Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee is enjoying a late surge in the polls for the Republican nomination, especially in the crucial early caucus state of Iowa. Part of his appeal is a sense of humor, as evidenced by this clever appropriation of the Chuck Norris Facts meme:
Chuck Norris, in addition to his considerable thespian credentials, is a proud creationist who wants the Bible taught in public schools. So it is not surprising to find Mike Huckabee denying the reality of evolution during a televised debate.
But this video, while also quite funny, is pretty scary. Via Cynical-C, it’s a 2004 speech to the Republican Governors’ Association.
A phone call from God! Quite the thigh-slapper. Huckabee artfully includes an assurance that God doesn’t take side during elections — although we all know his preferences, apparently.
I understand that it’s a joke. But there are moments of solemnity during the “phone call,” when Huckabee is being perfectly serious. One of those is at the 2:00 mark, where we are reminded that the President talks to God. And then we receive a list of instructions, including “protecting marriage.” (It needs to be protected from The Gays, for those who don’t have your decoder rings.) George W. Bush himself has occasionally mentioned talking to God, although usually in private meetings where it’s difficult to get objective verification, and admittedly his theology is somewhat unsystematic.
A lot of people who don’t really believe in the old-fashioned supernatural nevertheless think it’s a good idea to appropriate spiritual terminology for their own uses — re-defining “faith” as “any hypothesis that has not yet been proven,” or “God” as “the warm feeling I get when contemplating the universe,” or “religion” as “a nice kind of social club that brings people together to reinforce each other’s goodness.” It’s not a good idea. These are words, and they have meanings when you say them — people think they know what you have in mind. When you say “God,” most people think of the dictionary definition — “the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.” They’re not thinking of “the laws of nature.” And they honestly believe in this dictionary-definition God. And they let that belief affect, or at least justify, how they govern the country. Shouldn’t every non-religious person be deeply alarmed about this state of affairs?
At the Beyond Belief II conference, Stuart Kauffman gave an interesting (although flawed, I thought) talk about complexity and reductionism, and then ruined the whole thing by suggesting at the end that we should re-define “the sacred” as something arising from the radical contingency of the empirical path of biological evolution. Or something like that, it was a bit vague. What an abysmally bad idea. If you want to choose a word that refers to something other than the traditional religious conception of supreme beings and all that, then don’t use religious language. Because there are other people out there — far vaster in number than you — that are using those same words to mean exactly what they straightforwardly denote: a supernatural power with a vested interest in smiting the wicked, especially boys and girls who fall in love with boys and girls, respectively. And they’re running this country at the moment, and their beliefs are enacted into policy.
Of course, arguing with Mike Huckabee and his friends runs the risk that Chuck Norris will come along and kick your ass. That’s just the chance we have to take.
Jesse,
Isn’t that simply due to the fact that given constant rates of transmission of information, ie. the speed of light, the perception of events at different locations is going to reach observers at separate locations at different times? If a star 10 lightyears away blows up at the same time as one 100 lightyears away, we will perceive the closer event as happening 90 years prior to the more distant one. While for an observer equidistant between the two, they would appear to occur at the same moment.
Saying this makes time and space the same is like saying the windchill factor makes temperature and windspeed the same. If you stick a glass of water out on a windy day, when the temperature is above freezing, it doesn’t freeze, no matter what the windchill factor is.
John Merryman wrote:
Isn’t that simply due to the fact that given constant rates of transmission of information, ie. the speed of light, the perception of events at different locations is going to reach observers at separate locations at different times? If a star 10 lightyears away blows up at the same time as one 100 lightyears away, we will perceive the closer event as happening 90 years prior to the more distant one. While for an observer equidistant between the two, they would appear to occur at the same moment.
No, the relativity of simultaneity in SR is about the time-coordinates retroactively assigned to the events themselves in a given reference frame, not the time-coordinate at which a given observer sees the light from an event. In other words, if I see the light from a supernova in the year 2010, and that supernova is 100 light-years away according to measurements in my frame (different frames measure distances differently because each frame sees moving rulers contract), then I will say the supernova happened at a time-coordinate of t = 1910 in my frame. Likewise, if in 2050 I see the light from a supernova 140 light-years away in my frame, I’ll also say the second supernova happened at a time-coordinate of t = 1910 as well, so the two supernovas are “simultaneous” in my frame. But if someone in a different frame uses the same procedure of noting when they saw the light from each supernova and subtracting a number of years equal to the distance in light-years in that frame, they may find that these two events happened at different t-coordinates in their own frame!
