Quote:
Originally Posted by modest
You seem not to allow for the possibility that my last post says explicitly that you are not presenting an alternate view of relativity - which I did.
|
What I am doing does indeed bring up the issue of an alternate view of relativity but that is really not the real issue of my presentation. I bring up the issue of relativity and the fact that there are alternate views only to encourage people to examine the derivation of my fundamental equation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by modest
I fully accept that one day ‘time’ and ‘space’ may not be the fundamentals that we label them today.
|
Or perhaps we might come to understand exactly why “time” and “space” are useful concepts for explaining a universe that, in reality, requires neither.
Quote:
Originally Posted by modest
Until that happens, I will continue to use them as fundamental and useful. I will also advocate their usage as it has proven useful time and again.
|
No where am I suggesting that one should not use these concepts; I simply derive them from very fundamental issues.
Quote:
Originally Posted by modest
An object rotates in space some 5 times. I contend that it’s position is a function of time. This is incomplete because there is also the notion of past and future which your definition deals with – but it does not deal with anything else which is a huge gaping hole.
|
You have proceeded to a circumstance (a full blown epistemological construct) without ever considering the constraints on those unknown ontological elements upon which that construct has been built. If you follow my deduction you will discover that,
using my definition of time, I deduce what I call my fundamental equation which your expectations must satisfy. In fact, I further prove that Schroedinger's equation is an approximation to my equation (and it is not difficult to prove that any Newtonian many body solution is an approximation to Schroedinger's equation). Take a look at the thread, “Deriving Schroedinger's Equation from my Fundamental Equation”. You must comprehend that any “object” your world view might define will essentially be described as obeying Newtonian mechanics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by modest
Markedly that we already know the past and we can only predict the future.
|
You cannot predict the future; you can only express your expectations for the future and, the most rational expectation is that any epistemological construct which flawlessly agrees with everything you know (the past) will most probably yield satisfactory expectations for the future. If it doesn't than the epistemological construct immediately becomes flawed. Considering the vast amount of information going to make up your past, it is highly doubtful that the next moment will include enough information to destroy your current world view.
Quote:
Originally Posted by modest
However, what in your definition distinguishes the three past rotations from each other? Nothing!
|
What you miss is that my fundamental equation is a many body equation including every entity in the universe. Certainly, if the entire universe were to come to a state which exactly matches a previous state, nothing would distinguish those two states. But that circumstance is highly unlikely at best.
Quote:
Originally Posted by modest
What I’m saying here is not that what you’re saying is wrong – just that it’s incomplete.
|
And what I am saying is that it is entirely complete; the additional machinations you want to perform are totally unnecessary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by modest
I do contend there are things in my past that are unknown to me.
|
But you will learn of them in the future and you are free to put any numerical reference number you wish on those things (that is a consequence of your epistemological construct). I am talking about the equation that epistemological construct must obey, not what that epistemological construct is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by modest
I don’t have to understand reality to assume there exist things outside my knowledge. I only have to assume my knowledge is not infinite.
|
That is, what you know is finite. Have you considered what consequences that has upon the possible flaw free epistemological constructs? I have and I have logically deduced the fact that my fundamental equation must be valid under the definitions I have provided.
Quote:
Originally Posted by modest
Because, taken as a description of reality, it makes the incorrect assumption that reality is completely known and understood by an individual.
|
No, that is not true. What you are failing to consider is the fact that your past includes evidence your world view is a valid epistemological construct. That is why I always comment about intelligence being a data compression mechanism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by modest
A description of the extent of an individual's epistemology does not make a good, real, and correct description of reality.
|
I never said it did; what I said was that it is the determiner of their expectations, quite a different matter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by modest
When you try to describe one as the other it leads to inconsistencies as I've shown above.
|
As far as I am concerned, you have shown no inconsistencies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ldsoftwaresteve
How long has this been going on.... I'm thinking of a song....
|
Long enough to depress the hell out of me. I first tried to publish in the academic journals back in 1982. I don' t think a referee every saw it. The editors simply returned the stuff to me with the comment that it was not the kind of thing they published. (I suspect they couldn't come up with a rational choice for a referee.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Overdog
Well, if I understand you, you are saying you are not argueing from any philosophical position, so if I have mistaken it for a form of constructivism, my apologies. It sounded like a form of constructivism to me...
|
Well, perhaps it is but it certainly does not begin with any assumptions. Essentially, any epistemological construct must be based on some ontological basis. I merely take that ontological basis as an unknown and examine the implied constraints on a flaw free epistemological construct.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Overdog
So you have in any case found a mathematical basis for pointing out that anything anyone says is an assumption?
|
I might agree with that and I might not agree as I do not really know what you mean. People discover epistemological constructs which apparently yield flaw free explanations of their experiences. They cannot do this without having some ontological basis so that epistemological construct includes the assumption of those ontological elements upon which it is based. Does that mean that “anything anyone says is an assumption?” I would certainly never put the issue that way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erasmus00
Which part of the statement? The idea that if GR cannot be quantized because past knowledge lets you know future knowledge then this implies Newton cannot be quantized, or the fact that you CAN quantize Newton?
|
My complaint with Einstein's general relativity is the fact that it is based upon a geometry which uses time as a coordinate; this fact is what makes it totally inconsistent with quantum mechanics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erasmus00
You'll forgive a vagueness of language. Your claim was that the deterministic nature of the theory (i.e. if we know the past, we can know the future) is the reason that GR cannot be quantized.
|
No, that is not what I was saying. What I was saying was that it was Newton's idea that if we knew the past exactly, we could know the future, which led Einstein's to conclude that time should be a coordinate of the correct geometry. In my opinion, that decision was the most erroneous step one could take. I think Einstein took Newtons space time diagrams of dynamic phenomena far too seriously.
Have you looked at that parametrized representation of a valid general relativistic physics problem I posted on physicsforums.com?
Have fun -- Dick
