience. So is language. Even concepts are derived from an analysis of experience.

I ask these questions because I think they are the key to the mistake in your last sentence.

There's no mistake. The Laws of Physics are founded upon human experience, via the senses.

What is “the ‘value’ of space & time”? You say that SR depends on it, but to me it has no discernable meaning.

Then you denounce existence itself. For existence is known through our experiences, and the value which those experiences hold for us.
The mathematics of our experiences are founded upon the value that exists within experience itself.
Since mankind was responsible for labelling his own experiences, we must assume that there is 'value' in mankind's perception of time & space.

This is also misleading. What does a meter “feel” like?

The 'meter' has been defined already, by people more able than myself (mathematicians & physicists), in relation to a common experience of the space we perceive, and the matter in it. I have no greater language than those physicists, to express to you how I perceive of one meter through space.

What does a second “feel” like? The questions are meaningless,

It's not meaningless Tom. Because if we didn't have a clue what 1 second "felt" like (as in our sensation of change), we would never have been able to define '1 second' so that we all understood it.

There is no sense in which the twins experience time and space differently.

So; one twin ages 30-years, for example, less than his brother (mentally and physically, we must assume); yet you say there is no sense in which these twins have experienced time & space differently.
That's a remarkable conclusion Tom. And I see no sense in it.

In fact, this is one of the main motivations of SR: that one should not be able to tell what one’s state of motion without referring to the outside world.

I understand that. But if we are to accept 'motion' as a real phenomena, and we note that the motion of the observer does affect the spacetime-universe he perceives (as evident in the twin-paradox); then the only conclusion is that the observer's perception of self-motion (that he has velocity), has distorted that observer's perception of his own space-time (in relation to other observers). I.e.: the observer's perception of self-motion is the underlying source of how he shall see the rest of his universe (space-time), in comparison to that motion.
In other words: the way an individual experiences time & space, in comparison to me, is dependent upon how he is seeing his own space & time in relation to his own perception of self-motion in relation to everything else.

I refer to the outside-world to know my own state-of-motion. But when I accelerate in reference to this previously known-state, I am now the cause for distorting spacetime - and my new experience of space-time will not correlate with my previous experience of spacetime. So; self-motion is the underlying-cause of a specific spacetime-experience.

There is no reason to say that we all see and feel different realities. It is equally plausible to say that there is one external reality that we all view from different points of view, and that that is where the differences come from.

I made this point to Njorl. Ultimately, there is only one reality - of course. The fact that we see so many diverse opinions of this reality is actually a proof that the mind is holding reality to ransom. That the mind is responsible for the reality it is seeing.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Tom
If Event A is the emission of a light pulse, and Event B is the detection of that pulse, then the spatial and temporal intervals measured by an observer stationary with respect to the apparatus are dx and dt, respectively. An observer moving with respect to the apparatus is going to measure dx' and dt' for the same two intervals. dx/dt=c, and dx'/dt'=c.

But x' does not = x (absolutely).
Neither does t' = t (absolutely).
These things are obvious in the twin paradox. There is a real difference between t':t and x':x, which accounts for the age-distortion they would experience.
The two equations you used really need an experiential- qualification: instead of saying dx/dt=c, and dx'/dt'=c, you really need to say: dx/dt=c, and dx'/dt'=c'. Because the experience of c is unique to each individual.
There is a commonality in the numerical-value we use. But there is no commonality in the parameters we perceive, of that numerical-value - namely: meters per second. 'X' meters per second is a unique experience for all individuals, since meters and seconds are unique to the individual.

Even though dx is different from dx', and dt is different from dt', they differ by the exact same factor

Of course. But that factor is qualified by distance & time. Hence each individual is giving that factor a different qualification. A different meaning to the factor.

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
[Our whole understanding of the universe comes from sensory-experience. The reason that we know that time and space exist, is because we experience them through our subjective sensations (and feelings), and then proceed to define that reality of experience using labels and mathematics (of our own making). Never forget that the Laws of Physics are founded upon human experience.

Of course, everything we know about the universe comes from measurement. That is not in dispute. My point was that space and time themselves are not perceived, but rather moving objects are. This is not really that important, I think.

There's no mistake. The Laws of Physics are founded upon human experience, via the senses.

There is a mistake, because, as I said, “It is not true that speed is as absolute as the experience of space and time.”{

Then you denounce existence itself. For existence is known through our experiences, and the value which those experiences hold for us.
The mathematics of our experiences are founded upon the value that exists within experience itself.
Since mankind was responsible for labelling his own experiences, we must assume that there is 'value' in mankind's perception of time & space.

LOL

No, I do not denounce existence. I simply do not understand your bizarre language, which is why I asked the question. You still have not shed any light on the “value of space/time”. If it is simply measurements of spatial and temporal intervals, then please just say so.