Jesse,
Thanks for setting me straight on that. Although I still don’t see how this qualifies time as a dimensional basis for motion, as opposed to a measurement of it. It all boils down to how light travels in different frames, it doesn’t really argue that sequential events co-exist, as two points in space co-exist.
If I’m driving down the road and time is a dimension, it would seem that I was at all points on that drive, just as the entire road exists in space. So why don’t I blurr together with all the other people driving before and after me?
It seems to me that past and future do not physically exist because the energy of which these events consist is manifesting the present. If it was different energy then what the present consists, how would it be in a causal continuum with other points in time, as it was previous states which lead up to this one and the conditions in this one which will define future states.
I feel that change is real and the dimension of time is the construct, ie. distilled narrative. Here is a further exploration of my point;
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/11/27/things-happen-not-always-for-a-reason/#comment-305426
Of course it means this. If person A is otherwise identical to person B (on average), but person B holds some irrational beliefs while person A does not, then person A is more likely to be rational.
Yes, a both a theist and an atheist will make irrational decisions. Yes, both a theist and an atheist will make emotional decisions. But because the theist’s position is rests upon a belief that is irrational, and because the atheist is not more likely than the theist to hold other irrational beliefs besides beliefs in deities, the atheist is, on average, more rational.
John Merryman,
Your view of reality is fundamentally incorrect based upon what we know about the nature of reality. I think I’m done worrying about correcting your incoherent statements, so I’ll just leave it at this: until you learn what we know today about the nature of space-time, you are doomed to be incorrect.
Although I still don’t see how this qualifies time as a dimensional basis for motion, as opposed to a measurement of it. It all boils down to how light travels in different frames, it doesn’t really argue that sequential events co-exist, as two points in space co-exist.
It doesn’t boil down to how light travels, the symmetry between different inertial reference frames in SR extends to all the laws of physics–if relativity is correct there can be no physical reason whatsoever for saying one frame’s way of dividing up space and time is better than any other. So, the only way to preserve the notion of a unique “now” (with only event happening now having any real existence) is to postulate the existence of something like a “metaphysically preferred reference frame”, where the difference between it and other frames has nothing to do with any measurable or observable aspects of reality. This seems rather inelegant, so by Occam’s razor I think there is good reason to say it’s simpler if we dispense with the idea that only events happening “now” really exist and instead put all events throughout spacetime on equal footing.
If I’m driving down the road and time is a dimension, it would seem that I was at all points on that drive, just as the entire road exists in space. So why don’t I blurr together with all the other people driving before and after me?
In the 4D view, you are a sort of 4-dimensional worm, and each 3-dimensional cross-section of this worm represents you at a different moment (different reference frames would take the cross-sections at different angles). For any given spacelike 3D cross-section, of 4D spacetime, the cross-section of “your” worm will be at a different position that the cross-section of someone else’s. So, you don’t blur together with other people any more than two parallel lines on an xy plane, like y=2x and y=2x+4, blur together–it is true that in some sense every line “occupies” every point along the x-axis, but they do it at different values of y (for example, for x=3 the first line reaches that value when y=6, but the second line reaches that value when y=10).
It seems to me that past and future do not physically exist because the energy of which these events consist is manifesting the present. If it was different energy then what the present consists, how would it be in a causal continuum with other points in time, as it was previous states which lead up to this one and the conditions in this one which will define future states.
I don’t understand this paragraph–what do you mean by “energy”? Something different than the ordinary physical notions of kinetic energy, potential energy, and rest mass energy? And causality in the 4D eternalist view is just like a “geometrical” lawlike relation between events in spacetime–we can obviously formulate the notion of “laws” governing sequences even when the sequences aren’t happening in time, like a sequence of numbers (for example, with the sequence 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, … the law is that each number is twice as large as the previous one). Likewise, if I draw some ordered arrangement of dots on a piece of paper you might find a rule which would allow you to predict the arrangement of dots to the right-hand side of a divider based on the arrangement of dots on the left-hand side; this is basically similar to what physicists are doing when they find laws governing the relationships between events in spacetime, in the eternalist view.
