The self-imposed bewitchment of inadequate language use...

X-)


If he does not get relativity, it's no wonder he has difficulty with Davidson.

@Metaphysician Undercover, do you really believe that the last 110 years of physics is built on an error?

Thank you, fishfry. It is apparent I had misunderstood you. My apologies.

One is a principle of classical logic; and the other is a principle of modern physics.
— fishfry — Banno

Glad this is clear. I mention only in passing that I think this is a more general problem. I am not sure anything at all in the real world is subject to classical logic. What statement can be said to be either true or false? If I point to a red apple and say, "The apple is red," someone can argue that redness is a subjective experience, not something inherent in the apple. Maybe your red isn't my red. Inverted qualia, Mary's room, and so forth.

Formal logic is an abstract model for how we reason. But the world is much more complicated and nuanced and sometimes contradictory. We are not rational creatures. The world is not a rational place. Formal logic is a useful tool, but the world isn't a formal system.

Meta, both Angie and Beth agree as to what happened. They agree that the events were simultaneous for Angie, but not for Beth. — Banno

To agree on contradiction does not make the contradiction go away, it just means that the agreeing parties have agreed to ignore the contradiction. The fact is that the events referred to are not properties of the subject, like personal preferences, they are properties of the objective world. To say that the properties of something completely independent of both Angie and Beth, properties of the objective world, are such and such for Angie, and not such and such for Beth, is complete nonsense because you imply that how the independent, objective world is, is dependent on the observer.

do you really believe that the last 110 years of physics is built on an error? — Banno

If circumventing the law of non-contradiction is error, then yes, that is what I believe, the last 110 years of physics is built on error. Contradiction is rampant in modern physics. But it has been demonstrated in the past, by the sophists in ancient Greece, that circumventing the law of non-contradiction can be very profitable. So to the extend that ignoring the fact that special relativity circumvents the law of non-contradiction has proven to be in some ways beneficial, you might not call this error. It's like lying and deception, from one perspective these things are beneficial, but from another perspective they are error. I look at it from the perspective of the philosopher, which is the desire to know the truth, so I say yes, modern physics is built on error. It employs a misconception of time.

If circumventing the law of non-contradiction is error, then yes, that is what I believe, the last 110 years of physics is built on error. — Metaphysician Undercover

You can't get rid of the relativity of simultaneity without crumbling the whole edifice of relativity, including the assertion that the speed of light is constant no matter what frame of reference you are in. Do you agree?

Agreed, that the speed of light is constant no matter what the frame of reference, is a very flimsy principle, not verified, nor verifiable from human beings' present technological condition, but quite likely not at all acceptable as a universally applicable law. It is an inductive principle induced without proper evidence.

Agreed, that the speed of light is constant no matter what the frame of reference, is a very flimsy principle, not verified, nor verifiable from human beings' present technological condition, but quite likely not at all acceptable as a universally applicable law. It is an inductive principle induced without proper evidence. — Metaphysician Undercover

Thanks. I just wanted to make sure I understood your position.

hm. Think that puts an end to the discussion.

The speed of light isn't based on observation, but theories about how mass, acceleration, energy, momentum, and gravitation work. What supports them is predictions, not describing things that have been observed, and then inferring a general principle, but theorizing a general law, and predicting the observation before hand.

that the speed of light is constant no matter what the frame of reference, is a very flimsy principle, not verified, nor verifiable from human beings' present technological condition, but quite likely not at all acceptable as a universally applicable law. — Metaphysician Undercover

Isn't that true of all physical law? The universality of gravity is an assumption for which we have no evidence. When we say all swans are white it's only because black swans are so rare. All knowledge of the world is inductive and subject to refinement and outright refutation.

The laws of physics are universally applicable. That’s what makes them laws.

Curiously, the laws of electromagnetism- Maxwells Equations- predict a very particular velocity for electromagnetic waves.

It follows that the velocity of electromagnetic waves must be the same for any frame of reference.

In order for this to occurs consistently one must make use of certain transformations when discussing different frames of reference.

Hence relativity.

