Relativity

[juvenissun]

How do we determine what is the truth?

How are "metaphysical elements" part of science?

Tell you a truth: if my gun is bigger, then what I said is the truth.

 

[Davian]

How do we determine what is the truth?

How are "metaphysical elements" part of science?

Tell you a truth: if my gun is bigger, then what I said is the truth.

So, might makes right?

 

[juvenissun]

So, might makes right?

Exactly. The most powerful one says the truth.

Sorry, Resha, I will shut up.

 

[Hobz]

Tell you a truth: if my gun is bigger, then what I said is the truth.

Tell you a truth: if you need a big gun to convince people, your message is weak, and people are less inclined to listen.

But enough of the derail, I was asking Resha an honest question.

 

[[serious]]

First of all, thanks for the reply.



Yes, it certainly would. But are people holding their breath, hoping the results will be invalidated? I would expect someone is working furiously to support the findings with a theoretical framework. Unless it's a big secret, hasn't someone started brainstorming what that would be?



Like this. Isn't this a concept that is no longer valid, given the quantum foam and such. It seems light has a medium for its propagation through "space" after all ... or is there something I'm missing.

The general sense I'm getting is skeptical optimism. It's really exciting if such a major part of physics is overthrown, but to overthrow so many decades of science takes a whole lot of proof.

 

[Resha Caner]

How do we determine what is the truth?

How are "metaphysical elements" part of science?

The advocates of science who bother me the most are those who can't articulate the assumptions behind what they say ... or who think they can prove their assumptions ... or who think the predictive power of their theory makes their assumptions better than other assumptions.

I may disagree with someone's theory of evolution or time or randomness vs. determinism, but I will greatly respect them if they recognize one thing about science. Attempts to make science complete cannot escape Godel's Incompleteness Theorum. They will either become circular or an infinite regress. In the end, everything must make an appeal to something above itself. It must appeal to the self-evident or the self-actuating.

Whatever you think that appeal is, that is where you claim to find your truth.

 

[[serious]]

The advocates of science who bother me the most are those who can't articulate the assumptions behind what they say ... or who think they can prove their assumptions ... or who think the predictive power of their theory makes their assumptions better than other assumptions.

I may disagree with someone's theory of evolution or time or randomness vs. determinism, but I will greatly respect them if they recognize one thing about science. Attempts to make science complete cannot escape Godel's Incompleteness Theorum. They will either become circular or an infinite regress. In the end, everything must make an appeal to something above itself. It must appeal to the self-evident or the self-actuating.

Whatever you think that appeal is, that is where you claim to find your truth.

Science has pretty easy assumptions, but they are basic enough that they are generally glossed over. I'll give my list in my own words before looking up anyone else's. Here's my list:
1. Causation. Events have causes and these causes are knowable.
-1a. Likewise, an event previously linked with a cause is evidence for that earlier event. "The cake is gone. Last time i came home to the cake disappearing, it was because my wife ate it. Hence, it is likely my wife once again ate it."
2. Reliability of observation. What we see is what actually is. "I see the cake plate has no cake on it. hence, there is no cake there."
3. Constant rules. Basic laws of physics are assumed to be unchanged. "one cake plus one cake is two cakes. I bet that was true 2000 years ago as well."
-3a Observed rules and fomulae are approximations by and large. Relativistic effects, for example, are ignored for most slow speed applications because the changes introduced are smaller than the precision we need.

Now to look up a more "official" list of assumptions:

first result was from Berkley:

There are natural causes for things that happen in the world around us. For example, if a ball falls to the ground, science assumes that there must be a natural explanation for why the ball moves downward once released. Right now, scientists can describe gravity in great detail, but exactly what gravity is remains elusive. Still, science assumes that there is an explanation for gravity that relies on natural causes, just as there is for everything in nature.

Evidence from the natural world can be used to learn about those causes. Science assumes that we can learn about gravity and why a ball falls by studying evidence from the natural world. Scientists can perform experiments with other falling objects, observe how gravity affects the orbits of the planets, etc. Evidence from a wide range of experiments and observations helps scientists understand more about the natural causes of gravity.

There is consistency in the causes that operate in the natural world. In other words, the same causes come into play in related situations and these causes are predictable. For example, science assumes that the gravitational forces at work on a falling ball are related to those at work on other falling objects. It is further assumed that the workings of gravity don't change from moment to moment and object to object in unpredictable ways. Hence, what we learn about gravity today by studying falling balls can also be used to understand, for example, modern satellite orbits, the formation of the moon in the distant past, and the movements of the planets and stars in the future, because the same natural cause is at work regardless of when and where things happen.