Jesse
You wrote, “I think there is good reason to say it’s simpler if we dispense with the idea that only events happening “now” really exist and instead put all events throughout spacetime on equal footing.”
This discussion between you and John Merryman is fascinating. I have always wanted to get ‘my head around’ SR but have usually just become annoyed with myself for having to believe in it as opposed to completely understanding it. Based on your understanding of SR and space-time would you say that for each of us; our birth in the past, our present moment now, and our death in the future are on equal footing and coexistent relative to some reference frame? Thanks
Based on your understanding of SR and space-time would you say that for each of us; our birth in the past, our present moment now, and our death in the future are on equal footing and coexistent relative to some reference frame?
“Existence” is really a philosophical issue–as I said, relativity’s lack of a physically preferred reference frame could never absolutely rule out the idea of a “metaphysically preferred frame”, with that frame’s definition of simultaneity being the “true” one so that the philosophy of presentism (which says only events happening ‘now’ really exist) could still make sense. But like I said, this type of philosophical view does seem considerably more inelegant in light of relativity’s placing all the different frames on equal footing in every possible physical respect.
Even if we just talk about simultaneity rather than existence, there still isn’t any inertial frame in SR where the event of my sitting here typing this is simultaneous with the event of my birth, because only events with a “space-like separation” can be simultaneous in any inertial frame. For a more detailed discussion of what it means for events to have a space-like or time-like or light-like separation, see here and here, but basically if two events have a space-like separation that means that a signal traveling at the speed of light from one event would not have time to make it to the other event; for example, an event on Earth in 2007 and an event on Alpha Centauri 4 light-years away in 2008 would have a space-like separation. In contrast, the event of my typing this has a time-like separation from the event of my birth.
However, what we can say is that in SR it should be possible to find some event E some number of light-years away from Earth such that in one frame the event of my typing this is simultaneous with E, and in another frame the event of my birth is simultaneous with E. So if you do place all frames on equal footing in terms of ontology or “existence”, meaning that if any given event is said to have real existence, then any other event which is simultaneous with it in any frame must have real existence too, then this would force you to conclude that the event of my birth exists in exactly the same sense as the event of my typing this.
Jesse,
The term ‘now’ is a way to frame time, but any frame is going to blur with what is inside and outside of it. By saying that only the physical exists, it is not a matter of time, but what physically exists and what doesn’t. You are not arguing that your birth and death co-exist, but that they may appear that way to some other frame. Would this be similar to saying that in the frame of a funhouse mirror, my face appears three feet long, so that means that it is? It seems that what distorts the perception of time is propagation of information over distance varies from one frame to another.
It seems to me the problem is that in order to logically conceive any concept, we must frame it, but that there is no absolute frame. It is similar to the point I made to Jason about space not being three dimensional. If you don’t specify the specific coordinates of those three dimensions, it is a useless concept, because you can’t use them to specify locations in that space, so three dimensions are a map of space, not the territory and any number of such coordinate systems can be used to define the same space. Just as any number of time frames can be used to describe the same events, each giving a different perspective, so that the reality is that space is infinitely dimensional, just as any potential clock is its own dimension of time. Saying that space is three dimensions and time is one dimension is the very assertion of a universal frame that you say relativity disproves.
Jason,
Thank you for your efforts. You’ve shown me more patience then most people do.
To clarify that last point, four dimensional spacetime is a frame, but there is no universal frame, so it is only our description of space and time that is four dimensional.
Jesse
I think John Merryman makes a good point when he writes:
“You are not arguing that your birth and death co-exist, but that they may appear that way to some other frame. Would this be similar to saying that in the frame of a funhouse mirror, my face appears three feet long, so that means that it is? It seems that what distorts the perception of time is propagation of information over distance varies from one frame to another.”
Finding a concise meaning to event E and its frame of reference seems more vexing than understanding the arrow of time. I hope not so vexing as to cause our discussion to cease however.
