A scenario disassociating experience from reality

[lifegazer]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos:
"And clearly the objects of our experience do exist without our experiencing them. Otherwise when we looked away from the clock and then looked back later, the time would not have advanced consistently."


This statement, from another thread, has inspired me to write more about the ‘reality’ of objects outside the awareness/experience of them.
It made me think of how - according to Einstein - we all see distance & time differently.
So, here’s the revised scenario:

Imagine a very large clock, akin to Big Ben, but with it's face to the vertical.
Now, to say that the clock is real beyond the experience of it, is to say that this single clock - with it’s two hands and dial - has existence independent of the experience of it. However, assuming that this clock is real means that this clock must have two definite hands which are pointed in definite directions (upon the dial), so that the clock itself is always ‘expressing’ a definite time of it’s own. In other words, if you believe in the reality of clocks beyond your experience of them is to say that a clock exists and is showing a definite time.

… However, if you're stood right by that aforementioned clock, you will observe a different rate of time than if you were to observe the Earth (the clock) at a very high velocity, in orbit/space... akin to the space-twin paradox.
Einstein showed that the time you see on the clock is dependent upon your own perceived circumstances. In fact, he even showed that the measurements (volume) you attribute to that clock are dependent upon your own perceived circumstances.

… So, if you (the reader) stand next to the clock and the other 6-billion of us all orbit the Earth at various speeds, every single one of us will see a different time upon the clock-face and will also measure a different volume for that clock.

Now, the clock doesn't know or care about your circumstances.
So, clearly, the time you see is given to you by your mind... not the clock. (As is it’s volume - reference to distance).

In other words, if 6 billion people observe a clock and measure it’s real volume differently and read it’s real time differently, then the only conclusion is that:
the time (and volume/distance) experienced has got NOTHING to do with a [real] clock beyond that experience.

Conclusion: The properties you experience of the clock, are given unto that experience by the mind itself.
Rather, what you experience has no relation to the reality of anything.

Everything you see is utterly unreal (because it’s an experience yielded of sensation).
And now, I have provided reason to show why everything you observe is not a mirror of an external reality.

Somebody already asked me some questions about this in the other thread. I’ll deal with them next.
Cheers.

[Ducky]

If you want a scenario disassociating experience from reality just drop a few tabs of acid.

But by your writing, I'd bet you already are familiar with it.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Cripes, Lifegazer. I was making no reference to relativity at all when I mentioned the clock. I was asking what is the mechanism that makes external reality consistent across time and space. Whether that reality is time dilated or not is irrelevant.

You claim that nothing is "real," yet clearly there are things outside of our awareness. How do they work?


Now, the clock doesn't know or care about your circumstances.
So, clearly, the time you see is given to you by your mind... not the clock. (As is it’s volume - reference to distance).
This does not follow.

~~ Paul

[lifegazer]

You have already stated that becouse we have no way to prove that our sensations corralate to any sort of reality, and so information gathered by our senses cannot be used as evidence of anything.

That's incorrect.
I said "becouse we have no way to prove that our sensations corralate to any sort of reality" (your words), that we cannot assume an external (to experience) reality.
I also said - or have said - that the Laws-of-Physics are a reflection of the order existing within experience, so that physics is a study of the order inherent within experience.
Now, if you read my opening post in this thread, you will [hopefully] understand why there is no causal link between the experience of a thing and the supposed reality of that thing.
So, there's a series of logical conclusions which can be derived from what I have posted.

Also, how do you know in this specific example that "Now, the clock is fixed upon the Earth and - if real - it's rate of time should be static/absolute."? How do we know how a real clock behaves? Have you ever experianced a "real" clock and not one that existed only in your senses? If not than what evidence do you have to say how a clock should behave?

The answer is given in my post, above. Singular clock, singular hands, singular face - and countless readings of it's properties (time & distance).

[lifegazer]

Cripes, Lifegazer. I was making no reference to relativity at all when I mentioned the clock. I was asking what is the mechanism that makes external reality consistent across time and space. Whether that reality is time dilated or not is irrelevant.

You know my philosophy Paul. The answer is 'God', a concept I have defined in the past.
That's my answer. No doubt you will laugh or say "prove it".
I'm trying.
How many steps to God are there?

I would ask you to be patient, respectful, attentive... and then you might have a chance of understanding me.

You have to understand that my philosophy challenges all major establishments - including philosophy itself. And there isn't a religion on Earth - to my knowledge - that I would not cut down.

There are a few paths that lead to God in my philosophy, but until you acknowledge the distinction between experience and [so-called] reality, you're never going to understand me.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

You know my philosophy Paul. The answer is 'God', a concept I have defined in the past.
That's my answer. No doubt you will laugh or say "prove it".
No, I won't. I'll just say that the self-consistent world that God creates is "reality." There is just as much real stuff in your metaphysic are there is in any other. The tree in the forest is just as real in your metaphysic as it is in materialism.

~~ Paul

[Hyver]

That's incorrect.
I said "because we have no way to prove that our sensations correlate to any sort of reality" (your words), that we cannot assume an external (to experience) reality.
let's call this A

I also said - or have said - that the Laws-of-Physics are a reflection of the order existing within experience, so that physics is a study of the order inherent within experience.
And this B
Now, if you read my opening post in this thread, you will [hopefully] understand why there is no causal link between the experience of a thing and the supposed reality of that thing.
So, there's a series of logical conclusions which can be derived from what I have posted.
And this C.

Now the problem that I have with your argument is as follows. In A you admit that we cannot assume the existence of an external reality. Now a consequence of that is that we cannot assume any characteristics of things within this reality. Really, the correct way to think is that we don't know any of the characteristics of things in reality, and as a result we don't know if any object in reality has the characteristic "this object exists".

Anyway, by arguing from a position inclusive of A, you prevent yourself from non-circularly making the statement:


However, assuming that this clock is real means that this clock must have two definite hands which are pointed in definite directions (upon the dial), so that the clock itself is always ‘expressing’ a definite time of it’s own.


Because the idea that a "real clock" must have the properties listed is something which can only come about because of our experiences. Because of A we can make no claims about how reality should be. Statement B shows that you accept this to be true. Physics and other sciences, as you say in B, only help to describe our experiences, they do nothing to describe reality, and so, as a result of accepting A, you cannot appeal to science in anyway to tell you about how real things operate.


Statement C is problematic. Really the best that you can say is that we cannot prove a causal relationship between experience of a thing and the reality of that thing. This is a far cry from saying that there is no relationship. Until you can show that there is no relationship rather than that we cannot prove a relationship, then those logical conclusions you mention in C cannot be asserted validly.

[Mojo]

You know my philosophy Paul. The answer is 'God', a concept I have defined in the past.But God doesn't exist. Like the rest of the apparent external reality you claim to inhabit, God only exists as your ~experience~ of him/her/it/them. Gazerism must reform itself to take notice of this essential concept.

