Unknowable Ontology?

[watcher]

.

Moderation Note: The following 14 Posts have been moved from Relativity of Motion discussion from “What is Time” where they were off topic.

.

what kind of chosen beliefs you have subscribed to think that things in themselves were forever unknowable and that ontology and epistemology are mutually exclusive? kantian? correct me if i am wrong, but you yourself in your approach chose an arbitrary definition of what ontology ought to be.

Originally Posted by AnssiH

Now perhaps that example also is pointing out how these arguments tend to turn into completely pointless bickering about what things supposedly are "in-themselves". A primordial "egg" is not an "egg" unless you say it's an "egg", and same goes for anything you can think of; you had to define it first didn't you? "Whatever you say it is, it isn't", everyone remembers what that means?

but that is half truth. and probably a wrong fundamental assumption to build a worldview. i'll say what ever you say it is, it is. the things in themselves as they represent themselves to us through our perception are the exact images of themselves. although we cannot have a "live telecast" of the events that took place, the same events that we witness in delay due to the finite speed of light is the same events that took place nonetheless.

How many out there feel like asking "what is time?" and suppose to find ontologically valid answer?
Ahhh [/rant] -Anssi

if you have chosen to answer the question based on data patterns and process, this is the becoming aspect of ontology. but traditionally the ontology of metaphysics seeks for the fundamental unitive substance (being) of space, time, particles, fields and what not. the valid ontological answer is that time has no physical or substantial reality because it is only a mental construct for measuring motions. particles? they are statistical eigenvalues. fields? who knows what they are. but space do exists, because we lived in it. it contains us and everything else. its being cannot be denied.

as kant said " space is not a concept".

[coldcreation]

Originally Posted by watcher

...the valid ontological answer is that time has no physical or substantial reality because it is only a mental construct for measuring motions. particles? they are statistical eigenvalues. fields? who knows what they are. but space do [does] exists, because we lived in it. it contains us and everything else. its being cannot be denied.

as kant said " space is not a concept".

Here, I think there is a confusion.

Space and time cannot exist alone, they are inseparable. If in ontology one can exist without the other then ontology is nonsense.

The importance of relativity, Einstein accepted, was to emphasize the idea that everything visible (matter) and invisible (the field) has a 4-dimensional geometric basis—an idea he associated with ‘the evolution of the notion of space and time into that continuum with metric structure.’

And in another way, Einstein writes: “the concept of space detached from any physical content does not exist.” General relativity “implies the representation of physical reality by a continuous field and as such, the propagation of light in ‘empty’ space rests on the notion of space and time, and the metric structure of the continuum."

Too: “There is no such thing as empty space, i.e. a space without field. Space-time does not claim existence on its own, but as a structural quality of the field.” He elaborates further, “the field is an irreducible element of physical description.” And, that “the totality of physical ‘events’ is thus thought of as being embedded in a four-dimensional continuous manifold.”

That is, three spatial dimensions and time.

CC

[jedaisoul]

Originally Posted by AnssiH

Yes and since you bring that up, I would like to comment that DD's analysis is very much revolving around that notion; some aspects of your worldview aren't "real" by themselves, and shouldn't affect the answers.

The symmetry constraints (that are succintly expressed as a single "fundamental equation") exist as "aspects of your explanation that cannot affect the answers". They cannot affect the answer because they arise as necessary symmetries during the transformation process from "unknown patterns" to "set of persistent entities".

Hi AnssiH
You refer to Dr D's "fundamental equation", and I note that in the "Dirac" thread he says:

Originally Posted by Doctordick

There is no need whatsoever to justify my model as I have shown that it is entirely general: i.e., there exists no communicable explanation of anything which cannot be analyzed from the perspective of my model. I need not argue that my view is the only rational view; I need only show that it provides a useful foundation from which real observations may be analyzed with confidence.

[snip]

I have brought together, in one expression the entire realms of physics represented by Newtonian mechanics, quantum mechanics, electrodynamics and relativity (both special and general). And all this without postulating a theoretical relationship but rather by deduction from the simple limitations required by self consistency.

That is quite a claim, and might be considered hubris, unless, of course, it is true. Also, it sems to me that mathematics is entirely reality neutral. E.g. It is possible to model the universe with eleven dimensions (the M-theory), but that does not make it real. So I'm doubtful of his claim "There is no need whatsoever to justify my model", as I would suspect (not knowing anything about the equation itself) that it's relevance to reality cannot be presumed. Self consistency alone does not make something real.

