Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 12 of 22 FirstFirst ... 2 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 ... LastLast
Results 221 to 240 of 433
  1. #221
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,174
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: WLC's Argument Against an Actual Infinity

    Quote Originally Posted by CLIVE
    I'm not sure what all the descriptive elements of "now" refers to.
    It refers to what "now" is.

    Quote Originally Posted by CLIVE
    The purpose of the model I'm giving here is to help Squatch make his argument more clear and precise, so we don't have to rely on ambiguous terms. So the numbers in my model represent A-facts, and the ordering of these numbers represents the temporal ordering of those A-facts.
    O.K.

    Quote Originally Posted by CLIVE
    Your argument has no context, then. What set are you talking about? If you're saying there's a "minimum" element, then you're talking about some set that has a "minimum" element according to some order on that set.
    The set of descriptive facts that make up "now" or t0.

    Quote Originally Posted by CLIVE
    (1) "Minimum" in what sense?
    Minimum as there is nothing smaller to change to make up time. Minimum as in something popping into existence constitutes a "next moment", where it isn't divisible any smaller. Where .00001 is the end of it and even though .000001 exists on the number line or coordinate, there is nothing of reality to associate with it.

    Quote Originally Posted by CLIVE
    (2) You're merely claiming that it exists, you aren't showing that it indeed exists.
    At this point until we both understand what is being said and described.. I'll say yes and stop there.

    Quote Originally Posted by CLIVE
    What are the "elements" of moments? It sounds like you're just rambling about nothing, here.
    Well Clive, you agree that "now" exists and we can view it as 'frozen' ... so what in the world are you thinking?
    We have to be thinking in the same sense to even start yes? .. that is the point of my line of questioning..

    You are conceiving of "now" in a way that allows you to say that there is no "next" now, just as there is no "next" number.
    I am conceiving of "now" in a way a way that there is a "next"..

    I can tell you what the numbers in a number line represent, you may not be inclined to accept that description.. but you should at least be able to offer a coherent explanation of your own.. even if it reaches only the level of "claiming it".
    To serve man.

  2. #222
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    5,626
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: WLC's Argument Against an Actual Infinity

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Obviously, when I said “appear to change” I was referring to the outcomes of the equations representing the laws. IE their outcome does not vary with the referenced frames.


    A quick question. When you say “special relativity” above, are you referring specifically to Minkowskian SR or would the Lorentzian interpretation of SR also net these same results?


    Nor does anyone, to my knowledge, imply that there should be a measurable difference in the frames as referenced by me. The difference in Lorentzian SR is not in the predicted results (for virtually all cases), but in the proposed mechanism producing those results. In fact, if I remember correctly that was an initial comment I made, that many reject Lorentzian SR because, from a positivist point of view it is currently indistinguishable from Minkowskian SR.


    1) First, I would note that the relativity of simultaneity isn’t violated in Lorentzian SR, as I pointed out earlier. The question is whether it is a material characteristic of the relative motion or an apparent characteristic of the motion of each frame in relation to an absolute frame.

    Second, I think a Lorentzian relativist would argue that it is the Minkowskian relativist is the one making the assumption by accepting the postulate that the speed of light is independent of the observer. He would object by arguing that this has not been shown experimentally and indeed cannot be shown experimentally if you use Poincaré–Einstein synchronization because it assumes it to be true (just as it would become automatically false if you used Lorentzian synchronization because it assumes it to be false).

    2) Questions 2 and 3 are somewhat the same, and I think I have already addressed them. Lorentzian SR holds that Fitzgerald contractions and Larmor dilations distort our ability to detect uniform velocity relative to the absolute frame. Again the difference here being not the measurement predictions between LR and MR, but the underlying mechanism. Is it a distortion of the matter and energy we are using to measure the change or a distortion of the underlying spacetime?


    Which observations specifically, would prevent us from answering these questions? Additionally, why would that observation be fundamentally incompatible with Lorentzian SR?



    And General Relativity is incompatible with Lorentzian Special Relativity? It was my understanding that the mathematical foundations of General Relativity are derived from the work that is identical between Lorentzian and Minkowskian relativity.



    Why would this be true? Given that we are applying the results in a certain reference frame, why would we be ‘forced’ to reference the absolute reference frame? It would seem that the effects from any motion relative to that absolute frame would be cancelled out between the two observers (since they are both moving in relation to it) and we are left with a net of only the relative motion between the two observers.
    I'm sorry, Squatch, but I'm failing to see this post as anything more than being utterly non-responsive and evasive. Let's be clear here about the following:

    You don't have a coherent position on this subject.

    I'm tired to trying to make you define your position, have you change your position as soon as there's an obvious contradiction with physics, and then move back to your original position. So now I'm using challenge tags.




    The Questions and Re-Statements of Basic Facts of Special Relativity



    1.) Firstly, I'm not going to ask a question; I'm going to state a fact. Special Relativity is as I defined it in my last post. There's no interpretation issue; Special Relativity is the theory of Lorentz invariance. You can add metaphysical baggage on top of SR, but they cannot change the predictions of Special Relativity. Otherwise it's not SR, and it cannot be called "Special Relativity". "Relativity of simultaneity" <=> "Special Relativity" <=> "Lorentz Invariance". Each imply the other, independent of interpretation of what they mean. Each are just mathematical relations. If you doubt my honesty here, then I will do the math for you.



    2.) Let's start with the following contradiction:

    "I would note that the relativity of simultaneity isn’t violated in Lorentzian SR" (Post #200)

    "[Lorentzian SR] has become more prominent in recent years because it allows for absolute simultaneity." (Post #161)


    Emphasis mine. Absolute and relative simultaneity are logical opposites of each other, you have to pick which one Lorentzian relativity supports. I am going to ask you to first clarify which position you are supporting, and then if you pick absolute simultaneity, I'm going to issue you a Challenge to support a claim. for you to defend how your position is consistent with what we know about physics (See point #7 for why this position is problematic; again, recall that "Relativity of simultaneity" <=> "Lorentz invariance").



    3.) The next inconsistency:

    "The difference in Lorentzian SR is not in the predicted results (for virtually all cases), but in the proposed mechanism producing those results."

    "I don't think that is a very charitable way to portray an interpretation from other physicists (even if a small number)."
    (Post #179)


    Emphasis mine. You seem to misunderstand what the difference between a "model" and an "interpretation of a model" is. Allow me to clarify this point then. A model is a physical theory that has a specific set of predictions. An interpretation of a model is a simply a heuristic understanding or, quite literally, "interpretation" of that model. It is more metaphysical, and an interpretation cannot imply different results. If it has different results, then it is a different model. SR is a model. You seem to be under the false impression that Lorentzian relativity is merely a different interpretation of the model, SR. If Lorentzian relativity implies different predictions than SR, then Lorentzian relativity is inherently not an interpretation of the results of SR; it is a new, competing model. That makes it --categorically-- not "metaphysics" as you have been arguing, it makes it a new model that is in competition with Special Relativity. This makes it "physics".




    4.) Another contradiction:


    "Again, forgive the possibly amateur response, but it was my understanding that under Neo-lorentzian interpretations that Lorentz invariance was rejected." (Post #171)

    "You seem to be assuming that the argument is that Lorentz Invariance is false, but that wasn't what was offered." (Post #179)

    Emphsis mine. Does the Lorentzian relativity model obey Lorentz invariance or does it violate Lorentz invariance? If not, then I Challenge to support a claim. you explain why Nature looks the way it does. (Again, see point #7).



    5.) This is unsubstantiated gibberish:
    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch
    (The Lorentzian relativist) would object by arguing that (the constancy of the speed of light) has not been shown experimentally and indeed cannot be shown experimentally if you use Poincaré–Einstein synchronization because it assumes it to be true (just as it would become automatically false if you used Lorentzian synchronization because it assumes it to be false)."
    Challenge to support a claim.

    Support or retract all of this, and do it with equations. I'm serious about that last bit. You've been using a lot of vague words that you clearly don't understand, so please do us both the favor and properly explain why this is true.



    6.) Whatever your final position is, to re-iterate, I Challenge to support a claim. you to explain how your theory is consistent with what we know about physics. I'll quote myself in Post #178 for the relevant highlighted issues:

    "I understand that it sounds appealing from your perspective to reject a single line of a theory, give it a new alternative (model), and then say "Problem could be solved this way." But like changing a single line in a computer program, you introduce a profound number of new and complex problems if you reject Lorentz invariance and say that it is just an "apparant phenomena". As someone who can trot further down the code and see what goes wrong, I say that there's quite a bit that gets immediately screwed up.

    The laws of Nature are literally suffused with Lorentz invariance, down to the literal definition and properties of particles ("Excitations of quantum fields, which take up an irreducible representation of the Poincare group", source: Weinberg's "Quantum Theory of Fields" in chapter 2; which, when translated into English, is basically just a formal statement that particles fundamentally obey Lorentz invariance). Just one example of this is the intrinsic "spin" of a particle. It entirely comes from Lorentz invariance (I can't find a good source for this fact online, without going to very technical sources, so let's go with the vague statement of Paul Dirac's Wiki page: "Dirac's equation also contributed to explaining the origin of quantum spin as a relativistic phenomenon."). It cannot be understood or explained in the absence of Lorentz invariance. Another thing is the entire issue of how and why gauge theories work in physics (Like the Standard Model of Particle Physics), the literal structure of General Relativity (via Weinberg's Theorem), etc.

    Everything we've seen in Nature shouldn't look the way that it does if Lorentz invariance is false."

    If Lorentzian relativity breaks Lorentz invariance (through an absolute frame, absolute simultaneity, or whatever else), then you can't say "Well, it looks like Lorentz invariance." It has or it doesn't have Lorentz invariance; if it doesn't have, then the above argument concisely states why this position is completely untenable.



    7.) Clive has mentioned to me that it seems likely that (one of) your sources of error lie in the fact that you likely think that Lorentz invariance is a metaphysical postulate of Special Relativity. It is not. Any violation of Lorentz invariance (like all symmetries; it's literally like breaking rotational invariance of a system) has a physical consequence (e.g. the Goldstone theorem, which states that when you break a symmetry you will add new degrees of freedom to the theory; if it's a spacetime symmetry it is more complicated because of inverse Higgs constraints, but I digress on this point). Lorentz invariance is physical, not philosophical. An analogy is with a rotation invariance (it doesn't matter which direction you view it from, it looks the same, e.g. a sphere). If I break rotation invariance, I have changed the underlying physics of the system, which has palpable consequences in experiment and theory.
    Last edited by GoldPhoenix; February 24th, 2014 at 09:06 AM.
    "Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." --Voltaire

  3. #223
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    13,847
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: WLC's Argument Against an Actual Infinity

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    It refers to what "now" is.


    O.K.


    The set of descriptive facts that make up "now" or t0.
    Right, but what are "descriptive facts"? Propositions? States of nature? What?

    Minimum as there is nothing smaller to change to make up time. Minimum as in something popping into existence constitutes a "next moment", where it isn't divisible any smaller. Where .00001 is the end of it and even though .000001 exists on the number line or coordinate, there is nothing of reality to associate with it.
    "There is nothing smaller"...you mean, nothing smaller than the quantum particles? Like nothing physically smaller? How does that relate at all to my model?

    How does "something popping into existence" constitute a "next moment"?

    How does any of this relate to time, and to the extent that it relates to time being finite, how do you know that what you're saying is true? Why should I agree with you?

    Your argument, so far as I can tell, is:

    (1) Quantum particles can pop in and out of existence.
    (2) Each time a particle pops into existence, it creates a moment.
    (3) These particles pop into existence in a discrete fashion.
    (4) The only moments that exist are created by quantum particles popping into existence.
    (5) Therefore, time is discrete.

