"God exists" is a claim about our physical world isn't it? Why else would there be so much debate on it?
Relativity destroys the notion of simultaneity while LNC requires simultaneity.
Relativity destroys the notion of simultaneity while LNC requires simultaneity. — TheMadFool
You're confused. That's an assertion *about* the world. The proposition the assertion expresses is not part of the physical world. It's an abstract object. — MindForged
Time is not an actual component of the LNC at all. — MindForged
If the train hits poor Freddy, Freddy is dead and there was a simultaneous event at a given location. — Rich
the accident happened but at different times to different observers. Observer A saw it happen at 6 o'clock and observer B at 7 o'clock. Time, being relative, can't have the property of simultaneity. — TheMadFool
You're right. Propositions are ''about'' the world but doesn't that require that they concur with the actual goings on in the world? If I say ''God exists'' or ''I should do good'' etc. am I not making claims of this world. The facts of the world apply to propositions do they not?
It has to be. If it weren't then everything would be a contradiction. I'm hungry at noon and not hungry in the afternoon. This isn't a contradiction because the two occur at different times.
Relativity is understood in the standard mathematical lens (ZFC & CL), which most assuredly DOES have the Law of Non-Contradiction as an axiom. — MindForged
Please read my OP. I've given the references. I don't see how there can be a contradiction when time isn't absolute. — TheMadFool
Please read my OP. I've given the references. I don't see how there can be a contradiction when time isn't absolute.
??? I said there isn't a contradiction. Also, what Rich said. — MindForged
Clearly: Relativity is contradictory and nothing more than pseudo-science.
(Ask me to back this up) — Jonathan AB
You should get together with Rich. — T Clark
(Ask me to back this up) — Jonathan AB
Here is my proof that gravity is instant: — Jonathan AB
Didn't read it all, but the nature of the proof is pretty obvious in the initial diagram, and yes, it (speed-of-light gravity) would seem to inject energy into a closed system, with action not being balance by an opposite reaction.Here is my proof that gravity is instant:
http://www.flight-light-and-spin.com/proof/instant-gravity.htm
(my answer in short)
(ranked #1 at most search engines for 'instant gravity proof') — Jonathan AB
— Jonathan AB
The problems start right there. Einstein did not propose gravity to propagate at all. Gravity waves, yes, which act as the particle equivalent of excitations in the quantum field, but gravity itself (the sort that attracts two orbiting stars to each other) is just an effect observed by spacetime being curved by the two masses. There are no gravitons involved, and no propagation of anything.First consider gravity to be instant as Newton theorized; then consider it to travel at the velocity of light as Einstein proposed. — Instant Gravity Proof
They are perfectly compatible. — boundless
Ergo the concept of a contradiction does not require the concept of time to be assumed. — MindForged
How can it be? Relativity says that simultaneity is observer dependent and the law of noncontradiction depends on simultaneity. — TheMadFool
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.