[Upchurch]

It made me think of how - according to Einstein - we all see distance & time differently.
And what did Einstein about spacetime, lifegazer? When you understand what Einstein said, you will understand why this argument is groundless.

I really do object to you invoking Einstein's theories if you are going to invoke them incorrectly.

[chriswl]

… However, if you're stood right by that aforementioned clock, you will observe a different rate of time than if you were to observe the Earth (the clock) at a very high velocity, in orbit/space... akin to the space-twin paradox.
Einstein showed that the time you see on the clock is dependent upon your own perceived circumstances. In fact, he even showed that the measurements (volume) you attribute to that clock are dependent upon your own perceived circumstances.

… So, if you (the reader) stand next to the clock and the other 6-billion of us all orbit the Earth at various speeds, every single one of us will see a different time upon the clock-face and will also measure a different volume for that clock.
This is a terrible example. No one, whatever their circumstances, will ever see the clock go backwards. No one will ever see it morph into a digital clock. This is because there is a real clock and it is not doing either of these things.

If we set the clock up to show twelve o'clock, allowed everyone to whizz around making their own separate measurements for six hours, and then stopped the clock, no one would report having seen the clock indicating seven or ten o'clock. They would not see this because there is a real clock who's hands never indicated such a time.

Special relativity just means that physical processes in entities moving at high speed slow down relative to entities at rest. This explains the different perception of the passage of time - if your brain slows down relative to what you are observing then the thing you are observing will appear to be happening faster. But the observers and the things they are observing are all real.

You have to understand that my philosophy challenges all major establishments - including philosophy itself.
And you must understand that this means that one of two things is true:

1) You are smarter than just about anyone else on the planet.

2) You are very confused.

I know where I'd place my money.

[Vox Humana]

Einstein showed that the time you see on the clock is dependent upon your own perceived circumstances. In fact, he even showed that the measurements (volume) you attribute to that clock are dependent upon your own perceived circumstances.

What do you mean by 'perceived circumstances'? The measurements of the clock are affected by your relative inertial velocity with respect to the clock; perception of circumstances has nothing to do with it. In particular, if you misperceive your circumstances, your measurements of the clock will still be dependent on your actual inertial frame of reference, not your perceived frame of reference.

… So, if you (the reader) stand next to the clock and the other 6-billion of us all orbit the Earth at various speeds, every single one of us will see a different time upon the clock-face and will also measure a different volume for that clock.

Now, the clock doesn't know or care about your circumstances.
So, clearly, the time you see is given to you by your mind... not the clock. (As is it’s volume - reference to distance).


To simplify; what you perceived (the time you perceive) is perceived (given to you by your mind.) OK.

In other words, if 6 billion people observe a clock and measure it’s real volume differently and read it’s real time differently, then the only conclusion is that:
the time (and volume/distance) experienced has got NOTHING to do with a [real] clock beyond that experience.


You lost me. I would have said that the time & volume experienced by an observer are affected by the observer's relative inertial frame of reference with respect to the frame of reference of the [real] clock.

To take this further, we know that all observers having the same inertial frame of reference will perceive the same time & volume of the clock. Likewise, if one knows the relative inertial velocity of the observer w.r.t. the clock, one can accurately predict the experience said observer will have of the clock. So, while an observer's perception of the clock may indeed be subjective (by definition,) the predictability of these measurements implies an objective reality underlying the perception.

Conclusion: The properties you experience of the clock, are given unto that experience by the mind itself.
Rather, what you experience has no relation to the reality of anything.

Everything you see is utterly unreal (because it’s an experience yielded of sensation).
And now, I have provided reason to show why everything you observe is not a mirror of an external reality.

Somebody already asked me some questions about this in the other thread. I’ll deal with them next.
Cheers.

Lost me again. I would say that what I perceive is directly related to the reality of the object being perceived.

[roger]

Take two atomic clocks. Synchronize them. Label one A, one B.

Send one into space. Bring it back.

Present both two a collection of people. Don't tell them which clock went into space, but tell them that one did and ask them to identify which one did.

Everyone who understand relativity will correctly identify the spacefaring clock. Yet no mind experienced the round trip.

You could lie about which clock went into space and they would catch you out. You could send a person into space with the clock, lie to that person and tell them it was the other clock that went with them, and they would catch the lie.

Because the clock exists independently from the mind.

[lifegazer]

What do you mean by 'perceived circumstances'? The measurements of the clock are affected by your relative inertial velocity with respect to the clock; perception of circumstances has nothing to do with it.

One can only know of one's relative inertial velocity via perception of his circumstances. But yes, to be exact, the measurements of the clock are seen to vary as one's perceived relative inertial velocity with respect to the clock, varies.

You lost me. I would have said that the time & volume experienced by an observer are affected by the observer's relative inertial frame of reference with respect to the frame of reference of the [real] clock.

The point of the scenario is to show that we do not see the definite/real time exhibited by the definite/real clock (assuming that there is a real clock).
If it's hypothetically possible for us all to stare at the same clock and all see a different time upon that clock - as well as a different volume for that clock - then the conclusion is that 'the clock' is not responsible for any of the information that we are experiencing about it (regarding time/volume).

Furthermore, a "relative inertial frame of reference" is a conceptual notion gleaned from one's experience of specific bodies within awareness.
Even if there were an external (to experience) reality, you won't find any
"relative inertial frames of reference" floating about. I.e., "relative inertial frames of reference" do not affect anything, but are actually concepts gleaned from within an affected experience.

To take this further, we know that all observers having the same inertial frame of reference will perceive the same time & volume of the clock. Likewise, if one knows the relative inertial velocity of the observer w.r.t. the clock, one can accurately predict the experience said observer will have of the clock. So, while an observer's perception of the clock may indeed be subjective (by definition,) the predictability of these measurements implies an objective reality underlying the perception.

The objective reality underlying the experience is surely the experiencER itself. There is no implication of an external reality just because of the order inherent amongst experiences.

[lifegazer]

Because the idea that a "real clock" must have the properties listed is something which can only come about because of our experiences. Because of A we can make no claims about how reality should be. Statement B shows that you accept this to be true. Physics and other sciences, as you say in B, only help to describe our experiences, they do nothing to describe reality, and so, as a result of accepting A, you cannot appeal to science in anyway to tell you about how real things operate.

You're arguing from a ridiculous standpoint. Why? Because 'naturalists' (or realists, or whatever they call themselves) believe that experience is a reflection of a real world. To argue otherwise is ludicrous, because if experience does not reflect [assumed] reality, then experience is useless wrt that reality. We could not interact with that reality.

[lifegazer]

Because the clock exists independently from the mind.
This conclusion does not follow.
You cannot even see the clock outside of experience. In fact, you see that clock within experience - it's an experienced-clock. And it's the experienced-clock which is seen to be affected... amongst an ordered experienced-world where everything perceived is subject to changes via that order.

As I said before, the laws of physics mirror the order that exists within experience. Scientists study experienced things.