    If this is indeed your argument, I don't find it very persuasive, or even illuminating. Why should I believe (2), (3), or (4)?

    Well Clive, you agree that "now" exists and we can view it as 'frozen' ... so what in the world are you thinking?
    I don't know what you mean by viewing "now" as frozen. I've never claimed to view "now" as frozen. You seem to be inventing your own claims and attributing them to me.

    You are conceiving of "now" in a way that allows you to say that there is no "next" now, just as there is no "next" number.
    I am conceiving of "now" in a way a way that there is a "next"..
    Well, okay, but that doesn't address my model. I agree that there are models where time is finite, or discrete. My particular question with this model is why it must be actually impossible. Because that's what WLC's argument requires: Not only that the model I'm giving is false, but that it could not even possibly be actual.

    I can tell you what the numbers in a number line represent, you may not be inclined to accept that description.. but you should at least be able to offer a coherent explanation of your own.. even if it reaches only the level of "claiming it".
    Sure, you can use some representation schemata and come up with your own model. If you want to use that model to show that the past is finite, go right ahead. I'd love to see the proof that your model is accurate.
    If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. - Soren Kierkegaard
    **** you, I won't do what you tell me

    HOLY CRAP MY BLOG IS AWESOME

  4. #224
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,174
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: WLC's Argument Against an Actual Infinity

    Quote Originally Posted by CLIVE
    Right, but what are "descriptive facts"? Propositions? States of nature? What?
    All true propositions, where the next moment would be comprised of all the changed propositions.

    Quote Originally Posted by CLIVE
    "There is nothing smaller"...you mean, nothing smaller than the quantum particles? Like nothing physically smaller? How does that relate at all to my model?
    That depends on how your model seeks to describe things.

    Quote Originally Posted by CLIVE
    How does "something popping into existence" constitute a "next moment"?
    because it is the change that distinguishes one possible frozen time to the "next" or any other.
    There simply is no "time" between for the slider to fall on.

    Quote Originally Posted by CLIVE
    How does any of this relate to time, and to the extent that it relates to time being finite, how do you know that what you're saying is true? Why should I agree with you?
    For now, I would say because I have presented a fuller description, as opposed to your lack of providing one at all through your failure to connect your "Model" to reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by CLIVE
    Your argument, so far as I can tell, is:

    (1) Quantum particles can pop in and out of existence.
    (2) Each time a particle pops into existence, it creates a moment.
    (3) These particles pop into existence in a discrete fashion.
    (4) The only moments that exist are created by quantum particles popping into existence.
    (5) Therefore, time is discrete.

    If this is indeed your argument, I don't find it very persuasive, or even illuminating. Why should I believe (2), (3), or (4)?
    Actually, I offered that to illuminate to you what I think, so that you can explain how your position is different or show how it is incorrect.

    Again I would say you should accept it, because you have not offered an alternative.

    Quote Originally Posted by CLIVE
    I don't know what you mean by viewing "now" as frozen. I've never claimed to view "now" as frozen. You seem to be inventing your own claims and attributing them to me.
    I'm calling bull ****.

    Quote Originally Posted by CLIVE POST 210
    There will be a real now, but not necessarily a discrete one. Imagine that the slider is moving alone the real number line: anywhere you stop sliding it is "now", but there's no "next" now. These numbers aren't "discrete".
    Stopping the slider is "freezing" on "now".
    Please withdraw your assertion that I have invented or injected that Idea into your position.
    It has been the agreed upon language we have both used over the last few pages.. no sense in you trying to walk it back and act surprised now.

    Quote Originally Posted by CLIVE
    Well, okay, but that doesn't address my model. I agree that there are models where time is finite, or discrete. My particular question with this model is why it must be actually impossible. Because that's what WLC's argument requires: Not only that the model I'm giving is false, but that it could not even possibly be actual.
    you at least have the burden of describing "now".. there is no need to reject or show impossible what you are not offering.
    Otherwise.. you don't have a "model".
    Models describe reality. I have asked for you to connect the two several times and you are not. You are reaching what I believe to be outright refusal. Is that what you are trying to do?

    Quote Originally Posted by CLIVE
    Sure, you can use some representation schemata and come up with your own model. If you want to use that model to show that the past is finite, go right ahead. I'd love to see the proof that your model is accurate.
    So are you going to connect your own "model" to reality or not?

    Mine can be crap. In fact.. I'll concede that it is incorrect here and now.
    now.. will you pretty please.. with a cherry on top connect your model to reality?

    You still have the burden to actually connect your "model" to reality in some way. Yes?
    To serve man.

  5. #225
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    13,847
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: WLC's Argument Against an Actual Infinity

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    All true propositions, where the next moment would be comprised of all the changed propositions.


    That depends on how your model seeks to describe things.


    because it is the change that distinguishes one possible frozen time to the "next" or any other.
    There simply is no "time" between for the slider to fall on.


    For now, I would say because I have presented a fuller description, as opposed to your lack of providing one at all through your failure to connect your "Model" to reality.


    Actually, I offered that to illuminate to you what I think, so that you can explain how your position is different or show how it is incorrect.

    Again I would say you should accept it, because you have not offered an alternative.


    I'm calling bull ****.


    Stopping the slider is "freezing" on "now".
    Please withdraw your assertion that I have invented or injected that Idea into your position.
    It has been the agreed upon language we have both used over the last few pages.. no sense in you trying to walk it back and act surprised now.


    you at least have the burden of describing "now".. there is no need to reject or show impossible what you are not offering.
    Otherwise.. you don't have a "model".
    Models describe reality. I have asked for you to connect the two several times and you are not. You are reaching what I believe to be outright refusal. Is that what you are trying to do?


    So are you going to connect your own "model" to reality or not?

    Mine can be crap. In fact.. I'll concede that it is incorrect here and now.
    now.. will you pretty please.. with a cherry on top connect your model to reality?

    You still have the burden to actually connect your "model" to reality in some way. Yes?
    I explained this before.

    It is not incumbent on me to show that my model corresponds to reality, for I am not in the position of making such claims. Rather, WLC and his supporters are in the position of making such claims; in particular, Squatch has said that every set of A-facts (such as the set of all past events under the A-theoy of time) is necessarily finite.

    My model, then, presents a challenge to Squatch: Either show why this model is necessarily false, or concede that it is possible. If Squatch concedes that the model isn't necessarily false, then he must admit that his claim--that all sets of A-facts are finite--is false on pain of contradiction.

    It seems that yuo're having trouble understanding what A-facts are. I suggest you read through some literature on the A theory of time.

    If you know what A-facts are, then as I have explained earlier, any set of A-facts has an order, induced by temporal relations (e.g. "occurs before", or its dual, "occurs after", or the various A-theory equivalents of these relations). Squatch's claim is that none of these sets of A-facts can possibly be order-isomorphic to (-1,1). Constructing an explicit model will allow me to analyze his actual argument, as well as allowing Squatch to make his argument in more precise terms.
    If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. - Soren Kierkegaard
    **** you, I won't do what you tell me

    HOLY CRAP MY BLOG IS AWESOME

  6. #226
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,174
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: WLC's Argument Against an Actual Infinity

    Quote Originally Posted by CLIVE
    It is not incumbent on me to show that my model corresponds to reality,
    You must show that it POSSIBLY corresponds to reality by showing how it WOULD correspond to reality IF it did.

    Lacking such an explanation there is nothing to refute.

    Quote Originally Posted by CLIVE
    My model, then, presents a challenge to Squatch:
    You mean the model you refuse to or fail to explain how it WOULD correspond to reality?

    Quote Originally Posted by CLIVE
    It seems that yuo're having trouble understanding what A-facts are. I suggest you read through some literature on the A theory of time.
    So.. spam.. link wars.. what are you offering me?
    Shall I just re-read hawkings "Brief history of time"?

    Seriously, I have admitted and do admit to not understanding your position and how it applies, and your previous attempts to sluff off your burden does not scream to me that you have fulfilled your burden, rather you appear to be skirting it.


    Quote Originally Posted by CLIVE
    Squatch's claim is that none of these sets of A-facts can possibly be order-isomorphic to (-1,1).
    What I have asked is that you give an example of what it would look like to order A facts isomorphic to (-1,1).
    Give an example.. a real world example.
    To serve man.

  7. #227
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    13,847
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: WLC's Argument Against an Actual Infinity

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    You must show that it POSSIBLY corresponds to reality by showing how it WOULD correspond to reality IF it did.

    Lacking such an explanation there is nothing to refute.


    You mean the model you refuse to or fail to explain how it WOULD correspond to reality?


    So.. spam.. link wars.. what are you offering me?
    Shall I just re-read hawkings "Brief history of time"?

    Seriously, I have admitted and do admit to not understanding your position and how it applies, and your previous attempts to sluff off your burden does not scream to me that you have fulfilled your burden, rather you appear to be skirting it.



    What I have asked is that you give an example of what it would look like to order A facts isomorphic to (-1,1).
    Give an example.. a real world example.
    Let me give you some examples:

    Take the set of A-facts S = {The American Revolutionary War, World War II}. This set is order-isomorphic to the set {0,1} (and indeed any set {a,b} where a < b).

    Now, the A-theory of time holds that a statement like "The revolutionary war started today" would be true if spoken on July 4, 1776, and false thereafter. Similarly, a statement like "The revolutionary war started yesterday" would be true if spoken on July 5, 1776, and false thereafter. This means that A-facts are tensed to time. Contrariwise, the B-theory of time has tenseless facts. A B-fact would be, "The revolutionary war started July 4, 1776". The truth value of this statement does not change over time.

    The temporal ordering of S (that the American Revolutionary War temporally precedes World War II) doesn't change between A-theory and B-theory. A-theory is equivalent to saying that the A-series "slides along" the fixed B-series. So under A-theory, while the temporal order of events is fixed, the property being in the future of the American Revolutionary War does change: people used to be in the past of the American Revolutionary War, then they were contemporaneous with it, and then they were in its future.

    Squatch's claim is that every set of events that constitutes an A-series must be order-isomorphic to a finite set--i.e., that if A is a set of events that constitutes an A-series, and B is an infinite set, then A is not order-isomorphic to B. I am asking him to prove his statement in one particular case, where B = (-1,1).

    Technically, Squatch won't be refuting me, because I am not defending the claim that B is order-isomorphic to A. My goal here is to force Squatch to put his argument into unambiguous, precise terms. I have no burden of proof with regard to B's being order isomorphic to A, because I am not making a claim on the matter. Your mistaken challenges and accusations of shifting the burden of proof are a result of misunderstanding what claims are being made, and who is making them.
    If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. - Soren Kierkegaard
    **** you, I won't do what you tell me

    HOLY CRAP MY BLOG IS AWESOME

  8. Likes GoldPhoenix, Dionysus liked this post
  9. #228
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,755
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: WLC's Argument Against an Actual Infinity

    Gentlemen, I apologize for the extended delay in this thread. It is the result of real life being real life and the excellent argument posited by you both (which require a bit of thought). I appreciate your patience and I imagine these long delays will continue. For now;



    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    A-theory is equivalent to saying that the A-series "slides along" the fixed B-series. So under A-theory, while the temporal order of events is fixed, the property being in the future of the American Revolutionary War does change: people used to be in the past of the American Revolutionary War, then they were contemporaneous with it, and then they were in its future.
    Hi CS, sorry to jump in here, but this statement caught my eye. You posited this indirectly earlier in thread and I thought I responded. A theory is not equivalent to a “now” moving along a fixed, extant, ordered timeline. That viewpoint would represent a mixed A/B theory, which some philosophers would put forward, but which usually have several internal problems.

