 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / Relativity / March 2005Is all motion relative?
Is all motion relative? This is a programatic question. So, what do you commit to: The earth really orbits the sun or that that is a model being one of many possible models of which the reality of any of them is indeterminable in physics. This begs the question of the exact criteria we should adopt to choose the "real" motion given more than one model of motion. One possible rule is to call the simplest the "true." But that has at least two problems: 1) people don't always agree on what "simple" means and 2) what is the simplest model or theory today may be replaced by simpler model or theory tomorrow. The question is meant to see to what degree the claim "All motion relative" is an insincere platitude or a genuine guiding principle. It's not a trick question, but it is a tricky question. Philosophically, the question of "deep reality" can be dispensed with in physics. We can simply choose the simplest model or theory at any moment as preferred for pragmatic reasons and not then claim that the simplest is also the "real." Patrick > Is all motion relative? This is a programatic question. > > So, what do you commit to: The earth really orbits the sun or that that > is a model being one of many possible models of which the reality of > any of them is indeterminable in physics. Physics cannot determine anything of reality. All we have are models of what we observe and a hope that it represents reality. Physics is not metaphysics. > This begs the question of the > exact criteria we should adopt to choose the "real" motion given more > than one model of motion. One possible rule is to call the simplest the > "true." But that has at least two problems: 1) people don't always > agree on what "simple" means Agreement is not necessary. Agreement is only one circumstantial piece of evidence as to how reliable any given model might be. > and 2) what is the simplest model or > theory today may be replaced by simpler model or theory tomorrow. Which illustrates why physics can never tell us anything of the one, true reality. > The question is meant to see to what degree the claim "All motion > relative" is an insincere platitude or a genuine guiding principle. > It's not a trick question, but it is a tricky question. Not if you recognize that you're asking a metaphysical question. > Philosophically, the question of "deep reality" can be dispensed with > in physics. We can simply choose the simplest model or theory at any > moment as preferred for pragmatic reasons and not then claim that the > simplest is also the "real." There is only one reality, not varying degrees or *depths* of it. Most of the time, someone needs the use of quotes around a term as an attempt to convey a concept which, in the end, is indefinable. > There is only one reality, not varying degrees or *depths* of it. I disagree. What of a star that went supernova in (our year) 1900, and it is/was 10,000 light-years from us?? To us Earthlings, that star still exists, 100% REAL! If there were planets orbitting that star and one had intelligent life on it, then those beings could still contact us, send us vital information perhaps. But to an observatory ten times closer to it than we are, there is nothing there but an empty hole in space, with perhaps some telltale fragmentary debris. -BB > > There is only one reality, not varying degrees or *depths* of it. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > we are, there is nothing there but an empty hole in space, with perhaps some > telltale fragmentary debris. You've defeated your own argument. You've already shown how there can really exist a planet and yet there be two different perceptions of it. Except in this case, because of what we've learned of the delay of signals, we have the additional advantage of being able to know that there are just different perceptions. There is only one reality. The issue is that there is no way of knowing what that reality is. > > > There is only one reality, not varying degrees or *depths* of it. > > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > There is only one reality. The issue is that there is no way of knowing what that reality > is. No, I think that Relativity makes it plain that reality is ultimately subjective. Does the star in question exist or not? Despite valiant attempts, we are unable to describe the entire cosmos as a snapshot of its 'reality' for a given moment in time. Others would argue, but I stick with the relativistic notion that WYSIWYG, ie. light arrival is tantamount to causation arrival, and all of Physics is about cause and effect. You may call it a perception thing, but I claim it goes WAY beyond superficiality. 'Nuf said; I decline to enter a bickering contest. -BB > > > > There is only one reality, not varying degrees or *depths* of it. > > > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > No, I think that Relativity makes it plain that reality is ultimately > subjective. Does the star in question exist or not? When? > Despite valiant > attempts, we are unable to describe the entire cosmos as a snapshot of its > 'reality' for a given moment in time. who said that reality dictated that we need to do so? ? Others would argue, but I stick with > the relativistic notion that WYSIWYG, ie. light arrival is tantamount to > causation arrival, and all of Physics is about cause and effect. You may > call it a perception thing, but I claim it goes WAY beyond superficiality. > 'Nuf said; I decline to enter a bickering contest. > -BB > > Is all motion relative? This is a programatic question. > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Physics cannot determine anything of reality. All we have are models of what we observe > and a hope that it represents reality. Physics is not metaphysics. Okay, but if you are dispensing with the reality question, then why bother to "hope," as you put it? Theories either work well or they don't, and that is the end of it. Why do you constantly dismiss knowing reality but talk about reality as some objective thing that underlies physics? If it's unknowable, as you claim, it should be unspeakable as well (deep reality, that is, not just phenomena). This is the instrumentalist view. Okay, let me clarify: I don't have a problem with someone talking about (deep) reality within their personal natural philosophy. I mind that their personal natural philosophy gets interpreted and foisted upon us as physics proper. Let's just agree to distinguish the two. Patrick > > > Is all motion relative? This is a programatic question. > > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Okay, but if you are dispensing with the reality question, then why > bother to "hope," as you put it? It's all we've got. > Theories either work well or they > don't, and that is the end of it. Not quite. How do you define *works well*? Actually, theories have varying degrees of reliability based upon such factors as repeatability, reliability of instrumentation, etc...... > Why do you constantly dismiss knowing > reality but talk about reality