[lifegazer]

And what did Einstein about spacetime, lifegazer? When you understand what Einstein said, you will understand why this argument is groundless.

I really do object to you invoking Einstein's theories if you are going to invoke them incorrectly.
Respond to the scenario. How can one say that experience mirrors reality if everyone sees the clock differently?

[Upchurch]

Respond to the scenario. How can one say that experience mirrors reality if everyone sees the clock differently?
Respond to my question, then you will have your answer to the scenario.

The key to why people can see the clock differently and still be looking at an independant object is the relationship of spacetime to space and time.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

You cannot even see the clock outside of experience. In fact, you see that clock within experience - it's an experienced-clock. And it's the experienced-clock which is seen to be affected... amongst an ordered experienced-world where everything perceived is subject to changes via that order.
And that ordered experienced-world is the real world. If you want to make some kind of distinction between the materialists real world and your god's real world, you ought to come up with a word other than "real" to make the distinction. I challenge you to come up with a word that embodies the distinction is such a way that we could run an experiment to tell the difference between the materialist's real world and yours.

~~ Paul

[lifegazer]

Respond to my question, then you will have your answer to the scenario.

The key to why people can see the clock differently and still be looking at an independant object is the relationship of spacetime to space and time.

That's not an answer.

Specifically, I want you to explain to this forum how a real clock can exist without expressing a definite time or without having definite volume.
Clearly, if such an object exists, it must have definite volume and it's hands must be in definite positions (which equates to a definite time).
So, whatever anyone experiences, we can still say that there is an absolute or universal volume of the clock and that there is an absolute or universal time expressed by it.

However, none of us can see this definite/absolute/universal/real volume or time. We all see relatively different clocks (in different frames), since we see different volumes of the clock and different times expressed by it.

What we see does not mirror the actual reality of the clock. The same logic would apply to all so-called real objects, so that this conclusion follows:
Nobody's experience mirrors absolute/definite reality.

Consequently, if the experience of one's world has nothing to do with any object beyond that experience, the conclusion is that the totality of one's experience is created by the experiencER itself.

[Upchurch]

That's not an answer.
Neither is that.

Specifically, I want you to explain to this forum how a real clock can exist without expressing a definite time or without having definite volume.
Don't have to explain it to the forum. Most of them already understand the basics. You are the only one who needs, and I really mean needs, to have it explained to him.

A real clock has existance within its definite worldline in a spacetime manifold. The only relative aspect of it is when you insist on defining that world line in terms of independant time and space. The combination of the two into a single measurement gives you a definite and unique spacetime coordinate.

Clearly, if such an object exists, it must have definite volume and it's hands must be in definite positions (which equates to a definite time).
So, whatever anyone experiences, we can still say that there is an absolute or universal volume of the clock and that there is an absolute or universal time expressed by it.
Which it does in the sum of its coordinates.

However, none of us can see this definite/absolute/universal/real volume or time. We all see relatively different clocks (in different frames), since we see different volumes of the clock and different times expressed by it.

What we see does not mirror the actual reality of the clock. The same logic would apply to all so-called real objects, so that this conclusion follows:
Nobody's experience mirrors absolute/definite reality.
Your premise is incorrect, therefore that which follows from that premise must also be incorrect. As I said, the key is in understanding the relationship between spacetime and time and space. Understand that and you understand what Einstein was really saying rather than what you think Einstein was saying.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Clearly, if such an object exists, it must have definite volume and it's hands must be in definite positions (which equates to a definite time).
According to which authority?

Consequently, if the experience of one's world has nothing to do with any object beyond that experience, the conclusion is that the totality of one's experience is created by the experiencER itself.
But clearly this is false. The totality of my experience is not just that which I am experiencing at any given moment. This implies that there is a "real world" apart from my senses.

~~ Paul

[Hyver]

You're arguing from a ridiculous standpoint.
No, I am not.
Why? Because 'naturalists' (or realists, or whatever they call themselves) believe that experience is a reflection of a real world. To argue otherwise is ludicrous, because if experience does not reflect [assumed] reality, then experience is useless wrt that reality. We could not interact with that reality.
All I am doing is pointing out that by accepting proposition A (one which you both crafted and have said you accept) you place yourself in a situation not unlike the one you describe above. You said it yourself:
That's incorrect.
I said "becouse we have no way to prove that our sensations corralate to any sort of reality" (your words), that we cannot assume an external (to experience) reality.

In effect what you have done by accepting proposition A is thrown out our ability to rely on any information gathered through experience because "we cannot assume and external (to experience) reality". Once you do this your argument has no where to go, but that doesn't stop you. Having accepted A, you go on to assert that

assuming that this clock is real means that this clock must have two definite hands which are pointed in definite directions (upon the dial), so that the clock itself is always ‘expressing’ a definite time of it’s own. In other words, if you believe in the reality of clocks beyond your experience of them is to say that a clock exists and is showing a definite time.

You cannot make this claim though. Why must a real clock have those properties which you ascribe to them? It is because every clock you have ever experienced has them, however by accepting A you deny yourself the ability to use your own experiences to infer how real things act. Your assumptions about reality are completely untenable without denying proposition A.

If, however, you choose to deny proposition A, you are left in a very bad situation, because you are left accepting that "reality does conform to the way that we experience it" which I will refer to as E. Acceptance of E means that our measurements of reality (here after known as science) are accurate. Since science is accurate, and relativity is a part of science, relativity is also accurate. If relativity is accurate, and we use your interpretation of relativity (I'm doing this just for lifegazer, it may not be that his interpretation is accurate, but I'm not really qualified to say one way or the other, my point is that even with his interpretation he cannot make the claims that he does.) then the logical conclusion is that clocks in reality do not have to have the properties which you have assigned to them (definite volume/position) and infarct can have multiple volumes/positions. It is then meaningless to assert that:

this clock must have two definite hands which are pointed in definite directions (upon the dial), so that the clock itself is always ‘expressing’ a definite time of it’s own.
because you have accepted science and science shows that this is not true, instead you are assuming both that science is accurate and that something which science says is false. More concisely, you have assumed the very contradiction that you wish to show, the definition of circularity.


Edit:
I don't want to be mean or anything, but

Your premise is incorrect, therefore that which follows from that premise must also be incorrect.
is not correct. I don't feel it fair just to point out lifegazers problems (or derail the conversation), and you have been more than accurate in most everything else upchurch, I have the utmost respect for you. This statement however is fallacious. This is a form of the "fallacy fallacy (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/fallfall.html)". That said, the whole rest of the paragraph which that comes from is accurate, I just thought I would comment on it becouse it is something that we all must be careful not to commit.

[Upchurch]

I don't want to be mean or anything, but

is not correct. I don't feel it fair just to point out lifegazers problems (or derail the conversation), and you have been more than accurate in most everything else upchurch, I have the utmost respect for you. This statement however is fallacious. This is a form of the "fallacy fallacy (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/fallfall.html)". That said, the whole rest of the paragraph which that comes from is accurate, I just thought I would comment on it becouse it is something that we all must be careful not to commit.
You are absolutely correct and thank you for correcting me on it. What I should have said is that since the premise is incorrect, the argument in support of the conclusion is invalid rather than saying that the conclusion, itself, is invalid.

