But I didn't say that only a crank could defend the idea that waves and fields require a medium: on the contrary, I was looking for an intelligent explanation. And I have found some some, such as McMullin's paper. — SophistiCat

I didn't say a field requires a medium, I said a field is a medium. It is the medium which substantiates the wave function, and therefore the existence of particles. That's what an electromagnetic field, for example, is, a medium..

I acknowledge that historically, it made sense to think that way. Waves transmit influence, they cause action at a distance. It makes intuitive sense to think that matter is required to transmit action: you want to move something - you push it, poke it with a stick or throw a rock at it; even a monkey understands that much. Hume defined a cause in accordance with contemporary understanding as "an object precedent and contiguous to another." Of course, Newton's gravitational interaction violated this "law of causality" quite spectacularly, and indeed this issue vexed him and those who followed. — SophistiCat

This is irrelevant, Newton's gravitation is not a wave. The issue here is whether a wave requires substance for its existence. It think it's very clear, and it ought to be clear to you as it is taught in basic physics, that a wave only occurs in a substance.

So no, Meta, it does not look and act like a wave. — noAxioms

Continuing with the denial of science I see. The activity of light is described by a wave-function. Where's your evidence that light does anything which is not wavelike?

Continuing with the denial of science I see. The activity of light is described by a wave-function. Where's your evidence that light does anything which is not wavelike? — Metaphysician Undercover

You're ignoring my posts above. Surely you're aware of the dual nature of light. Yes, light refracts, which is very much swimming like a duck. Not denying that. The mathematics of waves can be used to compute angles of diffraction for instance.

But like also throws crisp shadows given a small light source, and that is very much not quacking like a duck. The conclusion you should draw from this is that the nature of light is not exactly like a classic wave in a medium with a known velocity, and thus isn't necessarily best expressed as a function of such a medium. No wave in an inertial medium throws hard shadows or is measured at a single point instead of spread-out, and all waves with known mediums behave differently in frames other than the one in which the medium is stationary, and thus drawing a conclusion of the existence of a medium is premature.

There also seem to be a lack of working model using such a medium, since I've seen no links to one, only hand-waving and assertions of how it would work if such a model was created.

Gravity waves are probably the closest analogy. They are sort of modeled as waves in the 'fabric of spacetime'. That wording suggests a frame-independent medium of spacetime itself. If there was a necessity for some preferred frame, it would be called the 'fabric of space'.
There is no spacetime in the 3D view, but there is no movement through 4D spacetime, so said gravity waves are more ripple distortions in spacetime, which in any choice of frames manifest as waves that travel through space. This would not work with a 3D medium since it would change the properties of the waves in any frame that doesn't match the one in which the medium is not stationary.

But like also throws crisp shadows given a small light source, and that is very much not quacking like a duck. — noAxioms

A crisp shadow is not inconsistent with a wave, as an object in a wave tank demonstrates. There is a crisp shadow created by the object. There is still some disturbance in the water behind the object due to different reflections and other activity, just like a shadow is not absolutely dark.

The conclusion you should draw from this is that the nature of light is not exactly like a classic wave in a medium with a known velocity, and thus isn't necessarily best expressed as a function of such a medium. No wave in an inertial medium throws hard shadows or is measured at a single point instead of spread-out, and all waves with known mediums behave differently in frames other than the one in which the medium is stationary, and thus drawing a conclusion of the existence of a medium is premature. — noAxioms

I don't see how this is relevant, sound waves are not "exactly the same as waves in a water. And light behaves differently in different mediums (passing through different objects), just like sound, and any other waves. That's how we know about refraction. Designations such as "inertial medium" are arbitrary because motion is relative. Whether the wave tank is on a train, or on the surface of the earth, or whether the wave is in a moving river, the medium is always moving in some fashion. That's why the medium for light is so hard to understand, it may be moving in so many ways that we do not even know about. So physicists posit numerous fields.

There also seem to be a lack of working model using such a medium, since I've seen no links to one, only hand-waving and assertions of how it would work if such a model was created. — noAxioms

I told you the logic. To say it's "hand-waving" is a continuity of your propensity for denial.

Gravity waves are probably the closest analogy. They are sort of modeled as waves in the 'fabric of spacetime'. That wording suggests a frame-independent medium of spacetime itself. If there was a necessity for some preferred frame, it would be called the 'fabric of space'. — noAxioms

OK, so you do recognize the need for a medium. That's good, so why do you keep denying it? That's all I'm trying to get to the bottom of. People like me will insist on the need for a medium, and people like you will deny this need, and speak of people like me as if we're "cranks". But when we get down to brass tacks, people like you suddenly admit that you've recognized the need for a medium all along. What I think is that people like you insist on defending some theories, or metaphysics which assert that there is no medium, but in reality you recognize that in practise we deal with these things as if there is a medium. So there is a huge inconsistency between what you preach (metaphysical theory), and what you practise. And if someone like me tries to point this out, you find the easiest response is denial and "crank".

This would not work with a 3D medium since it would change the properties of the waves in any frame that doesn't match the one in which the medium is not stationary. — noAxioms

Of course the medium is not stationary, that's what I've been trying to impress upon you all along, the "activity" of the medium. You didn't seem to like that term, but now you've simply replaced it with "not stationary". The broader term, "activity" is the better than the narrower "not-stationary", because we have no point of reference, no absolute rest, from which to establish "inertia". So imagine for example a container of water, which we designate as "stationary". Even within the individual particles, the molecules, there is activity, despite the water being "stationary". The assumption of "stationary" is arbitrary, and really quite false.

A crisp shadow is not inconsistent with a wave, as an object in a wave tank demonstrates. — Metaphysician Undercover

Alrighty then.

Designations such as "inertial medium" are arbitrary because motion is relative.

Not arbitrary. In all such cases, the speed of the waves is pretty much fixed (isotropic) only relative to the medium.

OK, so you do recognize the need for a medium.

Not a need for it, but a reference to something like one. Spacetime is not something that anything can travel through, so it doesn't really correspond to the function of an actual medium like rope, water, or air, all of which are mediums through which waves travel .

people like you will deny this need

Yes, I deny the need, even if I don't deny the medium.

and speak of people like me as if we're "cranks"

Your're a crank probably mostly due to the lack of ability to formulate a sound logical argument, and not so much for the views you choose. I never used the word, but I see it coming up quite a bit now. Doubtless there are those that consider me one for whatever reason. The views I hold (not a realist for one) are not exactly mainstream, but at least I can defend them.

The assumption of "stationary" is arbitrary, and really quite false.

Arbitrary, but the assumption of its existence is mandatory for the view you hold.

The preferred frame, what Leo called the "absolute inertial frame" ... — Metaphysician Undercover

I pointed out why the preferred frame cannot be an inertial one, so Leo hasn't thought it through. Have you? I suggested some violations of thermodynamics as well for other suggested preferred frames. Maybe the lost energy I pointed out accounts for the source of 'dark energy'. That would at least resolve that problem. Not claiming to be a cosmological expert, but I can do 4D math at least.

Not arbitrary. In all such cases, the speed of the waves is pretty much fixed (isotropic) only relative to the medium. — noAxioms

Right, this is one reason (amongst others) why, as I explained, objects must be conceived of as part (features) of the medium. Understanding the appearance of objects as a feature of the medium, (for instance, apparent electron "particles" as a feature of the electromagnetic field), we can develop the tools to understand the activity of the medium itself. If the speed of light waves is fixed relative to the medium, yet the medium is active in some other way, then we need to understand this other activity to comprehend things like redshift/blueshift.