It's not meaningless Tom. Because if we didn't have a clue what 1 second "felt" like (as in our sensation of change), we would never have been able to define '1 second' so that we all understood it.

The question (“what does a second feel like?”) is meaningless because it has no unique answer. When Einstein said,

”Put your hand on a hot stove for a minute, and it feels like an hour. Sit and talk with a pretty girl for an hour, and it feels like a minute. That’s relativity.”

he was only joking, of course--but there is a grain of truth to it. The “feeling” of time passing (if that does really exist) is not precise enough for science or philosophy. It is better to stick to “measurements” of time passing, as on a clock.

So; one twin ages 30-years, for example, less than his brother (mentally and physically, we must assume); yet you say there is no sense in which these twins have experienced time & space differently.
That's a remarkable conclusion Tom. And I see no sense in it.

Then you need to try harder, because it is correct. The twin who takes off notices nothing strange before or after blasting off from Earth. You seem to be forgetting the Golden Rule of science: The universe dictates its nature to us, not the other way around.”

I understand that. But if we are to accept 'motion' as a real phenomena, and we note that the motion of the observer does affect the spacetime-universe he perceives (as evident in the twin-paradox); then the only conclusion is that the observer's perception of self-motion (that he has velocity), has distorted that observer's perception of his own space-time (in relation to other observers

My point was that motion does not affect a person’s perception of the workings of the universe, as codified in the laws of physics. Of course, spatial and temporal measurements are affected.

I refer to the outside-world to know my own state-of-motion. But when I accelerate in reference to this previously known-state, I am now the cause for distorting spacetime - and my new experience of space-time will not correlate with my previous experience of spacetime. So; self-motion is the underlying-cause of a specific spacetime-experience.

There is no reason to say that. You can always regard yourself as stationary. That was the whole point of my discussion on reciprocity.

I made this point to Njorl. Ultimately, there is only one reality - of course. The fact that we see so many diverse opinions of this reality is actually a proof that the mind is holding reality to ransom. That the mind is responsible for the reality it is seeing.

There is no reason to conclude that the mind is “responsible” for it. It is both possible and plausible to say that the material universe is “responsible” for generating the excitations in our brains.

But x' does not = x (absolutely).
Neither does t' = t (absolutely).

That is exactly what I said.

The two equations you used really need an experiential- qualification: instead of saying dx/dt=c, and dx'/dt'=c, you really need to say: dx/dt=c, and dx'/dt'=c'.

That is incorrect. dx/dt=dx’/dt’=c exactly.

Because the experience[/b] of c is unique to each individual.

No. The only way to “experience” c is to measure it. There is no difference for any two observers.

There is a commonality in the numerical-value we use. But there is no commonality in the par
ameters we perceive, of that numerical-value - namely: meters per second. 'X' meters per second is a unique experience for all individuals, since meters and seconds are unique to the individual.

That is irrelevant. It is entirely possible to construct Lorentz invariants from frame-dependent quantities. I’ll explain it in my “Special Relativity” thread in the Physics forum, as soon as enough people get interested.

Tom: Even though dx is different from dx', and dt is different from dt', they differ by the exact same factor

LG: Of course. But that factor is qualified by distance & time. Hence each individual is giving that factor a different qualification. A different meaning to the factor.

No. The factor is just a number. Asking people to accept that dx/dt is not the same as dx’/dt’ is—exactly as kyleb said—the same as asking people to accept that 1/2 is not the same as 2/4.

It doesn’t wash.

 

[quantumdude]

I would like to point out that we are getting lost in all sorts of side issues here. To boot, they are issues that have already been discussed in PF v2.0 (eg: the fact that c really is the same for everyone). LG, you are kind of sandbagging your own topic here, because none of these issues has to do with discrediting materialism. It has only to do with discrediting relativity.

You said that your aim was to show that we are not obligated to accept materialism if we accept science, and that you are not "anti-science". This topic has mutated into just the opposite: It has nothing to do with discrediting materialism, and it is degenerating into an anti-science thread.

 

[Janus]

Originally posted by Lifegazer





I understand that. But if we are to accept 'motion' as a real phenomena, and we note that the motion of the observer does affect the spacetime-universe he perceives (as evident in the twin-paradox); then the only conclusion is that the observer's perception of self-motion (that he has velocity), has distorted that observer's perception of his own space-time (in relation to other observers). I.e.: the observer's perception of self-motion is the underlying source of how he shall see the rest of his universe (space-time), in comparison to that motion.
In other words: the way an individual experiences time & space, in comparison to me, is dependent upon how he is seeing his own space & time in relation to his own perception of self-motion in relation to everything else.