I think I did pretty good.

 

[Resha Caner]

I think I did pretty good.

Yeah, that's a good start (although grammatically it should be "well", not "good" ). Most of all I appreciate this because it facilitates a discussion rather than, "I'm right because you're stupid." There is also an interesting difference between your list and the Berkley list. To help you understand, let me give you 3 levels of acceptance.

1. The engineering level. Since that's my profession, it's where I actually do my science. The engineering level is the "practical" one. IOW, would changing your wording affect how I do my job? Not really. So, I accept your list at the engineering level.

2. The scientific level. At a scientific level I would need to challenge you about a few things:

A. Causation. Since the Copenhagen Interpretation, I think most scientists would not say that causes are knowable, but that they are observable - an important difference. That subtle change allows for causeless events. So, for example, there is no known cause for the probability distribution of an electron (IIRC). In the eyes of a modern physicist that doesn't invalidate the theory. They can observe the effect so it is valid. It is only the cause they can't observe. As such, the cause is an open question. Maybe someday it will be observed, or maybe it's causeless. Either is OK as far as they are concerned.

B. Constancy. This is a matter of how you look at it. Actually, physicists now wonder if some phenomena are not constant. Earlier in this thread I mentioned that one possible explanation being considered for CERN's faster than light data is that the speed of light is not constant. For some time physicists have thought that the nature of our universe changed from the moment of the big bang until now. Whether that is a violation of constancy or not is up for debate. Is it that all physical laws are subject to change, or is it merely that some of the things we have called laws are contingent on yet deeper laws?

While the causation issue (A) doesn't seem to be as big a deal, the constancy issue (B) is a huge deal. Off and on I've worked on an idea for material contingency as an effect in mechanics, but it renders mechanics so monstrously difficult to obtain that so far I've had to fall back into that engineering acceptance of parsimony.

3. The philosophical level.Here is where I finally mention the issue I first hinted at. Your list of assumptions left out the final appeal, but the Berkley list did not. They appealed to "nature." I started a thread awhile back challenging people to give an intelligible definition of nature, and so far no one has done it.

I would replace "nature" with the appeal that "God is faithful." So, it is not to some idea of nature that we attribute that the things we observe are real, that they are constant, that they have a cause, but to the fact that God is faithful to the physical world he has created.

 

[Jazer]

Tell you a truth: if my gun is bigger, then what I said is the truth.

Why because your going to shoot everyone that does not go along with your truth?

 

[[serious]]

Yeah, that's a good start (although grammatically it should be "well", not "good" ). Most of all I appreciate this because it facilitates a discussion rather than, "I'm right because you're stupid." There is also an interesting difference between your list and the Berkley list. To help you understand, let me give you 3 levels of acceptance.

1. The engineering level. Since that's my profession, it's where I actually do my science. The engineering level is the "practical" one. IOW, would changing your wording affect how I do my job? Not really. So, I accept your list at the engineering level.

2. The scientific level. At a scientific level I would need to challenge you about a few things:

A. Causation. Since the Copenhagen Interpretation, I think most scientists would not say that causes are knowable, but that they are observable - an important difference. That subtle change allows for causeless events. So, for example, there is no known cause for the probability distribution of an electron (IIRC). In the eyes of a modern physicist that doesn't invalidate the theory. They can observe the effect so it is valid. It is only the cause they can't observe. As such, the cause is an open question. Maybe someday it will be observed, or maybe it's causeless. Either is OK as far as they are concerned.

B. Constancy. This is a matter of how you look at it. Actually, physicists now wonder if some phenomena are not constant. Earlier in this thread I mentioned that one possible explanation being considered for CERN's faster than light data is that the speed of light is not constant. For some time physicists have thought that the nature of our universe changed from the moment of the big bang until now. Whether that is a violation of constancy or not is up for debate. Is it that all physical laws are subject to change, or is it merely that some of the things we have called laws are contingent on yet deeper laws?

While the causation issue (A) doesn't seem to be as big a deal, the constancy issue (B) is a huge deal. Off and on I've worked on an idea for material contingency as an effect in mechanics, but it renders mechanics so monstrously difficult to obtain that so far I've had to fall back into that engineering acceptance of parsimony.

