Nonetheless the observer - or, even better, agent or person - closes the loop in the sense that it is human experience that grounds quantum theory and the quantities that can be measured.
— Andrew M
That also seems true of say Newtonian theory. — noAxioms
Is there some way in which human agency or observation makes a difference in (grounds) QT in a way that it doesn’t in NT? That would be a pretty incredible claim, that physics (and not just human theories/knowledge of physics) is different in the presence of humans than it is in a universe absent them. — noAxioms
My ontology has nothing to do with perception.. — noAxioms
Usage of the word implies that quantum effects only occur when there is intent behind the measurements. There’s no evidence for that and heavy evidence against it. — noAxioms
Poor example I think since a magnifying glass doesn’t usually qualify as a measurement. They’re used in multiple places in typical laser experiments and they don’t collapse wave functions in them, else the experiments would fail. They’re not detectors, only refractors, and refraction wouldn’t work (wouldn’t bend light) at all if it constituted a measurement. — noAxioms
But I wasn’t asking about descriptions. You say time requires observation. You didn’t say a description of time requires observation. I’d have agreed to that. So you’re evading the question instead by answering a different one. — noAxioms
Don’t be silly. You know it does. It is the location of that which said ‘here’. — noAxioms
But you said that being stationary was not possible, so you seem to exclude the possibility that you didn’t go anywhere during that interval. And as for my statement, had I indeed flown all around during that interval, at no time would I not be where I am, thus I’d always still be ‘here’. I’d simply not be inertial, so the coordinate system in which I am perpetually at the origin would not be an inertial coordinate system. — noAxioms
My point was that this abductive construction isn’t in any way something unique to quantum theory. That’s not what make it different, and it certainly doesn’t indicate that physical processes require the presence of humans. Sure, the human knowledge of physics requires humans, but that knowledge isn’t necessary for trees to fall in the forest when nobody is around.No, my point is that quantum theory is constructed abductively from what we observe. As far as we know, it applies universally. — Andrew M
You choose not to defend it. That’s alright too I guess. I will instead offer a counterargument.I don’t see how that follows, sorry.
— noAxioms
That’s quite alright. — Wayfarer
You seem to be using the street definition of ‘measurement’ instead of the definition relevant to quantum theory. Please see the Bell quote in Andrew M’s post a few back which addresses exactly this naive mistake and the common misconceptions that result from such assumptions.There is always intent behind human actions, therefore intent behind measurements. — Metaphysician Undercover
I’m not denying idealism, I’m merely not talking about it. Sure, under idealism, you (and nobody else) causes wave function collapse.your ontological attitude is to deny idealism, so you deny the reality because it doesn't jive with your ontology
That’s right. My coordinate system has no need for you to know where its origin is. But you can do it for yourself.I have no idea where you are, and therefore no idea where "here" is when you say it.
That would be ridiculous since the frame reference was omitted from the assertion of not having moved, rendering it meaningless at best.That's how ridiculous your claim was, that because you were "here" now, and "here" later, you hadn't moved.
Where did I ever imply that? If you want to take my argument apart, surely you can do it without dragging in strawman stuff like that. So far, all I’ve seen is you applying the appeal to ridicule fallacy.Anything else in the world is totally irrelevant to you because in your solipsistic reality, nothing is ever changing places relative to you
Given a coordinate system in which some object is always at the origin, that object always at location zero and thus not moving relative to that coordinate system. This is tautologically true. That coordinate system would be an inertial coordinate system only if no external forces were acting on the object in question. Given the comment below, you seem to already know this.What in the world are you referring to when you say "not-moving relative to 'here'"?
The bolded part of that statement gives no frame reference, so I would agree that nothing was said about that ambiguous statement. I will also say that something’s lack of motion relative to one frame does not imply lack of motion relative to a different frame, had an alternate one been specified.Do you agree, that this sort of tautology, or self-evident truth, that you are never moving relative to yourself, says absolutely nothing about whether or not you are "moving"?
That depends on what the first definition (the one you apparently reject) was.To make sense of "I am moving relative to the place where I am' would require a completely different definition of "moving".
Agreed, but I’m not using conversational definitions of just about anything. I’m using physics definitions.And your example says absolutely nothing about "motion" as used in any conventional way.