    Regardless, it isn't the theory I put forward here or offered in my references. The future is not an existing position we have not yet reached, it is a non-actual state. The best way to highlight this, imo, is to discuss the truth values of the following statements. Assuming it is Feb 25 2014.
    1) “Mr. Obama is the President of the United States.” This is a true statement.
    2) “Mr. Obama was the President of the United States yesterday.” This is a true statement.
    3) “Mr. Obama will be the President of the United States tomorrow.” This statement has no truth value. Under B theory (or the way you described A theory above) the statement is either true or false, we simply don’t have access to the information. However, under A theory, the statement has no actual truth value, it is indeterminate.

    To use an analogy, it is not a train moving along a track, but rather like a rail laying train.




    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    That doesn't mean that the set of all coins that go into the vault is finite.
    Correct, it only means that the total amount in the vault is finite for any given coin being added. IE there is no specific coin that when added makes the total amount of coins in the vault when added infinite. Or to return from the analogy, there is no specific point, “now” in which the total time, past, is infinite.

    And that is the question being asked, imo. The vault represents the total number of points that have been added to the timeline through a continuous process and that vault never becomes infinite through the process we have described here.

    Quote Originally Posted by CS
    You are assuming that the number of coins in the vault must at some point equal the number of points that "now" has visited.
    Perhaps I misunderstand this objection. Are you saying that there is a point in the “vault” (ie in the past) that has not been a “now?”

    Quote Originally Posted by CS
    Instead of dealing with nebulous phrases like "at any point in the process", where the process hasn't been precisely described, why don't we deal with math?
    Because we are using the math to reason by analogy and so far it has seemed to me that the analogies are causing more confusion than they are resolving, almost certainly due to my failings and expressing myself in that analogy. There is a physical reality (or at least a theory of reality) that I am attempting to ensure matches the math we are using to represent it. If we can agree as to the underlying physical process being described then the accompanying mathematical process can be used to explore those consequences more fully.

    Quote Originally Posted by GoldPhoenix View Post
    Special Relativity is as I defined it in my last post. There's no interpretation issue; Special Relativity is the theory of Lorentz invariance. You can add metaphysical baggage on top of SR, but they cannot change the predictions of Special Relativity.
    This does not seem to be the case as I see it. Perhaps this is due to a translation issue on my part, I’m not sure, but sufficed to say there does seem to be discussion concerning the different interpretation of relativistic phenomena.

    One denies the possibility of privileged reference systems, the other postulates the existence of a physically privileged reference system and explains the relativistic phenomena with its help. While the first class is represented by Einstein’s original theory and its most recent formulations, the second involves the Lorentzian, ether-based interpretations of relativity theory as well as theories which while rejecting the Lorentzian ether, introduce an alternative, non ether-based privileged system. For simplicity, we will refer to the theories belonging to this second class as Lorentzian
    interpretations or Lorentzian-type theories independently of whether they establishes the privileged reference system by the introduction of the ether (as Lorentz did it) or does it in a different way. [The mean stream of various Lorentz-like interpretations are connected to H. Ives, regularly cited in the Anglo-Saxon literature and characterized by M. C. Duffy as the “Ives Group” of Lorentzian theories (Duffy 2008). Duffy lists the representatives of this group of theories as H. Ives, G. Builder, S. V. M. Clube, H. Erlichson, J. Levy, S. J. Prokhovnik and F. Wintenberg. (ibid. pp. 23, 30). He also mentions a Hungarian physicist, Lajos Jánossy (ibid. p. 32), who did not belong to this group but who not only worked out one of the most comprehensive and mathematically most elaborated Lorentzian theory, but also provided a clear metatheoretical foundation of this kind of interpretations (Jánossy 1971; Székely 2009). Unfortunately, Jánossy’s work is unfairly ignored by the members of the “Ives Group” and other Anglo-Saxon authors working on the topic. He had nevertheless a great
    influence as it is indicated by the acknowledgments to him by such significant authors as Bell and Brown (Bell 1976, Brown 2005, vii.). Among the representatives of the Lorentz-like theories it can be also mentioned a recent Hungarian physicist/philosopher L. E. Szabó. (Szabó 2010)]
    Source


    Many naturally occurring phenomena require theoretical treatment utilizing complex analysis by methods such as the Cauchy-Riemann relations using hyper-geometrical spaces which treat inherently nonlinear, non-dispersive, collective nonlocal resonant states of a quantum system, so as to be consistent with the nonlinearity inherent in General Relativity. Typical quantum approaches form linear approximations limiting the ability to formulate a quantum consistent Relativity Theory. The fundamental nature of remote connectedness is exemplified by Young’s double slit experiment, Bell’s Theorem, nonlocality, Mach’s Principle and operation of a Foucault pendulum, which may imply the existence of an aether. We demonstrate that a geometric aether is not precluded by the structure of Relativity, although Einstein excluded a fixed reference aether frame. In fact, certain observable phenomena, such as Mach’s Principle, Bell’s Theorem and Young’s double-slit experiment imply the existence of a fixed geometric spacetime aether. A basic tenet of this aether is the quantum principle of nonlocality understood in terms of the soliton-solitary wave solutions of the Schrödinger equation solved in complex relativistic Minkowski space. Formulation of the complex modified relativistic multidimensional aether allows us to understand the fundamental nature and mechanism of nonlocality allowing experimental designs to further evaluate the properties of nonlocal coherent collective phenomena. The structure of quantum theory using the Schrödinger equation, covariant Dirac equation and sine-Gordon equation are solved in a complex hyper-eight dimensional relativistic geometric space. The symmetry of this space possesses relativistic Lorentz invariance for nonlinear hyper-dimensional geometry, nonlocality, and nonlinear coherent states which are expanded in terms of quantum soliton solutions
    Source



    The Lorentz transformation (the LT) is explained by changes occurring in the wave characteristics of matter as it changes inertial frame. This explanation is akin to that favoured by Lorentz, but informed by later insights, due primarily to de Broglie, regarding the underlying unity of matter and radiation. To show the nature of these changes, a massive particle is modeled as a standing wave in three dimensions. As the particle moves, the standing wave becomes a travelling wave having two factors. One is a carrier wave displaying the dilated frequency and contracted ellipsoidal form described by the LT, while the other (identi.ed as the de Broglie wave) is a modulation de.ning the dephasing of the carrier wave (and thus the failure of simultaneity) in the direction of travel. The superluminality of the de Broglie wave is thus explained, as are several other mysterious features of the optical behaviour of matter, including the physical meaning of the Schrödinger Eqn. and the relevance to scattering processes of the de Broglie wave number. Consideration is given to what this Lorentzian approach to relativity might mean for the possible existence of a preferred frame and the origin of the observed Minkowski metric.
    Source



    General relativity has a geometric and a field interpretation. If angular momentum conservation is invoked in the geometric interpretation to explain experiments, the causality principle is violated. The field interpretation avoids this problem by allowing faster-than-light propagation of gravity in forward time. All existing experiments are in agreement with that interpretation. This implies the existence of real superluminal propagation and communication of particles and fields, free of causality problems. The introduction of real physical faster-than-light propagation into gravitation, electrodynamics and quantum theory has important consequences for physics
    Foundations of Physics 32 (7):1031-1068 (2002)

    Physicists’ understanding of relativity and the way it is handled is at present dominated by the interpretation of Albert Einstein, who related relativity to specific properties of space and time. The principal alternative to Einstein’s interpretation is based on a concept proposed by Hendrik A. Lorentz, which uses knowledge of classical physics to explain relativistic phenomena. In this paper, we will show that on the one hand the Lorentz-based interpretation provides a simpler mathematical way of arriving at the known results for both Special and General Relativity. On the other hand, it is able to solve problems which have remained open to this day. Furthermore, a particle model will be presented, based on Lorentzian relativity, which explains the origin of mass without the use of the Higgs mechanism, based on the finiteness of the speed of light, and which provides the classical results for particle properties that are currently only accessible through quantum mechanics.
    Source



    Quote Originally Posted by GP
    Emphasis mine. Absolute and relative simultaneity are logical opposites of each other, you have to pick which one Lorentzian relativity supports.
    I understand your confusion with that response. In post 200 what I was implying was that the Lorentzian Relativist isn’t arguing that there is data showing relative simultaneity to be incorrect, but rather that he points out that its existence arises from an assumption that the speed of light is constant. IE that this is a fundamental assumption of ER that LR does not assume as valid indeed cannot be shown experimentally if you use Poincaré–Einstein synchronization because it assumes it to be true (just as it would become automatically false if you used Lorentzian synchronization because it assumes it to be false). (more on this later of course)

    Quote Originally Posted by GP
    SR is a model. You seem to be under the false impression that Lorentzian relativity is merely a different interpretation of the model, SR. If Lorentzian relativity implies different predictions than SR, then Lorentzian relativity is inherently not an interpretation of the results of SR; it is a new, competing model. That makes it --categorically-- not "metaphysics" as you have been arguing, it makes it a new model that is in competition with Special Relativity. This makes it "physics".
    First, as I pointed out earlier, I’m not arguing this is metaphysics, but physics and that this is a physics debate occurring between physicists.

    Second, I largely agree with you, however I think your language is slightly imprecise. Einsteinian Relativity (ER) is a form of SR in which a set of results are predicted. Lorentzian Relativity (LR) is a different form of SR which predicts the same set of results, but which the mechanism that produces the experimental data is different.

    Physicists’ understanding of relativity and the way it is handled is at present dominated by the interpretation of Albert Einstein, who related relativity to specific properties of space and time. The principal alternative to Einstein’s interpretation is based on a concept proposed by Hendrik A. Lorentz, which uses knowledge of classical physics to explain relativistic phenomena. In this paper, we will show that on the one hand the Lorentz-based interpretation provides a simpler mathematical way of arriving at the known results for both Special and General Relativity. On the other hand, it is able to solve problems which have remained open to this day. Furthermore, a particle model will be presented, based on Lorentzian relativity, which explains the origin of mass without the use of the Higgs mechanism, based on the finiteness of the speed of light, and which provides the classical results for particle properties that are currently only accessible through quantum mechanics
    Source

    ---------- Post added at 08:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:09 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by GP
    Does the Lorentzian relativity model obey Lorentz invariance? If not, then I Challenge to support a claim. you explain why Nature looks the way it does. (Again, see point #7).
    As I stated earlier, in LR, the invariance is apparent, not fundamental. It is the result of physical distortion of matter caused by motion relative to an absolute reference frame. Remember, invariance applies to any two frames moving relative to each other, that comparison nets out any effects arising from motion relative to an absolute frame.

    Sorry the equations don’t quite paste quite right (I’ve tried to paste it as best I can, but will reference the equation number listed clearly).
    For the student of physics, there comes a moment of intellectual pleasure as he or she realizes for the first time how changes of length, time and simultaneity conspire to preserve the observed speed of light. Yet Einstein’s theory [1] provides little understanding of how Nature has contrived this apparent intermingling of space and time.
    The language of special relativity (SR) may leave the impression that the Lorentz transformation (the LT) describes actual physical changes of space and time. Thus we have Minkowski’s confident prediction that, Henceforth, space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality [2].

    The impression that the LT involves some physical transmutation of "spacetime" might seem consistent with the change of that nature contemplated in general relativity (GR). But in GR a change in the metric aspects in like manner all that occupies the region of space in question. In SR it is necessary to distinguish what actually changes from what is merely "observed"1 to change...