I refer to the outside-world to know my own state-of-motion. But when I accelerate in reference to this previously known-state, I am now the cause for distorting spacetime - and my new experience of space-time will not correlate with my previous experience of spacetime. So; self-motion is the underlying-cause of a specific spacetime-experience.

You say "I understand that" and then go on to write 3 paragraphs showing that you don't.
Why do you bother to ask for input from those that have a better grasp of Relativity then you do, when you are just going to ignore it?

I made this point to Njorl. Ultimately, there is only one reality - of course. The fact that we see so many diverse opinions of this reality is actually a proof that the mind is holding reality to ransom. That the mind is responsible for the reality it is seeing.

It is nothing of the sort. Take two men each standing next to a building and some distance apart form each other. To each man, the Other building will have a smaller angular size compared to the one he is standing next to. This is just a matter sight lines and the relative distance between the two.

Neither can you say that is the "viewer's" distance from the other building, rather than the other building's distance from the "viewer" that "causes" this. It is meaningless to distinguish between the two. You can only talk about the distance between the two, and not which one is "really" removed from the other.

The same is true for velocity; you can never say which object is "really" moving, and it is meaningless to make the distinction.

And like Relative distance, Relative velocity has effects on the measurements between objects.

There is no need to assume that is just "tricks of the mind".

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Tom
LG, you are kind of sandbagging your own topic here, because none of these issues has to do with discrediting materialism. It has only to do with discrediting relativity.

Knowledge is material (form). Wisdom is immaterial (essence). This in and of itself is a discredit to materialism, if materialism by itself is to be considered an answer.

If I'm correct, then the whole point of his argument is to discredit materialism, in order to allude to a "spiritual reality" beyond it. I for one believe that one exists (notice I said "believe" here for your benefit), which is the only reason why I bring it up. And, although I still haven't quite figured out his "complete assessment," I do see a lot of validity to the things he says about human perception (which others seem to want to dismiss?). I don't know, sometimes you have to be willing to look at things a bit differently in order to get at what someone's trying to suggest?

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Tom
The question (“what does a second feel like?”) is meaningless because it has no unique answer.

A second has a unique meaning for each individual, as does a meter.
If this was not so, then what's the Lorentz transformation about? What's the twin paradox about? The mathematics depend upon unique experience of spatial and temporal perception; or there can be no mathematics of Relativity.
However, it is my contention that there is a constancy within the human-mind of how a meter is perceived in relation to everything else. And there is also a constancy within the human-mind of how that mind perceives change in relation to those things which exist within his awareness.
My personal 'meter', for example, is a constant - because it is judged in relation to other things. 'Distort' the space between me & the moon, for example, and you distort my understanding of a meter, accordingly. Hence, my experience of that 'meter' remains constant - even though my space, in this case, has altered.
And that's exactly what happens with Relativity: There is no doubt that the space & time of each individual is affected, comparatively with other observers, as he accelerates through space. The twin-paradox proves this. And yet, how each twin experiences his meter and his second, remains constant. The feel for any mathematical-value of time & space is constant, regardless of how that time & space is actually distorted.

The “feeling” of time passing (if that does really exist) is not precise enough for science or philosophy. It is better to stick to “measurements” of time passing, as on a clock.

The feeling of passing-time is so precise that a whole science of Relativity is founded upon it. It is this constancy of feeling/perception/sensation (for all observers), which enables science to apply universally-perceived laws of motion.

Then you need to try harder, because it is correct. The twin who takes off notices nothing strange before or after blasting off from Earth.

I acknowledge this. This is exactly what I've been talking about, all along. The human perception of a meter and a second is a constant, regardless of the fact that space & time are clearly affected/distorted by motion.

You seem to be forgetting the Golden Rule of science: The universe dictates its nature to us, not the other way around.”

The universe does not know what a meter is; nor a second.

There is no reason to conclude that the mind is “responsible” for it. It is both possible and plausible to say that the material universe is “responsible” for generating the excitations in our brains.

When two people have different experiences of the same universe, then how do you conclude that those different experiences are supplied by that universe?
You say that such a scenario is plausible. Will you please explain your reasoning behind that conclusion?

No. The factor is just a number. Asking people to accept that dx/dt is not the same as dx’/dt’ is—exactly as kyleb said—the same as asking people to accept that 1/2 is not the same as 2/4.

Exactly: the factor is just a number to which both observers concur. However, dx/dt and dx'/dt' (the factor) are meaningless without the qualifying parameters which proceed that value. Those qualifying-parameters are, of course, meters and seconds. And all observers have a unique perspective of meters and seconds in relation to the universe he perceives.
Hence; though the factor is universal, the qualification of that factor using personal parameters of experience, actually gives an individual meaning to each observer, of that factor.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Tom
I would like to point out that we are getting lost in all sorts of side issues here.

My argument pertains to reality. It is obvious that we should have to talk about things other than physics.