John Merryman wrote:
The term ‘now’ is a way to frame time, but any frame is going to blur with what is inside and outside of it. By saying that only the physical exists, it is not a matter of time, but what physically exists and what doesn’t. You are not arguing that your birth and death co-exist, but that they may appear that way to some other frame.
No, I am arguing that they both exist in exactly the same sense (which I guess is what you mean by ‘co-exist’), precisely because I argue it is natural to place all frames on equal footing in terms of what they say “exists” at a given moment. There is some frame where the event of my death happens at the same moment as some other distant event E; there is some other frame where E happens at the same moment as my birth; so if you say that event E “exists” at some moment, how can you say that one or the other of my birth and death co-exists with E but not both, without privileging one frame over another?
Another way of saying this is just to point out that presentism requires a single universal definition of “now”, and therefore a single “true” definition of simultaneity, and there’d be no way to do this without picking out a single frame and defining it as special, which the laws of physics never do. Like I said, you are free to imagine that one frame is “metaphysically” special even though it is not special in any measurable physical way, but to me this seems too inelegant to be plausible.
Would this be similar to saying that in the frame of a funhouse mirror, my face appears three feet long, so that means that it is?
I don’t know what you mean by “the frame of a funhouse mirror”. In relativity a frame is a coordinate system filling all of space time, and when people talk about the frame of a given object, they mean a frame where that object is at rest, and where distances between position-coordinates and time intervals between time-coordinates would correspond to the measurements of actual rulers and clocks at rest relative to the object.
Perhaps you mean a new type of coordinate system where the distorted apparent distances in the funhouse mirror would be the actual distances, in spite of the fact that actual physical rulers at rest relative to the mirror would not measure these distorted distances. If so, there is a very good reason for not placing this coordinate system on equal footing with all the inertial coordinate systems of SR–in this “funhouse” coordinate system, the laws of physics would have to be written with totally different equations, while the laws of physics all obey identical equations in all the different inertial coordinate systems. If you were given a series of coordinate readings for different causally-related events, you could tell if they were written in some distorted non-inertial coordinate system like the funhouse one or if they were in a standard SR inertial system, but if they were in a standard SR inertial system, there’d be absolutely no way to deduce which inertial system it was, since the laws governing relationships between events look identical in all of them.
It seems that what distorts the perception of time is propagation of information over distance varies from one frame to another.
I’m not sure what you mean by this. Again, the key point is that the laws in one inertial frame are identical to the laws in every other.
It seems to me the problem is that in order to logically conceive any concept, we must frame it, but that there is no absolute frame.
As with your earlier comments about “energy”, I think here you are taking a well-defined physics term and mixing it up with some fuzzier definition of the word outside the context of physics. In ordinary language we may sometimes talk about “mental frames”, but these have nothing to do with “frames” in physics, which are just coordinate systems for assigning coordinates to different points in space and time (and in the case of inertial frames in SR it is understood that these coordinates would correspond to the readings on a set of physical rulers and clocks at rest with respect to one another, so if I’m sitting on a ruler/clock system at rest relative to me, and I look through my telescope and see an explosion happen next to the 12 light-year mark on my x-axis ruler when the clock at that mark reads a time of 8 years, then I assign that explosion coordinates x=12 light years, t=8 years).
It is in fact easy to conceive of alternate laws of physics where there would be an absolute frame, or an absolute definition of simultaneity. The old “aether” theory of electromagnetism, in which Maxwell’s laws of electromagnetism only held exactly in the rest frame of the aether (a medium which light waves were supposed to be vibrations in, the same way that sound waves are vibrations in air), and you could detect your speed relative to the aether by measuring how light travelled at different speeds in different directions relative to you, does include an absolute frame, namely the aether frame. Likewise, in any theory that does not include time dilation due to movement, like Newtonian physics, it’s easy to come up with an absolute definition of simultaneity–just synchronize two clocks when they are in the same location, then move them apart, without time dilation you can be sure they’ll stay synchronized.