    We now investigate how this particle must change if it is to acquire a velocity v in the frame of the laboratory, when subject to the constraint that its constituent influences (rays) must retain the velocity c with respect to that frame. (We are thus assuming for the moment that the inertial frame in which this particle has the form (4), which we have called the laboratory frame, is at the same time the preferred or privileged frame supposed by Lorentz. To simplify matters further the amplitude jrj􀀀1 is omitted in what
    follows).

    What we require now is not a standing wave but a travelling wave. Its form can be established in either of two ways, and it will be instructive to consider both. The first is by construction, and we begin by considering rays, directed forward and rearward along the direction of travel, which we will take to be the positive x-direction. At rest in the preferred (laboratory) frame, the composition of these rays results in the one-dimensional standing wave

    EQUATION 5

    This standing wave becomes a travelling wave of velocity v if the wave characteristics of the rays directed forward and rearward (which we now label 1 and 2 respectively) become,

    EQUATION 6

    where is again the Lorentz factor (1), and since,

    EQUATION 7

    both rays retain as required the velocity c with respect to the preferred frame. We then have by composition,

    EQUATIONS 8 AND 9


    which from relations (6) may also be written,

    EQUATION 10

    and is a travelling wave of the kind illustrated in Fig. 2(b). This one-dimensional travelling wave already displays features that will become more apparent when we consider the full three-dimensional travelling wave, namely a carrier wave of velocity v (the .rst factor in Eqn. (10) ) and a superluminal
    modulation (or beating) of velocity c2=v (the second factor).

    The structure of the full model wave at velocity v is now obtained by noticing that (as shown in Fig. 3) the amplitude of this wave at any point P at time t, when the centre of the wave has reached B, results from the interference of the outgoing ray that left the particle centre when it wasat A at the earlier time t 􀀀 t1, with the incoming ray that will reach the particle centre when it is at C at the later time t + t2. (To an observer in the frame of the moving particle, the paths of these rays will appear to coincide, but they do not coincide in the laboratory frame)….

    Travelling wave (15) displays all the effects predicted by SR – length contraction, time dilation and failure of simultaneity. If all matter changed between inertial frames in the same manner as our model particle, this would explain why Mary considered Buzz to have changed in accordance with the LT. But the transformation is here a change of wave structure, not of space, nor even yet of reference frame. There has been no opportunity, let alone necessity, for some additional transformation of "spacetime"…

    While there would seem little doubt that the laws of physics are the same for all observers, one might ask why this should be so. In the context of ESR this satisfying situation would seem fortuitous. However, a consideration of the wave nature of matter may suggest at least a partial explanation for
    this invariance

    Notice firstly the unusual effects that would result if the LT were not exactly as it is, for instance if the Lorentz factor was not (1 􀀀 v2=c2)􀀀1=2 but had some other value a (a being a real number other than unity). Consistently with relations (7), a wave travelling at any desired velocity v could still be constructed, but as in the case of a = 0, which is the Galilean transformation, the preferred frame would then be detectable. In the Galilean case, longitudinal contraction is replaced by transverse contraction that in-
    creases with acceleration away from the preferred frame. For other values of a, contraction or expansion (both longitudinal and transverse), time dilation and simultaneity would be observed to differ according to whether velocity were increased or decreased with respect to the preferred frame. The laws of physics would not then be invariant, and the Universe would be rather more curious and less elegant than it is. But that alone does not explain why it is not so.

    Consider now, however, the stability of matter. The elementary particles exist in a limited variety of precisely defined characteristic forms. Why that should be so is not apparent, but what is apparent is that they are constrained by those forms and by their wave-like nature to combine in a limited number of ways, as is well illustrated by the Bohr conditions (18). Even in matter that we would think of as stationary, underlying micro processes are occurring at relativistic speeds, as illustrated well enough again by the Bohr orbits. For these processes to remain undisturbed by a change of inertial frame, dynamic relationships between particles must be preserved, including for instance relative velocities, accelerations, masses and polarizations. In other words, the laws of physics must be the same for all inertial observers, and this is so only at a = 1.

    Considered in this way, Lorentz invariance is not the fortuitous cause, but rather the inevitable e¤ect, of the manner in which the constituent elements of matter must persist and combine. It is not then the metric that determines how matter transforms, but the stability of matter that determines the LT and the bserved (Minkowski) metric. Of any pre-existing or primordial metric little can be said, except that the simplest possible metric, the Euclidean, was that assumed by Lorentz.


    ---------- Post added at 08:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:12 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by GP
    Support or retract all of this, and do it with equations. I'm serious about that last bit. You've been using a lot of vague words that you clearly don't understand, so please do us both the favor and explain, using equations, why this is true.
    Hmm, I’m not sure why I would need to use an equation to discuss why this assumption is required for each method. To reiterate, we are discussing here my assertion that the validity of the underlying postulate to ER (constancy of the speed of light for all observers) has not been shown because the method used to measure that speed.
    In Einsteinian synchronization you use a radio wave between two reference frames to adjust for the displacement caused by relativistic effects. Given ER you operate on a postulate that no reference frame is privileged and the speed of light is constant for all observers right?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstei...on#cite_note-1

    That synchronization assumes the speed of light to be constant to calculate the relative simultaneity of the events. In a similar, but opposite affect, Lorentizan synchronization assumes a privileged frame and thereby a variable speed of light.

    Perhaps to lend a bit more weight than just my opinion.

    Contrary to special relativity, aether theory does not assume that the time itself is affected by motion; the reading displayed by the moving clocks results from two facts: 1/ Due to their movement through the aether, they tick at a slower rate than in the aether frame.2/ The usual synchronization procedures generate a synchronism discrepancy effect. These facts give rise to an alteration of the measurement of time which, as we shall show, exactly explains the experimental results…
    This study does not question the experimental results brought about by relativity theory since, as we shall see, at least in the cases studied here, it predicts the same clock readings as SR provided that we use the standard measurement procedures. It nevertheless gives another interpretation of the experimental data (demonstrating that the procedures used entail measurement distortions and that the results obtained conceal hidden variables)…
    Contrary to relativity theory, the motion of bodies does not affect the time, but the motion through the aether causes a slowing down of the moving clocks. The real two-way transit time of light, along a rod attached to a certain ‘inertial’ frame, is the same for the observers of all frames, but, due to clock retardation, the reading displayed by clocks moving relative to the rod will depend on their speed with respect to the rod [2, 8, 9]…
    3.2.1. We shall first assume that the clocks placed at points A and A’ are exactly synchronized. Let us label as 2 t0 the two-way transit time of the light signal that would be displayed by clocks attached to the co-ordinate system S0.
    Due to clock retardation the clock readings in S1 and S2 are related to t0as follows:
    EQUATION 3
    and
    EQUATION 4
    (Note nevertheless that the true time, needed for half a cycle, measured with clocks not slowed down by motion, is t0 for all observers).From (3) and (4) we infer:
    EQUATION 5
    Assuming that v02/C<<1, this expression reduces to first order, to:
    EQUATION 6
    Noting that (as in section 3.1.) t2 = t2app = L/C, this expression is different from the relativistic formula (2) which reduces to:
    EQUATION 7
    Therefore if clocks were exactly synchronized, there would be an obvious difference between the two theories.
    3.2.2. Practical consequences of the clock synchronization procedures used. We should note that, in practice, in order to determine the duration of a cycle in S1 we must subtract the reading displayed by clock A when the signal starts from this clock, from the reading displayed (after reflection in B) by clock A’ when the signal reaches this clock, and therefore we must synchronize the clocks A and A’ beforehand.
    According to aether theory if the synchronization of clocks was perfect we would have obtained formula (5). Yet, synchronizing the clocks perfectly is a difficult problem, and, with the standard synchronization procedures, (Einstein-Poincaré method (E. P) or slow clock transport), we make an unavoidable systematic error in measuring the time, (synchronism discrepancy effect) [2, 9, 10]
    The apparent duration of a cycle measured in S1 is therefore equal to the difference between 2 t1app and the synchronism discrepancy effect (SDE) that will be derived in the text which follows. (The SDE, which was defined by Prokhovnik for the first time, enables to resolve a number of paradoxes in physics).
    Referring to the SDE that would affect the clocks if they were not slowed down by motion as Δ, the SDE affecting the clocks attached to the coordinate system S1 is:
    δ= Δ√(1-v012/C2)
    The apparent (measured) two-way transit time of the signal (from A to B and to A’)is therefore:
    2T1app = 2t1app - Δ√(1- v012/C2)
    It is this apparent time which is in fact measured when a SDE between the clocks A and A’ exists.
    (a)Derivation of the synchronism discrepancy effect, and clock synchronization. The Einstein-Poincaré method (E. P) consists in sending a light signal from clock A to clock A’ along the x’-axis, at an arbitrary instant where the reading of clock A is set at t=zero. After reflection in A’, the signal comes back to A. The clocks are considered synchronous if upon reception of the signal by clock A’, this clock displays a reading equal to half the reading displayed by clock A upon return of the signal.
    (The alternative synchronization method, referred to as the slow clock transport procedure, has been shown to be equivalent to the former by different authors[2, 10])…

    The comparison of formulas (6) and (7) demonstrates that relativity and aether theory are fundamentally different. Nevertheless, paradoxically, due to the systematic measurement distortions mentioned above, aether theory leads to a clock reading given by formula (15), which presents a mathematical form identical to formula (2);yet for relativity, the formula is regarded as exact, while for aether theory it results from the measurement distortions. Aether theory provides also an explanation of why formulas (1) and (17) can be both rationally justified, although at first sight they appear incompatible. Aether theory explains that due to the synchronism discrepancy effect formula (17) is observed instead of formula (16), an explanation which solves the paradox. Special relativity obtains the same result but cannot give a rational explanation of it. In conclusion, the choice of one theory rather than the other is not simply a question of philosophical preference.
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/78608645/J...-Time-Dilation

    The author also wrote another paper:

    Although the mathematical form of the equations we have derived is identical to that of the Lorentz-Poincaré transformations, their meaning is completely different because they relate distorted co-ordinates and are dependent on an arbitrary synchronization procedure. Yet, these transformations are those which result from the experimental measurements.
    As we have seen in formulas (15) and (16), they can be qualified as Lorentz-Poincaré transformations only when they connect the aether frame with any other ‘inertial frame’.
    The difference is all the more evident, as these transformations are derived from the extended space-time transformations, which assume the variability of the one-way speed of light when this speed is exactly measured, and show that the apparent invariance of the speed of light results from measurement distortions. If the synchronization were perfect, the speed of light would prove dependent on the relative speed between the fundamental frame and the frame where it is measured, a fact which would enable us to measure the absolute speed of this
    13
    frame in contradiction with Poincaré’s relativity principle [1]. And a near perfect clock synchronization is not a priori an objective impossible to reach.
    It is clear that, if no preferred frame did exist, the celestial bodies, taken as reference systems would, in all probability, move in an almost absolute vacuum. In this case, the existence of near perfect inertial frames would be possible. Indeed, no physical effect could distinguish one frame from another. As a result, the laws of physics, relating exactly measured variables, would be identical in all these reference frames. But, as we demonstrated in ref [1], a number of experimental and theoretical arguments lend support to the existence of a preferred aether frame.
    http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0607067v2


    Quote Originally Posted by GP
    6.) Whatever you final position is, to re-iterate, I Challenge to support a claim. you to explain how your theory is consistent with what we know about physics.
    As I think I’ve shown above, it is consistent with all observational evidence in support of ER. There seems to be a health discussion going on concerning which interpretation best fits the data set and how the few scenarios in which different results are predicted could be tested. Sufficed to say, the sources I provided above argue that LR and ER are currently observationally identical, which would seem to meet the requirement of this challenge.