My apologies. :o The back of my hand has been duly smacked.

[Vox Humana]

One can only know of one's relative inertial velocity via perception of his circumstances. But yes, to be exact, the measurements of the clock are seen to vary as one's perceived relative inertial velocity with respect to the clock, varies.

But don't you see, it doesn't matter if you know your relative velocity - it doesn't even matter if you think you know your velocity and are wrong about it - what matters is your actual relative velocity is w.r.t. the clock. This is verified by the fact that a third party can observe you and the clock from a different reference frame, and accurately predict what you will experience without having to experience it himself.

The point of the scenario is to show that we do not see the definite/real time exhibited by the definite/real clock (assuming that there is a real clock).

That statement is rendered meaningless by special relativity. Since time is relative to one's inertial frame, it is meaningless to refer to a singular *real* time, as there is no fixed reference frame upon which to base it. Ditto length.

If it's hypothetically possible for us all to stare at the same clock and all see a different time upon that clock - as well as a different volume for that clock - then the conclusion is that 'the clock' is not responsible for any of the information that we are experiencing about it (regarding time/volume).

Does not follow. As stated previously, it is sufficient to conclude that our experience directly flows from the information presented by the clock and our motion in relation to the clock.

The objective reality underlying the experience is surely the experiencER itself. There is no implication of an external reality just because of the order inherent amongst experiences.

Well, that's one hypothesis. Or maybe we're just brains in a vat. Or maybe we're code running in a simulation. Or living in a dream. Or a story in a book. Or maybe our perceptions reflect, with reasonably accuracy, an underlying reality. Do you have a reliable test to determine which of these hypotheses, if any, truly reflect our reality? I'm not aware of anything even remotely conclusive. Sans evidence indicating one of these options (or some other option that we've missed) I would have to say the last hypothesis is the simplest one, a la Occam, and therefore the best bet going.

Vox

[Upchurch]

lifegazer, it really is way past time for you to get past this sophomoric view of the world and Relativity. I can't really help you with your view of the world. You're going to believe whatever it is you get into your head to believe; facts be damned. What I can do, however, is get you past this childishness with Relativity.

I'm sure you're probably familiar with Plato's Allegory of the Cave (http://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/320/cave.htm). If not, you should be. It's part of that "basic philosophy" to which you often refer.

To steal the concept from Mr. Plato, the "space and time" view is a shadow on the wall of the spacetime object. The shadow may jump around and stretch in seemingly impossible ways, due to the flicker of the flame. This is what gives rise to the relativistic effects that Einstein describes, and you rely on in, his Special Relativity. But what Einstein then did, and you have yet to, is to extrapolate backwards to describe the object that casts the "space and time" shadow on the wall. He called that object "spacetime".

Like with Plato's Forms, the imperfect (or relative) shadows on the wall represents not something wrong with external reality but, rather, with our understanding of it.

Objects in the projection of "space and time" appear to have indefinite length and duration, but that is only when addressing the projection. It's like measuring the shadow on the wall cast by a flickering flame. When one takes into account that the projection is a mapping of a 4 dimensional worldline into a 3+1 dimensional image, one can see a very definite object.

The clock you mention has a very definite worldline in spacetime. It exists in certain points on the spacetime manifold that nothing else does. If we use the calculation tools that Einstein gave us, we can reconstruct from the projection where that timeline is on the manifold. And, here's the kicker, no matter who's version of the projection you use, everyone will reconstruct the exact same worldline.

Your cry that there is no definiteness to the clock is not only wrong, but short sited. Like the men in Plato's cave, that isn't entirely your fault. You've been chained in the cave, unable to turn your head. You now, however, have been told the truth of the matter and set free. The question is whether or not you'll turn your head away from the shadows and take a look at the actual object that the flickering fire has been projecting shadows of on the wall. Unlike Plato's captured men, turning your head in this case means understanding, or at least accepting, some very complicated mathematics. I can understand not wishing to actually learn all of this yourself and would not blame you if you do not. I can and will blame you if you refuse to learn it and insist in speaking authoritatively on it.

The solution to your questions about Relativity exist. There are quite a few of us on this board who have tried to help you understand what that solution is. At this point, you are keeping yourself willingly ignorant of that solution.

[Upchurch]

:bump2

Bumping because I'm a petty, petty man who gets irked when I spend time writing out a lengthy post only to have it be ignored into oblivion.

[Mashuna]

Ooh, I like the threads where Lifegazer bases all his philosophy on his, hmm, let's call it an idosyncratic view of relativity.

Don't mind me, I'm just watching. :popcorn1

[wollery]

How many times has he been told that he doesn't understand relativity?

And yet he still insists on trying to use it to back up his philosophy.

Repeating the same action over and over again and expecting a different outcome, there's a name for that isn't there? :D

[Jimbo07]

Repeating the same action over and over again and expecting a different outcome, there's a name for that isn't there? :D

I'll risk the heat...

(in this case, particularly) is it, "stupid?"

[Hyver]

How many times has he been told that he doesn't understand relativity?

And yet he still insists on trying to use it to back up his philosophy.

Repeating the same action over and over again and expecting a different outcome, there's a name for that isn't there? :D

I'm interested to see how he deals with my charges of circularity. (suspect that he will use the time-worn tradition of ignoring it for an extended period of time and then reasserting the same claim as before pretending as if the issue had never arisen)

come back lifegazer, we miss you (in a weird masochistic sort of way)

[wollery]

I'll risk the heat...

(in this case, particularly) is it, "stupid?"Actually it's insanity.

I honestly don't think lg is stupid. Willfully ignorant maybe, but not stupid.

[orpheus]

How many times has he been told that he doesn't understand relativity?

And yet he still insists on trying to use it to back up his philosophy.

Repeating the same action over and over again and expecting a different outcome, there's a name for that isn't there? :D

Sphexishness. (From a chapter - I can't remember which - in Douglas Hofstadter's "Metamagical Themas".) May not be an exact fit, but then again, it might have some explanatory power.

[Taffer]

You are absolutely correct and thank you for correcting me on it. What I should have said is that since the premise is incorrect, the argument in support of the conclusion is invalid rather than saying that the conclusion, itself, is invalid.

Well, the validity is unrelated to the individual truth values of the propositions or the conlcusion of an argument. And argument is invalid if it is possible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false. I think what you mean is that it is unsound. :)

[RandFan]

How many times has he been told that he doesn't understand relativity?

And yet he still insists on trying to use it to back up his philosophy.How many times has he been told that he doesn't understand philosophy?

Don't worry guys, Lifegazer promised to provide some new material. It should be along shortly...