Think that puts an end to the discussion. — Banno

Why? Are you adverse to questioning the truth of theories accepted by the scientific community? Such theories are proven inaccurate quite frequently, that's how we advance our knowledge. Come on, this is the philosophy forum, where's you philosophical spirit? The inquiry proceeds in a direction which is contrary to your prejudice so you quit.



Right, that's why we should proceed to doubt and question all of these inductive principles. If we find one which produces a violation of the law of non-contradiction, doesn't that raise a red flag, suggesting that a deeper inspection is required?

I am just doubtful that I am in the presence of genius rather than psycoceramics.

Neither, but why would one need to be genius or psycoceramic to question the truth of a theory?

The laws of physics are universally applicable. That’s what makes them laws. — Banno

Really? How do we know the laws of the physics are valid everywhere? We have a very small sample of local observations.

And that's what makes them laws? That's really not a good argument. Are Newton's laws universally valid? Were they universally valid and "laws of the universe" in 1900 but not 1920? I hope you can put your claims into context because as it stands they're just wrong.

Are you not aware that the universality of physical law is an assumption? There's no way to know if it's true. There's no way to know if there are any physical laws in the first place. What we call physical law is the historically contingent output of humans.

what you quoted was just a phrasing of the principle of relativity, simplified for the audience.

what you quoted was just a phrasing of the principle of relativity, simplified for the audience. — Banno

ok

Really? How do we know the laws of the physics are valid everywhere? We have a very small sample of local observations. — fishfry

Astronomers assume that what happens locally also happens universally; SO the spectrum of Iron measured in a lab is assumed to be the same as that measured in a star.

After all, why not?

And that's what makes them laws? That's really not a good argument. Are Newton's laws universally valid? Were they universally valid and "laws of the universe" in 1900 but not 1920? I hope you can put your claims into context because as it stands they're just wrong. — fishfry

Scientific laws have the form of universal statements. See Popper et al.

"For every reaction there is an opposite and equal reaction"

"every force is equal to the product of mass and acceleration"

and so on. If not, they are not falsifiable, hence not scientific (by popper's account).

Scientific theories simply arent generalized localized observations in the first place...

Case in point:

When we say all swans are white it's only because black swans are so rare. — fishfry

Hereabouts, it's the white ones that are rare.

B) The law of noncontradiction — TheMadFool

A Noncontradiction is the truth.

So, there is no such thing as a contradiction — TheMadFool

There is such a thing called a false statement.

A Noncontradiction is the truth. — Hand In Hand

"The cat is on the mat" is not a contradiction. And it is not true.

Astronomers assume — Banno

Assume. Assume. Assume.

Assumptions make an ass of u and me. Ha, ha, ha, I'm funny aren't I?

People seem to think "logic" means Aristotle's logic from 2400 years ago. Nothing could be further from the truth. Today logicians are perfectly comfortable embracing and formalizing contradictions. — fishfry

While you are correct that there is a whole panoply of logics, some formalizing non-explosive inferences from contradictions, and even the truth of contradictions (dialetheism), you misunderstood the person. What they said was "contradictions in reality", not in a formal system (e.g. in a dialetheic paraconsistent logic). Logics and reality aren't the same thing and if the 2 are even properly related to each other is unclear (it's hard to even state how this would be so) I myself endorse a paraconsistent logic, it doesn't commit me to something in reality (I hold dialetheia to be purely semantic or linguistic in nature).

This is a stretch but thoughts, propositions included, are, so far as we know, matter-based. Is it too much, then, to say that the ToR applies to propositions that aren't about our physical world? — TheMadFool

That's absurd. How on earth are propositions (an abstract object) "matter-based"? Show exactly where a proposition is in the physical world.

Relativity does not violate non-contradiction. Propositional truth values would be relativized to particular reference frames, so no contradiction ever actually arises.

That's absurd. How on earth are propositions (an abstract object) "matter-based"? Show exactly where a proposition is in the physical world. — MindForged

"God exists" is a claim about our physical world isn't it? Why else would there be so much debate on it?

Relativity does not violate non-contradiction. — MindForged

Relativity destroys the notion of simultaneity while LNC requires simultaneity.

After all, why not? — Banno