    Quote Originally Posted by GP
    7.) Clive has mentioned to me that it seems likely that (one of) your sources of error lie in the fact that you likely think that Lorentz invariance is a metaphysical postulate of Special Relativity.
    I appreciate the attempt at clarity. I do not think that Lorentz invariance is a metaphysical postulate. I think I gave a relatively succinct definition in post 192. IE that Lorentz Invariance is the requirement that all non-gravitational laws will produce the same results for two reference frames moving relatively to each other.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  10. #229
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    13,847
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: WLC's Argument Against an Actual Infinity

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Hi CS, sorry to jump in here, but this statement caught my eye. You posited this indirectly earlier in thread and I thought I responded. A theory is not equivalent to a “now” moving along a fixed, extant, ordered timeline. That viewpoint would represent a mixed A/B theory, which some philosophers would put forward, but which usually have several internal problems.
    It's what wikipedia said on the matter, so I'll defer to any more specialized or technical formulation.

    Regardless, it isn't the theory I put forward here or offered in my references. The future is not an existing position we have not yet reached, it is a non-actual state. The best way to highlight this, imo, is to discuss the truth values of the following statements. Assuming it is Feb 25 2014.
    1) “Mr. Obama is the President of the United States.” This is a true statement.
    2) “Mr. Obama was the President of the United States yesterday.” This is a true statement.
    3) “Mr. Obama will be the President of the United States tomorrow.” This statement has no truth value. Under B theory (or the way you described A theory above) the statement is either true or false, we simply don’t have access to the information. However, under A theory, the statement has no actual truth value, it is indeterminate.

    To use an analogy, it is not a train moving along a track, but rather like a rail laying train.

    Alright, if this is the picture you want to go with, how do you know that it's laying discrete portions of track? You're thinking of reality as corresponding to the position of wooden crossbeams on the rail , but why couldn't it correspond to the rail itself?

    Correct, it only means that the total amount in the vault is finite for any given coin being added. IE there is no specific coin that when added makes the total amount of coins in the vault when added infinite. Or to return from the analogy, there is no specific point, “now” in which the total time, past, is infinite.

    And that is the question being asked, imo. The vault represents the total number of points that have been added to the timeline through a continuous process and that vault never becomes infinite through the process we have described here.
    Here's your biggest error, then.

    The vault represents the current tabulation of coins. As we go back a year in time, we add another coin to the vault. The question we're fundamentally interested in is not, "How many coins have we counted thus far", but "How many coins are there that need to be put into the vault?"

    The amount of "coins that need to be put into the vault" is the amount of "years in the past", if you want to think of it that way. We're interested in that set.

    EDIT: You might have meant the "adding a coin to the vault" to represent the 'moving now', in which case you still need to justify that A-theory (if true) requires that 'now' is a discrete process, that the sequence of moments defined by "now" is discrete, etc. Even if this holds, you will need to in addition prove that there was a first moment in time, i.e. a point at which the vault was empty; if the vault already contains an infinite number of coins, then the past is infinite. Proving that each additional moment increments the past by a single moment doesn't suffice to show that the past is finite.

    This would literally be the same as saying "No matter how many integers you add to the empty set, you get a finite set." Which is not true; if you add all the integers--or even only the even ones, or only the multiples of 3, etc.--you don't get a finite set. It is true that a finite union of finite sets is finite, but how do you know there have only been finitely many unions? Here again I'll note that precise, mathematical formulations will allow for more straightforward analysis.

    Perhaps I misunderstand this objection. Are you saying that there is a point in the “vault” (ie in the past) that has not been a “now?”
    The vault is not the past. The vault is the current tabulation of points in the past. We're interested in the set that the tabulation is sampling from.

    Because we are using the math to reason by analogy and so far it has seemed to me that the analogies are causing more confusion than they are resolving, almost certainly due to my failings and expressing myself in that analogy. There is a physical reality (or at least a theory of reality) that I am attempting to ensure matches the math we are using to represent it. If we can agree as to the underlying physical process being described then the accompanying mathematical process can be used to explore those consequences more fully.
    The physics are irrelevant to the math, i.e. what particular ongoing process that happens to occur is irrelevant to the logical point you're trying to make.

    Your argument is literally that the number of integers is finite. You are arguing that if we add integers to the vault, and the vault only ever contains a finite collection of integers, then the integers are finite. I don't need physics to show that you're wrong. If your argument was phrased in terms of algorithms, sets, and relations, the errors would be quite clear to you.
    Last edited by CliveStaples; March 8th, 2014 at 09:44 AM.
    If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. - Soren Kierkegaard
    **** you, I won't do what you tell me

    HOLY CRAP MY BLOG IS AWESOME

  11. #230
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    5,626
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: WLC's Argument Against an Actual Infinity

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Gentlemen, I apologize for the extended delay in this thread. It is the result of real life being real life and the excellent argument posited by you both (which require a bit of thought). I appreciate your patience and I imagine these long delays will continue. For now;
    Not a problem.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch
    This does not seem to be the case as I see it. Perhaps this is due to a translation issue on my part, I’m not sure, but sufficed to say there does seem to be discussion concerning the different interpretation of relativistic phenomena.

    One denies the possibility of privileged reference systems, the other postulates the existence of a physically privileged reference system and explains the relativistic phenomena with its help. While the first class is represented by Einstein’s original theory and its most recent formulations, the second involves the Lorentzian, ether-based interpretations of relativity theory as well as theories which while rejecting the Lorentzian ether, introduce an alternative, non ether-based privileged system. For simplicity, we will refer to the theories belonging to this second class as Lorentzian
    interpretations or Lorentzian-type theories independently of whether they establishes the privileged reference system by the introduction of the ether (as Lorentz did it) or does it in a different way. [The mean stream of various Lorentz-like interpretations are connected to H. Ives, regularly cited in the Anglo-Saxon literature and characterized by M. C. Duffy as the “Ives Group” of Lorentzian theories (Duffy 2008). Duffy lists the representatives of this group of theories as H. Ives, G. Builder, S. V. M. Clube, H. Erlichson, J. Levy, S. J. Prokhovnik and F. Wintenberg. (ibid. pp. 23, 30). He also mentions a Hungarian physicist, Lajos Jánossy (ibid. p. 32), who did not belong to this group but who not only worked out one of the most comprehensive and mathematically most elaborated Lorentzian theory, but also provided a clear metatheoretical foundation of this kind of interpretations (Jánossy 1971; Székely 2009). Unfortunately, Jánossy’s work is unfairly ignored by the members of the “Ives Group” and other Anglo-Saxon authors working on the topic. He had nevertheless a great
    influence as it is indicated by the acknowledgments to him by such significant authors as Bell and Brown (Bell 1976, Brown 2005, vii.). Among the representatives of the Lorentz-like theories it can be also mentioned a recent Hungarian physicist/philosopher L. E. Szabó. (Szabó 2010)]
    Source


    [...]



    Physicists’ understanding of relativity and the way it is handled is at present dominated by the interpretation of Albert Einstein, who related relativity to specific properties of space and time. The principal alternative to Einstein’s interpretation is based on a concept proposed by Hendrik A. Lorentz, which uses knowledge of classical physics to explain relativistic phenomena. In this paper, we will show that on the one hand the Lorentz-based interpretation provides a simpler mathematical way of arriving at the known results for both Special and General Relativity. On the other hand, it is able to solve problems which have remained open to this day. Furthermore, a particle model will be presented, based on Lorentzian relativity, which explains the origin of mass without the use of the Higgs mechanism, based on the finiteness of the speed of light, and which provides the classical results for particle properties that are currently only accessible through quantum mechanics.
    Source
    1.) These are crackpot* alternatives to Special Relativity (and GR and QFT, by the looks of it). It appears as though you think "SR" means "An explanation of time dilation, length contraction, and the simultaneity of relativity (i.e. 'relativistic phenomena')." It does not. I means "Lorentz invariance" and "The Principle of Relativity":

    In physics, special relativity (SR, also known as the special theory of relativity or STR) is the accepted physical theory regarding the relationship between space and time. It is based on two postulates: (1) that the laws of physics are invariant (i.e., identical) in all inertial systems (non-accelerating frames of reference); and (2) that the speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers, regardless of the motion of the light source. It was originally proposed in 1905 by Albert Einstein in the paper "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies".[1] The inconsistency of classical mechanics with Maxwell’s equations of electromagnetism led to the development of special relativity, which corrects classical mechanics to handle situations involving motions nearing the speed of light. As of today, special relativity is the most accurate model of motion at any speed. Even so, classical mechanics is still useful (due to its simplicity and high accuracy) as an approximation at small velocities relative to the speed of light.

    Special relativity implies a wide range of consequences, which have been experimentally verified,[2] including length contraction, time dilation, relativistic mass, mass–energy equivalence, a universal speed limit, and relativity of simultaneity. It has replaced the conventional notion of an absolute universal time with the notion of a time that is dependent on reference frame and spatial position. Rather than an invariant time interval between two events, there is an invariant spacetime interval.


    --Wikipedia, Special Relativity

    Contrarily, Lorentzian aether theory was a competing explanation of how electromagnetism works (But can't compete in modern experiments and the repeated non-existence of luminiferous aether theory), and "Lorentzian relativity" is a category -- created not by physicists, but philosophers-- who wanted to disregard SR and maintain an absolute frame of reference (based on their own philosophical prejudices) but still main competitive with SR's prediction and successes. Largely, these people have no idea what they're talking about and don't understand basic physics. At some level, this is just semantics, but given the historical origins of the term "special relativity", it seems intellectually dishonest to call a set of theories aspiring to be modern day "Lorentz aether theories" as a subset of "Special Relativity". They are not. The only reason that I can figure for why these people would want their theories to be called "Special Relativity" (even though most of them openly disparage Einstein) is that they want people to think of them as being more legitimate. They aren't that, either.


    2.) There's a thousand different ways to say this, but "Principle of Relativity" + "Constancy of the Speed of Light" == "Lorentz Invariance" == "Special Relativity" == "Time Dilation, Length Contraction, and Relativity of Simultaneity". The whole strength of this fact is that the true physics is contained in the expression "My theory is Lorentz invariant." Physicists don't bother to even talk about the principle of relativity in modern papers, they just say "Lorentz invariance." This is because if you have an interpretation, let's say it's based upon "X" and "Y", and it gives rise to the predictions of relativity: "X" + "Y" == "Time Dilation, Length Contraction, and Relativity of Simultaneity" == "Lorentz Invariance". So either you derive the exacts results of SR, or you have created a new theory. You've finally admitted to the idea that your theory "leads to a different prediction". So we can move off of this point, but I want to re-iterate this: If your theory reproduces the exact results of SR ('relativistic phenomena') then you're theory has Lorentz invariance.