I’m using physics definitions. — noAxioms
You seem to be using the street definition of ‘measurement’ instead of the definition relevant to quantum theory — noAxioms
That would be ridiculous since the frame reference was omitted from the assertion of not having moved, rendering it meaningless at best. — noAxioms
Given a coordinate system in which some object is always at the origin, that object always at location zero and thus not moving relative to that coordinate system. This is tautologically true. That coordinate system would be an inertial coordinate system only if no external forces were acting on the object in question. Given the comment below, you seem to already know this. — noAxioms
Don't you see a problem with that? — magritte
Don't you see a problem with that? — magritte — Metaphysician Undercover
My point was that this abductive construction isn’t in any way something unique to quantum theory. That’s not what make it different, and it certainly doesn’t indicate that physical processes require the presence of humans. Sure, the human knowledge of physics requires humans, but that knowledge isn’t necessary for trees to fall in the forest when nobody is around. — noAxioms
Please see the Bohr quote in Andrew M’s post a few back — noAxioms
Leibniz felt that whatever it is that's out there that behaves like space only gains the subjective feeling of depth, breadth, height, and distance when our brains try to organise objects that are separated by an altogether more abstract property. — Matt O'Dowd
This seems to be a point of contention because I’m not in any way talking about the meaning of the word trees or the human experience of one falling or lack thereof. I was referring to the tree itself falling in the total absence of human anything. It pains me to have to use human language to express that, but I’m not talking about the language, the expression, the concept, the fact that the tree happens to be my very distant cousin, or whatever. I’m talking about the tree.Nonetheless the idea of trees falling only has meaning in the context of human experience. — Andrew M
Thx, fixed that. One 4-letter B-word is the same as another, no?I think you meant the John Bell quote.
This is all using the common definition. It seems appropriate that one should use the quantum theory definition of ‘measurement’ when discussing quantum theory. So rather than admitting this obvious thing, you resort again to ridicule in attempt to salvage your assertions.Ha, ha, "street definition", that's funny. Is that the definition of "measurement" which the cop with the radar gun uses to prosecute in court? "I calibrated my machine in the lab according to...so that it would be accurate to within... on the street". On the street we don't really use definitions noAxioms.
Face it no Axioms, there's alwaya intent behind "measurement" no matter how you use the word. There must be or else there'd be no measurement. — Metaphysician Undercover
No, it doesn’t. I had specified the frame in which I was stationary."Here" does not constitute a frame of reference.
Just a velocity reference is enough, which is usually defined by the object referenced in establishment of that frame. So I can say ‘the local inertial frame of the sun’ which defines the velocities of everything around it but not any particular coordinate system. To generate a coordinate system, with numbers assigned to every nearby event, would require specification of an origin and of the orientation of the spatial axes. Saying ‘the inertial frame of the sun’ implies the sun at the origin, but only specifies the orientation of one axis, not the other three. So from just that, I cannot specify say the coordinates of Earth at a particular moment in time. I need to know where the axes are, and for that, more than one additional reference must be given. The plane of the ecliptic might define one of those, but still not the other two. A distant reference (Betelgeuse say) might suffice to anchor the other two.The point of course, is that no frame of reference can use just one point, location must be established relative to another point.
As per the above, a specification of only the origin defines a frame but does not assign coordinates to events not at that origin. So I could for instance have a frame of a rocket with the origin at the nose, the very ‘front’. That point will always be at the origin no matter what the rocket does, but we need two more points to make a coordinate system of it. So say the rear-most point is on the x axis, and some feature on the side defines the y axis. The z is just orthogonal to the other two and requires no additional reference. Now it’s a coordinate system, and the ‘abort’ button is always (nearly) stationary in this coordinate system regardless of what the rocket does. The astronaut knows where the button is despite the motion of the rocket because he’s using that coordinate system when needing to hit that button. I say ‘nearly stationary’ because vibration and other stresses will move that button a mm or two now and then due to strain on the vehicle.Are you proposing that you could map motion with a spatial representation that employs a coordinate system with only one locational point, a point zero, without any other points?
Very good, The latter half even constitutes the frame reference, which you almost always omit.Let's see, object is always at point zero therefore object is never moving. What defines point zero? The place where the object is.
