However, you cannot escape the modernism of technology. You can deconstruct narratives all you want, technology, science, and the minutia needed to keep this going is here to stay. — schopenhauer1
The wiki site says it was emitted 13.4 billion years ago, but it could not have got far enough away in only 400M years for light to take that long. Of course, wiki isn't using inertial coordinates when making that statement, so kindly describe the situation in those terms. Where is the emission event? — noAxioms
I've caused confusion. The rock and the dropped clock are the same thing. The space station can watch it fall in, but if it reads time T when it crosses the event horizon, then the space station will never see the clock read anything after T. It will appear from the space station to slow and approach but never reach T. Event B is that clock when it reads T+1. — noAxioms
(1) The communists really did largely industrialise the country eventually.
(2) Resource distribution was very coupled to status in the political hierarchy and extremely coupled to where one lived. It tended to keep the poorest the poorest, but...
(3) It created a network of industrial specialists that flowed freely (with some symbolic protestation from the state) within the state.
(4) Because the Russian economy was still import and export dependent for basic functioning, the state still had to play global capitalist macro policy. It played the resource extraction/subjugation game with other countries in the bloc.
(5) When the Soviet bloc fell, the Russian economy was already prefigured for capital flow, and this created the authoritarian state + oligarchy we all know and love today. — fdrake
Bolshevism was ultimately another path from peasantry to capitalism.
I don't want to throw all the blame for the destitution on the communists, the trade sanctions had a huge impact. It's still worth considering a failure of communism for economic reasons as the eventual development was to capitalist oligarchy. It's even more worth considering a failure of communism for humanitarian ones (genocide, police state). — fdrake
At the risk of derailing the thread, I think it does now. To quote the Big Lebowski; That's Just Like Your Opinion Man and That's The Stress Talking. If we're going to recognize the failure of unifying narratives as a societal feature; we already live in a relativistic chaos of filter bubbles - political representation in its default form is opinion management, how we socialise and are exposed to information is managed by external interests. Unifying narratives don't hold much weight, positive visions of the future are dead. Everything that remains is critique and political negation of manifest injustice; and you don't need a systematic world vision for that, you just need to grasp how a localised injustice is (re)produced. — fdrake
I don't really have the expertise to properly address this (hopefully someone like Kenosha Kid can chime in here and give his input). — Mr Bee
The rock is dropped from a hovering location outside, which shines light down on the dropped clock. — noAxioms
If you were a Marxist (or left historicist philosopher) in the 60's and 70's you were living in the wake of a failed international project of overthrowing capitalism. A project that believed intimately in the feedback of theory and practice. They liked that intersection very much, "the most advanced Marxist science" (a trope in MLM) was a guarantor that "the revolutionary class" was adapted to the local conditions of the dialectic of capitalism.
It all failed. Catastrophically or with outstanding banality depending on where you live. Bang or whimper. — fdrake
To contextualise it philosophically, there's a quote from Sartre (in his Maoist phase) directed at Foucault; "Foucault is the last barricade the bourgeoise can erect against Marx". That poststructuralist stuff was not popular with the Marxist left. — fdrake
You've drawn flat Minkowski spacetime (with arbitrary inertial frame) in which light from any spatial location will reach any other location. That makes it an inappropriate model of the large scale universe where light that is currently say 17 GLY away will never get here, not in 17 billion years or ever.
Earth has an event horizon, and Minkowski spacetime does not. — noAxioms
You can still foliate reasonable gravitration in 'bent' Minkowski spacetime, but not black holes. — noAxioms
So for instance, a device measuring absolute time here on Earth would run apparently faster than one on the surface of Saturn due to the lower gravitational potential here on Earth. The same device on a ship with relativistic absolute speed would similarly appear to run faster (than the clock next to it) than it would if the ship had low peculiar velocity. — noAxioms
1. Does black hole time travel increase or decrease Time ( I can't remember)? — 3017amen
2. Do black holes contribute to Multiverse theories at all? — 3017amen
If evolution is limited to what is possible on earth (earthlike conditions) then wouldnt it progress in a similar fashion on any planet if said earth-like conditions are essential to life? — Benj96
If such objects existed in our inertial frame, light from them would reach us in finite time, so these objects don't exist in that frame, and thus the frame doesn't foliate all of spacetime. — noAxioms
There's been no actual progress on how non-conscious stuff can produce consciousness since Descartes. — RogueAI
He sure as hell bemoaned what came after. — StreetlightX
Yes - Lyotard was subtle enough to have critiqued both metanarratives and their dissolution, without acceding to any false choice between them. — StreetlightX
Lyotard was a theorist of postmodernity. He was incredibly critical of it, and the fact that he is often called a 'postmodernist' philosopher - as if he advocated or celebrated it - is not only wrong, it is practically the opposite of what he would have wanted. He bemoaned the end of the meta-narrative, which was coincident, for him, with the crisis of capitalism. — StreetlightX
Because we have octopeds and they arent our direct descendants. — Benj96
Motion of a 4D object means moving wrt the 4D universe. — Luke
What on Earth are you talking about? — ssu
How has the universal increase in prosperity from the early 19th Century to early 21st Century killed capitalism stone dead? — ssu
So you think the World would be better when all manufacturing WOULD STAY in the rich Western countries? — ssu
It's quite a departure from what you said just a day or two ago — Luke
But I guess thinking of them as "a plenum of 3D spheres" must just be my crazy idea. — Luke
And I guess you're also back to talking about the motion of a 4D object without any qualms that this requires a 5th dimension. — Luke
if it wants to be 《insert weird shit 》, that's what its going to be and we can either get hip with it or gtfo. — Enai De A Lukal
Now think of The Simpsons — schopenhauer1
Why is physicality a requirement of an experiment. Why don't mental phenomena constitute that which can be studied by science? — Adam's Off Ox
Moral law isn't supposed to be explanatory. It's not descriptive, but prescriptive. — Pfhorrest
in 4D geometry there exist two non-identical 3D objects at t and t' (and at all times in between) — Luke
It's not. But this already depends on massive economic disparity between the trader and the place if production. This is not the universal prosperity dream you're selling.