    *Superluminality in field theory is a very technical subject (and I'm not going to get into the details), but it does not necessarily imply a violation of relativity or causality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch
    I understand your confusion with that response. In post 200 what I was implying was that the Lorentzian Relativist isn’t arguing that there is data showing relative simultaneity to be incorrect, but rather that he points out that its existence arises from an assumption that the speed of light is constant. IE that this is a fundamental assumption of ER that LR does not assume as valid indeed cannot be shown experimentally if you use Poincaré–Einstein synchronization because it assumes it to be true (just as it would become automatically false if you used Lorentzian synchronization because it assumes it to be false). (more on this later of course)
    I've asked this before now, but substantiate the claim that Einstein synchronization forces the speed of light to be agreed upon by all observers. I mean, go through the math, or link me --and don't make me drudge through the paper-- to the exact proof. Tell me pages X through Y. Also please understand the proof yourself.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch
    First, as I pointed out earlier, I’m not arguing this is metaphysics, but physics and that this is a physics debate occurring between physicists.
    This is nearly exclusively an argument amongst philosophers. This is a "debate" in the same sense that there's a "debate" in the biological community over "intelligent design": you have a Michael Behe or two and then the rest of the scientific community.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch
    Second, I largely agree with you, however I think your language is slightly imprecise. Einsteinian Relativity (ER) is a form of SR in which a set of results are predicted. Lorentzian Relativity (LR) is a different form of SR which predicts the same set of results, but which the mechanism that produces the experimental data is different.
    I've explained already that this is false, but this is just a game of semantics.

    ---------- Post added at 05:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:24 PM ----------


    I don't know why your post keeps on getting deleted (it keeps on deleting my text and ends it with a "jrj" and it's now pissed me off, I don't have f***ing time to craft posts like this multiple times), but three times is enough. I'm tired of crafting it, so here's your less-than-tactful summary:


    tl;dr: Your sources disagree with each other. One supports Lorentz aether theory, the other one supports some bull***t about wavefunctions/de Broglie waves changing between observers. Have a coherent position. This means go back, read your sources, and pick the one that actually is adhering your personal views.


    The last two points are wrong and have been pointed out before, both times when you presented them. Particularly, do what was asked and explain where particle spin comes from.
    "Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." --Voltaire

  12. #231
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,174
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: WLC's Argument Against an Actual Infinity

    Quote Originally Posted by GP
    Contrarily, Lorentzian aether theory was a competing explanation of how electromagnetism works (But can't compete in modern experiments and the repeated non-existence of luminiferous aether theory), and "Lorentzian relativity" is a category -- created not by physicists, but philosophers-- who wanted to disregard SR and maintain an absolute frame of reference (based on their own philosophical prejudices) but still main competitive with SR's prediction and successes. Largely, these people have no idea what they're talking about and don't understand basic physics. At some level, this is just semantics, but given the historical origins of the term "special relativity", it seems intellectually dishonest to call a set of theories aspiring to be modern day "Lorentz aether theories" as a subset of "Special Relativity". They are not. The only reason that I can figure for why these people would want their theories to be called "Special Relativity" (even though most of them openly disparage Einstein) is that they want people to think of them as being more legitimate. They aren't that, either.
    *note* Below is not a rebuttal.

    First, I'm sorry to hear that your post was deleted.. that really sucks, especially those technical and/or complex ones. I feel your pain.

    Second, the quoted section comes off as little more than an Ad-hom attack on people I don't know or wouldn't recognize. You have grouped some very specifically sourced people with "those people" or "these people". That hardly seems fair to consider. As a specific source was sighted, if there is a problem such as you describe you should have the burden of AT LEAST connecting it to those people, not simply passing judgment on a group that your clearly don't agree with.

    As such, I see no reason why anyone should consider a vast majority of what I quoted at all, nor do I see the point in saying it other than to rant.

    Why should I believe that the author of linked support has no idea what he is talking about? Would you agree that you have done little more than simply name call?
    To serve man.

  13. #232
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    5,626
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: WLC's Argument Against an Actual Infinity

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    *note* Below is not a rebuttal.

    First, I'm sorry to hear that your post was deleted.. that really sucks, especially those technical and/or complex ones. I feel your pain.

    Second, the quoted section comes off as little more than an Ad-hom attack on people I don't know or wouldn't recognize. You have grouped some very specifically sourced people with "those people" or "these people". That hardly seems fair to consider. As a specific source was sighted, if there is a problem such as you describe you should have the burden of AT LEAST connecting it to those people, not simply passing judgment on a group that your clearly don't agree with.

    As such, I see no reason why anyone should consider a vast majority of what I quoted at all, nor do I see the point in saying it other than to rant.

    Why should I believe that the author of linked support has no idea what he is talking about? Would you agree that you have done little more than simply name call?
    1.) You seem to be under the mistaken preconception that all ideas are equal in science. All ideas are not equal. You can believe and defend phlogiston theory or luminiferous ether theory all you like, it does not mean that I am obliged to respect or take notice of it. If this offends you, I apologize, but it's the truth. I'm not going to sort through 20 or so no-name people, most of whom were philosophers with a philosophical axe to grind.


    2.) I have re-iterated the problems of "Lorentzian relativity". I apologize if I seemed too curt, but the fact of the matter is I have leveled the same arguments against the Lorentzian ether theory multiple times now (Such as the issue of the spin of particles), which has not been addressed or merely has been waived aside. These aren't minor questions, these are huge problems. On top of this, Squatch has been continuing to indicate that there's a "healthy dialogue amongst scientists", but his own sources are basically not made up of scientists --only one of them, Lajos Jánossy and from what I could tell but didn't seem terribly committed to the idea of Lorentzian relativity, have formal physics training (PhD certifications) or positions at physics departments. This is an esoteric debate amongst, and seemingly only fueled by, philosophers who don't understand the subtleties of physics. They're caught in a world that hasn't progressed past the 1920 (Other than their oblique references the CMB). In the last 96 years, a lot of work has been done in physics, and if they understood that work, they might not make these simple errors. But as I'm not getting paid to explain why their theories are simply conceptually confused, conflict with data, and incapable of predicting many important physics that are known to exist, so I have no interest in doing a line-by-line critique of their work. I actually do this for a living, but with much more reputable ideas.


    3.) I appreciate that you feel that I haven't been fair to the authors. The discussion of all what Shanahan ****ed up was in the part of the text that kept on getting deleted. They didn't even know how to write down a spherically symmetric wave equation in 3 dimensions, which any first year graduate student knows how to do --it was total amateur hour. If it makes you feel better, I'll explain that Shanahan made repeated basic errors in physics (not to mention numerous mathematical typos) because they don't understand that there's a subject created 90 years ago, called "quantum field theory", that addresses all of their points and explains all of the issues that they were trying to understand; quantum field theory has been tested repeatedly in experiments (Not the least of which is the recent LHC run that discovered the Higgs). Ironically, Shanahan tried to use "quantum vacuums" to justify their belief in an absolute reference frame, but the irony is that the fundamental quantum vacuums are themselves Lorentz invariant. Levy was a more reasoned author, but his arguments were assuming the existence of ether theory and tried to use justifications based on the CMB. I don't expect you to know why, but this displays a profound lack of understanding of what the CMB is and basic fundamental physicist of how it was formed.


    Both of their positions were, in short, terrible and can be refuted by any second year student in either particle astrophysics. Moreover these authors were inconsistent with each other in the mechanism of the "absolute frame", which means if Squatch wants to have a position, he can't defend it with two mutually exclusive theories at the same time. That is intellectually dishonest.




    4.) I appreciate that I'm just saying (a few of) what things they've said incorrectly or don't understand, and not explaining why what they're saying is wrong. But a lot of what they get wrong is very subtle and complex. Shanahan, for instance, is trying to basically re-build QFT (quantum field theory) over again, without realizing it. There are literally hundreds of different paths you can take to do it, but basically all of them will fail unless you pick the known prescriptions that have been repeatedly tested in particle physics experiments over the last 40 years (and it explained the particle physics experiments of the last 100 years). The basic fact is: This stuff is subtle and very, very complex. I'm frankly not going to spend the time digging up quantum field theory and quantum mechanics papers from the 1920's-1960's and give them a comprehensible understanding to a layperson. It would take up an astronomical amount of my time, and the authors in these papers are vague, which doesn't help.
    Last edited by GoldPhoenix; March 9th, 2014 at 09:55 AM.
    "Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." --Voltaire

  14. Thanks MindTrap028 thanked for this post
  15. #233
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    13,847
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: WLC's Argument Against an Actual Infinity

    Quote Originally Posted by GoldPhoenix
    and the authors in these papers are vague, which doesn't help.
    I take it you're referring to their general lack of presenting the equations for which they propose solutions, or the derivation of the solutions thereof?
    If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. - Soren Kierkegaard
    **** you, I won't do what you tell me

    HOLY CRAP MY BLOG IS AWESOME

  16. #234
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,174
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: WLC's Argument Against an Actual Infinity

    Quote Originally Posted by GP
    1.) You seem to be under the mistaken preconception that all ideas are equal in science. All ideas are not equal. You can believe and defend phlogiston theory or luminiferous ether theory all you like, it does not mean that I am obliged to respect or take notice of it. If this offends you, I apologize, but it's the truth. I'm not going to sort through 20 or so no-name people, most of whom were philosophers with a philosophical axe to grind.


    2.) I have re-iterated the problems of "Lorentzian relativity". I apologize if I seemed too curt, but the fact of the matter is I have leveled the same arguments against the Lorentzian ether theory multiple times now (Such as the issue of the spin of particles), which has not been addressed or merely has been waived aside. These aren't minor questions, these are huge problems. On top of this, Squatch has been continuing to indicate that there's a "healthy dialogue amongst scientists", but his own sources are basically not made up of scientists --only one of them, Lajos Jánossy and from what I could tell but didn't seem terribly committed to the idea of Lorentzian relativity, have formal physics training (PhD certifications) or positions at physics departments. This is an esoteric debate amongst, and seemingly only fueled by, philosophers who don't understand the subtleties of physics. They're caught in a world that hasn't progressed past the 1920 (Other than their oblique references the CMB). In the last 96 years, a lot of work has been done in physics, and if they understood that work, they might not make these simple errors. But as I'm not getting paid to explain why their theories are simply conceptually confused, conflict with data, and incapable of predicting many important physics that are known to exist, so I have no interest in doing a line-by-line critique of their work. I actually do this for a living, but with much more reputable ideas.


    3.) I appreciate that you feel that I haven't been fair to the authors. The discussion of all what Shanahan ****ed up was in the part of the text that kept on getting deleted. They didn't even know how to write down a spherically symmetric wave equation in 3 dimensions, which any first year graduate student knows how to do --it was total amateur hour. If it makes you feel better, I'll explain that Shanahan made repeated basic errors in physics (not to mention numerous mathematical typos) because they don't understand that there's a subject created 90 years ago, called "quantum field theory", that addresses all of their points and explains all of the issues that they were trying to understand; quantum field theory has been tested repeatedly in experiments (Not the least of which is the recent LHC run that discovered the Higgs). Ironically, Shanahan tried to use "quantum vacuums" to justify their belief in an absolute reference frame, but the irony is that the fundamental quantum vacuums are themselves Lorentz invariant. Levy was a more reasoned author, but his arguments were assuming the existence of ether theory and tried to use justifications based on the CMB. I don't expect you to know why, but this displays a profound lack of understanding of what the CMB is and basic fundamental physicist of how it was formed.


    Both of their positions were, in short, terrible and can be refuted by any second year student in either particle astrophysics. Moreover these authors were inconsistent with each other in the mechanism of the "absolute frame", which means if Squatch wants to have a position, he can't defend it with two mutually exclusive theories at the same time. That is intellectually dishonest.