Does the experience of the tea-drinker just suddenly cease? Does the tea drinker not actually have any experience of it? Is there more than one identity of the friend, one hot and one cold, or are somehow both states experienced by the same friend, but only one remembered? How would you reply to something like that? — noAxioms
It pains me to have to use human language to express that, but I’m not talking about the language, the expression, the concept, the fact that the tree happens to be my very distant cousin, or whatever. I’m talking about the tree. — noAxioms
I don’t suggest things ‘are real’ in any objective sense. — noAxioms
The far side of the moon is still there when nobody looks at it since looking at it isn’t what makes it there. — noAxioms
If I say the moon exists, I mean that I've measured it, which doesn't involve looking or any other conscious function. — noAxioms
It is me that nobody seems to get that? I’m not saying that the alternative (that noumena supervenes on human phenomena or human language) is necessarily wrong, but that such a stance utterly destroys any hope of acquisition of knowledge — noAxioms
I think you meant the John Bell quote.
Thx, fixed that. One 4-letter B-word is the same as another, no? — noAxioms
Well good then. I was beginning to wonder since all the conversation kept turning to human discourse on physics and not the actual physics.I'm not therefore saying that trees somehow depend on human experience. — Andrew M
Not even obviously. Many times things that are obvious are also wrong. As my username implies, I don’t assume anything.Obviously they don't.
I’m asking what it must be like to be the person who doesn’t win the wave function collapse.I don't understand the point you're trying to illustrate. — Wayfarer
Just because it is hard to do doesn’t mean the theory doesn’t support it. And it’s the Wigner’s friend idea, an extension of the cat idea. It works with the cat as well as long as you’re allowed to ask what it’s like to be the cat, which some deny.Nothing on the macroscopic level really exists in anything like the mathematical superposition of states that describe subatomic particles. It seems a version of the 'Schrodinger's cat' idea.
Translation: it is there relative to any person. Sorry that you found a case where I wasn’t explicit about the relation. I do not suggest that the moon is objectively real or even real relative to the universe."I don’t suggest things ‘are real’ in any objective sense." — noAxioms
Yet in another place, you say "The far side of the moon is still there when nobody looks at it since looking at it isn’t what makes it there."
Yes, there I am more explicit about the relationship and the nature of that relationship.And also that: "If I say the moon exists, I mean that I've measured it, which doesn't involve looking or any other conscious function."
Independent of knowledge and experience, yes, but not independent of measurement (quantum definition, since everybody seems to presume otherwise). A rock measures the moon as much as I do, and so the moon exists to the rock. The relationship has absolutely nothing to do with one part of the relation being something living or perceiving or having any sensory apparatus.So, what do you mean, really? Because it seems to me, despite your claims to the contrary, that your view is realist, i.e. that trees, the moon, the proverbial table or proverbial apple, are all quite real, independently of anyone's knowledge or experience of them. — Wayfarer
the moon exists to the rock — noAxioms
A rock measures the moon as much as I do, and so the moon exists to the rock. — noAxioms
That's the relational view, yes.the moon exists to the rock
— noAxioms
Only if they interact. Otherwise neither exists to the other. — magritte
I didn't get that whole list. To exist is a matter of definition. Objectively seems to be in the absence of measurement. "There is a universe with 4 spatial and 2 time dimensions". That seems to be an objective statement of reality.The point is to look at what it means to 'exist' objectively, publicly, subject independently and time&space independently, as against exist subjectively with reason.
The word 'subjectively' implies the rock has experience. I selected it because it doesn't.Subjectively the rock is the center of its universe without denying the possibility of the subjective universe of others. Without interaction nothing can exist.
No. Realist is counterfactual definiteness, existence in absence of measurement. Existence due to measurement is not that.So, realist. — Wayfarer
I expect such statements from @Metaphysician Undercover, but you also seem to fail to use the quantum theory definition of 'measurement' in a topic discussing quantum theory. Hence the rise (and fall) of the Wigner interpretation which, due to that language ambiguity, gave rise to the proposal that consciousness causes wave function collapse, an interpretation abandoned by Wigner himself due to it being driven to solipsism.Inanimate objects don't measure anything. And measurement is a conscious process. — Wayfarer
Thank you for you time then.The 'moon exists to the rock' is a meaningless statement.
I disagree with Charles here. Words were used by Pinter to describe this counterfactual reality. I agree that there'd be nothing to put words to the features of things, or to designate certain arrangements of matter as a 'thing' in the first place. But none of that stops physics from happening. It only stops physics from being meaningfully described by anything in that universe.'This is the way the early universe was before the emergence of life—and the way the present universe is outside the view of any observer' — Charles Pinter, Mind and the Cosmic Order
But none of that stops physics from happening. — noAxioms
Realist is counterfactual definiteness, existence in absence of measurement. — noAxioms
In physics, counter-factual definiteness is a concept related to the measurement problem in quantum mechanics. It refers to the idea that physical systems have definite properties, even if they are not measured or observed.