It is similar to the point I made to Jason about space not being three dimensional. If you don’t specify the specific coordinates of those three dimensions, it is a useless concept, because you can’t use them to specify locations in that space, so three dimensions are a map of space, not the territory and any number of such coordinate systems can be used to define the same space. Just as any number of time frames can be used to describe the same events, each giving a different perspective, so that the reality is that space is infinitely dimensional
That doesn’t make sense according to the standard notion of the number of dimensions a space has. For example, on a 2D piece of paper you can create a coordinate system by overlaying a sheet of transparent graph paper with x and y axes drawn on, and you do have an infinite number of choices of the angle at which you orient the x and y axes when you place them over the first paper; but that doesn’t mean the space is infinite-dimensional, it’s 2-dimensional because no matter what choice of coordinate system you make, you only need two coordinates to specify any position on the paper.
Saying that space is three dimensions and time is one dimension is the very assertion of a universal frame that you say relativity disproves.
No more so than saying that the 2D paper above is two-dimensional means you’re asserting an “absolute x-axis” and an “absolute y-axis”–you still have no reason to prefer one choice of orientation for the axes than any other, so there’s no reason to imagine such absolute axes.
ags wrote:
Finding a concise meaning to event E and its frame of reference seems more vexing than understanding the arrow of time. I hope not so vexing as to cause our discussion to cease however.
An event does not have a frame of reference in SR, only objects with persist over time (and move inertially) do. And it’s just a mathematical matter to find the coordinates of some event E such that in frame A, my birth and E are simultaneous, while in frame B, my death and E are simultaneous–you just have to know the velocities of frames A and B relative to me (assuming I move inertially throughout my life, and am living in a flat SR spacetime), that will be enough to determine the coordinates of an event E that satisfies this. For example, suppose I remain at position x=0 throughout my life in my frame, and I live for 80 years, born at t=0 and dying at t=80. If frame A is moving away from me in the +x direction at v=0.6c, and frame B is moving towards me in the -x direction at v=-0.6c, then if you pick an event E at coordinates x=66 and 2/3 light years, t=40 years in my frame, then this event E will be simultaneous with my birth in frame A and with my death in frame B.
Jesse
In your example is the simultaneousness of these two selected events in A and B with an event (E) in your frame of reference a trivial result of selecting the midpoint (t=40)?
Jesse in #50:
I don’t consider Einstein to be a pseudo scientist because of his remarks about time, considering that simultaneity differences make past, present, and future relative – but that isn’t the same as saying they aren’t “real” at all. My more bitter and more confident complaint is against claiming that wave function collapses due to measurements (or just hitting a screen) are “illusions” once the “postulate” of collapse is dropped, etc. The collapses aren’t the sort of thing as the ultimate nature of time and progression, but a specific localization (the same localization BTW regardless of how we interpret time.) You’d need to read my critiques here, but briefly: if there was no collapse, a WF would just stay a wave forever following the equations of evolution, not split into collapses anyway into multiple universes or dependent upon coherence relations.
ags wrote:
In your example is the simultaneousness of these two selected events in A and B with an event (E) in your frame of reference a trivial result of selecting the midpoint (t=40)?
I’m not sure what you mean by “trivial result”, but if the event was at a different distance than 66 and 2/3 light years, then it would no longer be simultaneous with my birth in the frame moving at 0.6c relative to me, or with my death in the frame moving at -0.6c relative to me. Of course even at different distances one might be able to find some other pair of frames such that this was true, although the distance must always be greater than 40 light years, otherwise E will either lie within the future light cone of my birth or the past light cone of my death, and events which lie within one another’s light cone are not simultaneous in any frame. Likewise, you could pick some other time besides t=40, and as long as you picked a distance such that an event at that position and time was not in the light cone of either my birth or death, you could find some pair of frames where the event was simultaneous with my birth in one and with my death in the other (for any pair of events which have a space-like separation, meaning that they don’t lie within each other’s light cones, you can find some frame where they are simultaneous).
Jesse,
But first you must specify the x and y axes. Then you can specify any position relative to them. It’s like a calendar, in that you need that arbitrary point of reference that is day one, or nothing can be specified. This point goes back through our entire disagreement. Relativity proves there is no absolute frame of reference, then turns around and assumes there is. Just as it’s a blank sheet of paper until you specify the axes, space is just indeterminate volume until you specify the axes and the axes are arbitrary. As for time, any potential clock is an axis of time and the particular circumstances affecting it will affect the rate of change.