3. The philosophical level.Here is where I finally mention the issue I first hinted at. Your list of assumptions left out the final appeal, but the Berkley list did not. They appealed to "nature." I started a thread awhile back challenging people to give an intelligible definition of nature, and so far no one has done it.

I would replace "nature" with the appeal that "God is faithful." So, it is not to some idea of nature that we attribute that the things we observe are real, that they are constant, that they have a cause, but to the fact that God is faithful to the physical world he has created.

Just to be clear, I wasn't trying to change anything. That was, "Hmm, it's been about a decade since I last heard a peep about this. How well can I remember what they are?" Even at that, it ended up being more of "Hmm, can't remember what they were. Well, what SHOULD they be"

The Berkeley list is far superior to mine along a variety of metrics and should be the one we base further discussion on. Mine was more of, "can some random High School science teacher do a passable job of answering the question on the spot?"

 

[Hobz]

Attempts to make science complete cannot escape Godel's Incompleteness Theorum. They will either become circular or an infinite regress. In the end, everything must make an appeal to something above itself.

Defining God as the one thing which does not require a cause/beginning in order to exist, seems to me like a very unimaginative and "cheap" way to avoid the real problems we have with the origins of the universe.

Uniformitarianism could be an interesting issue, but I don't know of any results which show laws or constants changing in a non-determinable way. I'd love some links of any interesting information you may have found, I do love stretcing those brain muscles.

I would replace "nature" with the appeal that "God is faithful." So, it is not to some idea of nature that we attribute that the things we observe are real, that they are constant, that they have a cause, but to the fact that God is faithful to the physical world he has created.

It is equally likely (from a scientific viewpoint) that God simply abandoned the Earth and left the laws in the state they were when he departed. To say God would need to be faithful to the world to maintain constancy in the laws, is to say God can't create static unchanging laws to begin with.

Besides, by definition the practice of science does not (simply because it is unable to) deal with anything which is truely metaphysical. These are philosophical questions which have little to no bearing on science. Science follows observable evidence and conclusions based on the evidence and reason. Do you think there is anything to gain by applying the metaphysical to science? If so, would it be the simple acceptance that unexplainable events do occur, or would you advocate a specific flavor of the metaphysical?

Religious beliefs aside, I personally haven't found a scientific situation where the application of a religious or metaphysical worldview would ever confer an advantage to science (or an advantage to religion). Usually strict adherance to a particular metaphysical or theological worldview makes it impossible to practice science without a strong bias, examples are numerous in much creation science work.

 

[Resha Caner]

I was careful to separate my personal belief from the issue at hand. My personal belief is that God is the causeless cause - the I AM. I realize that one could imagine many other possibilities, but that does not make my belief cheap or an easy way out. I never meant to say people should stop investigating the fringe questions.

Further, do not confuse metaphysical issues with religious/spiritual issues. "Number" is a metaphysical issue. One could, like the Pythagoreans, make Number a religious issue, but that is not a necessity. Do you agree with the Berkeley list? Then you have added a metaphysical element to science - this thing they call "nature." If you disagree, what would you put in its place?

I didn't claim there was a constant that changed in a non-determinable way. The question is, why do some things appear to be determined and some are not? I'm not sure how you would approach "why" questions such as that in any but a metaphysical way.

The same is true, then, of basing science on evidence and reason. Why are those reliable? And why some evidence but not other evidence? Some reason and not other reason? If all you're interested in is the "engineering level" I mentioned, then that's a question you don't care about. Shrug. OK. But no bait and switch allowed. Don't say that and then turn around and claim science does something more. I'm not accusing you of that. Just a friendly warning.

 

[juvenissun]

Science has pretty easy assumptions, but they are basic enough that they are generally glossed over. I'll give my list in my own words before looking up anyone else's. Here's my list:
1. Causation. Events have causes and these causes are knowable.
-1a. Likewise, an event previously linked with a cause is evidence for that earlier event. "The cake is gone. Last time i came home to the cake disappearing, it was because my wife ate it. Hence, it is likely my wife once again ate it."
2. Reliability of observation. What we see is what actually is. "I see the cake plate has no cake on it. hence, there is no cake there."
3. Constant rules. Basic laws of physics are assumed to be unchanged. "one cake plus one cake is two cakes. I bet that was true 2000 years ago as well."
-3a Observed rules and fomulae are approximations by and large. Relativistic effects, for example, are ignored for most slow speed applications because the changes introduced are smaller than the precision we need.