To boot, they are issues that have already been discussed in PF v2.0 (eg: the fact that c really is the same for everyone).

Where did I say that it is not?

LG, you are kind of sandbagging your own topic here, because none of these issues has to do with discrediting materialism. It has only to do with discrediting relativity.

Nonsense Tom. I am using Relativity as a means to my conclusions. If I discredit Relativity, then I instantly discredit those very conclusions.

You said that your aim was to show that we are not obligated to accept materialism if we accept science, and that you are not "anti-science". This topic has mutated into just the opposite: It has nothing to do with discrediting materialism, and it is degenerating into an anti-science thread.

You've completely made that up, for effect. And if you haven't made it up, then you should justify it.
Any comments I have made here are challenging materialism. Fact. Not science.

 

[N_Quire]

Lifegazer wrote: "I'm taking no crap from anyone. If you want to rubbish my argument, then deal with the argument I have presented. Okay? Otherwise, take a hike. I'm not interested in hearing unsupported conclusions about my overall-philosophy. Nor am I interested in what you think about my capabilities. I'm only interested in my argument.
If this argument is to be condemned, then it shall be condemned by reason. Not by evasive snobbery."

-------------------------------------------------------------------

This is standard Lifegazer practice. Anyone not agreeing with your endless repetition of the same argument is insulted and told to go elsewhere. What you are doing and saying is nothing new. There exist entire systems of thought which ignore or suspend the laws of nature. Such systems have millions of followers and provide many of them with meaning. They are variously entitled religion, the occult, astrology, pseudo-science, mysticism, etc, etc.

Your thought is firmly entrenched within that tradition. It is not science and it is not philosophy. If I am to be polite, it is phenomenology, a thoroughly discredited philosophy. If I am to be accurate, you engage in pseudo-scientific babble or mysticism which displays little or no understanding of established knowledge. It goes round and round in circles and enlightens no one. So yes, I will take a hike.

 

[Janus]

Originally posted by Lifegazer


Nonsense Tom. I am using Relativity as a means to my conclusions.

No you are not, You are using "LG's mis-interpretations of Relativity"

And even then, there is no logical connection between your "means" and "conclusions".

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by N_Quire
Lifegazer wrote: "I'm taking no crap from anyone. If you want to rubbish my argument, then deal with the argument I have presented. Okay? Otherwise, take a hike. I'm not interested in hearing unsupported conclusions about my overall-philosophy. Nor am I interested in what you think about my capabilities. I'm only interested in my argument.
If this argument is to be condemned, then it shall be condemned by reason. Not by evasive snobbery."

This is standard Lifegazer practice.

Yes. From time to time I have to remind people such as yourself that attacking my persona or capability does not discredit my argument - because it doesn't even address my argument.
It seems to me that you cannot grasp this simple point... because the content of this post is again equally-meaningless in regards to my argument.

Anyone not agreeing with your endless repetition of the same argument is insulted and told to go elsewhere.

That's not true. Anyone who condemns me and my philosophy - without justification - is told to go elsewhere. Reasoned criticism of my argument is welcomed, and is responded to respectfully. But you've made two antagonistic posts here that mention nothing I have said in my argument. And that's a disgrace. Do you understand?

What you are doing and saying is nothing new. There exist entire systems of thought which ignore or suspend the laws of nature. Such systems have millions of followers and provide many of them with meaning. They are variously entitled religion, the occult, astrology, pseudo-science, mysticism, etc, etc.

How does this address my argument? Which specific points of my argument have you countered with this propoganda?

Your thought is firmly entrenched within that tradition.

My thought is entrenched within reason.

It is not science and it is not philosophy. If I am to be polite, it is phenomenology, a thoroughly discredited philosophy.

LOL. That's absolute nonsense. I cordially invite you to prove that materialists are absolutely-correct. Otherwise, I demand that you retract that statement, for sincerity's sake.

If I am to be accurate, you engage in pseudo-scientific babble or mysticism which displays little or no understanding of established knowledge. It goes round and round in circles and enlightens no one. So yes, I will take a hike.

More antagonistic non-referential nonsense and snobbery. But this shall be the last of it. You must learn to counter reason directly. You must learn to address arguments specifically.

 

[kyleb]

sersiously Lifegazer, present some reason and no one will be complaining.

 

[N_Quire]

Lifegazer, If it were serious philosophy or science, I would be willing to debate. However, this topic is pseudo-science or, if you like, introspective theory development with no scientific or philosophical basis, which is why I have hiked.

 

[CJames]

I see a lot of semantics here about the meaning of a second, the meaning of a meter, the meaning of constant speed. It all pretty much deviates from the ultimate point.

LG, I'm going to try to paraphrase your argument. Let me know if I'm making a mistake.

"Because experience is unique to the observer, experience is created by the observer."