That is nonsense. For one thing, all events are not apparent in every frame, due to horizon lines, light cones, loss of information, etc.
Taking the average of all frames still doesn’t create an absolute frame, only an average frame.
Jesse
I was asking if using the midpoint t=40 (in this example) or the midpoint in any example would always work regardless of the velocity at which frames A and B were moving. The distance of 66 and 2/3 light-years, however, would change for different velocities.
But first you must specify the x and y axes.
What do you mean, “first”? You think a piece of paper isn’t 2-dimensional until I draw axes on it? You think geometrical relationships on the paper–like the distance between two dots along a straight-line path–don’t exist until we come up with a coordinate system to describe them?
Relativity proves there is no absolute frame of reference, then turns around and assumes there is.
I really have no idea what you’re talking about here. How does it assume there is?
Just as it’s a blank sheet of paper until you specify the axes
It’s a blank sheet of paper with definite geometrical facts about it, like the fact that it’s 2-dimensional, or like the distance between various dots on it or the length of lines on it. You really believe these facts don’t come into existence until you draw axes on the paper?
space is just indeterminate volume until you specify the axes and the axes are arbitrary.
The words “space is just indeterminate volume” mean nothing to me. What would determinate volume look like?
As for time, any potential clock is an axis of time and the particular circumstances affecting it will affect the rate of change.
Sure, any clock can be used to specify an axis of time, just like any line on a piece of paper can be used to specify a y-axis. I don’t see how the first statement proves that we don’t live in a 4D spacetime, any more than the second statement proves the piece of paper is not 2-dimensional.
That is nonsense. For one thing, all events are not apparent in every frame, due to horizon lines, light cones, loss of information, etc.
It’s apparent that you don’t understand the concept of a “frame” in SR, so why are you making confident statements like this? A frame has nothing to do with what any observer knows at any given moment, it’s just a coordinate system for assigning coordinates to all points in spacetime (and each coordinate system is constructed to obey certain rules, like the rule that any two objects whose position coordinates are unchanging in a given frame must be at rest with respect to each other and moving inertially, or the rule that the difference in time-coordinates between two events on the worldline of a clock at rest in a frame must be equal to the difference in readings that the clock showed between the two events). When I say “all frames are on equal footing”, I just mean that the equations of the fundamental laws of physics would look the same when written in any of these coordinate systems. To put this in physical terms, what this means is that if two experimenters who are in closed windowless boxes in motion relative to one another both perform the same experiment, they should always get the same result (or the same statistics when performing the experiment multiple times, if there is any randomness in the fundamental laws). There is no way that they can use differing results on some experiment to determine their different absolute velocities relative to absolute space, for example.
Taking the average of all frames still doesn’t create an absolute frame, only an average frame.
Who said anything about “taking the average of all frames”? What does that phrase even mean?
From discussion with you so far, and from comments you’ve made to some other posts, I think you really are far too confident about your ability to understand physical arguments based only on some sort of verbal parsing of what people are telling you, and you don’t sufficiently appreciate that any verbal argument about physics must be a short-hand for some more precise mathematical statement. You can’t throw around physics terms like “energy” and “frame” and think your arguments make any sense without having a good understanding of the precise meaning of these terms, rather than relying on your intuitive understanding of how they are used in ordinary language.
ags wrote:
I was asking if using the midpoint t=40 (in this example) or the midpoint in any example would always work regardless of the velocity at which frames A and B were moving. The distance of 66 and 2/3 light-years, however, would change for different velocities.
You can only use the midpoint if your two frames A and B have equal and opposite velocities, like my choice of A at 0.6c and B at -0.6c. If you chose A to be moving at 0.4c and B to be moving at 0.9c, the event E would no longer have t=40.
Jason,
are you implying you have ‘rational’ proof that there is no god, and by god I do not mean any of those straw men you put up to knock down – but rather a higher being who could be living in a retreat (retired?) in a parallel universe of the megaverse, where no decay and death can enter – and time does not exist.
are you suggesting you have ‘rational’ proof that there is bothing more after death
Well if you do not have ‘rational’ proof, you are no more rational than those who you dismiss as irrational for believing there is a god, and/or life after death.