Are you aware of anywhere I can read an exposition of the "fundamental equation". I.e. Not just the mathematical equation itself, because that is likely to be meaningless to me, but an exposition of the meaning associated with the equation, and its derivation. I'd like to know how it brings together in one expression "the entire realms of physics represented by Newtonian mechanics, quantum mechanics, electrodynamics and relativity (both special and general)".

I acknowledge that this question should really be addressed to Dr D, but as you seem to be familiar with the equation, you may know the answer...

Thanks, jedaisoul.

[AnssiH]

Seriously guys, it can't be this difficult...

Originally Posted by watcher

correct me if i am wrong, but you yourself in your approach chose an arbitrary definition of what ontology ought to be.

You are not entirely wrong, but you are entirely besides the point. Of course you can define "ontology" differently, but why would you choose to do that? What's the point of using the word like you are using it in your post? Think about why the concept was invented, and what it's supposed to refer to. It's meant to refer to the "actual reality WITHOUT human definitions". If you insist that it refers to "whatever we can define", then all the ontologies are true, and from that circumstance the concept of "ontology" is meaningless... I hope you realize how you are straight back to square one.

what kind of chosen beliefs you have subscribed to think that things in themselves were forever unknowable and that ontology and epistemology are mutually exclusive? kantian?

I've subscribed to specific definitions of "ontology" and "epistemology", and incidentally to exactly those definitions that they were supposed to refer to.

but that is half truth. and probably a wrong fundamental assumption to build a worldview. i'll say what ever you say it is, it is. the things in themselves as they represent themselves to us through our perception are the exact images of themselves. although we cannot have a "live telecast" of the events that took place, the same events that we witness in delay due to the finite speed of light is the same events that took place nonetheless.

And that right there is spoken in terms of your definition, leading to conclusions such as "auras are ontologically real force fields around us". Hey, people are measuring them! And you can define it as such that they are what the electromagnetic measuring devices are detecting! So they are ontologically real?

The original point with ontology/epistemology separation was that we are referring to patterns/data/stuff/%#(#% of unknown nature, and as is the case with measuring human "auras", is the case with measuring "electrons". Electron is a name to a circumstance, epistemologically speaking.

if you have chosen to answer the question based on data patterns and process, this is the becoming aspect of ontology.

Subscribing to my definition of "ontology", no it's not an aspect of ontology; I have no idea what is the ontological nature, or what lurks behind those patterns, and I don't even care to think about that because when I do, I am already thinking about it in terms of things defined in my head.

It just seems like most of this difficulty about talking about this subject is coming from people not being able to comprehend that they are not really talking about reality at all, they are talking about DEFINITIONS overlayed on reality. Now Kant did not say "reality does not exist". He said, whatever you refer to as a reality, is already something YOU DEFINED. There's a great difference there.

but traditionally the ontology of metaphysics seeks for the fundamental unitive substance (being) of space, time, particles, fields and what not. the valid ontological answer is that time has no physical or substantial reality because it is only a mental construct for measuring motions. particles? they are statistical eigenvalues. fields? who knows what they are.

Exactly and most importantly the point of, how do you suppose you understand "what they are", apart via epistemological methods. <- Understanding that sentence requires that one subscribes to the original definitions of ontology and epistemology.

but space do exists, because we lived in it. it contains us and everything else. its being cannot be denied.

as kant said " space is not a concept".

Now Kant went a bit wrong there, in that space can certainly be defined in multitudes of ways, as has been shown clearly by now. And even the euclidean space that Kant had in his mind was entirely a function of defined objects (their behaviour). I.e. ontological nature of space is just as non-sensical idea as the ontological nature of "human aura" or "soul" or what have you. And if that sounds strange to you, I think you need to think really long and really hard about what do you know about space, and how do you know it; what do you know about those objects that tell you what space is, etc.

I hope you don't dive headlong into choosing a specific model and confuse it with ontology, as is clearly the case with Coldcreation's post above. "Space and time cannot exist alone, they are inseparable", that's true only if you choose to define things that way. And the last thing this thread needs is people reciting things they've heard somewhere without understanding what they mean or where those implications are coming from. (And I mean, the conventional understanding of electromagnetism leading to relativity)

-Anssi

[AnssiH]

Originally Posted by jedaisoul

Hi AnssiH
That is quite a claim, and might be considered hubris, unless, of course, it is true. Also, it sems to me that mathematics is entirely reality neutral. E.g. It is possible to model the universe with eleven dimensions (the M-theory), but that does not make it real.

Yes!

So I'm doubtful of his claim "There is no need whatsoever to justify my model", as I would suspect (not knowing anything about the equation itself) that it's relevance to reality cannot be presumed. Self consistency alone does not make something real.

Exactly.
He said that because nothing is referring to anything "real", everything is referring to epistemological symmetries (or their purely logical consequences); the significance is that physical relationships are found from there, instead of from the "ontological nature" of the data.

