Relativity and absolute spacetime.

[lifegazer]

As always in my threads, it's important that the reader recognises the fact that the things we sense are not real in themselves, but are abstract representations of things.
So, we see that Relativity is a theory which applies directly to the world we sense.

But is there an absolute reality of spacetime, existing beyond the sense of one? Does the world actually exist, absolutely, beyond our subjective sensations of it?
Those of you wishing to cling onto your belief in a reality beyond the sense of one would be wise not to blurt out "There's no such thing as absolute time or absolute space.", for if you do, you kill the existence of a world beyond your sense of it.
Don't forget that relativity is a theory which relates to our sense of spacetime... and it's certainly true that there is no absoluteness about space or time in our mind.
But the question asks about the absolute reality of spacetime existing beyond the sense of it. And so the question is credible.
It deserves an answer.

This could be an interesting conversation and you may need to get back on your knees again shortly.;)

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally posted by lifegazer
As always in my threads, it's important that the reader recognises the fact that the things we sense are not real in themselves, but are abstract representations of things.

--snip--
As always in your threads, it'd be nice if you established this "fact," rather than expecting us to all go along for the ride. :)

[lifegazer]

Can I request that this be put back in the philosophy forum? It relates, ultimately, to the nature of reality. It asks of a reality beyond the sense of one. It's not really a thread that wants to discuss the specifics of relativity.

PLEASE

[uruk]

Uh oh we're about to see the word "absolute" get complete missused, abused and missinterpreted by LG like infinity got mangled in his previous newly abandoned thread.

Buy the assumptions, take the ride.

[Piscivore]

Define what you mean by "absolute" first. This is one of Iacchus' favourite words to equivocate.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by uruk
Uh oh we're about to see the word "absolute" get complete missused, abused and missinterpreted by LG like infinity got mangled in his previous newly abandoned thread.

Buy the assumptions, take the ride.
Feel free to address the OP uruk.

[Hellbound]

Just to point out something that I can't tell if you understand from your OP.

Space is not absolute. Time is not absolute. Spacetime, however, is absolute. This is covered in SR and GR. In fact, this is one of the basic properties of spacetime that comes out of GR, and is a result of the absoluteness of the speed of light.

[Zombified]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Can I request that this be put back in the philosophy forum? It relates, ultimately, to the nature of reality. It asks of a reality beyond the sense of one. It's not really a thread that wants to discuss the specifics of relativity.

PLEASE
Seconded.

[Z]

Boy, you never tire of attacking relativity, do you? And when the Philosophy.com folks tore you a new one, did you learn anything? Apparently not.

Discussing relativity moves the topic from philosophy to science. I know, you think that philosophy is superior to science, and that topics discussing 'reality' belong in philosophy; however, your voice does not agree with how we define science and philosophy.

Philosophy tends to discuss what we don't know about reality; science tends to discuss what we do know. Philosophy seeks to understand the meaning, purpose, 'higher nature' of reality; science deals with the nitty-gritty, the gearworks and programs, of that reality. Relativity is definitely a science now - perhaps it was once a philosophy, but since reality has verified it, largely, it is a science now.

Or that's my take on it - but, hey, I'm just a plonker who wants explanations of infinite distances and 0-dimensional objects.

[The Don]

To be fair, all we have to explore the world around us is our senses which may, or may not give an accurate representation of the universe around us. We have no way of engaging with the universe without usin our senses.

For example the experimentally confirmed observation that the speed of light in a vacuum iis fixed may be delusion shared by the experimentalists. Cows may not actually exist, it could just be that we interpret something which has the size and shape of, say, a '76 Pinto to be a cow if it's bright orange.

If one choses not to deploy Occam, we can imagine any set of circumstances.

Lightgazer isn't actually wrong, he just fails the "so what ?" test

[uruk]

Feel free to address the OP uruk.
First, let's get our definitions straight so that there is no "squirming room" by you or the other members of the forum.