You may choose to place the onus on proof – on proof that there is a god. But you have no such god given right, I can equally choose to place the onus of proof on you believing there is ‘no’ god. That makes me no more rational or irrational than you.
In politics those who are capitalist may assume (or dismiss) socialists and/or communists as irrational, equally socialists may assume (or dismiss) capitalists and communists to be irrational, and communists may assume (or dismiss) capitalists or socialists as irrational …
but as we move into the ‘cashless’ society – it remains to be shown which or who is the more ‘rational’ – and ultimately which philosophy will win the day.
The universe may be as is, because it cannot be any other way, but as you know the world is as is because ‘men’ (and women) have made it so, and because of the weight of preference by some people which favours it so. But funny when in need even the ‘rich’ want free medical care – unless of course there is a limited supply of surgeons and/or drugs – then greed kicks in and one presumes to be at the front of the qeue according to ability to pay …
Now that may be rational in your eyes, if you nelieve in ability to pay (regardless of how you make your money, or who you rob and kill)
but clearly wholly ‘irrational’ in the eyes of another (who believes in, to each according to their needs, not according to greed).
And among theists and atheists, there are continuously varying numbers on either sides. Averages make for very ephemeral or transient ‘truths’
Jesse,
It’s not that they don’t exist, but as you point out;
There are an infinte number of z/y axes possible. The problem is that there is no absolute set of axes, so unless they are specified. What if you had a set of axes that is moving on this plane, would that be three dimensional. It seems two claims are being made here, which contradict; Anything can be located in terms of the axes, but the axes don’t have to be specified. As well as that any event can be equally defined by any set of dimensional axes. Would one centered on a distant star, be equally valid for understanding the details of your life? Would one that made your birth and death simultaneous be equal to one where they were x mumbers of revolutions of this planet around its star? Would potential frames be as valid as actual ones? How about one where your death occurs before your birth? would the sets of coordinates that I and the people around me use to understand me, be valid for understanding your life?
I try to make it as clear as possible that I am not an ex[ert in this field and am trying to learn. That doesn’t mean that I won’t question what doesn’t seem to make sense, given my experience in other fields is that people put up as much bs as they can get away with. So if it appears to me that the emperor is naked, I’ll mention that and if someone convinces me otherwise, I’m equally willing to accept their logic, even if it may take me some time to put it all in a frame I can absorb. And I thank you and anyone else willing to present their perspective, even if I may not be wholy accepting of it.
Jesse
Thanks, I was thinking that was the case. In considering ontological implications, the selection of equal and opposite velocities is a natural choice. The possibility of some (E) in midlife that allows for birth and death to be thought of as simultaneous events is a significant fact if it is really a fact. Much work remains to be done, but the possibility of (E) and a drive to manipulate velocities to achieve a balance around that (E) might help explain both life and a proclivity of certain advanced organisms to form religious concepts.
Jesse,
In a rush this morning. Reviewing your response;
I still don’t see how this refutes my point that four dimensional spacetime is the frame and the reason it’s not space itself is because any number of such frames can be used to define the same space.
Jesse,
By saying that spacetime is four dimensional, rather then any specific frame/coordinate system.
That which had all its dimensions specified.
In a four dimensional spacetime;
You can’t have sequential events occurring simultaneously, as might appear when referencing information from other frames, as described here;
I would say the priviliged frame is the four dimensions which most closely approximates your life.
This is essentially a strawman, because physical reality exists as momentum, as well as position. Mostly it’s energy speeding around at the speed of light and the reason we perceive it as flashes of instants is because our brain functions by turning all this information into sequential mental constructs, ie. thoughts, like frames of a movie. Otherwise it would just be a blur of light. Of course our brain is like the projector light, moving from one frame on to the next, while our mind is the series of thoughts/frames, receding into the past.
The concept of an absolute now would lack momentum and therefore the form derived from this activity.
I’ll leave it at this, as I’m testing your patience a bit more then is wise.