[Upchurch]

Well, the validity is unrelated to the individual truth values of the propositions or the conlcusion of an argument. And argument is invalid if it is possible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false. I think what you mean is that it is unsound. :)
Ouch. The one-two punch of the Upchurch smack down.

Touche' to all of you.

If only lifegazer could be as rigorous, this discussion might actually go somewhere.

[Taffer]

Unfortunately, for that to happen, Lifegazer would have to actually look up and *gasp* research the topics he's talking about. And we all know how likely that is. :rolleyes:

[Jimbo07]

Actually it's insanity.

I honestly don't think lg is stupid. Willfully ignorant maybe, but not stupid.

Oh, I've heard it was insanity, that's why I prefaced with (in this case, particularly)...

I've settled on a point where I've accepted for myself that the only truly stupid course of action is willful ignorance. All of these terms come with baggage, of course. However, I tend to equate smart/stupid with what some people call wisdom, whereas I'll use cleverness for what some may consider 'smart.' Confused? I know I am, every time I sit down to think about how I use language...

:D

[Upchurch]

Don't worry guys, Lifegazer promised to provide some new material. It should be along shortly...
Hey, I see lg popped in yesterday. He's surely taken a look at the thread. I have every* confidence that he is forumlating his response now.





*Warning: This word may have been used in a non-standard way. A relative way, one might say.

[Hyver]

my knees are shaking with anticipation :D

[phildonnia]

Einstein showed that the time you see on the clock is dependent upon your own perceived circumstances.

Einstein did not say this. Please take some time to learn some physics.


In other words, if 6 billion people observe a clock and measure it’s real volume differently and read it’s real time differently, then the only conclusion is that:
the time (and volume/distance) experienced has got NOTHING to do with a [real] clock beyond that experience.

Let me ask then: If 6 billion people calculated the spacetime interval between midnight on the clock and noon on the clock, and 6 billion people got precisely the same answer, would it be reasonable to conclude that the spacetime interval was completely unrelated to each individual experience?

[RandFan]

Ouch. The one-two punch of the Upchurch smack down.

Touche' to all of you. As much as I love logic it sometimes hurts my head.

For those needing something to do while awaiting lg's comprehensive, insightful and well articulated response, go take the Edgy Grammar and Reason Quiz (http://www.funtrivia.com/playquiz/quiz5551765dca0.html).

Warning, if you are anything like me this can seriously harm your ego.

[Apathia]

As much as I love logic it sometimes hurts my head.

For those needing something to do while awaiting lg's comprehensive, insightful and well articulated response, go take the Edgy Grammar and Reason Quiz (http://www.funtrivia.com/playquiz/quiz5551765dca0.html).

Warning, if you are anything like me this can seriously harm your ego.

Nah, I'm hoplessly egotistic. These particular examples are given in other contexts to show that the human cognitive process does not conform to formal logic and probability theory. Human cognition regularly takes short cuts not alowed in a formal system. One of the headaches of researchers wanting to create strong AI is how to teach machines to cheat the way we do.

[Loss Leader]

Now, the clock doesn't know or care about your circumstances.
So, clearly, the time you see is given to you by your mind... not the clock. (As is it’s volume - reference to distance).


I haven't read the whole thread but I'm sure it has been pointed out that somewhere around the word "clearly" is where you go completely off the rails.

Your statement that the time is given by your mind does not follow from anything else you said. Time may be experienced differently based on relative velocities, but these can all be accounted for. They can all be predicted and measured. In fact, they have been predicted and the measurements did match the predictions.

The fact that something appears different relative to different positions does not mean that it only exists in our minds.

The fact that you still do not understand this, however, says more about your mind than you know.

[lifegazer]

Like with Plato's Forms, the imperfect (or relative) shadows on the wall represents not something wrong with external reality but, rather, with our understanding of it.

Sigh.
Can I swear?
Never mind.

... I've been arguing the distinction between experience and reality (beyond experience) for as long as you have known of me, yet you have the audacity to mention the analogy of Plato's cave & shadows to me to explain why the experience of relativity cannot grasp the 'absoluteness' underlying it.

Objects in the projection of "space and time" appear to have indefinite length and duration, but that is only when addressing the projection. It's like measuring the shadow on the wall cast by a flickering flame. When one takes into account that the projection is a mapping of a 4 dimensional worldline into a 3+1 dimensional image, one can see a very definite object.

I challenge you to describe just one single "very definite object" in the whole of existence.
Let us hear the sum-total of your absolute narrative for this very-definite object.

The clock you mention has a very definite worldline in spacetime. It exists in certain points on the spacetime manifold that nothing else does. If we use the calculation tools that Einstein gave us, we can reconstruct from the projection where that timeline is on the manifold. And, here's the kicker, no matter who's version of the projection you use, everyone will reconstruct the exact same worldline.

Questions:
In your 'reconstruction', what universal (reference to "everyone, anywhere") knowledge can we know of the clock?

Your cry that there is no definiteness to the clock is not only wrong, but short sited.

*Big smile*
You're screwed. You cannot tell me anything definite about a clock.

I know - and I will bet my life on it if you want - that you cannot prove the existence of a clock beyond the experience of it. Nothing science/Einstein has ever said can prove the existence of anything beyond the experience of it. Therefore, the only definite thing you can tell me about a clock, is that it's actual existence will always be indefinite unless we can prove that nothing exists beyond the experiencER. In which case, the only definite thing you can tell me about a clock, is that it is an illusionary experience.
But we both know that you're not going to do that.

Like the men in Plato's cave, that isn't entirely your fault. You've been chained in the cave, unable to turn your head. You now, however, have been told the truth of the matter and set free.

ho ho ho...

If only you knew that "your head" was one of those shadows...

The question is whether or not you'll turn your head away from the shadows and take a look at the actual object that the flickering fire has been projecting shadows of on the wall. Unlike Plato's captured men, turning your head in this case means understanding, or at least accepting, some very complicated mathematics. I can understand not wishing to actually learn all of this yourself and would not blame you if you do not. I can and will blame you if you refuse to learn it and insist in speaking authoritatively on it.

You're so naive. You obviously seem to think that a conceptual mathematical-idea which unifies the co-ordinates of everything for every experience, is a proof of the reality of that 'thing'.

The solution to your questions about Relativity exist. There are quite a few of us on this board who have tried to help you understand what that solution is. At this point, you are keeping yourself willingly ignorant of that solution.
Okay... I WILL finally listen.
When you tell me this "solution", I will thank you and leave this forum with my tail between my legs.
So, all that we are waiting for, is for you to show how Einstein's theory proves the actual existence of an entity beyond the experience of it.

Oh, and if you cannot do this, then I'd appreciate an explanation as to why science has invented an inexperienced realm (absolute spacetime), which is totally different to the experienced realm (gotta love those Plato anaologies!), to sustain the notion that there is a world beyond the experience of one.

You make me laugh. After all this time, you think yourself superior because you have studied physics.
Do you really think that this is a competition to find out who is the smartest physicist here?
If you do, then you are totally missing the point and aren't even worth talking to.