According to counter-factual definiteness, if a measurement had been made on a quantum system, it would have had a definite outcome, even if that outcome was not actually observed. In other words, the properties of a system exist independently of any measurements or observations made on it. — ChatGPT
Existence due to measurement is not that. — noAxioms
The relationship has absolutely nothing to do with one part of the relation being something living or perceiving or having any sensory apparatus. — noAxioms
Once again, see Bell’s quote above discussing why quantum theory should never have used the word ‘observer’ or ‘measurement’ for precisely the reason you are demonstrating: — noAxioms
A rock measures the moon as much as I do, and so the moon exists to the rock. — noAxioms
Realist is counterfactual definiteness, existence in absence of measurement. Existence due to measurement is not that. — noAxioms
I expect such statements from Metaphysician Undercover, but you also seem to fail to use the quantum theory definition of 'measurement' in a topic discussing quantum theory. Hence the rise (and fall) of the Wigner interpretation which, due to that language ambiguity, gave rise to the proposal that consciousness causes wave function collapse, an interpretation abandoned by Wigner himself due to it being driven to solipsism. — noAxioms
I leads the naive reader to suspect that humans are somehow necessary for physics to work, that the universe supervenes on you and not the other way around. — noAxioms
No, it doesn’t. I had specified the frame in which I was stationary. — noAxioms
Just a velocity reference is enough, — noAxioms
but a ‘frame’ does not require additional references. — noAxioms
As per the above, a specification of only the origin defines a frame... — noAxioms
So I could for instance have a frame of a rocket with the origin at the nose, the very ‘front’. That point will always be at the origin no matter what the rocket does, but we need two more points to make a coordinate system of it. So say the rear-most point is on the x axis, and some feature on the side defines the y axis. The z is just orthogonal to the other two and requires no additional reference. Now it’s a coordinate system, and the ‘abort’ button is always (nearly) stationary in this coordinate system regardless of what the rocket does. The astronaut knows where the button is despite the motion of the rocket because he’s using that coordinate system when needing to hit that button. I say ‘nearly stationary’ because vibration and other stresses will move that button a mm or two now and then due to strain on the vehicle. — noAxioms
Very good, The latter half even constitutes the frame reference, which you almost always omit. — noAxioms
In the end, a few premises are needed though, and I explicitly list that one (that humans are not special, and reality doesn’t supervene on my experience). I even attempt a logical demonstration of it, but I don’t think it constitutes a proof. — noAxioms
The real problem here is with the notion of "the present universe". What Einstein reveals with the relativity of simultaneity is that "the present" is frame dependent. So the whole idea that there is such a thing as "the present universe" is an unsound premise because "the present" is something created by the observational perspective.
When we realize that "the present" is purely subjective, and we try to imagine an objective universe, independent from any observer, we have no place to insert "the present", because this would be an artificial insertion, therefore the creation of an observational perspective. Then we cannot possibly imagine such a universe, without a designated temporal perspective, (a point in time of now), because all things would exist everywhere, without some way of determining a specific point in time in their motions.
I only skimmed this thread, but has the Born Rule problem really not come up?
To bring up the example before, it is like someone's spouse is either in spot A with probability 30% or spot B with probability 70%, except, get this, she is also in BOTH spots with probability 100%. Explaining that satisfactorily is going to be a doozy, and I don't think Dutch Book arguments really solve the problem. — Count Timothy von Icarus
From these axioms they conclude that rational agents should bet on the outcomes of a quantum experiment with probabilities given by the Born rule. Who cares? Should we really believe that the statistics of an experiment will be constrained by rationality axioms? And conversely, if you can show that the statistics of a quantum experiment follow the Born rule, doesn’t it become obvious that rational agents should bet that they do, making the whole decision-theoretic argument superfluous? It’s worth noting that this same criticism applies to my derivation, as it is just a cleaned up version of the Deutsch-Wallace argument...
Let’s move on to Vaidman, Carroll, and Sebens. Their derivations differ on several important points, but I’m interested here in their common point: they passionately argue that probability is about uncertainty, that a genuine source of uncertainty in Many-Worlds is self-locating uncertainty, and that locality implies that your self-locating uncertainty must be given by the Born rule. Arguing about whether probability is uncertainty is a waste of time4, but their second point is well-taken: after a measurement has been done and before you know the outcome, you are genuinely uncertain about in which branch of the wavefunction you are. I just don’t see how could this be of fundamental relevance. I can very well do the experiment with my eyes glued to the screen of the computer, so that I’m at first aware that all possible outcomes will happen, and then aware of what the outcome in my branch is, without ever passing through a moment of uncertainty in between. Decoherence does work fast enough for that to happen.5 What now? No probability anymore? And then it appears when I close my eyes for a few seconds? That makes sense if probability is only in my head, but then you’re not talking about how Nature works, and I don’t care about your notion of probability.
Relativity shows simultaneity is local, not that it is somehow arbitrary. It is not the case that relativity in any way prescribes eternalism, although this has not stopped popular science authors from making this claim (or others from continually coming along to debunk it; I have not seen the debunking debunked in turn however, and it convinced me). — Count Timothy von Icarus
No one present is privileged, but you can have a "many fingered time," with multiple time variables. — Count Timothy von Icarus
That there are issues with positing the world as it is sans observers is quite true, but it is true even ignoring SR/GR. — Count Timothy von Icarus
Fine. I googled ‘what is measurement in quantum mechanics’ and got thisPhysics is a human undertaking.
...
All measures are made by humans. — Wayfarer
This seems more a classical physics definition of measurement, but I concede the point that there is implied intent going on.In quantum physics, a measurement is the testing or manipulation of a physical system to yield a numerical result. — ”Wiki: Measurement in quantum mechanics”
This is what I am talking about. What precisely physically ‘does something’ to a system that makes its [past] state change, I say physically because I’m not talking about somebody’s mere knowledge or description of a system. I assure you it isn’t the determination of a numerical value by a conscious entity that changes the target system.In quantum mechanics, the measurement problem is the problem of how, or whether, wave function collapse occurs. The inability to observe such a collapse directly has given rise to different interpretations of quantum mechanics and poses a key set of questions that each interpretation must answer.
The wave function in quantum mechanics evolves deterministically according to the Schrödinger equation as a linear superposition of different states. However, actual measurements always find the physical system in a definite state. Any future evolution of the wave function is based on the state the system was discovered to be in when the measurement was made, meaning that the measurement "did something" to the system that is not obviously a consequence of Schrödinger evolution. The measurement problem is describing what that "something" is, how a superposition of many possible values becomes a single measured value. — ”Wiki: Measurement problem
Given your definitions, this seems to translate to a system having properties despite the absence of humans, which is impossible since ‘system’ and ‘property’ are human terms, not meaningful in the absence of humans.[Counter-factual definiteness] refers to the idea that physical systems have definite properties, even if they are not measured or observed. — Wayfarer
No, because ‘everything that exists’, lacking a relation, is meaningless in a view requiring such a relation. It’s worded as an objective statement. Only a realist gives meaning to such a phrase.So, you're still 'realist', but you are outsourcing measurement to everything that exists
No. That’s still a cheap attempt to put objective existence on things, like it was a property instead of a relation. I also don’t see how a god (or anything not part of the quantum structure) could measure a closed quantum system.So, 'measurement', for you, occupies the place that 'God' does, for Berkeley, i.e. it keeps everything in existence when not being measured, as Berkeley's God keeps everything in existence even while not observed.
I was going to agree with this until the last bit about physical boundaries. A system’s boundaries are an arbitrary abstraction, nothing physical about it. But the arbitrary designations are needed for description, not for the actual processes to work.do you recognize that a system is an artificial thing, a human creation, whether it is a theoretical system, with boundaries imposed by theory, or a mechanical system, with created physical boundaries? — Metaphysician Undercover
Given this intentional definition of ‘measurement’, I cannot answer this question since I don’t define existence in terms of it, but it sounds like a version of the principle of counterfactual definiteness. I personally choose to deny that principle.then by what principle do you assume that there is any sort of "existence in absence of measurement"?
That’s pretty pragmatic to assume that, yes. It’s also pretty pragmatic to assume that I cannot choose to alter some event in the past, but it’s been demonstrated that one of those assumptions (if not both) are wrong.because "measurement" to most people implies some real existing aspect of the universe which is measured, like when we count something we assume that there is an existing quantity which can be counted and it has some real existence as that quantity, prior to being counted.
That one word was not where the frame was specified.You did not specify a frame, you said "here".
I didn’t say a frame was a point. I can say ‘the frame of the sun’, and that defines a frame relative to which the velocity of things (Earth say) can be expressed. An additional reference is not needed to determine that Earth at a particular moment moves at about 30 km/sec relative to that frame. The statement does not assert that a frame is a point. The frame happens to be a velocity reference. It is limited. I cannot, given just that, specify the x y and z coordinates of Earth at a given moment. More definition is needed for that to be done.but a ‘frame’ does not require additional references.
— noAxioms
Yes it does, and you've misrepresent "frame" as a point. A point is not a frame.
I didn’t specify a point, and I didn’t say it constituted the frame. The sun for instance is a worldline, not a point. A point would be an event, and an event indeed does not define a frame. A worldline defines a frame. An unaccelerated worldline defines an inertial frame. So before I said ‘my frame’ which is a frame defined by my worldline, and relative to that worldline, ‘here’ is always at the same location, and no, that worldline does not constitute the frame, it only defines it.As per the above, a specification of only the origin defines a frame...
— noAxioms
No, a point does not constitute a frame.
It does not. For instance, there is the cosmological frame, an expanding metric that foliates most of the universe. The CMB appears isotropic to anything stationary relative to that frame. But coordinate system implies coordinates. One can measure the sun’s current velocity relative to that frame (not quite 400 km/sec in the direction of Leo), but one cannot specify the current coordinates of the sun relative to it. That would require a coordinate system. Hence a frame and a coordinate system are different things. The former is a velocity reference, but the latter assigns numbers (coordinates) to all events."Frame" implies "coordinate system".
I just gave multiple examples of them. If you disagree, then tell me the current coordinates of our sun (a number for x, y, and z, your choice of units). Remember, the only reference is the CMB here, not a worldline this time, but enough.There is no frame without a coordinate system as you seem to believe.
No, because I didn’t define it relative to that which says ‘here’. I chose a different origin, which was the nose of the rocket. In fact, I never used the word ‘here’ in releation to the frame of the rocket.Your "frame" in this example is a coordinate system which maps the rocket, not one point such as "here"
I never said that, so no worries. I referred to the very tip was a point where I assigned the origin. The rest of the rocket is not located at the tip, and so not at the origin. Other parts of the rocket have nonzero coordinates relative to the coordinate system described.And if you say that the rocket is one point
The wave function in quantum mechanics evolves deterministically according to the Schrödinger equation as a linear superposition of different states. However, actual measurements always find the physical system in a definite state. Any future evolution of the wave function is based on the state the system was discovered to be in when the measurement was made, meaning that the measurement "did something" to the system that is not obviously a consequence of Schrödinger evolution — ”Wiki: Measurement problem
I have never seen a satisfactory explanation of why we should find ourselves in the world that has increasing entropy — Count Timothy von Icarus
What would you call an interaction between systems of which humans are completely unaware, say where one system (some radioactive atom) emits an alpha particle which alters a second system (some molecule somewhere) by altering its molecular structure (and probably heating up the material of which the molecule is part). It isn’t a measurement because there’s no intent and no numerical result yielded, so what word describes this exchange between the atom and the molecule? — noAxioms
This is what I am talking about. What precisely physically ‘does something’ to a system that makes its [past] state change, I say physically because I’m not talking about somebody’s mere knowledge or description of a system. I assure you it isn’t the determination of a numerical value by a conscious entity that changes the target system. — noAxioms
The wave function in quantum mechanics evolves deterministically according to the Schrödinger equation as a linear superposition of different states. — ”Wiki: Measurement problem
I was going to agree with this until the last bit about physical boundaries. A system’s boundaries are an arbitrary abstraction, nothing physical about it. But the arbitrary designations are needed for description, not for the actual processes to work. — noAxioms
That’s pretty pragmatic to assume that, yes. It’s also pretty pragmatic to assume that I cannot choose to alter some event in the past, but it’s been demonstrated that one of those assumptions (if not both) are wrong. — noAxioms
When it is said that something is 'measured' it is difficult not to think of the result as referring to some pre-existing property of the object in question. — Against ‘measurement’ - John Bell, 1990
I didn’t say a frame was a point. — noAxioms
If you disagree with that, then do you deny that Earth moves at about 30 km/sec relative to the sun? What additional references are required before that statement can be made? — noAxioms
It does not. For instance, there is the cosmological frame, an expanding metric that foliates most of the universe. — noAxioms
No, because I didn’t define it relative to that which says ‘here’. I chose a different origin, which was the nose of the rocket. In fact, I never used the word ‘here’ in releation to the frame of the rocket. — noAxioms
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.