Are you aware of anywhere I can read an exposition of the "fundamental equation". I.e. Not just the mathematical equation itself, because that is likely to be meaningless to me, but an exposition of the meaning associated with the equation, and its derivation. I'd like to know how it brings together in one expression "the entire realms of physics represented by Newtonian mechanics, quantum mechanics, electrodynamics and relativity (both special and general)".

I acknowledge that this question should really be addressed to Dr D, but as you seem to be familiar with the equation, you may know the answer...

Yes, I'll give you a better reply later, just wanted to give a quick acknowledgement that I read your post and you are definitely on the right track.

-Anssi

[jedaisoul]

Originally Posted by watcher

...but space do exists, because we lived in it. it contains us and everything else. its being cannot be denied.

I agree with much of what you said, but I would point out that, as I understand it, the question is not of whether space exists, but whether it exists in and of itself. I.e. If all the physical entities of the universe were removed, would space still exist? I suggest not.

[coldcreation]

Originally Posted by jedaisoul

I agree with much of what you said, but I would point out that, as I understand it, the question is not of whether space exists, but whether it exists in and of itself. I.e. If all the physical entities of the universe were removed, would space still exist? I suggest not.

Field cannot be extracted from the meaning of space. So, unless one considers (say, in a thought experiment which has nothing to do with the physical world) that the field is 'nothing,' then, no, space cannot exist in and of itself (again, without field).

Your question: "If all the physical entities of the universe were removed, would space still exist?" is meaningless, since, all entities (e.g., the field) cannot, even in principle, be removed. (Again, too, doing so in a thought experiment is nonsensical).

I would add that there is a limit as to what can be extracted from space in the realm of quantum mechanics, as well as GR, from which the above field cannot be removed. There is a residual energy that will always remain, even after everything else is extracted, called zero-point energy (ZPE), sometimes called vacuum energy: the lowest possible energy that a quantum mechanical physical system may have. This is the energy of the ground state. The quantum mechanical system that encapsulates this energy is the zero-point field (ZPF); a concept first proposed by Albert Einstein and Otto Stern in 1913.

The concept of space, without field, and without ZPE/ZPF, is just as meaningless as the concept of space without time.



CC

[watcher]

Originally Posted by coldcreation

Here, I think there is a confusion.

Space and time cannot exist alone, they are inseparable. If in ontology one can exist without the other then ontology is nonsense.

The importance of relativity, Einstein accepted, was to emphasize the idea that everything visible (matter) and invisible (the field) has a 4-dimensional geometric basis—an idea he associated with ‘the evolution of the notion of space and time into that continuum with metric structure.’

And in another way, Einstein writes: “the concept of space detached from any physical content does not exist.” General relativity “implies the representation of physical reality by a continuous field and as such, the propagation of light in ‘empty’ space rests on the notion of space and time, and the metric structure of the continuum."

Too: “There is no such thing as empty space, i.e. a space without field. Space-time does not claim existence on its own, but as a structural quality of the field.” He elaborates further, “the field is an irreducible element of physical description.” And, that “the totality of physical ‘events’ is thus thought of as being embedded in a four-dimensional continuous manifold.”

That is, three spatial dimensions and time.

CC

after failing to unify the electro and gravity field, eisntein wrote ...

All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer to the answer to the question, 'What are light quanta?' Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it, but he is mistaken. … I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics. (Albert Einstein, 1954)

[watcher]

The concept of space, without field, and without ZPE/ZPF, is just as meaningless as the concept of space without time.

which leads to an inevitable conclusion. space is not empty nor nothingness.

space is the substance of the universe's being.
it can't be simpler than that.
fields in space is a redundancy.
continuous fields with matter particles in space is double redundant and a convoluted concept. as einstein have later realized.

[watcher]

Originally Posted by AnssiH

Seriously guys, it can't be this difficult...

You are not entirely wrong, but you are entirely besides the point. Of course you can define "ontology" differently, but why would you choose to do that? What's the point of using the word like you are using it in your post? Think about why the concept was invented, and what it's supposed to refer to. It's meant to refer to the "actual reality WITHOUT human definitions". If you insist that it refers to "whatever we can define", then all the ontologies are true, and from that circumstance the concept of "ontology" is meaningless... I hope you realize how you are straight back to square one.

anssi, i think you are the one making things difficult.
you are denying realism in the name of pure idealism. ontology doesn't meant to refer to actual reality without human definitions. this are the chosen grounds you have set to emphasize your arguments. you wanted to represent "what is" as it corresponds to our mental perception. i am saying that we can make direct representation of what actually exists.