Now to look up a more "official" list of assumptions:

first result was from Berkley:


I think I did pretty good.

I think to a physicist or a chemist who lived on the earth, the list may be acceptable. But to a biologist, a geologist, or an astronomer, it falls short. I guess you may not want to call them scientists.

The first one may fail. There are causes that can never be known (happened only once)
The second one may fail. The more you look at one thing, the more you don't know what are you looking at.
The third one may fail in special cases of astronomy.

 

[[serious]]

I think to a physicist or a chemist who lived on the earth, the list may be acceptable. But to a biologist, a geologist, or an astronomer, it falls short. I guess you may not want to call them scientists.

The first one may fail. There are causes that can never be known (happened only once)
The second one may fail. The more you look at one thing, the more you don't know what are you looking at.
The third one may fail in special cases of astronomy.

For the first, I mean causes are theoretically knowable. There are lots of things we don't know the cause of, but that's fine. We may be waiting for technology to allow us to test it or we may just not have thought of an adequate explanation yet. Those aren't an issue.

For the second, What?

For the third, I think you are referencing rules being more complicated than first thought. For example, momentum used to be thought to be p = mv. Then, with more data, we found out that it was p = mv/sqrt(1 - (v/c)2). Well, for our previous observations the real formula was pretty much identical to the one we were using. The actual rules stuff followed didn't change, we gained a better understanding of those rules. The "rule breaking" shortly after the big bang isn't so much rule breaking as rules returning weird results under certain conditions.

 

[Hobz]

Sorry Resha, I didn't mean metaphysical as it pertains to metaphysics, I meant metaphysical as in: transcending physical matter or the laws of nature. This includes anything which does not have evidence based in reality and covers more than just the spiritual. These type of metaphysical elements by definition have no place within science, because they simply aren't natural elements to which berkeley refers. I should have been more clear given the context of your previous posts.

I'm not very familiar with the history of metaphysics, but assuming your 3 tiers of understanding, if the scientific level is where the empirical science takes place, I don't see the sense in having higher levels, what are they verified by if not by evidence? It seems to be an interesting school of thought, but with severely limited relevancy outside personal belief. It seems that conclusions based in metaphysics are never verifiable, and hence this is philosophy and not science.

I didn't claim there was a constant that changed in a non-determinable way. The question is, why do some things appear to be determined and some are not? I'm not sure how you would approach "why" questions such as that in any but a metaphysical way.

Could you explain to me why you think some things are determined and some aren't? I'm not sure I get what you're refering to.

The same is true, then, of basing science on evidence and reason. Why are those reliable? And why some evidence but not other evidence? Some reason and not other reason?

Evidence and reason have proven their reliability, different fields of science use totally different lines of evidence to reach the same conclusions, this is reliability. All evidence is equal and needs to be considered, when hasn't it been? Also any path of logic from premise to conclusions will yield the same result, reason/logic is consistant. The accuracy of science may be up for debate at times, but the reliability inherent in the scientific method is undebatable (Prove me wrong ).

Out of interest what other methods of inquiry do you propose as being useful to science? I'm not sure I quite get your point.

 

[juvenissun]

For the first, I mean causes are theoretically knowable. There are lots of things we don't know the cause of, but that's fine. We may be waiting for technology to allow us to test it or we may just not have thought of an adequate explanation yet. Those aren't an issue.

For the second, What?

For the third, I think you are referencing rules being more complicated than first thought. For example, momentum used to be thought to be p = mv. Then, with more data, we found out that it was p = mv/sqrt(1 - (v/c)2). Well, for our previous observations the real formula was pretty much identical to the one we were using. The actual rules stuff followed didn't change, we gained a better understanding of those rules. The "rule breaking" shortly after the big bang isn't so much rule breaking as rules returning weird results under certain conditions.

The first: For example, what cause the earth formation? Theoretically, we make models. But in fact, we don't know. So do we know the cause of not?

The second: For example, You see a gray rock. But when you break it down, you see red powder. Is the rock gray or red? From this example, I would completely reverse your second list: Seeing is deceiving.

 

[[serious]]

The first: For example, what cause the earth formation? Theoretically, we make models. But in fact, we don't know. So do we know the cause of not?