Define what YOU mean by reality. absolute, spacetime, and sense of a reality.

Also we need to know when you are talking about our minds and god's mind. Or atleast when you are talking about our sensed reality, the reality where our minds exists or the reality where god exists.

In addition; If there are subjective sensations, are there objective sensations?

In reference to your op.
You have not yet established that the things we percieve do not in fact also exists separate from our perceptions. It is an assumption you are wanting us to accept without proof.

Relativity is only a set of descriptions (expressed in mathematical terms) of the working of our universe (percieved by sense or otherwise). They explain the reason we observe what we would observe under certain circumstances. The leaps these descriptions made were formulated (based on previouse discoveries and observations) before man had the technology to make those observations. Now that our technology is becoming capable to make those observations we are discovering that most of those descriptions are accurate with what we observe now. (note that some of these observations have to be made with the use of machines or devices. Our "natural" senses are not up to the task.)
Now realise these descriptions do not require a human to observe the phenomena. the same observations can and will be recorded by a device. The observations in terms of standardaized quantities(i.e. measurements) will be the same for that observation point wether it be a human or a device designed to record the standardized, quantitized observation (i.e. seconds, feet, mass, wavelength, etc...)

Also relativity has only one absolute (same for all observers); the speed of light (measured in a standardized quantity) It's maximum velocity does not change for any observer. And by standardized quantity I mean an agreed upon measurement or unit. i.e. meters per second) Everything else is relative (excuse the pun) or rather just arbitrary points of reference.

Now this brings us back to the begining of this post. What is your definition for absolute? Is it "same for all observers" as it is used in relativity? or do YOU define it as something else?
We cannot have a disscusion until you let us know what your definitions are.

[phildonnia]

If you're talking about the theory of special relativity, and not a fuzzy obfuscation of it, then yes, there is absolute reality.

The "interval" between two events will be the same for any inertial reference frame. The interval between two events separated by distance d and time t is d^2/c^2-t^2.

This value is invariant for any given two events, and may represent the absolute reality behind varying relativistic observations.

[Hellbound]

Originally posted by phildonnia
The "interval" between two events will be the same for any inertial reference frame.

Thanks phildonnia, that was what I was getting to. The interval is a combination of space and time that is the same for all observers. IN fact, Einstein objected to labelling his theory the "Theory of Relativity" at first, because his whole point was about the invariance of the speed of light and, for GR, the invariance of interval. Exactly the opposite of what most people portray his theory to be.

[uruk]

This value is invariant for any given two events, and may represent the absolute reality behind varying relativistic observations.
I stand corrected on this point. Two absolutes.

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by phildonnia
If you're talking about the theory of special relativity, and not a fuzzy obfuscation of it, then yes, there is absolute reality.

The "interval" between two events will be the same for any inertial reference frame. The interval between two events separated by distance d and time t is d^2/c^2-t^2.

This value is invariant for any given two events, and may represent the absolute reality behind varying relativistic observations.

So LG's "god" is literally the "god of a gap". Precious! :D

[Dancing David]

Well duh, the nihilist says, of course absolute space time doesn't exist. What exists is what exists, what humans apprehend is only an approximation of what exists.

And if you understood the theory of relativity then you would know that there is no absolute space time.

[The Don]

Originally posted by Piscivore
So LG's "god" is literally the "god of a gap". Precious! :D
And as they say on the London Underground......"Mind the gap"

[phildonnia]

Originally posted by Dancing David
And if you understood the theory of relativity then you would know that there is no absolute space time.

Please read my post above. There is no absolute space, nor absoulte time. There is absolute "space-time", and we can quantify it.

[lifegazer]

Does anybody want to talk about my OP?

Relativity is a theory which relates to the sense of space and time.
We see the whole universe in our mind. The stars you actually sense exist inside of you.
It is sensed spacetime which can be warped.
It is sensed spacetime that we have different experiences of (as in the twin-paradox, for instance).