as some objective thing that underlies > physics? There's a difference between concluding that there is a reality and knowing what it is. Kinda like concluding that you exist but not knowing who you are. > If it's unknowable, as you claim, it should be unspeakable as > well (deep reality, that is, not just phenomena). This is the > instrumentalist view. Define unspeakable in this context. > Okay, let me clarify: I don't have a problem with someone talking about > (deep) reality within their personal natural philosophy. I mind that > their personal natural philosophy gets interpreted and foisted upon us > as physics proper. Let's just agree to distinguish the two. I don't accept that there are differing levels of reality. > > > > Is all motion relative? This is a programatic question. > > > > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > reliability based upon such factors as repeatability, reliability of instrumentation, > etc...... Physics is an invention, so too are its rules. Just invent the criteria you want and apply them fairly to all theories. > > Why do you constantly dismiss knowing > > reality but talk about reality as some objective thing that underlies > > physics? > > There's a difference between concluding that there is a reality and knowing what it is. > Kinda like concluding that you exist but not knowing who you are. I'm simply saying that in physics one doesn't need to talk about deep reality, and to do so creates a contentious atmosphere that harms, not helps, physics. > > If it's unknowable, as you claim, it should be unspeakable as > > well (deep reality, that is, not just phenomena). This is the > > instrumentalist view. > > Define unspeakable in this context. Just that we should voluntarily refrain from talking about the "unknowable" in physics proper. (This is a bit extreme of my position, but let's leave it for now.) > > Okay, let me clarify: I don't have a problem with someone talking about > > (deep) reality within their personal natural philosophy. I mind that > > their personal natural philosophy gets interpreted and foisted upon us > > as physics proper. Let's just agree to distinguish the two. > > I don't accept that there are differing levels of reality. Well, I never said that there is. It depends on what you mean by "levels." But there is a huge variation in meaning of the term "reality." It gets used to mean a lot of very different things to different people or even different things to one person in different contexts. There aren't diferent "levels" of cows, yet we are free to formulate arbitrary classifications of cows, if we want to. But this is beside the point. You keep talking about an unknowlable reality yet insist, not only that it exists, but imply that it is meaningful to think about your transcendent "reality." Meaning in physics comes from having some kind of intersubjective operation associated with it, otherwise the meaning is personal, not conventional. Science is not about personal opinions. Natural philosophy is though. Patrick > > > > > Is all motion relative? This is a programatic question. > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > Physics is an invention, so too are its rules. Just invent the criteria > you want and apply them fairly to all theories. That's not the point. By whatever criteria, how do you know if a theory works well? To what is its performance compared? The point here is that theories tell us nothing of reality. That which we observe as we test the theory has some degree of reliability. In order for these tests to tell us anything of reality, we'd have to be able to compare them to reality, and this cannot be scientifically done. > > > Why do you constantly dismiss knowing > > > reality but talk about reality as some objective thing that [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > reality, and to do so creates a contentious atmosphere that harms, not > helps, physics. OK, but stay focused, because this part of the conversation had to do with the ability to discuss the issue of reality without knowing what it is. The only discussion to be had about reality is that we don't have any way of knowing what it is. > > > If it's unknowable, as you claim, it should be unspeakable as > > > well (deep reality, that is, not just phenomena). This is the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > "unknowable" in physics proper. (This is a bit extreme of my position, > but let's leave it for now.) I agree. We cannot know what the reality is, and so we cannot discuss what it is. We can only discuss that we don't know what it is. That's not discussing reality, it's discussing our limitations. > > > Okay, let me clarify: I don't have a problem with someone talking > about [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Well, I never said that there is. You said there was a *deep* reality. If there's only one level of reality, then it all has the same depth and there's no need to use that relative term. > It depends on what you mean by > "levels." But there is a huge variation in meaning of the term [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > not only that it exists, but imply that it is meaningful to think about > your transcendent "reality." But there are no *deep* cows either. > Meaning in physics comes from having some kind of intersubjective > operation associated with it, otherwise the meaning is personal, not > conventional. Science is not about personal opinions. Natural > philosophy is though. > > Patrick > > > <reany@asu.edu> wrote in message [snip] > > There aren't different "levels" of cows, yet we are free to formulate > > arbitrary classifications of cows, if we want to. But this is beside > > the point. You keep talking about an unknowlable reality yet insist, > > not only that it exists, but imply that it is meaningful to think about > > your transcendent "reality." > > But there are no *deep* cows either. There are if you go ahead and define a meaning to them such that there are cows that fit the definition. Patrick > > > > <reany@asu.edu> wrote in message > [snip] [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > There are if you go ahead and define a meaning to them such that there > are cows that fit the definition. More slip and slide. *You* defined reality as being deep which implies that it has different depths. I'm challenging you on that point of multiple realities, and you simply slide into what different people might say. *You* are the one who used the term inappropriately and I'm asking you to defend your position. But of course, you can't. That's also why you snipped the rest of my post where I showed your position to be a failure. > Is all motion relative? This is a programatic question. It is obvious all motion is relative to a coordinate system because only wrt to a coordinate system can we measure position. Bill > So, what do you commit to: The earth really orbits the sun or that that > is a model being one of many possible models of which the reality of [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Patrick |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.