Is that correct?

If it is, I don't see any logic connecting the premise to the conclusion. If there is some, please post it. And despite your objections to it, please use the established form of logic, not the "reason" you always refer to. Make sure the premises necessarily imply the conclusion. I should be able to replace oranges with apples in your argument, and the conclusion still be true. The validity of a logical argument is about the structure of the argument, not the content of the information.

 

[quantumdude]

A second has a unique meaning for each individual, as does a meter.
If this was not so, then what's the Lorentz transformation about? What's the twin paradox about? The mathematics depend upon unique experience of spatial and temporal perception; or there can be no mathematics of Relativity.

No, seconds and meters are precisely defined, and those definitions do not change from one observer to another. The fact that different people disagree on measurements does not conflict with that.

My personal 'meter', for example, is a constant - because it is judged in relation to other things. 'Distort' the space between me & the moon, for example, and you distort my understanding of a meter, accordingly. Hence, my experience of that 'meter' remains constant - even though my space, in this case, has altered. And that's exactly what happens with Relativity: There is no doubt that the space & time of each individual is affected, comparatively with other observers, as he accelerates through space.

There is no reason that your “understanding of a mteter” should be distorted. All relativity tells you is that measurements are affected in a way that we previously did not know about.

The twin-paradox proves this. And yet, how each twin experiences his meter and his second, remains constant. The feel for any mathematical-value of time & space is constant, regardless of how that time & space is actually distorted.


The feeling of passing-time is so precise that a whole science of Relativity is founded upon it. It is this constancy of feeling/perception/sensation (for all observers), which enables science to apply universally-perceived laws of motion.

Boy, have you got it wrong. First, the “feeling of time passing” is not precisely defined at all. Second, SR does not make any use of such a notion. It speaks only of measurements.

Tom: You seem to be forgetting the Golden Rule of science: The universe dictates its nature to us, not the other way around.”

LG: The universe does not know what a meter is; nor a second.

Of course not, but the outcome of the measurements we perform on things in the universe is determined by the universe, not by reason or common sense. That was my point.

When two people have different experiences of the same universe, then how do you conclude that those different experiences are supplied by that universe?
You say that such a scenario is plausible. Will you please explain your reasoning behind that conclusion?

I did not conclude it (edit: that materialism is necessary), any more that you concluded that it all takes place in The Mind. My point was that the two notions (SR and materialism) are consistent with each other.

edit: I gave the discussion earlier, namely that the difference in our observations can be attributed to the difference in physical orientation of data receptors. What is so hard to understand about that?

Exactly: the factor is just a number to which both observers concur. However, dx/dt and dx'/dt' (the factor) are meaningless without the qualifying parameters which proceed that value. Those qualifying-parameters are, of course, meters and seconds. And all observers have a unique perspective of meters and seconds in relation to the universe he perceives. Hence; though the factor is universal, the qualification of that factor using personal parameters of experience, actually gives an individual meaning to each observer, of that factor.

This makes absolutely no sense.

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
My argument pertains to reality. It is obvious that we should have to talk about things other than physics.

Your argument has become an attempt to rewrite relativity to suit your limited understanding.

Where did I say that it is not?

Among other places, here:

"The two equations you used really need an experiential- qualification: instead of saying dx/dt=c, and dx'/dt'=c, you really need to say: dx/dt=c, and dx'/dt'=c'."

Nonsense Tom. I am using Relativity as a means to my conclusions. If I discredit Relativity, then I instantly discredit those very conclusions.

No, what I said is accurate. You only disagree because you have either ignored or dismissed everything I have ever said to you.

You've completely made that up, for effect. And if you haven't made it up, then you should justify it.
Any comments I have made here are challenging materialism. Fact. Not science.

No, childish grandstanding is your department, not mine. This thread has become a combination of pseudoscience and pseudophilosophy, and I have pointed out where you went wrong along the way.

 

[quantumdude]

N Quire: It is not science and it is not philosophy. If I am to be polite, it is phenomenology, a thoroughly discredited philosophy.

LG: LOL. That's absolute nonsense. I cordially invite you to prove that materialists are absolutely-correct. Otherwise, I demand that you retract that statement, for sincerity's sake.

N Quire is correct, and no proof of materialism is needed to understand his point. You are supposed to be the one doing the proving here, and you have not done it. You are drawing flak because you keep insisting that you have proven your case, despite the holes in your argument. In this case, you have simply assumed and asserted your conclusion. I noted where you did it a couple of pages ago.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by CJames
I see a lot of semantics here about the meaning of a second, the meaning of a meter, the meaning of constant speed. It all pretty much deviates from the ultimate point.

But it's integral to the ultimate point. If there are a hypothetical infinite-number of observers with an infinite-number of perceptions/understandings of reality - and yet, only one absolute-reality shared by all - then it is plainly obvious that what each observer is 'seeing' is a construct of his own mind, in relation to that reality.

LG, I'm going to try to paraphrase your argument. Let me know if I'm making a mistake.

"Because experience is unique to the observer, experience is created by the observer."

Is that correct?

That is one main point, and I have briefly commented upon it above.
But the main point for pushing this argument, is that the observer himself is responsible for the particular/unique spacetime he is observing, via his own motion/acceleration in relation to the 'things' which he is observing.
For example, when the space-twin accelerates from Earth, he distorts his own spacetime - fact. When he comes back to Earth, his spacetime changes again, in line with that of his now-older brother.
Clearly, the motion of the observer wrt the things he perceives of, is responsible for the particular space-time he is experiencing... is responsible for the particular reality he is observing.
It should be remembered that Relativity isn't just some sort of weird mind-thing which happens to each individual. We're discussing tangible/physical changes here, experienced by each observer. Each observer's experience of physical-reality is different, and the nature of that reality is dependent upon the actions/motion of that observer.
Clearly, if the very-nature of the universe you can see is physically altered at the whim of your own motion, then it is as clear as daylight that the reality you can see is somehow dependent upon you. Your whole universe dances to your tune.
Your whole universe is happening inside your own mind. As is mine. As is everyones.

If it is, I don't see any logic connecting the premise to the conclusion. If there is some, please post it.

In brief, as above. But I have discussed these things in detail, throughout the thread.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Tom
No, seconds and meters are precisely defined, and those definitions do not change from one observer to another. The fact that different people disagree on measurements does not conflict with that.

I agree with this. However, it's quite interesting that 2 paragraphs later you say this: "Boy, have you got it wrong. First, the “feeling of time passing” is not precisely defined at all."
If physics and maths are formulated upon human-experience, and those feelings/sensations/perceptions are not precisely defined, then how is it that seconds and meters are precisely defined, as you yourself have acknowledged?
What you're failing to realize, is that the definition of a second is a definition of the “feeling of time passing”. Langauge proceeds experience.
Not only are you comments in contradiction of one-another; they also show that you haven't grasped this essential point. ~Definition~ is an expression of experience.
So, if the "“feeling of time passing” is not precisely defined at all", then obviously, we would have no definition of time - seconds.

There is no reason that your “understanding of a mteter” should be distorted. All relativity tells you is that measurements are affected in a way that we previously did not know about.

My personal understanding of a meter (and of a second) is a fixed-constant, gleaned in relation to the universe I am perceiving. So, even as spacetime is distorted, I would not notice it, because my ~understanding~ is not affected.
But the twin-paradox proves that "personal understanding" is irrelevant here - because spacetime is subject to distortion/flux - as proved by the twin-paradox, for example.

Of course not, but the outcome of the measurements we perform on things in the universe is determined by the universe, not by reason or common sense. That was my point.

Are you insisting (as materialists do) that the physical-universe is directly responsible for the Laws which govern it?
Any argument which challenges materialism (as does mine, here), cannot simply be countered with #assertions# that everything is determined by the universe. You must at least justify those assertions.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
Are you insisting (as materialists do) that the physical-universe is directly responsible for the Laws which govern it?
Any argument which challenges materialism (as does mine, here), cannot simply be countered with #assertions# that everything is determined by the universe. You must at least justify those assertions.

Boy, here we go again. Every materialist assertion must be justified in your opinion. But as you know, every philosophical or theoretical thought system uses basic premises which can't be proofed, but are hold to be reasonable assumptions which are not in doubt.
The assertion that everything is determined by the universe, is such a basic premise, which can not be proofed. It can be justified however, because any other thought system that is based on the negation of this premise, is more suspicious and more unreasonable then the original premise.
For instance the negation of the premise that everything is determined by the universe would be that at least something was determined by something else as the universe. We just have to figure out what this "something else as the universe" would be, but it shows up that that is just another name for God. How reasonable is THAT assumption?

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by heusdens
Boy, here we go again. Every materialist assertion must be justified in your opinion.

In a philosophical debate about reality, this should be the case. At least I am trying to support my conclusions with reason. So why do you expect me to just accept assertions as a counter to my argument? Surely you can see the sense in that, if nothing else.

But as you know, every philosophical or theoretical thought system uses basic premises which can't be proofed, but are hold to be reasonable assumptions which are not in doubt.

For the purposes of my own argument, I used basic axioms of Relativity, which relate to the universe as we perceive it.
Now, it is a fact that we perceive a universe as we do. And it is also a fact that Relativity has been proven to qualify the nature of those perceptions. I then proceeded to use these facts to build towards my conclusion. Hence, methodically, I don't see how you can accuse me of assuming anything.
However; clearly, materialists are just assuming that reality exists outside of our perceptions, and that this reality is imposing itself upon our minds. Therefore, I reiterate my complaint: why am I just expected to accept materialistic-assertions as a counter to my own argument? I'm looking for reasoned counters to whatever I say.

The assertion that everything is determined by the universe, is such a basic premise, which can not be proofed. It can be justified however, because any other thought system that is based on the negation of this premise, is more suspicious and more unreasonable then the original premise.

Going on gut-feeling eh.

For instance the negation of the premise that everything is determined by the universe would be that at least something was determined by something else as the universe. We just have to figure out what this "something else as the universe" would be, but it shows up that that is just another name for God. How reasonable is THAT assumption?

Actually, I don't think that the big guy with the white beard has had a mention so far. Not directly, anyway. But I'd be interested in knowing why you think such a conclusion is unreasonable, given that my argument is supposed to be reasoned. More gut-feeling?

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
In a philosophical debate about reality, this should be the case. At least I am trying to support my conclusions with reason. So why do you expect me to just accept assertions as a counter to my argument? Surely you can see the sense in that, if nothing else.

Because the assertion are basic assumptions, and the reason we accept the basic assumptions is that the choosen assumptions are more reasonable then the negation of those assumptions.

For the purposes of my own argument, I used basic axioms of Relativity, which relate to the universe as we perceive it.
Now, it is a fact that we perceive a universe as we do. And it is also a fact that Relativity has been proven to qualify the nature of those perceptions. I then proceeded to use these facts to build towards my conclusion. Hence, methodically, I don't see how you can accuse me of assuming anything.
However; clearly, materialists are just assuming that reality exists outside of our perceptions, and that this reality is imposing itself upon our minds. Therefore, I reiterate my complaint: why am I just expected to accept materialistic-assertions as a counter to my own argument? I'm looking for reasoned counters to whatever I say.

I was not arguing about relativity, and for sure we have a more profound debate then relativity. We deal here with the philosophical issue of the basic premises of materialism, with which you seem to have a problem.

This goes basically about wether or not in first instance there is material existence, and only secondary a mind (the approach of materialism) or whether there is at first mind, and only secondary matter (the approach of idealism).

In first instance, the materialist assertion, is a basic assumption.
It is something that can not be proven, same as axioms in mathematics can not be proven.

But the choice of this basic assumption is of course not arbitrary.

So tell me what is unreasonable about this basic assumption of materialism, and tell me what you want to replace it with.

Actually, I don't think that the big guy with the white beard has had a mention so far. Not directly, anyway. But I'd be interested in knowing why you think such a conclusion is unreasonable, given that my argument is supposed to be reasoned. More gut-feeling?

I interpret any deviation from materialism as inspired by idealism, wether this is formulated as a "first cause" or as "mind" which serves as an explenation for the world.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Tom
Your argument has become an attempt to rewrite relativity to suit your limited understanding.

That's just not true. My recent post to CJames shows that my conclusions are founded upon Relativity as it is understood.
The debate has dealt with side-issues, also. For example, I have clearly pointed-out to you the value of experience itself, and shown how measurement and definition are merely expressions of this experience. Your insistence that "experience has no value" is obviously an oversight on your part. The value of experience is evident in the language we use to define it. Langauge proceeds experience - even mathematical language.
Also, my point to you about dx'/dt' = c', was not a challenge to the constancy of lightspeed - but an attempt to show you how each observer has a unique experience of that numerical value - in exactly the same manner that each observer has a unique experience of '1' meter and '1' second.
Why is it that you so-readily understand the concept that everybody has a unique experience of 1m and 1s; yet cannot extend this chain-of-reason to 1m/s? Clearly, given that each observer has a unique experience of the meter and the second, it should be obvious that any given velocity should be qualified as acknowledging the uniqueness of those parameters.

Among other places, here:

"The two equations you used really need an experiential- qualification: instead of saying dx/dt=c, and dx'/dt'=c, you really need to say: dx/dt=c, and dx'/dt'=c'."

This does not change the speed-of-light for anybody. It merely acknowledges the uniqueness of each observer's meter and second, in relation to the space-time he is observing at any given time.
If the space-twin observes light passing through x meters in a second, it is obvious that this is not absolutely the same thing as the Earth-twin observing light passing through x meters in a second - merely because both twins have a different perception of the meter and the second.

No, what I said is accurate. You only disagree because you have either ignored or dismissed everything I have ever said to you.

The word you are looking for, is 'countered'. I do not ignore you. Nor do I dismiss what you say. I think about what you say and then if I think you are mistaken, I counter you. That's the way a debate should happen.

No, childish grandstanding is your department, not mine.

Well, the fact that I fight to give my argument a fair hearing, is because few people are willing to do just that. Some of the responses in this thread have been completely evasive to my argument. And like I said: if this argument should fail, it should fail by reasoned-counter alone. Not politics or snobbery.

This thread has become a combination of pseudoscience and pseudophilosophy, and I have pointed out where you went wrong along the way.

That's your opinion. But in my opinion, if you do not even acknowledge that 'measurement' is an expression of experience - hence validating the "value of experience" - then how am I expected to reason with you?

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by heusdens
Because the assertion are basic assumptions, and the reason we accept the basic assumptions is that the choosen assumptions are more reasonable then the negation of those assumptions.

Why is it more reasonable to believe that a reality exists beyond the Mind, than to believe that only the Mind exists (with its perceptions)?
We all have direct experience of a subjectively-perceived reality (a
mind-ful reality). However, it is completely impossible to even prove the existence of a single thing beyond that mind-ful experience. Hence, I'm struggling to see any justification within that statement. As far as I can see, it would be more reasonable to ~assert~ the existence of 'a Mind' - simply because that is all we have experience of.

I was not arguing about relativity, and for sure we have a more profound debate then relativity. We deal here with the philosophical issue of the basic premises of materialism, with which you seem to have a problem.

A quite-legitimate 'problem', I would say. And yes - it does go deeper than Relativity. However, I don't want to stray too far from the argument I have presented. Not yet, anyway.

This goes basically about wether or not in first instance there is material existence, and only secondary a mind (the approach of materialism) or whether there is at first mind, and only secondary matter (the approach of idealism).

In first instance, the materialist assertion, is a basic assumption.

I disagree. I fail to see how you can label an assertion as 'basic' if there is not one jot of proof to support such a reality.

It is something that can not be proven, same as axioms in mathematics can not be proven.

Axioms about mathematics are due different consideration than axioms about 'reality'. Mathematics is a conceptual language of the perceived universe. In fact, whether reality is external or internal would not affect mathematics in the slightest.

So tell me what is unreasonable about this basic assumption of materialism, and tell me what you want to replace it with.

Apart from the objections raised in this post, I could talk about this all day from many different approaches; including causality, evolution, thought (and dreams), motion, space, placebo-effect, emotions, sensory-experience, universal-order and Law... and now, relativity. I've lost track of the number of approaches I've taken in my challenge to materialism. Needless to say, that challenge is legitimate and credible. Unfortunately, few here take it seriously enough to partake of mature debate about such issues.

I interpret any deviation from materialism as inspired by idealism, wether this is formulated as a "first cause" or as "mind" which serves as an explenation for the world.

And?

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
Why is it more reasonable to believe that a reality exists beyond the Mind, than to believe that only the Mind exists (with its perceptions)?
We all have direct experience of a subjectively-perceived reality (a
mind-ful reality). However, it is completely impossible to even prove the existence of a single thing beyond that mind-ful experience. Hence, I'm struggling to see any justification within that statement. As far as I can see, it would be more reasonable to ~assert~ the existence of 'a Mind' - simply because that is all we have experience of.

The statement is that a material reality exist, and that our mind is just part of that reality. There is no distinction between 'outside' and 'inside' reality.

You argue from a standpoint of solipsism, in which the only reality that exsists, is your own mind. Even the existence of other minds is doubted in that perspective.

Although this is position one can take in theoretical debate, for practical reasons however all solipsists are materiralists (but just won't admit). If a solipsist is nearly hit by a car, he will step aside to avoid being hit by the car, and won't argue that the car is not reality, but just something that takes place in his or her mind.

See how easy it is to prove your real position in life?

(Unless you are both solipsist and suicidal, of course...)

I disagree. I fail to see how you can label an assertion as 'basic' if there is not one jot of proof to support such a reality.

I think there is a whole reality that supports the position of materialism. It is has been proven a fruitfull position and has lead to many scientific discoveries. If it would not be for the materialist position, there would not have been so much bothering in researching the material world, and discover how the material world really works.

Apart from the objections raised in this post, I could talk about this all day from many different approaches; including causality, evolution, thought (and dreams), motion, space, placebo-effect, emotions, sensory-experience, universal-order and Law... and now, relativity. I've lost track of the number of approaches I've taken in my challenge to materialism. Needless to say, that challenge is legitimate and credible. Unfortunately, few here take it seriously enough to partake of mature debate about such issues.

Please explain to us what will happen to the outer world when your mind dies?

If allt things only happen within your mind, I care to know about that.

Maybe you relax from the position of solpisism, and at least consider the fact that not only your mind exists, but also those of others.
Which would at least lead to the fact that there is an 'outside' reality.

Unless of course you claim that all minds are parts of one bigger mind.

And explain me one other thing. There was a time in which the world existed, but not your mind. You don't have direct experience of that, but you have been told. Were all people lying about that fact?