[RandFan]

Nah, I'm hoplessly egotistic. These particular examples are given in other contexts to show that the human cognitive process does not conform to formal logic and probability theory. Human cognition regularly takes short cuts not alowed in a formal system. One of the headaches of researchers wanting to create strong AI is how to teach machines to cheat the way we do.Great post. Thanks. Still, it's only 5 questions. I got 4 out of 5 and was damn sure I had all 5. But I agree with you.

[Loss Leader]

I know - and I will bet my life on it if you want - that you cannot prove the existence of a clock beyond the experience of it.

Sadly, Lifegazer, you are still wrong. And, strangely enough, it's not because of the above sentence. It's because of what you think the above sentence means.

Of course Upchurch cannot prove that the clock exists outside of his own mind. Nobody can. But here is what you don't understand: Just because we can't prove the clock exists outside of our own minds does not mean that the clock necessarily exists only in our minds.

There is much to suggest that the clock is not necessarily a construct of the mind. First of all, it is boring. By that, I mean that it is continuous and unbroken. Thoughts and dreams tend to be fractured and edited.

Second, everyone reports the same details about the clock. Everyone agrees it is a clock and everyone (accounting for their velocity relative to the clock) reports exactly the same time on the clock.

Last, for everything to be a construct of the mind, the mind must exist. If the mind exist, things must exist (because, after all, the mind is a thing). Once things exist, it's simpler to believe that the clock actually exists than that a mind dreams an entire universe including a clock.

I mean, you make the same logical error every time. And you usually ignore people who point it out.

[Hyver]

As much as I love logic it sometimes hurts my head.

For those needing something to do while awaiting lg's comprehensive, insightful and well articulated response, go take the Edgy Grammar and Reason Quiz (http://www.funtrivia.com/playquiz/quiz5551765dca0.html).

Warning, if you are anything like me this can seriously harm your ego.
I got all of them right, but then as a philosophy major I've taken enough logic classes to be used to these sorts of things when I'm looking out for them. It's really interesting how even for as much practice as I've had with these sorts of things it still took concentration to sort through the grammar ones in the begining.

As to LG, so far you have made two claims. One of them is reasonable, "that we can make no verifiable claims about reality beyond our experience." Hume has beat you to this one by some 200 years though (and he did so in a much more eloquent and informative manner. He also went a step further and showed why inductive reasoning is faulty and why causality is unprovable.) Hume's saving grace is that he doesn't try to prove things he can't. He puts a pox upon the house of rationality and scorches the earth behind him, but he doesn't try to prove things he can't.

You second claim is relating to reletivity and some sort of contradiction it imposes within reality. This second argument has a number of problems. The first problem is that it relies on a basic misunderstanding of what reletivity predicts about the universe. Upchurch and others who are far more well versed in this area have done a great job in explaining it (I would like to take this moment to thank all of you for expanding my own understanding of reletivity through this conversation. prior to this I only had a basic understanding of the implications of traveling close to the speed of light) and so I will not attempt to explain reletivity to you, it would be vastly inferior to the explanations already put forth. The second problem with your second claim is that it is mutually exclusive with relation to the first claim, that is to say, you cannot make the second claim if you have accepted the first one, and if you are making the second claim, you must suspend your ability to appeal to claim one. Despite this, you regularly appeal to the first claim while defending the second.

[lifegazer]

You cannot make this claim though. Why must a real clock have those properties which you ascribe to them? It is because every clock you have ever experienced has them, however by accepting A you deny yourself the ability to use your own experiences to infer how real things act. Your assumptions about reality are completely untenable without denying proposition A.

You aren't taking alot of notice, are you?

Let me point out to you that it is science - not me - which is assuming the reality of the objects within our experience. It is science - not me - which is using those very [experienced] objects to make claims about their realities.
Hear the words of wise ol' upchurch:
"Objects in the projection of "space and time" appear to have indefinite length and duration, but that is only when addressing the projection. It's like measuring the shadow on the wall cast by a flickering flame. When one takes into account that the projection is a mapping of a 4 dimensional worldline into a 3+1 dimensional image, one can see a very definite object.

The clock you mention has a very definite worldline in spacetime. It exists in certain points on the spacetime manifold that nothing else does. If we use the calculation tools that Einstein gave us, we can reconstruct from the projection where that timeline is on the manifold. And, here's the kicker, no matter who's version of the projection you use, everyone will reconstruct the exact same worldline."

Upchurch has the audacity to tell us - not only that the clock is definite/real - but that mathematics has the ability to construct what this clock looks like in the 4-dimensional reality that exists beyond our 'cavely heads'.

Now, listen to me properly this time. I do not believe (via reason) in the existence of any reality beyond the experiencER. Yet, I am in opposition to countless naturalists who believe that experience is a reflection of some external reality.
In effect, what they are saying is that what we experience is fed to our minds through our eyes.
In order for this to be true, all objects would have to be related to their experienced cousins.

I gotta go.

[Z]

...all objects would have to be related to their experienced cousins...

Finally, you scratch the barest surface of the truth.

It is not what we individually sense about an object that matters, but the relationships involved. Yes, each person might sense a different spacetime coordinate of the hands of your clock; but when the relationships between those measurements and the frame of reference of the observers is calculated and compared, we come up with identical measurements.

It is this comparison of measurements that allows us to separate 'real' from 'not-real'.

In a similar vein, every 'real' thing which we perceive is sensed via the sensory organs, processed in the brain, and thus is given a related datum in the brain. That datum exists as nothing but electrochemical code, but played between the different centers of awareness in the brain, becomes a representation of the real object - hence, every real object which we perceive is related to the perception of that object, thought that relation may be imperfect. For example, every daisy is related to every perception of a daisy I may have, but my perception lacks the ultraviolet patterns on the petals, the temperature of the flower, or the microscopic life forms scaling each delicate leaf. My perception lacks these details, because my senses cannot discerne them properly.

So it is with all objects and all perceptions. With the singular exception of you, it seems, we all realize that the perceptions of things are incomplete and representational, and that real things have much more data to them than we can perceive. We all realize that there is so much more to every object, that to say our minds have generated that object is absurd.

I should take a moment to note that the relationship is not necessarily reversable; that is, that every perception of an object is related to a real object that we are perceiving. The brain is capable of generating the necessary electrochemical signals to create false perceptions - i.e. hallucinations, dreams, imagination, memory. If anything, these unreal perceptions should strengthen the argument that there is a real world independent upon the mind.

Nevertheless, some people just cannot or will not accept this possibility.

Not that it matters, since there are no useful, viable, practical consequences of such a nonsensical belief system.

[Upchurch]

I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
two roads diverged in a wood, and lifegazer --
lifegazer sat down and stuck fingers in his ears,
And that is why he has gone nowhere.

apologies to Mr. Frost.

Well, now you've shown ignorance not only of Relativity and reading comprehension, but also of freshman level philosophy itself. I thought a non-mathematical analogy would be more useful to you, but apparently not.

Now do please try to pay attention long enough to understand this much: Nothing in that my post was speaking about reality apart from the senses. I wasn't even addressing the issue in that post. What I was addressing was the aspects of Einstein's relativity that you do not understand, but insist on basing your argument upon.

Read, understand, then reply.

With this in mind, would you like another chance to actually address what I said?

There is one point I'd like to address in your post, however.
After all this time, you think yourself superior because you have studied physics.
Do you really think that this is a competition to find out who is the smartest physicist here?
If you do, then you are totally missing the point and aren't even worth talking to.
I do understand the point that you are trying to make. I'm guessing I understand it better than you do, given your methodology for trying to defend it. Although, it is entirely possible that you have a different idea and are just really bad at constructing logical arguments.

But, I am not the one pulling physics into this. The point you are trying to make has nothing at all to do with physics. If anything, I'm actually strengthening your case by pointing this out. You, for whatever reason, keep insisting on trying to tie Relativity into your point.

And that's the rub. You are, for lack of a better word, misquoting Relativity to make a point that is irrelevant to your overall argument. Your overall argument is neither provable nor disprovable, but your "proof" that it is provable is based on these misquotes. That, at least, is addressable.

So, that's why I pull on my experience as a physics student, because you are pulling on your experience as a physics student. The difference is that I've had 4-5 years of formal training in the subject and you've mostly just gleaned sound bytes of information from various sources. I am superior to you in that respect.

You have made this into "a competition to find out who is the smartest physicist here" by insisting that your understanding of Einstein's Relativity is better than anyone else.

Now, you basically have two honest options. One, you can re-read my post and try to get a feel for what Einstein was really saying about how the universe works. Two, you can drop all this Relativity stuff as unimportant to your overall point.

Your third, and intellectually dishonest, option is to keep sitting there in the dirt with your fingers in your ears and shouting at the top of your lungs that Eisntein said nonsense that he never said while the rest of us walk around you and wonder, "what in the world is wrong with that guy?"

[Hyver]

You aren't taking alot of notice, are you?

Let me point out to you that it is science - not me - which is assuming the reality of the objects within our experience. It is science - not me - which is using those very [experienced] objects to make claims about their realities.

[snip]

Now, listen to me properly this time. I do not believe (via reason) in the existence of any reality beyond the experiencER. Yet, I am in opposition to countless naturalists who believe that experience is a reflection of some external reality.
In effect, what they are saying is that what we experience is fed to our minds through our eyes.
In order for this to be true, all objects would have to be related to their experienced cousins.


Your reply does not even address the concern which I have raised.

Suppose you were to compose an argument with the following form.

(Argument 1)
1. It is not the case that muffins exist.
2. Lets assume for the sake of argument that muffins exist.
3. Muffins have properties such that they are really really hot!
4. Becouse muffins are really really hot people won't eat muffins (follows kind of from 3)
5. There is nothing in existance that people won't eat.
6. Muffins don't exist. (from 4 and 5).


Ok, so now having crafted this argument you present it to someone else, and he says "I don't like premises 4 and 5, I know that there are all kinds of things that people won't eat and I know that people eat really really hot things or atleast cool them off so they can eat them later." Having heard his critisism you show him that he doesn't know about muffins becouse of premise 1, infact everyone is mistaken in their beliefs about muffins becouse they don't exist. You are, however, making a mistake. In the mock argument above when you go to premise 2 you MUST suspend your access to premise 1, otherwise your argument is circular. It would be just as usefull to make the argument.

(Argument 1a)
1a. Muffins don't exist
2a. lets assume muffins exist
3a. 1 and 2 make a contradiction
4a. as a result, the negation of my assumption in 2 must be true (reductio ad absurdum)
5a. Therefor muffins don't exist.

Do you see why this doesn't prove anything? As you have noted many times in this discussion "It's just basic philosophy."

What you are doing in your defense against Upchurch is the same thing. You are apealing an assumption you must suspend in order to talk about science; you have tacetly agreed to suspend access to your belief that there is no external reality in order to discuss a problem within science and becouse of that you cannot go back and appeal to it durring the course of that discussion.

[Upchurch]

What you are doing in your defense against Upchurch is the same thing. You are apealing an assumption you must suspend in order to talk about science; you have tacetly agreed to suspend access to your belief that there is no external reality in order to discuss a problem within science and becouse of that you cannot go back and appeal to it durring the course of that discussion.
Oh, well put and you're absolutely right. The moment I addressed his argument about the properties of a physical reality, he fell back on his "ah, but there is no physical reality" defense. Good eye.

[Loss Leader]

you have tacetly agreed to suspend access to your belief that there is no external reality in order to discuss a problem within science and becouse of that you cannot go back and appeal to it durring the course of that discussion.

LG believes that there is no external reality except for six or seven billion human minds. Somehow, all of these externally real minds dream reality into being and, in so doing, become their own god.

This actually makes LG's philosophy less rational. Either nothing exists or things exist. He wants to have it both ways in the same sentence. If nothing exists, I'm not sure how he supports his conclusion that billions of brains exist.

It's a hopeless mess that boils down to a defense of the existence of God. One would think that God, being omnipotent, doesn't need defending, But apparantly he requires LifeGazer's help.

[wollery]

LG believes that there is no external reality except for six or seven billion human minds. Somehow, all of these externally real minds dream reality into being and, in so doing, become their own god.

This actually makes LG's philosophy less rational. Either nothing exists or things exist. He wants to have it both ways in the same sentence. If nothing exists, I'm not sure how he supports his conclusion that billions of brains exist.

It's a hopeless mess that boils down to a defense of the existence of God. One would think that God, being omnipotent, doesn't need defending, But apparantly he requires LifeGazer's help.Actually that's not accurate. In lifegazer's philosophy only God exists, but it doesn't know that it exists. It is in a dream state, and our experiences are caused by that dream, we as individuals are fragments of the dreaming God-mind.

[Upchurch]

As a bit of a reality check, does anyone (besides lifegazer) think my comments were out of line?

[Loss Leader]

Actually that's not accurate. In lifegazer's philosophy only God exists, but it doesn't know that it exists. It is in a dream state, and our experiences are caused by that dream, we as individuals are fragments of the dreaming God-mind.

I thought he had this idea that if everyone realized that they were creating reality, somehow it would usher in an era of perfect peace and happiness or something. That, to me, meant that we all independently existed. But I never really had a complete grasp on just what the hell he thought he was saying.

[wollery]

I thought he had this idea that if everyone realized that they were creating reality, somehow it would usher in an era of perfect peace and happiness or something. That, to me, meant that we all independently existed. But I never really had a complete grasp on just what the hell he thought he was saying.It's something along the lines of, "if everyone realises that they are just a part of God's dream then it will end all wars and pain and suffering (apparently there'll be no need to eat, and lions will lie down with lambs, that sort of stuff) and eventually God will wake from the dream."

Rather sad really, because God will then realise that he's all alone and all these people he's known are just a figment of his imagination.

[lifegazer]

Nothing in that my post was speaking about reality apart from the senses. I wasn't even addressing the issue in that post.

You refered to the 'reality' of an object in 'spacetime', which is the underlying reality behind experience.
Now, the fact that you don't want to address this is irrelevant, because it is important.

What I was addressing was the aspects of Einstein's relativity that you do not understand, but insist on basing your argument upon.

I understand more than you give me credit for. Indeed, I understand more than most physicists wrt one significant fact:
We cannot observe the reality of any thing. The laws of physics can only reflect the order inherent within the experienced world.

Now, you (physicists) harp on about the underlying reality of absolute spacetime, but anybody with an ounce of intelligence should know that this is absolutely meaningless with regards metaphysical discussion. Mathematical concepts do not prove the existence of realities.

There is nothing of relevance for me to misunderstand. The mathematics of absolute spacetime are meaningless and prove nothing. You should know that.

I have only one point to make in this thread:
If the world we see in our minds is fed into those minds by the [outer] world itself, so that what we see reflects 'reality', then how can 6 billion people stare at the same object and see it in a different state, with a different volume?
One thing's for certain: the images we experience of the clock (in this instance), are not fed into our minds by the clock itself.

If you want to counter this, then do so. But please explain the mechanics of how you think this would be possible, instead of reading Plato to me.

Thankyou.

[Loss Leader]

I have only one point to make in this thread:
If the world we see in our minds is fed into those minds by the [outer] world itself, so that what we see reflects 'reality', then how can 6 billion people stare at the same object and see it in a different state, with a different volume?
One thing's for certain: the images we experience of the clock (in this instance), are not fed into our minds by the clock itself.

If you want to counter this, then do so.

I will counter this in two ways. You will ignore me. That is the nature of things.

One: LG, your argument above is that because we cannot tell if the clock exists in the real world, then the real world must not exist. In fact, you say that it is "for certain" that the knowledge we have of the clock is "not fed into our minds by the clock itself." However, this does not logically follow.

It is the same as saying, "I do not know if Carol went to the movies, therefore Carol must not have gone to the movies."

The fact that we do not know whether the real world exists does not mean that the real world definitely does not exist. It just means that we don't know whether it does. There is good evidence that it does exist: a) If we exist to experience it, existence must be possible and it's more likely that things exist to experience than that they don't; b) everybody is having relatively the same experiences; and c) our experiences are linear, boring and uninterrupted, which is nothing like movies or dreams.

If the real world may exist, your philosophy is meaningless.

Two: You ask how six billion people can stare at the same object and see it in a different state with a different volume. The answer is very simple: That's the way the world works. In fact, we have exact mathematical equations that can predict exactly what people will see at different velocities. We have tested those predictions and found them exactly accurate.

Space and time are relative. They are experienced differently relative to your position. But this does not mean that they are arbitrary or that everyone will see a completely different thing. In fact, everyone will see a clock. Nobody will see a fish or Tom Jones or anything but a clock. The perception of the clock may shift slightly but we can account for this shift and translate it into any other frame of reference we wish with mathematical precision.

This is the crux of Einstein's theories. This is the math that you refuse to learn even though it is the very math that you invoked. Then, by the way, you denied that any math was important at all. You can't have it both ways.

But what does any of this matter? You'll ignore this post. You'll refuse to confront your obvious errors in logic and you'll go on circling your own particular dim star forever.

[Upchurch]

You refered to the 'reality' of an object in 'spacetime', which is the underlying reality behind experience.
No, I didn't. I said that your argument with the apparent inconsistencies in external reality is from lack of understanding rather than an actual inconsistency.

Read, understand, then reply.

I understand more than you give me credit for. Indeed, I understand more than most physicists wrt one significant fact:
We cannot observe the reality of any thing. The laws of physics can only reflect the order inherent within the experienced world.
Then why do you reference the laws of physics in your argument?

Now, you (physicists) harp on about the underlying reality of absolute spacetime, but anybody with an ounce of intelligence should know that this is absolutely meaningless with regards metaphysical discussion. Mathematical concepts do not prove the existence of realities.
Then why do you base your argument on the lack of absoluteness in physics?

There is nothing of relevance for me to misunderstand. The mathematics of absolute spacetime are meaningless and prove nothing. You should know that.
Then why do you did you reference it in your OP?

I have only one point to make in this thread:
If the world we see in our minds is fed into those minds by the [outer] world itself, so that what we see reflects 'reality', then how can 6 billion people stare at the same object and see it in a different state, with a different volume?
Already answered, but in light of your example backfiring, you reject your own example as proving nothing. Why is that?

One thing's for certain: the images we experience of the clock (in this instance), are not fed into our minds by the clock itself.
That is not certain. Do you have evidence to support that?

If you want to counter this, then do so. But please explain the mechanics of how you think this would be possible, instead of reading Plato to me.
Briefly:
light bounces off clock.
light travels to eye.
eye turns light into an electronic impulse.
electrical impulse is interpreted by brain.

[Hyver]

As another explanatory tool, lets consider a situation which we are all so intimately familiar with that it will seem stupid, but it is actually somewhat helpfull.

I want you (lifegazer) to take a drinking glass, and fill it half way up with water. I'll wait here while you do that.


ok, good. Now take a spoon, or pencil, or any adequatly straight object and put it into the water at an angle. If you look at it from the side you will see a gap at the edge of where the water and the air meet. If you change your position the gap changes also, depending on your position reletive to the pencil.

Now lets consider the pencil. It did not change at all. Certainly we would say that there is nothing wrong with the pencil, and this experiment does nothing to discredit physics. It does show, however, that it's perfectly reasonable for our perceptions to be altered based on position. We don't even think about this though becouse we deal with it every single day.

I would submit that if we had to deal with these fun reletivity problems (near C speeds and whatnot) on a daily basis, it would seem like second nature to us, but the fact of the matter is, the difference between 20 mph on you bike and 100 mph in your car ( I'm not recommending that you drive that fast btw) is not great enough for us to every really experience these properties of the universe in our day to day lives.


Edit: you still have not addressed the concerns I raised in my previous 2 posts, I await your reply.

[Hyver]

As a bit of a reality check, does anyone (besides lifegazer) think my comments were out of line?
I couldn't find anything that could be remotely construed as being out of line.

[Jimbo07]

I understand more than you give me credit for. Indeed, I understand more than most physicists wrt one significant fact:
We cannot observe the reality of any thing. The laws of physics can only reflect the order inherent within the experienced world.


This speaks for itself, really.

:rolleyes:

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

We cannot observe the reality of any thing. The laws of physics can only reflect the order inherent within the experienced world.
And yet the laws of physics appear to apply to the long bits of nonexperienced world that lie in between the experienced bits. This is what leads us to call the experienced and nonexperienced bits, taken together, the real world.

~~ Paul