The second: For example, You see a gray rock. But when you break it down, you see red powder. Is the rock gray or red? From this example, I would completely reverse your second list: Seeing is deceiving.

You see the outer surface of the rock is gray. You break open the rock. You see the inside is red. both are accurate observations. What you seem to be talking about is assumptions. If we look at a rock, see that it's gray, and assume it's gray throughout, Our theory may be be disproven, but the observation is not.

 

[Resha Caner]

Sorry Resha, I didn't mean metaphysical as it pertains to metaphysics, I meant metaphysical as in: transcending physical matter or the laws of nature.

Yeah, I understood that. So what is "physical"? If you define everything to be physical, and then claim you don't see anything metaphysical, that's circular reasoning.

So, if science only pertains to the physical, then define for me those things that are not physical.

This includes anything which does not have evidence based in reality and covers more than just the spiritual. These type of metaphysical elements by definition have no place within science, because they simply aren't natural elements to which berkeley refers.

(emphasis mine)

Again, define these for me (i.e. the bolded words). Or better yet, explain what would not be reality or what would be unnatural. FYI, I see the preceeding challenge as a bit rhetorical.

I'm not very familiar with the history of metaphysics, but assuming your 3 tiers of understanding, if the scientific level is where the empirical science takes place, I don't see the sense in having higher levels, what are they verified by if not by evidence? It seems to be an interesting school of thought, but with severely limited relevancy outside personal belief. It seems that conclusions based in metaphysics are never verifiable, and hence this is philosophy and not science.

The 3 levels are not a formally accepted thing - just something of my own.

If I do my job well, you'll understand why I think this is important before we're done.

Could you explain to me why you think some things are determined and some aren't? I'm not sure I get what you're refering to.

It's not what I think. It's what current physics says. In the absence of other forces, gravity determines that a ball will fall to the earth. The probability function of an electron specfies what can happen, but it doesn't determine what will happen. It may tunnel, it may not.

Evidence and reason have proven their reliability ...

No they haven't (I can provide you some references if you're interested). This is called the "success of science" argument, and it doesn't hold any water. Are you familiar with the idea of falsifiability?

All evidence is equal and needs to be considered, when hasn't it been?

Well, let's see what you consider to be evidence first. Does evidence mean:
1) Sufficient knowledge is gathered to reproduce the event?
2) It is quantifiable?
3) It is a physical residue of the event that can be retained indefinitely?
4) It is independent of human sense & perception?

Also any path of logic from premise to conclusions will yield the same result, reason/logic is consistant.

Does this mean we can prove logic to be complete and no future addition will change any of our current conclusions? (Hint: Has anything been added to logic since Aristotle's time?)

The accuracy of science may be up for debate at times, but the reliability inherent in the scientific method is undebatable (Prove me wrong).

Again, you tell me. Was Newton wrong or just inaccurate? Was Galileo wrong or just inaccurate? Was Ptolemy wrong or just inaccurate? ... Was Einstein wrong or just inaccurate? (i.e. CERN's recent findings about FTL).

 

[juvenissun]

You see the outer surface of the rock is gray. You break open the rock. You see the inside is red. both are accurate observations. What you seem to be talking about is assumptions. If we look at a rock, see that it's gray, and assume it's gray throughout, Our theory may be be disproven, but the observation is not.

No no. I see a rock which is gray. I break it up and the pieces are still gray. It turns to red when I see it as rock powder or through the light. The color change is an intrinsic nature of the rock.

What you say?

This is not the only example. It is one of many many. Nearly everything I know, the more I see it, the more I don't know what it is. You see a plate with no cake on it. You better touch it to make sure.

To geology, biology and astronomy, exceptions are normal. How do you describe this kind of science? Or, are they still science?

 

[[serious]]

No no. I see a rock which is gray. I break it up and the pieces are still gray. It turns to red when I see it as rock powder or through the light. The color change is an intrinsic nature of the rock.

What you say?

This is not the only example. It is one of many many. Nearly everything I know, the more I see it, the more I don't know what it is. You see a plate with no cake on it. You better touch it to make sure.

To geology, biology and astronomy, exceptions are normal. How do you describe this kind of science? Or, are they still science?

Oh, ok, So the rock is gray, Depending on what exactly you are talking about, it could actually be a chemical change. For example, hematite may be gray, through and through, but when powdered the iron content in it may be more easily oxidized to give the powder a red color. As such, you would be accurately observing both the oxidized and non oxidized states of the rock.