Your're a crank probably mostly due to the lack of ability to formulate a sound logical argument, — noAxioms

When you deny science, and the truth of obvious premises, as you were doing, you cannot distinguish a sound argument from an unsound one.

Here's where we have differences:

Surely you're aware of the dual nature of light. — noAxioms

It is the photoelectric effect which dictates that light might be conceived of as particles, photons of energy. However, this conclusion is dependent on the conception of an electron as a particle. If an electron is not actually a particle, and not conceived of as a particle (a unit of energy might exist in some way other than as a particle), then there is no need to conceive of light in a particle form.

So, the difference is that my commitment, that light exists as a wave, is based in all sorts of empirical observations, and sound scientific principles developed over hundreds of years. Your commitment, that light exists as a particle is based in the empirically proven fact that energy can only be measured in discrete quanta. An electron exists as a known quantity of energy. The deficiency in your claim, is that it has not been proven that this quantum of energy, what's called "the electron", actually exists as a particle, rather than as a feature of an electromagnetic field. If an electron does not exist as a particle, and this energy is a feature of a field, then there is no basis to the claim that a photon exists as a particle. The quanta of energy is better described as a feature of a field, rather than as a particle.

I never used the word, but I see it coming up quite a bit now. — noAxioms

Sorry, I forgot it was Sophisticat who jumped in, and I got confused who was who and saying what: my apologies. Let me go back for a moment now, and readdress Sophisticat's concern.

Technically, a (physical) field is just a distribution of physical values in space - nothing less, nothing more. Why would some additional stuff smeared over space be required? — SophistiCat

There has to be "stuff smeared over space", to support the reality, or truth of the values. We can call it "substantiation". We could assign physical values all over space, randomly, but these would have no substance, no meaning because they're random. If the values are to represent something real, there must be "substance" which supports them. Do you agree that most physicists accept that an electromagnetic field is real substance? If the values assigned to an electromagnetic field represent what is believed to be a real substance, then the other fields ought to be understood in this way as well.

You are right: this isn't even cranky, this is just stupid. But I didn't say that only a crank could defend the idea that waves and fields require a medium: on the contrary, I was looking for an intelligent explanation. And I have found some some, such as McMullin's paper.

I acknowledge that historically, it made sense to think that way. Waves transmit influence, they cause action at a distance. It makes intuitive sense to think that matter is required to transmit action: you want to move something - you push it, poke it with a stick or throw a rock at it; even a monkey understands that much. Hume defined a cause in accordance with contemporary understanding as "an object precedent and contiguous to another." Of course, Newton's gravitational interaction violated this "law of causality" quite spectacularly, and indeed this issue vexed him and those who followed. — SophistiCat

Do you recognize the conclusion of the quoted passage, referring to the "ontological" basis of field theory? I believe that some physicists such as Feynman have produced very convincing arguments which demonstrate that electromagnetic fields must have real physical existence, i.e. substance. If you're not familiar with this, I could look it up for you

Not arbitrary. In all such cases, the speed of the waves is pretty much fixed (isotropic) only relative to the medium.
— noAxioms

Right, this is one reason (amongst others) why, as I explained, objects must be conceived of as part (features) of the medium. — Metaphysician Undercover

If you can actually follow the argument presented in that exchange, you see the opposite position is suggested.

Your [...] lack of ability to formulate a sound logical argument,
— noAxioms
When you deny science, and the truth of obvious premises, as you were doing, you cannot distinguish a sound argument from an unsound one.

If science was about asserting 'obvious' premises, the sun would still be going around the Earth. Science is not about premises at all. It is about models that correspond to empirical observation.
As for the sound argument, you illustrate my point above with your response. The soundness (validity if you will) of a logical argument has nothing to do with the premises chosen, but rather what conclusions are (and are not) drawn from those premises.

Your commitment, that light exists as a particle

I never said that. Strawman fallacy, getting at least two things wrong about what I've said. Wait, three things wrong. Not bad for 8 words. Kindly refrain from putting words in my mouth.

I believe that some physicists such as Feynman have produced very convincing arguments which demonstrate that electromagnetic fields must have real physical existence, i.e. substance. If you're not familiar with this, I could look it up for you — Metaphysician Undercover

Please do. I am curious. :chin:

However, physical existence doesn't necessarily mean a substance as medium. It just means it exists and interacts with the physical universe. But I could be wrong. Probability waves are a lot more abstract.

If you can actually follow the argument presented in that exchange, you see the opposite position is suggested. — noAxioms

You might suggest it, but it's not at all a sound argument. Your proposition, "Spactime is not something that anything can travel through", is not a sound premise. If things do not move in spacetime, then what do they move in? Why would you prejudice gravity, allowing that gravity moves spacetime, but other things do not move in spacetime? I don't understand how you could say that gravity moves spacetime (creating waves), yet things do not move in spacetime, when gravity moves things. Are things and spacetime completely distinct substances which have no effect on each other? That can't be because the gravity waves move things.

The soundness (validity if you will) of a logical argument has nothing to do with the premises chosen, but rather what conclusions are (and are not) drawn from those premises. — noAxioms

Do you understand the difference between soundness and validity? Valid logic might use false premises, in which case the conclusion would be unsound. A sound logical argument has both true premises and valid logic. So the soundness of a logical argument has a lot to do with the premises chosen, it requires not only valid logic, but also that the premises are true.

Please do. I am curious. :chin: — jgill

Without taking the time to research specifics, I can tell you the simple idea. An electromagnetic field is necessarily a real object (what I call substantial) because it exerts a force on particles (exemplified by iron filings). This is the energy of the field. Changes within the field are described as waves, and this is how energy moves from one place to another through the field, by means of waves.

However, physical existence doesn't necessarily mean a substance as medium. It just means it exists and interacts with the physical universe. But I could be wrong. Probability waves are a lot more abstract. — jgill

This might be a semantic issue, but having real physical existence necessarily implies "substance", as substance is what supports physical existence. The electromagnetic field exists between particles and is the means by which energy is transmitted from one particle to another, so I would say that it qualifies as a "medium". So, having physical existence, and existing as part of the physical universe means that the thing has substance. And, the thing in question, the electromagnetic field, fulfills the criteria to be called a medium.

Your proposition, "Spactime is not something that anything can travel through", is not a sound premise. — Metaphysician Undercover

It isn't a premise at all, but rather a conclusion from a different premise, one a thousand years old, that time is a 4th dimension, even if the 'spacetime' term and the mathematical description were introduced far more recently, by Minkowski if I have my history correct.
If the premise is accepted, then spacetime isn't something that things travel through. If not, there is no spacetime at all through which a thing can travel.
I know you have a consistent history of inability to understand that view, as again evidenced by your statement above.

Do you understand the difference between soundness and validity?

A sound one is valid, and in addition, has all true premises. I probably used the word incorrectly there. We have no easy way of knowing which premises are true if they contradict each other but each lead to the same observations.

My point was that your arguments are very often not valid.