— Kenosha Kid
Does it? — ssu
Economic history tells us a story what happened, but usually we don't want to hear it as we are obsessed about some righteous or ideological agenda. — ssu
Starting from the most clear examples of when a countries have been divided into two with one part going with capitalism and the other with socialism. A better example could not be given. — ssu
You underestimate the competition. You think they would stand idle when they simply could copy your technology? You could bitch and moan about intellectual theft, of course. But no way you can buy a monopoly from all the power elites of the world. — ssu
So why wouldn't you take the bold move to produce the batteries right there where the raw materials are extracted in the DRC? — ssu
So why would it be bad if one of the most poor countries in the World suddenly get an advanced and extremely competitive tech industry that uses domestic resources giving a headache to Chinese battery manufacturers? — ssu
Completely true, but what is empiricism if not appeal to the things we have in common between our sensory experiences, and a commitment to sorting out why we sometimes have different ones? — Pfhorrest
Are you referring to the physical objects, the mathematics that describes them, the observations that are purportedly shared between observers, or the predictions made by scientific models. — Adam's Off Ox
If two scientists disagree on a conclusion drawn from a set of observations, is that conclusion still objective? — Adam's Off Ox
If every data point has some error with respect to the model that is based on that data, is the error objective? — Adam's Off Ox
Besides that, would you be willing to describe what make up the constituents of reality? — Adam's Off Ox
Is reality made up of physical objects? What about the mathematical formulas that describe those objects? — Adam's Off Ox
Beliefs about reality obviously differ drastically between cultures, especially historically before the rise of science (look at all the different religions’ accounts of the nature and history of the world). — Pfhorrest
The result of uniform prosperity is not to make the world as prosperous as the developed West, but to reduce the prosperity of the West down to some Goldilocks zone with everyone else, which in itself is fine.
— Kenosha Kid
Hence basically you are against the idea of more prosperity. You basically believe that poor countries today could not have it as good as we have it now. — ssu
Because what on Earth would be that "Goldilocks zone" you would deem appropriate for us? The US of the 1980's? Western Europe of the 1990's? Even if we take the present as the goldilocks, is really the goldilocks zone a world where we still die from heart attacks and have corona viruses? — ssu
Perhaps it's confusing to be both critical of the problems that capitalism has and do exist, yet acknowledge that many things have improved under our less than perfect capitalist system. — ssu
Hence if you Kenosha Kid lets say invent a battery for smart phones that uses 50% less raw materials giving 80% more power with half of the production cost, obviously you could sell it at half price compared to other battery makers and people likely would opt for the cheaper far better battery. — ssu
I’m not sure what you mean here by top-down and bottom-uo. I would describe science as a bottom-up process the way I mean those words: it’s a decentralized, fallibilist operation, rather than some authority handing down truths from on high. You seem to think that an objective morality would have to be that kind if from-on-high approach, but my point is that science doesn’t do that and yet is still objective about reality, so we can do likewise toward morality too. — Pfhorrest
What exactly is the relevance just out of curiosity? — Benj96
What? You have said both that a 4D object "sometimes moves" wrt "its own temporal axis", and that a 4D object "moving wrt the 4D universe would be moving wrt a 5th dimension". As I pointed out earlier, you've contradicted yourself. — Luke
Exactly, which is why I'm questioning your statement that a 4D object "sometimes moves". — Luke
How can that be? — Luke
So I do have a lot of misgivings whenever I hear physicists talking about infinity. And when I take the trouble to dig deeper into the details, I generally find that they're not using the word the same way mathematicians do.
But these are just impressions, and as I say I don't know much about speculative cosmology. — fishfry
Maybe global coordination really is an impossible situation to bring about — Janus