Clearly, there is a distinction to be made between a subjective/relative abstract-reality and a reality that exists, absolutely so, beyond our sense of one.

We cannot even prove that there is a real world. But we can ask how a theory that relates to the world in our mind would relate to the real world - if it exists.

Now, instead of talking about relative space and relative time, we must ponder the existence of absolute space and absolute time - a space and time unmoved by the mind's subjective/relative view of it.
This is what I want to talk about.

[The Don]

I did

You ignored it

[phildonnia]

Well as I've been saying, the topic of absolute space-time has already been pretty well figured out eighty years ago.

BTW, relativity generally deals with "inertial references", not with "mind".

The unfortunate term "observers" has crept into the vocabulary, which unnecessarily implies that "inertial references" are conscious or something. This is not part of the theory in any way.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by phildonnia
BTW, relativity generally deals with "inertial references", not with "mind".

I wish the mods would put this back in philosophy. I knew this would happen.
... With all due respect, it does not matter what relativity deals with. The absolute truth of the situation is that the whole experience of the universe occurs within the mind, via the sensations. You have sensations... you become aware of a universe created by those sensations.
Humans do not experience real light - they experience the sensation of light. They do not see real space between real objects - they sense space between sensed-objects.

It's impossible for me to have this discussion in this room. Is this why it was put here? Is this why it remains here?
Are we seeing politics in action here?

[phildonnia]

This is what happens when you use loaded words like "relativity". Everyone just assumes that you want to talk about "relativity".

Next time try calling it "solipsism", and we'll cut out the physics garbage.

[lifegazer]

I want to know who moved this here and I want to know why.
Furthermore, it would have been nice if somebody would have spoken to me about it first.
Bang out of order.

[Z]

Originally posted by lifegazer
I wish the mods would put this back in philosophy. I knew this would happen.
... With all due respect, it does not matter what relativity deals with. The absolute truth of the situation is that the whole experience of the universe occurs within the mind, via the sensations. You have sensations... you become aware of a universe created by those sensations.
Humans do not experience real light - they experience the sensation of light. They do not see real space between real objects - they sense space between sensed-objects.

It's impossible for me to have this discussion in this room. Is this why it was put here? Is this why it remains here?
Are we seeing politics in action here?

And where do you think sensations come from? They aren't spontaneously generated by the mind, you know. Light can affect a person whether they have the sensation of light or not. Space between objects has a definite effect, whether we are aware of that space or not.

[garys_2k]

Originally posted by lifegazer
I wish the mods would put this back in philosophy. I knew this would happen.

...

It's impossible for me to have this discussion in this room. Is this why it was put here? Is this why it remains here?
Are we seeing politics in action here?
So restart the discussion in the other forum and stop replying here! Just let it die.

[phildonnia]

I'm not trying to have the last word here, honest I'm not.

But I was just meditating on TillEulenspiegel's "location", and I realized that the term "interval" is actually used for the square root of the value I described above. It's invariant, in any case.

[phildonnia]

Originally posted by phildonnia
If you're talking about the theory of special relativity, and not a fuzzy obfuscation of it, then yes, there is absolute reality.

The "interval" between two events will be the same for any inertial reference frame. The interval between two events separated by distance d and time t is d^2/c^2-t^2.

This value is invariant for any given two events, and may represent the absolute reality behind varying relativistic observations.

Edited:
Correction: d^2/c^2-t^2 is the square of what is called the "interval".

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by phildonnia
Please read my post above. There is no absolute space, nor absoulte time. There is absolute "space-time", and we can quantify it.

I wouldn't know and so I sit corrected. I do know that the way LG is using absolute is very different from what you are using.
It would appear that you have stated that the time interval observed between two events will be related in different frames of reference.

This is very different from LG's meaning of absolute in that he feels that there is no external reality and that it is an illusion occuring within the absolute. His is a dualistic philosophy which he maintains is not a dualism.

Thanks for the correction.