If the premise is accepted, then spacetime isn't something that things travel through. If not, there is no spacetime at all through which a thing can travel. — noAxioms

Then you clearly have inconsistency, contradiction, if you model gravity waves as wrinkles in the fabric of spacetime, and you maintain that things do not travel through spacetime. And if you say that nothing moves because spacetime is an eternal static block, then you're just continuing to support bad metaphysics by denying the obvious, motion. We cannot even validly discuss motion anymore because nothing moves according to this perspective. What's the point in discussing the motion of things when nothing moves according to your principles?

I know you have a consistent history of inability to understand that view, as again evidenced by your statement above. — noAxioms

That's right, I cannot understand principles which appear fundamentally contradictory, and the appearance of contradiction is only made to go away when the obvious is denied. That's why I cannot understand eternalism in general, it appears contradictory, as motion existing in a static block. The contradiction only goes away by denying the present, because the present is where motion occurs. This is what allows for the reality of the static block, a denial of the present. However, this is a denial of what is obvious, the division between future and past, which is the present, containing the occurrence of motion. When you deny the reality of the distinction between future and past, you deny the first. most obvious principle of reality, upon which we live our entire lives, basing all of our decisions, that difference between future and past.

We have no easy way of knowing which premises are true if they contradict each other but each lead to the same observations. — noAxioms

That's very correct, there is no "easy" way to determine the truth. But if we make the effort to analyze and understand fundamental principles, the truth may be revealed. If observations of the very same thing produce contradictory premises, then we must dig deeper to see the principles which support the description, how the description (premise) is derived. This is like 'he said/she said', why are you describing the same thing in a different way from me? So we have to respect as different, the purpose or intention, from which we are both arguing. In this case it is not an instance of one of us intentionally lying, but the "thing" which is being described is so broad, and we can pick and choose the aspects of that thing which we want to use in our respective descriptions. If our descriptions are actually contradictory, we can look to why I chose this aspect, and you chose that aspect, and this leads us to the metaphysics which we are each attempting to support. Then we need to analyze those metaphysical principles themselves, for soundness. If we find weakness in those principles, then we ought to investigate the descriptions which appear to support those principles, as potentially faulty descriptions.

My point was that your arguments are very often not valid. — noAxioms

You might say this, but you attack my premises, not my logic, so you are really demonstrating that you think my arguments are unsound. For example, here's my argument. P1. Light exists as waves. P2. Waves require a medium. C. Therefore there is a medium for light, "the ether". The logic is valid, but you consistently attacked the truth of my first premise. So you are attacking the soundness of my argument, not the validity of it. However, my first premise is well supported by hundreds of years of scientific experimentation, empirical evidence, so you haven't gotten very far with your attack.

Also, you or others, have made some attempt at creating ambiguity, and obscuring the separation between P1 and P2, by saying rather that light is "wavelike". This allows P2 to appear unsound, because there could be a "wavelike" thing which cannot be called a "wave" because it does not require a medium. The ambiguity as to the criteria of "wave" allows for something which we would normally call a wave, to actually not be a wave, only "wavelike", and therefore exist without a medium.

Then you clearly have inconsistency, contradiction, if you model gravity waves as wrinkles in the fabric of spacetime, and you maintain that things do not travel through spacetime. — Metaphysician Undercover

Wrinkles in fabric are not movement, so 'clearly' hasn't exactly been spelled out.

And if you say that nothing moves because spacetime is an eternal static block

I didn't say nothing moves. Your refusal to understand the view isn't evidence that it is inconsistent. Read up on it and attack it intelligently.

know you have a consistent history of inability to understand that view, as again evidenced by your statement above.
— noAxioms

That's right, I cannot understand principles which appear fundamentally contradictory, and the appearance of contradiction is only made to go away when the obvious is denied.

There you go. You admit that you cannot let go of at least this one particular bias long enough to comprehend a view that doesn't posit it. Yes, the view indeed becomes contradictory if this additional 'obvious' premise is made, but the fact is that there is a different set of premises that predict the same empirical experience and these premises deny the existence of the present moment. Hence the truth of that premise is not obvious.

You might say this, but you attack my premises, not my logic

I only attack your premises if you insist on applying them to a view that doesn't posit them. Otherwise, when have I ever asserted your premises are necessarily wrong in any way? Maybe some of them are. I forget.

so you are really demonstrating that you think my arguments are unsound.

I meant invalid, and if they're invalid, then they're also unsound, which is why I kind of used both words.

For example, here's my argument. P1. Light exists as waves. P2. Waves require a medium. C. Therefore there is a medium for light, "the ether". The logic is valid, but you consistently attacked the truth of my first premise.

Sorry, but I never attacked that line of reasoning. I might attack your assertion that those premises are necessarily true.

So you are attacking the soundness of my argument, not the validity of it.

Only when your argument is in fact invalid.

However, my first premise is well supported by hundreds of years of scientific experimentation, empirical evidence, so you haven't gotten very far with your attack.

On the contrary, there seems to be no measurement that can be made to distinguish between the premise being the case or not, which makes hundreds of years of nothing. They've tried too. I've seen many attempts, mostly logical, to disprove one view or the other. I've never seen a successful one. I even have my own argument, but it rests on premises that cannot be proven.

Also, you or others, have made some attempt at creating ambiguity, and obscuring the separation between P1 and P2, by saying rather that light is "wavelike". This allows P2 to appear unsound, because there could be a "wavelike" thing which cannot be called a "wave" because it does not require a medium.

P2 might be true by definition. It depends on how a real wave is defined. But yes, the logic goes pretty much along the lines of what you say here. Known real waves do things that light doesn't, and light does things that known waves do not. That doesn't demonstrate that light is not a wave, but it does demonstrate that your premises are not necessarily true.

The ambiguity as to the criteria of "wave" allows for something which we would normally call a wave, to actually not be a wave, only "wavelike", and therefore exist without a medium.

As an example of something wavelike: Take interference patterns, which are formed by things other than waves. Moire patterns are a good example of this. The patterns move in apparent 'waves' without an obvious medium carrying the waves, as evidenced by the fact that there seems to be no limit to the speed at which they move.

Wrinkles in fabric are not movement, so 'clearly' hasn't exactly been spelled out. — noAxioms

OK, a wave (gravity wave) which is not movement. You're back to contradiction.

Your refusal to understand the view isn't evidence that it is inconsistent. Read up on it and attack it intelligently. — noAxioms

The problem is you have not presented anything which makes sense. Present me with contradictions and it's intelligent for me to attack them. How can I understand something which is loaded with contradiction? Sure, you might suggest that I just ignore the contradictions and get on with the understanding, but I think that would be misunderstanding. Therefore we must iron out the wrinkles in your principles before any understanding is possible.

There you go. You admit that you cannot let go of at least this one particular bias long enough to comprehend a view that doesn't posit it. Yes, the view indeed becomes contradictory if this additional 'obvious' premise is made, but the fact is that there is a different set of premises that predict the same empirical experience and these premises deny the existence of the present moment. Hence the truth of that premise is not obvious. — noAxioms

Before I drop what is "obvious" to me, you need to demonstrate how it is that the obvious is not true. Telling me to drop the obvious just so that your premises will make sense, is just a matter of telling me to let go of what I know to be true so that falsity will make sense to me. Your approach is fruitless if you cannot demonstrate why the thing which is extremely obvious to me might be false.

Your argument here is deeply flawed. What is extremely obvious to me is that there is a difference between future and past. That is my empirical experience. This empirical experience requires a separation between future and past, in order to support the reality of this difference. Two distinct things require something which separates them That is a logical conclusion, and this separation we call "the present". Therefore, your claim that the same empirical experience may be produced without the present is absolutely false. The empirical experience is of the separation between future and past and this cannot be produced without the present.

If your claim is that a similar empirical experience could be produced without the present, as in "a simulation", then you ought to say this. But then why would you claim it's "the same empirical experience"? So if you have premises which can simulate my experience of a difference between future and past, without a present, and free of contradiction, then let's see them.

Only when your argument is in fact invalid. — noAxioms

But my argument isn't invalid, that's what I showed. You are attacking the truth of the premise, "light exists as a wave". Therefore you are attacking the soundness of my argument, not the validity.

On the contrary, there seems to be no measurement that can be made to distinguish between the premise being the case or not, which makes hundreds of years of nothing. They've tried too. I've seen many attempts, mostly logical, to disprove one view or the other. I've never seen a successful one. I even have my own argument, but it rests on premises that cannot be proven. — noAxioms

I went through this with you already, it's called "refraction". Refraction is a property of waves. Light gets refracted, therefore it is a wave. You might insist that hundreds of years of studying refraction amounts to "nothing", but I already know that you're a science denier. What I want to know is the reason for such denial. What's the point to your denial?

P2 might be true by definition. It depends on how a real wave is defined. But yes, the logic goes pretty much along the lines of what you say here. Known real waves do things that light doesn't, and light does things that known waves do not. That doesn't demonstrate that light is not a wave, but it does demonstrate that your premises are not necessarily true. — noAxioms

This argument, like your other, is deeply flawed. As I told you already, the reason why I know that light is a wave is refraction, like the rainbow. To disprove the necessity which I claim, you need to establish a separation between waves and refraction, such that refraction can happen to something which is not a wave. The problem though is that "refraction" is by definition a property of waves. Perhaps you might show me light which doesn't get refracted So to demonstrate that my premise is not necessarily true you need to show how the rainbow, and the behaviour of light through a prism is not really refraction, but something else, or show me light which doesn't get refracted. Otherwise, if light actual refracts, it is necessarily a wave, because refraction is something that only waves do.

As an example of something wavelike: Take interference patterns, which are formed by things other than waves. Moire patterns are a good example of this. The patterns move in apparent 'waves' without an obvious medium carrying the waves, as evidenced by the fact that there seems to be no limit to the speed at which they move. — noAxioms

I don't see how this is relevant. The patterns exist in a medium. If they simply look like waves, but are not actually waves, they are still an activity of the medium. So this is irrelevant to the possibility of an activity which looks like a wave, but is not in a medium.

The problem is you have not presented anything which makes sense. — Metaphysician Undercover

It make sense to those that understand it. I'm sorry that you're apparently not one of them.

Present me with contradictions and it's intelligent for me to attack them.

Your contradictions come from twisting my statements out of context. Maybe spell out the contradictions more clearly so I can point out where you didn't get it right.

Your approach is fruitless if you cannot demonstrate why the thing which is extremely obvious to me might be false.

I cannot demonstrate it to you. It's like trying to convince my cat. I've spent whole threads discussing this with you. I know where it goes. You are incapable of setting aside your biases, and hence you see contradiction where there is none. You already know the answer, so any premise that contradicts it must be wrong, and is thus not worthy of consideration.

If your claim is that a similar empirical experience could be produced without the present, as in "a simulation",

A simulation has a present, and a dualistic experience for that matter.. Not at all a good model of what I'm talking about.

On the contrary, there seems to be no measurement that can be made to distinguish between the premise being the case or not, which makes hundreds of years of nothing. They've tried too. I've seen many attempts, mostly logical, to disprove one view or the other. I've never seen a successful one. I even have my own argument, but it rests on premises that cannot be proven. — noAxioms

I went through this with you already, it's called "refraction".

I'm talking about the existence of a present moment, which has little if anything to do with refraction.

I don't see how this is relevant. The patterns exist in a medium. If they simply look like waves, but are not actually waves, they are still an activity of the medium.

No, they can appear and move with no activity of what you might consider to be the medium. That's why I brought it up.

Please do. I am curious. :chin: — jgill

Without taking the time to research specifics, I can tell you the simple idea — Metaphysician Undercover

So you really can't back up your statement. OK :roll:

So you really can't back up your statement. — jgill

I can back it up, because I've researched it before, but I'd have to go back and find the same material again. That's a lot of time and effort just for you, someone I don't know. So I gave you a simple summary. If you took a few minutes of time to read and understand that summary, and question me on the parts which you do not understand or wanted more detail, showing a bit of actual interest, I might be inspired to look up the material. But now it looks like you just want to waste my time. It appears like you would not believe what I produced anyway.

So, what part of "the field carries energy and exerts a force on particles, therefore it is a real existent thing" do you not understand, disagree with, or think does not back up my statement ? If it's just a matter that you do not like the way that I put the argument of a famous physicist into my own words, then you'd better look up the primary source yourself. However, since I've reproduced the essence of the argument in my own words, I believe that my statement has been backed up.

You are incapable of setting aside your biases — noAxioms

Fundamental facts, proven by hundreds of years of application of the scientific method, are what you call "biases". I am actually very capable of putting aside such biases, when they are demonstrated to contain contradictions and inconsistent premises. I was trained in philosophy, so I was taught to root out these problems, and dismiss my biases which are rooted in them.

That's why I have a very unconventional attitude, I've already researched, and rooted out many fundamental contradictions and inconsistencies within accepted conventions, and I've dismissed the biases that I formerly held, which are manifestations of these faulty conventions. So you misjudge me, I am actually very capable of setting aside my biases, but only when good reason is given to me. That's the real issue here, I require "good reason" before dismissing such conventions. Which you have not given me.

I'm talking about the existence of a present moment, which has little if anything to do with refraction. — noAxioms

If that passage refers to the present in time, then it's pure nonsense. No wonder I didn't recognize it as such. That there is a difference between future and past is easily proven. Past events are remembered, and future events are anticipated. Furthermore, past events cannot be changed while future events can be created, or avoided. Therefore there is a fundamental difference between past and future. That this difference cannot be measured is irrelevant to the proof We do not need to measure things to prove that they are different, we only need to describe the difference.

To say that this difference between future and past has not been proven is utterly ridiculous. Its's just a denial of the validity of inductive reasoning. That the past is fundamentally different from the future is the inductive principle known with the most certainty. How we cope with this fundamental difference forms the basis for all inductive reasoning, and predictive capabilities. It's no wonder you're such an avid science denier, when you deny the foundations of inductive reasoning and predictive capabilities.

No, they can appear and move with no activity of what you might consider to be the medium. That's why I brought it up. — noAxioms

You might debate where the "activity" actually is, but a medium is still essential, so it makes the example irrelevant as an example of a "wavelike" activity without a medium.