    4.) I appreciate that I'm just saying (a few of) what things they've said incorrectly or don't understand, and not explaining why what they're saying is wrong. But a lot of what they get wrong is very subtle and complex. Shanahan, for instance, is trying to basically re-build QFT (quantum field theory) over again, without realizing it. There are literally hundreds of different paths you can take to do it, but basically all of them will fail unless you pick the known prescriptions that have been repeatedly tested in particle physics experiments over the last 40 years (and it explained the particle physics experiments of the last 100 years). The basic fact is: This stuff is subtle and very, very complex. I'm frankly not going to spend the time digging up quantum field theory and quantum mechanics papers from the 1920's-1960's and give them a comprehensible understanding to a layperson. It would take up an astronomical amount of my time, and the authors in these papers are vague, which doesn't help.
    Well, I'm not offended by what you said.. I just don't have any frame of reference as a reader of both sides to see any more than name calling. I just wanted to bring that to your attention because that can be dismissed out of hand. Which doesn't do justices to your point if it is valid.
    If your end goal is to establish that the links authors are not a proper appeal to an authority (which would be the appeal to authority fallacy) then you need to establish it.. or skip it. I understand that it may be complex and difficult, but I'm sure you can do it(and have done it better in this post) than name calling... that's all.

    Anyway.. as I said, this is not a rebuttal.
    Thanks for taking the time to describe the problem more.. but I still have little more than your word on it(which I do give weight to because of your area of expertise.. but the casual reader may not, hence the injustice to your point.


    One more note..
    All ideas may not be equal in science, but as a reader of a thread I'm obligated to give both ideas equal consideration otherwise i'm simply taking into the thread an unjustified bias. Reading a ranting about it, isn't particularly helpful as it comes off as name calling and unjustified dismissal no different than many other threads.
    To serve man.

  17. #235
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    5,626
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: WLC's Argument Against an Actual Infinity

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    I take it you're referring to their general lack of presenting the equations for which they propose solutions, or the derivation of the solutions thereof?
    Both. In the case of Shanahan, it's very clear that they lack formal training in writing arguments involving mathematics or physics.
    "Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." --Voltaire

  18. #236
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,755
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: WLC's Argument Against an Actual Infinity

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    EDIT: You might have meant the "adding a coin to the vault" to represent the 'moving now', in which case you still need to justify that A-theory (if true) requires that 'now' is a discrete process, that the sequence of moments defined by "now" is discrete, etc. Even if this holds, you will need to in addition prove that there was a first moment in time, i.e. a point at which the vault was empty; if the vault already contains an infinite number of coins, then the past is infinite. Proving that each additional moment increments the past by a single moment doesn't suffice to show that the past is finite.
    Which is originally how I meant the analogy, the vault was meant to represent the set of points we call the "past." My apologies for any confusion.

    I'm not sure it matters whether or not time added is discrete or continuous. If we are adding individual coins or filling it via a hose the fact that at no point "now" can the vault attain infinite volume is what is relevant. Think of it this way. If I add one coin every second, the total volume of the gold in the vault is no different if that coin is in minted coin form or melted and poured through a hose. Similarly, the volume of time added to the past doesn't change if we take a year and divide it into days, months, seconds or consider it a continuous addition, it is still a year.

    Additionally, I don't think it is a requirement of this argument to prove that there is a first moment in time (this would seem to be an insistence that the argument need to be circular). My argument is that if this process cannot produce an infinite set and this is the process we are observing then, by definition, the past cannot be an infinite set. The only objection is to assume the past to be infinitely long (which imo is begging the question) with no explanation as to why it would be so or the mechanism that would have produced that infinite time.

    Quote Originally Posted by CS
    The physics are irrelevant to the math, i.e. what particular ongoing process that happens to occur is irrelevant to the logical point you're trying to make.
    I don't see how that can be the case. The argument is about a physical process (the passage of time) and whether or not that physical process could produce an infinite past. Divorcing the argument from that reality seems quite problematic.

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    I take it you're referring to their general lack of presenting the equations for which they propose solutions, or the derivation of the solutions thereof?
    If I may, please don't confuse my lack of cleverness getting the equations into vbulletin with the idea that there aren't any. The papers cited where I indicate equations (EQUATION 1, EQUATION 5, etc) have them, I was simply unable to display them coherently in vbulletin, for perhaps the same reason that GP's responses disappeared, I'm not sure.

    Quote Originally Posted by GoldPhoenix View Post
    1.) These are crackpot* alternatives to Special Relativity
    This isn't a valid rebutal GP. I also take exception to your characterization of my sources as "crack pot," (perhaps I misunderstood you) given the academic background of the authors and publications I don't think these works can be so easily dismissed as you would seem to feel. While I have agreed with you that this is hardly the popularly held viewpoint, it is hardly the equivalent of someone working out of their garage on a tinfoil time travel hat either.

    As for my sources:

    Paper 1: László Székely has a PHD in Mathematics, has been a research fellow at Oak Ridge National Laboratory and has more than a dozen published papers to his name. László Ropolyi has a PHD in Physics and a PHD in Philosophy.

    Paper 2: Gianfranco Spavieri has a PhD in Nuclear Engineering and a Masters in Physics. Jose Erazo is professor of physics at Universidad de los Andes and has a PHD in physics. Prof. Sanchez also has a PHD in physics and has several papers published in peer reviewed journals. Prof. Gilies has a PHD in physics and has a half dozen peer reviewed papers in the field of gravitational physics and cosmology.

    Paper 3: I cannot verify Daniel Shanahan's prior experience, though I will note the paper I offered is available via arXig.org, and given their review/endorsement system that would seem to question the idea offered that it is nonsense.

    Paper 5: Albrecht Giese's paper was accepted and presented at German Physical Society and 8th Symposium Honoring Mathematical Physicist Jean-Pierre Vigier.

    Quote Originally Posted by GP
    But can't compete in modern experiments and the repeated non-existence of luminiferous aether theory
    Can you offer a specific experiment that purports to show that LR is incorrect and can you explain why that experiment shows that? You make this claim again and again that implies the data has moved beyond LR, but you haven't offered up any empirical evidence that this is the case.

    Quote Originally Posted by GP
    and "Lorentzian relativity" is a category -- created not by physicists, but philosophers-- who wanted to disregard SR and maintain an absolute frame of reference (based on their own philosophical prejudices) but still main competitive with SR's prediction and successes.
    Setting aside that this statement would seem to disagree with the previous sentence you wrote, this is a positivist viewpoint (something you'll note I mentioned you would invoke earlier). If person makes a car or a automated machine line makes a car does not mean the two processes are identical, even if by examining the output I am unable to tell which process occurred.

    Quote Originally Posted by GP
    I've asked this before now, but substantiate the claim that Einstein synchronization forces the speed of light to be agreed upon by all observers.
    I'm a bit surprised by this response. I showed in my last post that the speed of light as constant is a basic postulate of Einstein synchronization. From the paper offered:

    (a)Derivation of the synchronism discrepancy effect, and clock synchronization. The Einstein-Poincaré method (E. P) consists in sending a light signal from clock A to clock A’ along the x’-axis, at an arbitrary instant where the reading of clock A is set at t=zero. After reflection in A’, the signal comes back to A. The clocks are considered synchronous if upon reception of the signal by clock A’, this clock displays a reading equal to half the reading displayed by clock A upon return of the signal.

    IE the clock is set as synchronous based on the postulate that the speed of light is constant for both observers here. If it wasn't the above procedure is nonsensical.


    Quote Originally Posted by GP
    I don't know why your post keeps on getting deleted (it keeps on deleting my text and ends it with a "jrj" and it's now pissed me off, I don't have f***ing time to craft posts like this multiple times), but three times is enough.
    I had a similar problem when I was attempting to offer that post. Something about the formatting that came when I posted the equations over, but I'm not sure exactly what the problem was. It only worked when I deleted all the equation formatting, which I understand is frustrating.

    Quote Originally Posted by GP
    tl;dr: Your sources disagree with each other. One supports Lorentz aether theory, the other one supports some bull***t about wavefunctions/de Broglie waves changing between observers. Have a coherent position. This means go back, read your sources, and pick the one that actually is adhering your personal views.
    This response is a bit disappointing. I'm sorry you can't be bothered to review the sources offered. If you had reviewed them you would have realized they are not incoherent, you simply didn't review them enough to see how they are related. Remember LR simply holds that relativistic effects are the result of changes to matter rather than changes to the underlying spacetime. The paper you reference is proposing a mechanism to explain the physical process that the author argues leads to those effects. That doesn't make it incoherent in the slightest. No more than arguing industrialization is the explanation for increased out put is incoherent to an argument that output is tied to productivity.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  19. #237
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    13,847
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: WLC's Argument Against an Actual Infinity

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Which is originally how I meant the analogy, the vault was meant to represent the set of points we call the "past." My apologies for any confusion.

    I'm not sure it matters whether or not time added is discrete or continuous. If we are adding individual coins or filling it via a hose the fact that at no point "now" can the vault attain infinite volume is what is relevant.
    So basically transfinite induction is impossible? Proof, please.

    Think of it this way. If I add one coin every second, the total volume of the gold in the vault is no different if that coin is in minted coin form or melted and poured through a hose. Similarly, the volume of time added to the past doesn't change if we take a year and divide it into days, months, seconds or consider it a continuous addition, it is still a year.
    Your statement so far is this:

    A finite union of finite sets is finite.

    Okay, how do you know you're only dealing with finite unions?

    Additionally, I don't think it is a requirement of this argument to prove that there is a first moment in time (this would seem to be an insistence that the argument need to be circular). My argument is that if this process cannot produce an infinite set and this is the process we are observing then, by definition, the past cannot be an infinite set. The only objection is to assume the past to be infinitely long (which imo is begging the question) with no explanation as to why it would be so or the mechanism that would have produced that infinite time.
    My God, Squatch. My ****ing God. This is so incredibly frustrating that I don't have words to describe it other than to say that I don't have words to describe it.

    The process you are describing goes something like this:

    "If I add coins to a vault one at a time, we never reach an infinite number of coins in the vault." That's as rigorous as you've been; your argument could easily be put into a very precise, logical form, but you refuse (I suspect because it would expose your implicit assumptions).

    Suppose there's no first coin you put in. That is, for every coin you put in, there was a coin you put in before. Then if you put in coin N, the vault already contains a coin N-1, a coin N-2, etc. Thus the vault contains an infinite number of coins.

    Let me diagram the logic that's going on here. I've just proved:

    ~p → q

    Where p = "There is a first coin you put in", and q = "the vault contains an infinite number of coins".

    As a corollary, we can deduce:

    ~q
    p

    That is: If the vault contains a finite number of coins, then there is a first coin you put in.

    If your process always results in a vault containing a finite number of coins, then your process always results in there being a first coin you put in.



    You've completely failed to show that you couldn't add an infinite number of coins, since you're explicitly only permitting a finite number of coins to be added, and only a finite number of such additions to have been performed. All you've shown is that a finite union of finite sets is finite, which was never in contention.

    Let's put this argument in terms of sets.

    Start with a set V, called the vault. Let C be a set, called the coins, indexed by some (index) set I. The process of putting coins into the vault is essentially the process of constructing sequences of coins. Construct a sequence of coins, then put the coins into the vault in the sequential order.

    Your argument goes something like this: We're only going to look at finite subsequences (for some reason). Every finite subsequence is finite (obviously). Therefore, V must contain finitely many coins.

    Well, color me unconvinced and dubious of any further progress being made.

    I don't see how that can be the case. The argument is about a physical process (the passage of time) and whether or not that physical process could produce an infinite past. Divorcing the argument from that reality seems quite problematic.
    Honestly, I don't care much what seems to be problematic to you, Squatch. Give me a logically valid argument and reasons to think its premises are true.

