• Metaphysician Undercover
    13.8k
    Starting with MIckleson-Morley in 1887, and successive experiments, it has become understood and accepted by anyone with at least a high school, or even junior high school, science class that the aether simply does not exist. And this is the science of the thing.tim wood

    Well, I myself, am very sound evidence that this statement is a blatant falsity. And why do you think that this is "the science of the thing" when it's really the pseudoscience of the thing. In reality, it's just a denial of what can logically be concluded from Michelson-Morley type experiments, and denial of the current body of evidence, in a hypocritical effort to adhere to some dogmatic stipulations.

    This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum. . . .

    The denial is like a fear of God. But good theologians have progressed far beyond this attitude of instilling fear, the conventional approach now is to cultivate the love of God. Why are scientists so primitive in their behaviour, showing outright fear of the unknown, as if they will be punished if they step off the beaten path to the slaughterhouse?

    You're in a science discussion, which you are determined to derail, and your account is just that you're "doing" no science at all, but metaphysical speculation.tim wood

    This happens to be a philosophy forum, not a science forum, so the participants in any discussion are more likely to be philosophers rather than scientists. So you ought to expect that your thread would contain philosophical points of view instead of insisting that we adhere to some dogma of pseudoscience.
  • Deleted User
    0
    This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
  • T Clark
    14.8k
    The classical notion, yes, but perhaps not quite that simple.jgill

    You're being a bit disingenuous. The Laughlin quote you provided refers to the quantum vacuum, not the luminiferous aether. Yes, the quantum vacuum is an established fact, but it is not the medium through which light was once thought to propagate.
  • Deleted User
    0
    This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
  • jgill
    4k
    A science of the undetectable is a curious thing indeed. Metaphysical.
  • Metaphysician Undercover
    13.8k
    And of course Mickleson-Morley is "pseudoscience" and "blatantly false."
    10 hours ago
    tim wood

    Tim woods, your reading skills are as bad as T. Clark's. I didn't say "Mickleson-Morley is 'pseudoscience'". I was arguing that the conclusion, that some people draw, that Michelson-Morley type experiments have proven that there is no medium for light waves, is pseudoscience.

    Typical. You're asked three questions, which you ignore. You confuse "forum" with "discussion." And of course Mickleson-Morley is "pseudoscience" and "blatantly false."tim wood

    I ignored your questions because each one of them except the last requires a very long essay, and I really do not see the relevance of the material. If you want to know what "cause" and "metaphysics" mean, try looking them up. If you want to know more precisely, my use, in a specific context, then provide the context. Otherwise I'll continue to ignore such questions as unnecessary distractions. The third question I had already answered so that's why I ignored it. Here, I'll repost.

    It's fundamentally different from the aether, because the aether was always understood as an independent, separate substance from the bodies which exist within it. This was the premise of the M-M experiment. Now, respecting the results of M-M, we can either say that this was a misunderstanding of the aether, and produce a new model of the aether which does not have that requirement, or we can insist that "separate substance" is essential to the conception named "aether", and therefore dismiss "aether" as inadequate, and come up with a new word to refer to the medium for light.

    Clearly, "field" is inadequate because it represents the medium with random locations, arbitrary points, instead of identifying the true particles which must exist within the medium, comprising the medium, as is required to support the observed wave motion of electromagnetism. Only through identification and modeling of the true particles of the medium can an adequate understanding of it be produced. And according to what M-M indicates (no aether wind), along with what the experiments of quantum field theory indicate, all massive objects must be composed of this same medium.
    Metaphysician Undercover

    If that doesn't answer your third question, let me know what is lacking.
  • Metaphysician Undercover
    13.8k
    The idea is that MU can have his aether - there is no evidence for it - as what he calls metaphysical speculation, and which I disqualify of substance in a scientific discussion.tim wood

    Have fun with your so-called "scientific discussion". I'll leave you to your pseudoscience now.
  • EricH
    637
    I was arguing that the conclusion, that some people draw, that Michelson-Morley type experiments have proven that there is no medium for light waves, is pseudoscience.Metaphysician Undercover

    So just to be clear, you sincerely believe that Einstein (along with the entire scientific community) misinterpreted the results of M-M and are engaging in some form of pseudoscience?
  • flannel jesus
    2.5k
    It's not obvious to me that he's disagreeing with Einstein at all. Einstein at times seems to provide quotes suggesting he himself believes in an aether of sorts - just one that's Lorentz invariant, which makes it compatible with relativity.

    Here's a quote from Einstein himself:

    • According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable
  • Metaphysician Undercover
    13.8k
    So just to be clear, you sincerely believe that Einstein (along with the entire scientific community) misinterpreted the results of M-M and are engaging in some form of pseudoscience?EricH

    No, I believe that there is divided opinion in the "scientific community", and many members of it do not even form an opinion about this, because it is not necessary for their purposes. Most physics is applied physics, and the extremely speculative part is better known as metaphysics. The majority of scientists do not venture into this, "metaphysics", or make their opinions (if they have them) known. So I believe members of this forum are making unjustified generalizations (inductive conclusions) with statements like "along with the entire scientific community".

    Here's something to consider Eric. Relativity theory was created for pragmatic purposes, and is fundamentally not truth-apt. Relativity gives us very useful principles for application, and modeling motions, but it cannot give us truth. When Galileo first developed modern relativity, he used it to show that both the geocentric, and heliocentric models of the motions of the sun and planets are compatible and equally valid, by the precepts of "relativity". However, most of us believe that there is a "truth" to the modeling of the solar system, and we know that to get to the truth of this matter, we need to go beyond what "relativity" provides for us.

    Since relativity models movement as relative to an artificial frame of reference, rather than as relative to a background "space", the reality of the background is ignored. Simply put, since we do not know the reality of the background, we replace it with known frame of reference, which serves the purpose. The frame of reference is designed for the purpose, it is not designed to truthfully represent a "real" background.

    This became a problem for relativity theory because things like light, and gravity, were considered as properties of the background. It made classical relativity theory inconsistent with the observed movement light. So Einstein proposed that if we make some stipulations about the speed of light relative to moving bodies, and the passage of time, we could establish compatibility between the movement of light, and the movement of bodies, and bring light and gravity to be consistent with relativity theory. This opened up a whole new field of usefulness for relativity theory, Einsteinian relativity.

    The fundamental issue remains though, relativity theory is pragmatically oriented, and is designed to ignore the importance of truth. This is why we have physicists like Stephen Hawking proposing ontologies such as "model-dependent reality", and others with the idea that the universe is a "simulation". If we ignore this fundamental fact, that relativity is designed to be useful, but with its usefulness we sacrifice the possibility for truth, and instead we start to think that relativity theory is true, this induces the possibility of all sorts of strange ontologies to support the "reality" of relativity.

    Now we have a backward approach to metaphysics. Instead of basing our metaphysics in strong principles directed toward truth, we direct or metaphysics away from truth to support relativity theory which denies the possibility of truth. So, as metaphysicians looking for truth, the proper approach is to observe and understand all features of reality, and build a consistent ontology accordingly. This means the influence of useful theories like relativity must not be given undue preference, because the goal is truth, which relativity is not directed toward.
  • wonderer1
    2.3k
    Relativity theory was created for pragmatic purposes, and is fundamentally not truth-apt.Metaphysician Undercover

    Black holes, gravitational lensing, and gravitational waves have all been observed and were predicted on GR. What do you mean by relativity theory not being truth-apt?
  • flannel jesus
    2.5k
    I have the same question. "Not truth apt" is an interesting phrase. It's like he's not saying it's false or wrong, it's like he's saying it's not even in the category of things that can be right or wrong. Now, I certainly accept that there are things that could be described like that, but I can't see that relativity is in that group.
  • T Clark
    14.8k
    According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkableflannel jesus

    I used your quote to track down the article - "Ether and the Theory of Relativity" by Albert Einstein. Here's a link:

    https://mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk/Extras/Einstein_ether/

    Really great paper taken from a lecture in 1920. I've been looking for something like this for a long time.

    Your quote is taken quite a bit out of context. It is clear the "ether" Einstein is talking about is space or space-time, not a luminous ether which is the supposed medium for the propagation of light. He makes that distinction explicitly.
  • Deleted User
    0
    This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
  • Deleted User
    0
    This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
  • Metaphysician Undercover
    13.8k
    Since effing when has science ever been "truth-apt"? Where in any edition of the scientific method does "truth" enter in. And another question to you, what is it that you imagine "truth" to be?tim wood

    OK, so now we see a big difference between science and metaphysics. I would say metaphysics seeks truth, and truth means corresponding with reality. This would answer ''s question as well.

    Prediction in itself is a usefulness, but usefulness is limited by the intended purpose, so prediction does not necessarily indicate truth. A person can successfully predict that the sun will rise the next day, using nothing but statistics. With even more information the person can predict the time and place that the sun will rise. All these predictions are based in assumptions of continuity, that things will continue to occur in the way that they have in the past. But these predictions, and the ability to predict, give no indication of an understanding of what is actually going on. This is obviously the case with quantum mechanics, and quantum field theory right now, there is a tremendous ability to predict, without any understanding of what is actually going on.

    "Truth" implies an understanding of what is going on, which takes us beyond the ability to predict. What Galileo showed with relativity theory, is that an understanding of what is going on is not a requirement for the capacity to predict the notions of bodies. All that is required is an adequately formulated frame of reference, information from the past, and the fact that the bodies will continue to move as they have (as Newton's first law). So the motions of bodies can be equally predicted from distinct frames of reference, as Galileo showed with the geocentric and heliocentric models, and what is really going on (the truth) is completely irrelevant to the capacity to prediction.

    This is why we have scientists like Stephen Hawking promoting ontologies like "model-dependent realism", within which the fundamental principle (or presupposition) is that there is no such thing as what is really going on. This is because pragmatic theories, such as relativity, dismiss "what is really going on" as unnecessary for making predictions. Then scientists turn to prediction as the sole purpose of science, neglecting a key part of the scientific process, which states that the usefulness of prediction is to be directed at verifying theories, and this clearly indicates that prediction ought not be the end in itself.

    When prediction is not taken to be the end in itself, we clearly see the limitations to relativity theory, where it cannot accurately predict.

    Metaphysics has been defined as either the study of being, which is the study of nothing at all, because if being has any predicates it ceases to be just being.tim wood

    Boy your logic skills are pathetic.

    Cause is so difficult a concept to make rigorous that for a century most of science has dispensed with its use as a meaningful term, except in informal usage where it stands as a shorthand, or in the few areas it may still be used.tim wood

    Ok. now you admit it. Cause does not have a scientific definition. Why did you keep asking me for a scientific definition of cause, then ridicule me when I did not provide it? And if I would have provided you with a definition of "metaphysics", you would have made fun of it as well, based on what you now admit as your prejudice.

    Your questioning is nothing but deception, trickery. The questions are intentional designed for one purpose only, and that is to trick someone into saying something which you can poke fun at. Your mode of discussion is simply disgusting.
  • Deleted User
    0
    This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
  • EricH
    637
    I would say metaphysics seeks truth, and truth means corresponding with reality.Metaphysician Undercover

    We're going way off topic here, but when you use the word "truth" are referring to the Correspondence Theory of Truth?
  • Deleted User
    0
    This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
  • EricH
    637
    AFAICT we're basically in agreement here.

    [edit] But I'm curious what MU has to say.
  • Metaphysician Undercover
    13.8k
    We're going way off topic here, but when you use the word "truth" are referring to the Correspondence Theory of Truth?EricH

    Yes, that's what I said, truth means corresponding with reality, therefore I'm using "truth" in the sense of correspondence theory.
  • EricH
    637
    Yes, that's what I said, truth means corresponding with reality, therefore I'm using "truth" in the sense of correspondence theory.Metaphysician Undercover
    I'm still not clear on your usage of the word truth - because I went back and am seeing this:
    "Truth" implies an understanding of what is going on, which takes us beyond the ability to predict.Metaphysician Undercover

    E.g., if I say that I observed an object in a vacuum chamber accelerating towards the center of the earth at 9.8 m/sec**2, I think you would agree that that is a true statement (it corresponds with reality). But there is no understanding in that statement - it's just an observation.

    Also, is there a distinction when you put the word in quotes?
  • Metaphysician Undercover
    13.8k
    E.g., if I say that I observed an object in a vacuum chamber accelerating towards the center of the earth at 9.8 m/sec**2, I think you would agree that that is a true statement (it corresponds with reality).EricH

    No I don't agree with that at all, far from it in fact. Why would I just take it for granted that this is a true statement? I would have to see your justification, your measurement technique, and how you come up with "sec**2". What does "sec**2" even mean?

    Furthermore, I disagree that this is "just an observation", it is actually a very complex calculation. That something is "accelerating" requires a multitude of measurements of velocity, and each measurement of velocity requires multiple determinations of spatial-temporal location.

    .
    Also, is there a distinction when you put the word in quotes?EricH

    I put the word in quotes, because I was talking about the meaning of that word, which I put in quotes.
  • EricH
    637
    That something is "accelerating" requires a multitude of measurements of velocity, and each measurement of velocity requires multiple determinations of spatial-temporal location.Metaphysician Undercover

    Assume all of that is done to your satisfaction beyond all reasonable doubt.

    " **2 " means raised to the second power (i.e. squared). So " **3 " means raised to the third power, etc. This is standard scientific notation.

    N.B. - I believe there is a way to do superscripts in the forum interface but I don't know how to do that.
  • Metaphysician Undercover
    13.8k
    Assume all of that is done to your satisfaction beyond all reasonable doubt.EricH

    The concept of "acceleration" involves a fundamental philosophical problem. Acceleration is the rate of increase of velocity. So if an object goes from being at rest, to moving, there is a brief period of time where its "acceleration" is necessarily infinite. This is a fundamental measurement problem, and another form of the same problem is at the heart of the uncertainty principle of quantum physics, as the uncertainty relation between time and energy in the Fourier transform.

    This problem was exposed by Aristotle as the incompatibility between the concept of "being" (static) and the concept of "becoming" (active). The way that modern physics deals with this problem, through the application of calculus does not resolve the problem. It simply veils the problem by allowing the unintelligible issue, infinity, to be present within the mathematical representation.

    Now, the very same philosophical problem which Newton and his contemporaries had to deal with in the relationship between bodies, becomes paramount in modern physics in its relationships of energy. The issue though, is that Newton and his contemporaries were dealing with relatively long durations of time, so the methods of calculus were adequate for covering up this problem which only increases as the period of time is shortened. Now physicists are dealing with extremely short durations of time, so the uncertainty becomes very relevant and significant. That's what the time/energy uncertainty indicates, the shorter the time period, the more uncertain any determination of energy will be.

    Accordingly, using the current mathematical conventions, such calculations of acceleration will never be done "beyond all reasonable doubt", because the current convention is to allow the unintelligible (infinite) to be a part of the mathematical representation..
  • wonderer1
    2.3k
    The concept of "acceleration" involves a fundamental philosophical problem. Acceleration is the rate of increase of velocity. So if an object goes from being at rest, to moving, there is a brief period of time where its "acceleration" is necessarily infinite.Metaphysician Undercover

    Show your math.
  • flannel jesus
    2.5k
    You're overthinking it a little bit. Regardless of philosophical issues, we can in fact experimentally verify, to some reasonable degree of precision, that bowling balls and pool balls both accelerate toward the ground when dropped. If you have philosophical problems with the concept of acceleration, you should separate that from your ability to look at that evidence and see what does, in fact, happen
  • Deleted User
    0
    This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
  • EricH
    637

    Tim, Flannel, and Wonderer beat me to the punch here. Any statement in the form "such-and-such a person observed X at such-and-such place & time" is either true (corresponds to reality) or false (does not correspond to reality).
    Remember the verb here is "observed".
15678912
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.

×
We use cookies and similar methods to recognize visitors and remember their preferences.