I believe that some physicists such as Feynman have produced very convincing arguments which demonstrate that electromagnetic fields must have real physical existence, i.e. substance. — Metaphysician Undercover

Please do. I am curious. :chin: — jgill

An electromagnetic field is necessarily a real object (what I call substantial) because it exerts a force on particles (exemplified by iron filings). This is the energy of the field. Changes within the field are described as waves, and this is how energy moves from one place to another through the field, by means of waves. — Metaphysician Undercover

So you are attacking the soundness of my argument, not the validity of it.
-- Meta
Only when your argument is in fact invalid. — noAxioms

jgill bumps an excellent example of an invalid argument which in this case begs two different conclusions by assuming them both true in order to conclude them. It begs the field being a real object, and it also begs a medium for EM waves.
To illustrate that, let's assume otherwise and see if a contradiction is reached.

The force on particles (iron filings) is exerted by the magnet nearby. Changes within the field are described as EM waves which require no medium. It works just fine with the opposite assumptions, therefore the argument demonstrates nothing.

As for energy, your comment seems to equate force to energy, which is just wrong. It makes it sound like the field itself has energy, and if that energy was consumed by something, it would be gone, leaving the magnet with no field. Gravity is like that. There's no gravitational energy of an object or its field. Nobody quotes some number representing the gravitational energy of say the Earth or its gravitational field (which is neither an energy field nor a force field, but rather an acceleration field).

Anyway, if Feynman did actually argue for this, and it was in any way convincing, then you've not summarized it very well.

The force on particles (iron filings) is exerted by the magnet nearby. Changes within the field are described as EM waves which require no medium. It works just fine with the opposite assumptions, therefore the argument demonstrates nothing. — noAxioms

The problem here, as I've already explained, is that the field is the medium. "Changes within the field" means that the field is a real, changing thing. The field is not the iron filings, and it is not the magnet, it is the medium between them.

As for energy, your comment seems to equate force to energy, which is just wrong. It makes it sound like the field itself has energy, and if that energy was consumed by something, it would be gone, leaving the magnet with no field. Gravity is like that. There's no gravitational energy of an object or its field. Nobody quotes some number representing the gravitational energy of say the Earth or its gravitational field (which is neither an energy field nor a force field, but rather an acceleration field). — noAxioms

I do not equate force with energy. Notice the word "and" in "the field carries energy and exerts a force on particles". And the field does have energy, that's clear, it is a property of the field, that's how Feynman describes it. Changes in the field are waves, so that energy moves through the field as waves. Bringing iron filings into the field creates changes in the field, so there are waves. Bringing a few iron filings into the field does not drain the magnet of all its capacity to create a field, that idea doesn't make sense.

Feynman, as a physicist, is very good at tutorials, putting things into words which non-physicists can understand. The field exerts force on the particles through the means of the waves, which are property of the field. Notice that "force" is not equated with "energy", which is consistent with Newton's laws. In Newton's laws, a moving body has momentum, as described by the first law. "Force" refers to the momentum which is transferred from one body to another, as described by the second law.

In this case, the concept of momentum has been replaced by the more apt "energy". And, instead of being the property of a moving body, as momentum is, the energy is the property of the field. "Force" here refers to the energy transferred from the field to the particles. The field exerts force on the particles. This is consistent with Newton's use of "force" in reference to the transferral of momentum from one body to another, except energy is transferred rather than momentum.

Fundamental facts, proven by hundreds of years of application of the scientific method, are what you call "biases". — Metaphysician Undercover

You cannot back this assertion. Science has done no such thing, especially since what I called a bias (the lack of a present moment) is strictly a philosophical premise.

I am actually very capable of putting aside such biases, when they are demonstrated to contain contradictions and inconsistent premises.

Wrong. You should be able to set them aside when considering an alternate point of view. It doesn't mean you have to change your personal belief to that alternate PoV. The exercise is done simply to recognize that your favored 'proven' view is not proven fact at all, but merely conjecture.

That there is a difference between future and past is easily proven. Past events are remembered, and future events are anticipated. Furthermore, past events cannot be changed while future events can be created, or avoided. Therefore there is a fundamental difference between past and future. That this difference cannot be measured is irrelevant to the proof We do not need to measure things to prove that they are different, we only need to describe the difference.

The alternate view does not describe a different experience, so there is no distinction. There is still past and future, but they're just relations between events, not actual states of events.

- - -

The problem here, as I've already explained, is that the field is the medium. — Metaphysician Undercover

Still assuming the conclusion I see.

Feynman, as a physicist, is very good at tutorials, putting things into words which non-physicists can understand.

Then you're summarizing his argument completely wrong. You really need to find that reference as jgill requested. I don't think Feynman would make commit such an obvious fallacy as blatant begging.

The field exerts force on the particles through the means of the waves

The quote you originally made said something different, and I agree with the former only:

Changes within the field are described as waves, — Metaphysician Undercover

The waves convey changes to the field, but not the force. Gravity waves for instance are not generated for a mass exerting a force at a distance. Gravity waves are energy, and energy expenditure would quickly deplete the mass of an object. But gravity waves do this. Earth for instance, due to its acceleration around the sun, emits about 200 watts of power in the form of gravity waves, far less than the energy given to even a small rock falling to the surface. Thus the force upon and kinetic energy gained by the falling rock does not come from waves of any kind.
Ditto with EM force and energy. The waves do not carry the force, only the minor energy of the changes which has negligible effect on other masses. LIGO is sensitive enough for instance to detect this, but any object can measure gravity.

It appears like you would not believe what I produced anyway. — Metaphysician Undercover

No. But I would believe what Feynman produced. All you've been saying is you believe there is a physical substance through which waves travel, even electromagnetic impulses. I think the "medium" to which you refer is a metaphysical medium.

The exercise is done simply to recognize that your favored 'proven' view is not proven fact at all, but merely conjecture. — noAxioms

No, you're wrong. It's not conjecture, it's proven. The truth of it has been demonstrated to me as true, through evidence and logic, therefore it is proven. Aristotle thoroughly explained this thousands of years ago. The fundamental principle is that there is "truth" and "falsity" with respect to past events, but these terms cannot be used with respect to future events. Because they have not yet occurred, future events have no existence and are indeterminate, they may or may not be. He proposed that we allow that the law of excluded middle does not apply to future events, because there is no truth or falsity in relation to them (being possible), yet it does apply for past events, having actually occurred.

What I believe, has not yet been proven to you, that is clear. But if you think it's only conjecture, on my part, or that the real, substantial difference between past and future hasn't been proven to me, then you need to demonstrate this to me, because from my perspective, it has been proven.. I'm sorry but that's just the way things are. You can't unprove what has already been proven to me, simply by asserting that it hasn't been proven. It has been proven, and now you need to demonstrate that what has been proven to me as true, is actually false if you have any desire to lead me in another direction..

This requires a demonstration, which you have not given me. To say, that your demonstration requires that I put aside all the evidence for what I already belief, (therefore the proof for what I believe), is nonsense, because this asking me to ignore evidence. You need to be able to make your demonstration in a way which respects, and accounts for the evidence which has already proven to me what I believe.

The alternate view does not describe a different experience, so there is no distinction. There is still past and future, but they're just relations between events, not actual states of events. — noAxioms

"Relations between events" does not produce a past and future, it produces a before and after. In reality, all events are necessarily in the past, because presumed future events have not yet occurred, and therefore have no existence. They are not actually events, but only possible events. Therefore all relations between events are necessarily relations of the past. To produce a "present", i.e. a distinction between past and future, requires that you provide and describe a relation between actual events (past), and possible events (future). This is not "just relations between events". Until you model this difference, your model has no past and future.

No. But I would believe what Feynman produced. All you've been saying is you believe there is a physical substance through which waves travel, even electromagnetic impulses. I think the "medium" to which you refer is a metaphysical medium. — jgill

Did you read what I wrote? Energy is a property of the "field", transmitted through the field. The field exerts a force on the particles. You do not see that the "field" is therefore a "substance"? Also, the field exists between the object which creates it, and the particles effected by it. Do you not see that the field is therefore a substance.

In the past, I too held the opinion that the field is a "metaphysical medium" purely theoretical. I thought that a "field" was simply a mathematical construct, until I read same material provided by Dr. Feynman, which demonstrated the need to conceive of the field as having real physical existence. To noAxioms, this is evidence that I will release my biases with the proper demonstration.

I haven't found yet where Feynman presents the argument that it is necessary to understand the electromagnetic field is a real physical object, it might have been an interview, or in a book he wrote. But read this page, where he clearly treats the field as an object, referring to "the energy in the field": https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_27.html.

I find particularly interesting, the section 27.5, "Examples of energy flow", where he describes how the energy flowing through an electrical wire is really moving through the field which surrounds the wire, rather than through the wire itself. He has already described how energy moves in a field, now he gets to the peculiarities of this fact. One of the ways he explains this is by describing a wire with resistance. The resistance causes the wire to heat up. The energy which is being released by the wire as heat, is actually flowing into the wire from the surrounding field, and being lost by the wire to the air as heat. This is counter-intuitive, but when we say 'energy is flowing down the wire' it is not actually flowing through the wire, the energy is moving through the field which surrounds the wire. Only the amount of energy lost by resistance actually enters the wire. Here's the conclusion of that section:

Perhaps it isn’t so terribly puzzling, though, when you remember that what we called a “static” magnet is really a circulating permanent current. In a permanent magnet the electrons are spinning permanently inside. So maybe a circulation of the energy outside isn’t so queer after all.
You no doubt begin to get the impression that the Poynting theory at least partially violates your intuition as to where energy is located in an electromagnetic field. You might believe that you must revamp all your intuitions, and, therefore have a lot of things to study here. But it seems really not necessary. You don’t need to feel that you will be in great trouble if you forget once in a while that the energy in a wire is flowing into the wire from the outside, rather than along the wire. It seems to be only rarely of value, when using the idea of energy conservation, to notice in detail what path the energy is taking. The circulation of energy around a magnet and a charge seems, in most circumstances, to be quite unimportant. It is not a vital detail, but it is clear that our ordinary intuitions are quite wrong.

Notice the reference to Poynting theory. Poynting provides the formula for work done by a field, assumed to be in a vacuum. Following this, at 27.6, Feynman goes on to talk about the momentum of the field. "Next we would like to talk about the momentum in the electromagnetic field. Just as the field has energy, it will have a certain momentum per unit volume."

Where's your evidence that light does anything which is not wavelike? — Metaphysician Undercover

Radiometers, a/k/a light mills.

No, you're wrong. It's not conjecture, it's proven. The truth of it has been demonstrated to me as true, through evidence and logic, therefore it is proven. Aristotle thoroughly explained this thousands of years ago. — Metaphysician Undercover

The view to which I refer (positing no preferred moment in time) was probably not something Aristotle was aware of. The argument you outline assumes the opposite point of view (yours) and argues for a distinction between past, present, and future. I have little against the argument, but it is irrelevant to proving its assumption, that there is a present moment.

So we're back to unproven conjecture. You need a proof that does not proceed right up from an assumption that a present moment exists, as both you and Aristotle do.

It has been proven, and now you need to demonstrate that what has been proven to me as true, is actually false if you have any desire to lead me in another direction.

As I said, the argument isn't particularly invalid, but it assumes your premises right up front. Aristotle can be forgiven because to my awareness the alternate position would not be proposed for around 14 centuries.

The alternate view does not describe a different experience, so there is no distinction. There is still past and future, but they're just relations between events, not actual states of events. — noAxioms
"Relations between events" does not produce a past and future, it produces a before and after.

Pretty much yes. To be a little more precise, if you assume a preferred frame, then there is an objective before/after/simultaneous relationship between any two events. If you assume neither a preferred moment nor a preferred frame (mainstream view), then there is a relationship of before/after/ambiguous between any two events (the 'ambiguous' meaning the relation is frame dependent). No event is in 'the past' or 'the future'. Thus any references to such properties in any demonstration of inconsistency of this view would be begging a different set of assumptions.

Until you model this difference, your model has no past and future.

If A is before B, then B would be in the future of A and A would be in the past of B. This illustrates the usage of the terms as relations instead of properties.

Did you read what I wrote? Energy is a property of the "field", transmitted through the field. The field exerts a force on the particles. You do not see that the "field" is therefore a "substance"? Also, the field exists between the object which creates it, and the particles effected by it. Do you not see that the field is therefore a substance. — Metaphysician Undercover

Earlier MU: "Ether is necessary to account for the reality of waves. A wave is in a substance. We can deny the reality of these waves, but then fields and wavefunctions don't represent anything real. Observation attests to the reality of these waves. If the waves are real, then so is the medium in which they exist."

Substance: the real physical matter of which a person or thing consists and which has a tangible, solid presence

Matter: physical substance in general, as distinct from mind and spirit; (in physics) that which occupies space and possesses rest mass, especially as distinct from energy.

---------------------------------------------

Argument here is hopeless. Is there a real, live physicist who will enter the discussion and untangle this mess? :roll:

Argument here is hopeless. Is there a real, live physicist who will enter the discussion and untangle this mess? :roll: — jgill

I've queried a few 'live physicists' about a couple points (not this one), and most of them don't know their philosophy very well, and might have differing opinions to such questions. As physicists, if the topic is relevant to their field, they'll be able to tell you what will be expected to be measured by a given test, which should be true regardless of their opinions on the metaphysics of the situation.

Translation: You're probably not going to get a better answer from them.

Argument here is hopeless. Is there a real, live physicist who will enter the discussion and untangle this mess? — jgill

I'm not a physicist, I just play one on TV :) (Undergrad degree several decades old.) But what mess do you need untangled? Not the mess in MU's head, I hope, because that would be, as you say, hopeless - and in any event, that would require a specialist from a different field of study...

Radiometers, a/k/a light mills. — tim wood

These are physical objects effected by light, so this is not much different from a demonstration of the photoelectric effect, which shows how supposed particles are effected by electromagnetic waves. It does not provide the evidence required to show that the light itself exists in any form other than waves.

The view to which I refer (positing no preferred moment in time) was probably not something Aristotle was aware of. The argument you outline assumes the opposite point of view (yours) and argues for a distinction between past, present, and future. I have little against the argument, but it is irrelevant to proving its assumption, that there is a present moment. — noAxioms

We seem to be talking about different things here. I have been consistently talking about a distinction between past and future, which we call "the present". You have been consistently talking about a "present moment". If what you call the present "moment" is the same thing as what I call the present, then it is impossible to make the "positing of no preferred moment" consistent with my perspective, which necessitates a "preferred moment", as the division between past and future. Perhaps we could compromise on our differences if we allow that the present (as the division between past and future), is not a dimensionless division as a "moment". I am willing to accept that the present, as the division between past and future, does not exists as a dimensionless divide, but as a period of "time", during which the past is changing to the future. This requires two dimensions of "time", and makes the present not a "preferred moment", but a "preferred time". Will you agree to this, and release your use of "preferred moment", and "present moment", for "preferred time", and "present time"?

So we're back to unproven conjecture. You need a proof that does not proceed right up from an assumption that a present moment exists, as both you and Aristotle do. — noAxioms

So, you have misunderstood my argument. I have not argued for a "present moment". I argue that there is undeniable empirical evidence for a distinction between past and future. That is what Aristotle demonstrated by showing that the law of excluded middle is applicable to past events, but is not applicable to future events. So we have a difference between actual events (past) and possible events (future). This difference, between past and future, necessitates the conclusion that something, a boundary or division, separates the two, and this is what we call the present. I did not say, nor did I mean to imply, that the present exists as a "moment".

As I said, the argument isn't particularly invalid, but it assumes your premises right up front. Aristotle can be forgiven because to my awareness the alternate position would not be proposed for around 14 centuries. — noAxioms

The premise, therefore, is that there is a substantial difference between past and future. I insist that it is undeniable, because it influences every aspect of our life, and all the things that we do. it is a basic principle underlying all science, inductive reasoning, and prediction.

I assume this premise, right up front, because I believe it is so fundamental, and undeniably true. If you have any reasons whatsoever, why this premise might not be true, then as I've requested of you, put these reasons forward. But to say that I should arbitrarily dismiss what is so obviously true, so that you can propose what is obviously false, is just nonsense. Sure you might call it a "bias", but this is the bias which allows me to distinguish science from science fiction, and I will not dismiss it just so that science fiction may pose as science.

Pretty much yes. To be a little more precise, if you assume a preferred frame, then there is an objective before/after/simultaneous relationship between any two events. If you assume neither a preferred moment nor a preferred frame (mainstream view), then there is a relationship of before/after/ambiguous between any two events (the 'ambiguous' meaning the relation is frame dependent). No event is in 'the past' or 'the future'. Thus any references to such properties in any demonstration of inconsistency of this view would be begging a different set of assumptions. — noAxioms

This is the precise point of our disagreement then. I believe that it is undeniably true that there is an "objective" past and future. This is the fundamental constraint which the "objective" universe imposes on any, and all living beings. The proof of this fundamental truth is supported by all aspects of life, including death, and all observations of the "objective" universe, induction, prediction, and the scientific method. To convince me to release this undeniable truth, so that you might propose something contrary to this, requires that you present me with at least one piece of evidence against it. You have given me nothing. You simply insist that I ought to drop my bias.

If A is before B, then B would be in the future of A and A would be in the past of B. This illustrates the usage of the terms as relations instead of properties. — noAxioms

Defining "past" and "future" in a different way doesn't give me what I requested, it just dodges the issue.

Argument here is hopeless. Is there a real, live physicist who will enter the discussion and untangle this mess? — jgill

You see, a "field" must have real, substantial, material existence, as the "thing" which has energy and momentum. Yet a field is modeled as the property of a vacuum, an electromagnetic field in a vacuum. Don't expect a physicist to sort this out for you, they are the ones who created the mess, and they are satisfied to simply live with it (shut up and calculate). That's why, when you search on the internet for whether a field is a real physical object or not, you'll get conflicting accounts, from different physicists. Some, such as Feynman, recognize and understand that the principles of Faraday's and Maxwell's ontological representations of electromagnetic fields, have remained essentially unchanged and valid, despite the introduction of Einstein's relativity theory. Others, adhering strictly to the principles of relativity will argue that a field cannot have ontological status as a medium, or ether. The problem is that not only are the ontologically real representations of the field valid representations, they are necessary, as the only way to adequately model electromagnetic activity. This is decisive evidence against those who insist that the field cannot be a substantial, or material medium, an "ether", proving them to be wrong. But physicists who argue metaphysics are usually careful in what they say, so as not to cast a negative light on their discipline. To untangle an apparently "hopeless" mess requires first to recognize it as a mess. The hopelessness is an apparition of the refusal to recognize it as a mess. So don't get your hopes up until the skeleton is pulled out of the closet.

We seem to be talking about different things here. I have been consistently talking about a distinction between past and future, which we call "the present". You have been consistently talking about a "present moment". — Metaphysician Undercover

We're talking about the same thing, just slightly different wording,.

If what you call the present "moment" is the same thing as what I call the present, then it is impossible to make the "positing of no preferred moment" consistent with my perspective

I'm not trying to make it consistent with your perspective. Where ever did I say that?
I'm trying to demonstrate its consistency with itself, despite your assertions that your premise "is well supported by hundreds of years of scientific experimentation, empirical evidence". If your assertion is true, then all these hundreds of years of experimentation and evidence should have in some way by now falsified the alternative premise, and yet that premise remains taught in schools.

Perhaps we could compromise on our differences if we allow that the present (as the division between past and future), is not a dimensionless division as a "moment".

I don't know what you mean by 'dimensionless division'. It does seem to divide past from future (neither of which is actual, so I'm not sure where dimensions suddenly come into play).
'The present' means the objective current time which defines the actual current state of any given object. I made that up just now. Not trying to put words in your mouth.

I am willing to accept that the present, as the division between past and future, does not exists as a dimensionless divide, but as a period of "time", during which the past is changing to the future.

OK, that's really weird since most wordings deny the actuality of the past and future, and thus there is no past to change. There is just the current state of everything (not a short duration), and that is continuously changing to a new state in place. I really don't care how you choose to word it. The alternative premise doesn't have a present at all, so how you want to defined it is essentially moot.

This requires two dimensions of "time", and makes the present not a "preferred moment", but a "preferred time". Will you agree to this, and release your use of "preferred moment", and "present moment", for "preferred time", and "present time"?

You speak now of a model with two dimensions of time, but you seem incapable of getting your head around even one.
I can refer to the present using any of those terms, but if there are two things that require different terms, then I'm not talking about that at all.

So, you have misunderstood my argument. I have not argued for a "present moment". I argue that there is undeniable empirical evidence for a distinction between past and future.

The existence of a present moment is one of the premises of Aristotle's argument, so if that premise is wrong, his argument is unsound. How do you not see this? You claim to be 'trained in philosophy' and yet you don't see these trivial flaws in your argument. I have no training at all, but I at least took some courses requiring some basic elements of logic. You're the one who cannot back his assertions.

I assume this premise, right up front, because I believe it is so fundamental, and undeniably true.

You're wrong about it being undeniable since it is denied by plenty, including Einstein who resisted doing so even beyond publishing Special Relativity, but GR could only be worked out with the premise dropped. So we're back to you admitting you can't consider any view that conflicts with your biases. That's being closed minded.

If you have any reasons whatsoever, why this premise might not be true, then as I've requested of you, put these reasons forward.

Because it doesn't have to be true. That's actually the reason.
Being open minded to all valid views is the first step in making an informed choice. Your choice is made, but it is a completely uniformed one. My choices are at least more informed, and I make no claim as to the necessary truth of them when I'm aware of a viable alternative.

Until you model this difference, your model has no past and future. — Metaphysician Undercover

If A is before B, then B would be in the future of A and A would be in the past of B. This illustrates the usage of the terms as relations instead of properties.
— noAxioms
Defining "past" and "future" in a different way doesn't give me what I requested, it just dodges the issue.

Yes, my model defines the words differently. It has no 'the past' and 'the future', hence there is no issue to dodge. It denies the existence of such properties.

These are physical objects effected by light, so this is not much different from a demonstration of the photoelectric effect, which shows how supposed particles are effected by electromagnetic waves. It does not provide the evidence required to show that the light itself exists in any form other than waves. — Metaphysician Undercover

I've tried to understand where you come from in many of these discussions. The only conclusion I reach is that you suffer from a cognitive impairment. All of us, from our first moments, have to figure out how to make sense of the world, being in the world. Recent news is of studies that suggest that infants sometimes see sound and hear colour because their "wiring" isn't yet finished. But they get there.

Then we go to school and encounter ideas that do not at first make sense. For me it was the concept of a function, and the idea that you solve equations with two variables by "letting" one of them take a value. Function and letting. My brain had to learn these things, and having learned, I was a different person. No doubt you had many similar experiences. But then at some point it seems as if your understanding ossified, and cannot take on new ideas.

In its simplest form, for you it seems that this word means this in this context, and therefore cannot mean that in that context, and, any concept from of that context that even tries to use that term must therefore be nonsensical.

You pronounce that light is waves. No educated person I know of says that. Most of us, having some familiarity with the double slit experiment, know the the correct locution is that light acts like a wave when looked at as a wave, and otherwise as a particle. No one (except you) says categorically it's either.

You seem to be unable to process that the things of the world might not yield as readily to Aristotelian thinking as you would like, or that there might be ideas on subjects he never arrived at. Unfortunately it makes you a useless interlocutor, because your thinking and arguments seem always to be wrong-footed and just plain ignorant.

Don't argue with me that light is a wave; argue with the world. Make your case, I'll pay attention. And you pay attention to what you're arguing.

I'm not trying to make it consistent with your perspective. Where ever did I say that?
I'm trying to demonstrate its consistency with itself, despite your assertions that your premise "is well supported by hundreds of years of scientific experimentation, empirical evidence". If your assertion is true, then all these hundreds of years of experimentation and evidence should have in some way by now falsified the alternative premise, and yet that premise remains taught in schools. — noAxioms

This is incorrect, "consistency with itself" does not make it true, it means the logic is valid. That's the difference between sound and valid. Consistency with itself means that it has valid logic. But if it has false premises then it is unsound. You are asking me to drop premises which are obviously true, and adopt contrary premises which are obviously false, just so you can show me the validity of your logic. But what's the point, when your logic is being applied to faulty premises?

'The present' means the objective current time which defines the actual current state of any given object. I made that up just now. Not trying to put words in your mouth. — noAxioms

Right, that's consistent with what I said, I prefer if we remove "moment", and talk about the present time, or current time.

There is just the current state of everything (not a short duration), and that is continuously changing to a new state in place. I really don't care how you choose to word it. The alternative premise doesn't have a present at all, so how you want to defined it is essentially moot. — noAxioms

You seem to be missing something. Time is passing do you not agree? Things change as time passes. Therefore there is no such thing as "the current state" of things. By the time I say "now" things have changed. So that is not the premise I hold. I hold that the division between past and future which we call the present, is continuously changing. I think that "current state", is like an approximation made to facilitate logic.

You're wrong about it being undeniable since it is denied by plenty, including Einstein who resisted doing so even beyond publishing Special Relativity, but GR could only be worked out with the premise dropped. So we're back to you admitting you can't consider any view that conflicts with your biases. That's being closed minded. — noAxioms

I don't think Einstein ever denied that there is a difference between past and future. It's definitely not denied by Special Relativity nor General Relativity. There are those who interpret Special Relativity as forcing the conclusion that there is no real difference between future and past, but that conclusion requires another premise not provided by the theory, so I think it's a misinterpretation.

As I said, if you want me to drop my "biases" you need to give me reasons why I ought to. If your asking me to dismiss what I know to be true, just to accept what I know to be false, then forget it.

The existence of a present moment is one of the premises of Aristotle's argument, so if that premise is wrong, his argument is unsound. How do you not see this? You claim to be 'trained in philosophy' and yet you don't see these trivial flaws in your argument. I have no training at all, but I at least took some courses requiring some basic elements of logic. You're the one who cannot back his assertions. — noAxioms

Existence of a present moment is not the premise being discussed here I clarified that in the last post.

As I've told you, the premise provided by Aristotle is that there is a fundamental difference between past and future. The other premise is that two distinct, or different things require something which separates them, this constitutes "the difference" between them. Therefore there is something which separates past from future, and this is the present.

That is where my bias lies, in the obvious truth that there is a fundamental difference between past and future, and the conclusion that the difference between them is "the present". I know that if this premise is false, it would open up different possibilities for the nature of time. But I'm not ready to delve into those possibilities until it has been adequately demonstrated to me that this premise might be false.

Because it doesn't have to be true. That's actually the reason.
Being open minded to all valid views is the first step in making an informed choice. Your choice is made, but it is a completely uniformed one. My choices are at least more informed, and I make no claim as to the necessary truth of them when I'm aware of a viable alternative. — noAxioms

If my decision to accept this premise is an "uninformed" one then there must be evidence, information out there which demonstrates the falsity of my premise. Please back up your claim that my mind is made up by such an uninformed choice, and show me this contrary evidence. Show me how things in the past might really be in the future, or something like that. Can time go backward? If you think so, then show me the evidence of this.

Yes, my model defines the words differently. It has no 'the past' and 'the future', hence there is no issue to dodge. It denies the existence of such properties. — noAxioms

Exactly! That demonstrates how you are asking me to dismiss science, in favour of science fiction. It appears like your faulty interpretation of Special relativity has lead you away from science, into the realm of science fiction, and now you are asking me to follow.

However, unlike what you claim, my mind remains open, That's why I continue this discussion. As soon as you can produce any type of evidence or information, which reveals that the distinction between the past and the future might not be a real distinction, I'm ready to follow you into other possibilities. But until then, I'll hold my premise, and I'm not interested in what appears to be science fiction masquerading as science.


Perhaps you'd do better on a psychology forum.

You pronounce that light is waves. No educated person I know of says that. Most of us, having some familiarity with the double slit experiment, know the the correct locution is that light acts like a wave when looked at as a wave, and otherwise as a particle. No one (except you) says categorically it's either. — tim wood

Are you familiar with the three fundamental laws of logic? By the first law, a thing has an identity proper to itself. Let's say that we have identified a particular quantity of "light energy". By the second law we cannot attribute contradictory properties to the identified thing. So, " the light energy was transmitted as a wave through a field", and "the light energy was not transmitted as a wave through a field (it was transmitted as a particle)", are contradictory and are disallowed by the second law. By the third law, we can say that either it was, or was not transmitted as a wave. I opt for the first. And, if you've read my replies to jgill, you'll see that I've supported my position with reference to renown physicist, Dr. Feynman.
You might opt for "I don't know which of the two it was", that's a valid proposition, but it does not validate the claim "it was both", which is not a valid proposition according to the third law.

You pronounce that light is waves. No educated person I know of says that.
— tim wood
Are you familiar with the three fundamental laws of logic? — Metaphysician Undercover

My point precisely and exactly. The universe does not consult with logic to see what it will do or how it will do it. Your argument, then, is mere extended non sequitur.