    If I may, please don't confuse my lack of cleverness getting the equations into vbulletin with the idea that there aren't any. The papers cited where I indicate equations (EQUATION 1, EQUATION 5, etc) have them, I was simply unable to display them coherently in vbulletin, for perhaps the same reason that GP's responses disappeared, I'm not sure.
    I read the papers, Squatch. Did you?
    Last edited by CliveStaples; March 10th, 2014 at 11:57 AM.
    If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. - Soren Kierkegaard
    **** you, I won't do what you tell me

    HOLY CRAP MY BLOG IS AWESOME

  20. #238
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,755
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: WLC's Argument Against an Actual Infinity

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    So basically transfinite induction is impossible? Proof, please.
    I'm afraid I'm not familiar with transfinite induction and from what I'm reviewing through a basic search I'm not sure how it would apply here.

    My response to the question of whether it is continuous or not is to point out that the rate of flow into the vault is constant, regardless of whether it is done in discrete bits or in a continuous flow. The same could be said of physical distances. A mile is still a mile regardless of whether you break it into inches or consider it a continuous physical distance.

    Quote Originally Posted by CS
    My God, Squatch. My ****ing God. This is so incredibly frustrating that I don't have words to describe it other than to say that I don't have words to describe it.
    I think we need a bro hug here man ;-)

    Quote Originally Posted by CS
    That is, for every coin you put in, there was a coin you put in before.
    What physical process led to that coin being put in CS?

    I realize that you feel that I am being intentionally obtuse here (let me assure you I am not) just as much as I feel you are intentionally trying to avoid a physical application because of its obvious disconnect (to be consistent, I'll assume you are not).

    When you say "Suppose there's no first coin you put in. That is, for every coin you put in, there was a coin you put in before"

    Your supposition could easily be re-written as "suppose the past was infinitely old." Which is exactly the objection I raised in my last response to you. The only mechanism for getting an infinitely old universe in the process we have described here is to assume it at the beginning with no explanation as to how it arose.


    Quote Originally Posted by CS
    Honestly, I don't care much what seems to be problematic to you, Squatch. Give me a logically valid argument and reasons to think its premises are true.
    I'll give you an empirical one. You and I have been discussing this for 6 pages. Every time we've attempted to confine our discussions to the math it has resulted in you making an unwarranted assumption (such as your confusion between A/B theory, your initial discussion of number of points rather than duration of the past, etc). I am 100% confident that these mistakes are the result of my poor communication on the issue and for that I again apologize. However, given the historical tendency in that thread for this to happen it would seem unlikely that it will change if we continue along that route. A much more logical route would be to agree upon a definition of the process occurring and for you to tell me what mathematical operation you feel best models that process.

    Quote Originally Posted by CS
    I read the papers, Squatch. Did you?
    Why do you think it took me two weeks to respond?

    If you read the papers perhaps I misunderstood your response. I took it to read that you felt the papers I offered lacked the equations to justify their solutions. If that is an accurate reading I was attempting to ensure that that impression did no arise from my inability to paste equations into vbulletin. The papers I offered were replete with the equations explaining their proposed solutions and theories.

    For example.



    or



    or



    or



    or



    or



    or





    Now it is completely feasible that GP does not find those convincing (though he did claim not to have read them), which is of course, fine. But that is a very different from what I took to be the issue as "they didn't present the equations."
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  21. #239
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    13,847
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: WLC's Argument Against an Actual Infinity

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I'm afraid I'm not familiar with transfinite induction and from what I'm reviewing through a basic search I'm not sure how it would apply here.
    First, well-order the real numbers. Then you can express the real numbers as a "sequence" of strictly-"increasing" (WRT the well-ordering) numbers in the following way:

    (1) Since R is well-ordered, R has a unique least element, call it r0. This is the first term.
    (2) Since R is infinite, R-{r0} is non-empty and therefore possesses a unique "least" element. This is the "next" term.

    This is a trans-finite sequence, since any countable subsequence is necessarily not equal to the real numbers. If your set of coins were in bijection with R, you could perform a similar well-ordering on the set of coins and define a similar transfinite sequence for adding coins to the vault, which would have the same property that every countable (and in particular, every finite) subsequence is countable (and, in the case of finite sequences, finite), but none of these subsequences would "cover" or "go through" the whole set of coins. Why are you excluding such transfinite sequences of coins from consideration?

    My response to the question of whether it is continuous or not is to point out that the rate of flow into the vault is constant, regardless of whether it is done in discrete bits or in a continuous flow. The same could be said of physical distances. A mile is still a mile regardless of whether you break it into inches or consider it a continuous physical distance.
    A mile contains a finite number of inches. A mile does not contain a finite number of points. A mile can be constructed by adding together infinitely many points. Take, for example, the union of all real numbers between 0 and 5,280 inclusive. The length of this set is 5280

    Any finite "sequence" of end-to-end "straight" miles will have finite length. That doesn't mean that distance is finite, or that the universe couldn't contain an infinitely-long "straight" path (you need to do differential geometry if you're going to insist on doing physics, but I doubt you want to get into metric tensors and so on).

    What physical process led to that coin being put in CS?

    I realize that you feel that I am being intentionally obtuse here (let me assure you I am not) just as much as I feel you are intentionally trying to avoid a physical application because of its obvious disconnect (to be consistent, I'll assume you are not).
    This is pretty rich coming from you, Squatch, since you've refused to specify what physical process is occurring, relying instead on thought experiments that implicitly consider only finite sets, then reaching the obvious conclusion that you end up with a finite set.

    When you say "Suppose there's no first coin you put in. That is, for every coin you put in, there was a coin you put in before"

    Your supposition could easily be re-written as "suppose the past was infinitely old." Which is exactly the objection I raised in my last response to you. The only mechanism for getting an infinitely old universe in the process we have described here is to assume it at the beginning with no explanation as to how it arose.
    Ah, let me try to clear this up then.

    Call the proposition that a first coin exists F. You've stated that your system, call it S, doesn't include F among its axioms. My implicit challenge was for you to show that ~F is incompatible with S. Since you leave all of your axioms and definitions implicit, it's not easy for me to analyze S. If S is defined solely by considering "the process of adding coins to a vault", then I don't see how S is incompatible with ~F. The mere idea of adding coins to a vault makes it logically impossible that there not be a first coin? If S is compatible with ~F, then you cannot conclude ~F merely because you affirm S.

    I am not assuming the past is indeed infinitely old; I am appending that proposition to your proposed counterexample and failing to see a contradiction. You simply flatly assert "S, therefore F," because you fail to put your statements in their explicitly logical forms, exposing your reasoning to criticism.

    Do you start with an empty vault? Is there a first coin? If you make no assumptions with regard to the existence of a first coin, how do you conclude that the vault must contain finitely many coins? Why do you only consider the state of the vault after finitely many additions of coins?

    I'll give you an empirical one. You and I have been discussing this for 6 pages. Every time we've attempted to confine our discussions to the math it has resulted in you making an unwarranted assumption (such as your confusion between A/B theory,
    There was no such confusion.

    your initial discussion of number of points rather than duration of the past, etc).
    Squatch, you continuously waffle between considering the number of "moments" or "events" in the past (the cardinality measure) and the "length" of the past (the lebesgue measure). If you put your argument in unambiguous terms, I wouldn't have to keep jumping to different concepts to keep up with your inconsistencies.

    I am 100% confident that these mistakes are the result of my poor communication on the issue and for that I again apologize. However, given the historical tendency in that thread for this to happen it would seem unlikely that it will change if we continue along that route. A much more logical route would be to agree upon a definition of the process occurring and for you to tell me what mathematical operation you feel best models that process.
    If you would define your systems/axioms, I'd be happy to analyze them. You've done so in an entirely implicit way that is based entirely on your unanalyzed intuitions.

    Why do you think it took me two weeks to respond?
    Because you don't understand physics?

    If you read the papers perhaps I misunderstood your response. I took it to read that you felt the papers I offered lacked the equations to justify their solutions. If that is an accurate reading I was attempting to ensure that that impression did no arise from my inability to paste equations into vbulletin. The papers I offered were replete with the equations explaining their proposed solutions and theories.

    For example.



    or



    or



    or



    or



    or



    or





    Now it is completely feasible that GP does not find those convincing (though he did claim not to have read them), which is of course, fine. But that is a very different from what I took to be the issue as "they didn't present the equations."
    Many of these equations are presented without their reasoning made explicit, i.e. without presenting the various systems of differential equations to be solved, or various transformations being applied, etc. Some of them contain quite egregious errors (which GP alluded to). I'm not persuaded by your vouching for their rigor.
    If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. - Soren Kierkegaard
    **** you, I won't do what you tell me

    HOLY CRAP MY BLOG IS AWESOME

  22. #240
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,755
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: WLC's Argument Against an Actual Infinity

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    If your set of coins were in bijection with R, you could perform a similar well-ordering on the set of coins and define a similar transfinite sequence for adding coins to the vault, which would have the same property that every countable (and in particular, every finite) subsequence is countable (and, in the case of finite sequences, finite), but none of these subsequences would "cover" or "go through" the whole set of coins. Why are you excluding such transfinite sequences of coins from consideration?
    Thank you for the explanation.

    Perhaps due to my lack of familiarity with this concept I don't see how I am excluding them from consideration. I also am not sure why this would be an objection to my point originally made. Specifically, I was noting that whether we consider the passage of time (or adding to the vault) as discrete or continuous, it doesn't seem to make much difference in the total length of history (or total value in the vault).

    If I am missing the thrust of your argument I apologize.

    Quote Originally Posted by cs
    Any finite "sequence" of end-to-end "straight" miles will have finite length. That doesn't mean that distance is finite, or that the universe couldn't contain an infinitely-long "straight" path
    I agree. Again, this is the difference between the idea of "could there be an infinite number of coins?" and "have we added an infinite number of coins to the vault?" We aren't talking about whether not the universe is capable of containing an infinitely long straight line, but rather, is it possible, given that you are at some point P, to have crossed an infinite amount of that straight line.

    Quote Originally Posted by cs
    Call the proposition that a first coin exists F. You've stated that your system, call it S, doesn't include F among its axioms. My implicit challenge was for you to show that ~F is incompatible with S.
    I think it is important to remember that we are at a definite "now," a distinct coin in the analogy. And we must remember that for ~F to be true, then the output of S must be infinite. IE the value in the vault, the distance crossed or the time passed is infinite in amount. But there is not distinct point where S produces an infinite output. It is only in the realm of the "infinite coin" that this becomes true, but the "infinite coin" is not a distinct object, just as infinity isn't a distinct number. And as such we can't be at that distinct point, now. We can't be the infinite moment added to the set that is the past (which oddly is also the next moment and all the past moments as well). Thus if we are at a distinct now and S is the process through which time is passed, then ~F cannot be true.


    Quote Originally Posted by CS
    Many of these equations are presented without their reasoning made explicit, i.e. without presenting the various systems of differential equations to be solved, or various transformations being applied, etc. Some of them contain quite egregious errors (which GP alluded to). I'm not persuaded by your vouching for their rigor.
    I don't recall vouching for anything. Rather, I noted that the persons publishing them were not untrained amateurs (as alluded to) and that at least two of them were published or presented in a professional setting.

    Neither of the above guarantees accuracy, but it does indicate that a better response is required to dismiss them than what has been offered.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


 

 
Page 12 of 22 FirstFirst ... 2 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. The Universe Had a Beginning - Argument Against Infinity
    By Apokalupsis in forum Philosophical Debates
    Replies: 176
    Last Post: September 22nd, 2012, 08:12 AM
  2. Christianity: Lazarus and the rich man - parable or actual event?
    By theophilus in forum Religion
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: April 3rd, 2012, 09:21 AM
  3. Christianity: Actual or Attempted obedience
    By solafide in forum Religion
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: January 4th, 2010, 08:50 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •