In physics, the relativity ofsimultaneity is the concept that distant simultaneity – whether two spatially separated events occur at the same time – is not absolute, but depends on the observer's reference frame. — Wikipedia (Simultaneity Relativity)
It states that contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time, e.g. the two propositions "A is B " and "A is not B " are mutually exclusive. — Wikipedia(Law of Noncontradiction)
So, there is no such thing as a contradiction (at least with propositions about the physical world). — TheMadFool
Well, first off, as you indicate, the law of non-contradiction applies to propositions, not the world outside our heads. Not knowing the difference between those two is one of the primary mental, or at least intellectual, disorders displayed on this forum. — T Clark
Therefore, unless one of the propositions is travelling near the speed of light, simultaneity occurs. — T Clark
I would say that the part "at the same time" in Wikipedia's definition of the law of non-contradiction is superfluous. "In the same sense" is enough, because it also includes whatever is meant by "at the same time" (in the context of theory of relativity it means "at the same time from the perspective/reference frame of the same observer"). — litewave
The ToR is applicable at all speeds. It's just unnoticeable at our scale. Time differences at our scale may be (guessing) 0.00000001 seconds. Simultaneity, which requires a time difference of zero, is impossible. So, contradictions of physical propositions are impossible. — TheMadFool
I have to drive to New Haven tomorrow morning. I'll meet you at 9:15 at the McDonalds at the rest stop on I90 west right before the I84 exit. Ok? 2013 Toyota Corolla. Goldish color. Small dent in rear bumper on passenger side. Do you think we can do simultaneity? — T Clark
Well, IF we're in the same frame of reference, we can achieve simultaneity. However, from another frame of reference you may arrive at 9:15 and I at another time. No frame of refernce being more correct than the other, it follows that what we perceive as simultaneity is, to say the least, only a local phenomena. — TheMadFool
If you can be there, I'll PM my cell phone number and we can talk about it. I think we can achieve the required level of simultaneity. — T Clark
Well, by ''required level of simultaneity'' I assume you mean an approximation. That's fine. — TheMadFool
One is a principle of classical logic; and the other is a principle of modern physics.
It's like asking why you can't score touchdowns in basketball, or put hotels on Boardwalk and Park Place in chess. — fishfry
So, will you be there? — T Clark
Logic is an earthly thing — TheMadFool
A) According to Theory of Relativity (ToR) there is no such thing as simultaneity because:
1. Everything is in motion relative to something else and thus spatially separated moment to moment.
2. If everything is spatially separated then simultaneity isn't absolute (for everything). — TheMadFool
I would say that the part "at the same time" in Wikipedia's definition of the law of non-contradiction is superfluous. "In the same sense" is enough, because it also includes whatever is meant by "at the same time" (in the context of theory of relativity it means "at the same time from the perspective/reference frame of the same observer"). — litewave
Of course there is such a thing as simultaneity. It's that silly word "absolute" that causes the problem.
Suppose that for Angie, events A and B occur at the same time; But for Beth, A occurs before B. The transformation formulas in special relativity allow both Angie and Beth to agree with these two statements:
From Angie's frame of reference, events A and B occur at the same time.
From Beth's frame of reference, A occurs before B.
That is, both Angie and Beth, and anyone else that cares to do the calculations, will agree that for Angie, events A and B are simultaneous. — Banno
Now from my previous two posts, I hope it is apparent that, since for Angie, A and B are simultaneous, and similarly for Beth, A and B are not simultaneous, there is no one for whom A and B are both simultaneous and not simultaneous.
The Knot falls out. — Banno
First, the phrase ''at the same time is important for the law of noncontradiction. — TheMadFool
The problem is no point of reference is more correct than the other. There is no absolute time - no universal temporal reference. We could say, very loosely, that time is subjective and so simultaneity for one person is not for another. This means that the contradictions are either impossible or are illusions. — TheMadFool
Logic underpins the language of physics as much as of anything else. It would be absurd to think of logic and physics as incommensurate. — Banno
Why bother axiomatising physics at all? — Banno
You're the one claiming physics is sentential logic from 2000 years ago. — fishfry
- or you are using some other grammar, perhaps three-valued logic or Dialetheism. — Banno
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.