What is time?

[ldsoftwaresteve]

dkv, I liked your statement that proposed using the characteristics of the smallest particle for measuring time and space. I liked it because it was kind of novel.

Still, it simply changes the units of measure. Time would be measured by using an event, nothing different from a clock or radioactive decay.

What causes the event within the smallest particle? What causes the change that we use as reference to measure other changes?

Perhaps I am making the same mistake as many of you are making, if indeed it is a mistake. I am working from a model, my model. And that model says that change is an effect and has a cause. I don't consider change as primary. I consider it as secondary.

So any discussion involves a model of existence. Or at the very least, it involves assumptions about the basic nature of existence and that sure feels like a model.

I would say that the cause of change is a fundamental thing. Perhaps it is the fundamental thing. Time is just our way of relating our awareness of one change to another.

There is one thing that we could actually conclude about change, in a generic physics sense. Since we can relate one change to another and the relationships remain constant, all change might have a common cause.

Forgive me if it sounds like I'm repeating myself. Each time I do, it feels like another layer being peeled away or my understanding is becoming more solid. This time I've included Ansii's 'fundamental' reference and hopefully in a proper and hygenic way.

[modest]

Originally Posted by AnssiH

Well, here I think I need to probe little bit to see where you stand.

Even if there is one "correct" way to define time and space - i.e. correct in that it perfectly coincides with the way time and space are metaphysically - do you think we would be able to find out? Considering that each definition contains a lot of unobservable features. (Note here that I include the ontological assumptions as part of our "definition of time and space")

Do you think it can be ontologically valid to identify some patterns ("objects") of reality as "ontologically same" from one moment to the next? (any definition of space requires you to do this for many patterns)
If it can be valid, do you think we could find out whether our definitions happen to coincide with some "ontological identity of things"?

You may be still using the word "ontology" differently than I do, and I may be reading you wrong, but it does seem to me like there are quite a few naive realistic assumptions in your thinking. So I thought I should remind you that my perspective on this is that the worldview - where the definitions for time & space exist - is something that is used to interpret a "data stream". I.e. the data coming from sensory organs is not metaphysically pictures and sounds; it's data to be interpreted as pictures and sounds (according to what the meaning of our sensory data is believed to be). Any aspect of that interpretation that you take as ontologically real amounts to a belief.

Hence any definition of space has to do with how some patterns have been identified in that stream. Whatever "space" means is largely a semantical issue.

As an interesting side note, all human communication includes a component of ambiguity exactly because of this reason; we all interpret each others according to our very own worldview... ...human communication becomes very tricky when we don't share the same paradigms. We are often so convinced of the validity of our own worldview that we don't think it's even possible to interpret the other person intelligibly... Like Kuhn said, one paradigm cannot be investigated from another.

Additionally I should mention that DD's epistemological analysis has to do with that same perspective; that we do not know anything about reality, but somehow we infer the meaning from completely unknown data. The investigation of "how that data can be modelled" has to do with certain symmetries that must exist in our view on that data exactly because we do not know what is its "ontological origin", so to speak. Certain interesting requirements for our models of time and space arise.

Admittedly this is somewhat tricky issue to communicate clearly when the other party is using different terminology and looks at reality somewhat differently. It's kind of like trying to explain to someone pre-Newton how a spaceship from Earth to Mars cannot really be said to "fly through space", apart from our conception of the situation. Certainly that person would take that assertion as clearly invalid, since he can clearly see the spaceship flying through space... ...the point is to concentrate on what semantical matters there exists. Like, is it Mars flying through space rather than the spaceship? And then to realize just what do we mean by "space" and what does it mean to "fly through it" etc... To see just to what extent human definitions give rise to our conception of reality.

The reality of time has one real form. Otherwise, it is logically inconsistent. Your rebuttal is that different people have different interpretations of time and you give a long description of how this is so. Did I say otherwise? You’re both off topic to the subject of the thread and my post that you’re responding to.

Originally Posted by AnssiH

You can make a multitude of ontological intepretations that conform to the predictable observations, because here the ontological interpretations are the assumptions regarding what happens behind our observations. Just like is the case with the different interpretations of QM.

The assumption that reality is a static spacetime block is just one interpretation.

Another would be that reality does not exist in any definite "now-state" before it is being observed.

Or one could imagine each inertial frame is part of a multiverse, i.e. we switch to a different "space" (where the "now"-states really exist differently from each others)

I would imagine, that in the middle of assumptions as far fetched as any of the above, one would be somewhat motivated to investigate the possibility that relativistic time relationships arise from our ways of defining reality rather than from these ontological options. I.e. take a look at that epistemological analysis.

Philosophy is part of science and is not immune to the dictums therein held. Minkowski’s ideas of space and time make useful predictions of the future. As such it has value past any description you just managed. So far your only objection to the current standard definition of space and time as dimensions is that other less useful interpretations exist. You apparently don’t want to advocate any of those - you’re just pointing out that they’re there.

Originally Posted by AnssiH

I said it is a semantical issue what is considered a variable and what is considered "law of physics". We created the definitions that lead us to such and such laws for those semantically defined entities. I think your comment "you are confusing variables with laws of physics" just shows that you assume the "laws of physics" and "parameters" are ontologically real, embedded somewhere in metaphysical reality rather looking at them as "tools of predicting reality".

Once again, philosophy is not immune. If you want to rearrange the laws of physics and fundamental variables that get put in them then go ahead. If it is consistent like our current understanding and makes similar or better predictions then I’m all for it. Otherwise what are you saying?

Originally Posted by AnssiH

Do you really think I was claiming that time dilation does not happen? I was just saying that in order for us to understand something as "time dilation", we had to define quite a few things in our worldview that way, and that there are always many possible paradigms that we could use the understand the same situation. Both would be just as valid predictionwise, and neither can be defended to be more real ontologically.

Yes, in order to understand time dilation we have to put some constraints on time. One obvious one is that time is real. But, there are others like time and space are intertwined. I’m not saying it is impossible to find differing interpretations of space and time. I’m saying we know a lot about the universe that would make many of those interpretations inconsistent - logically inconsistent. So, you can point out all day that other views of time exist - but until you present one that is consistent with the laws of physics that have been confirmed there is no particular argument you’re making.

Originally Posted by modest

Relativity is not a model. I normally wouldn't correct that, but it's important in the context of this discussion.

Originally Posted by AnssiH

Interesting; I would have said the exact opposite for the exact same reason; in the context of this discussion is important to understand just how relativity is a model. Perhaps I don't understand how you mean your assertion, or perhaps you have a naive realistic view on relativity. Well, in any case it would be interesting to know whether you abide to the "static spacetime block" view of relativity, or whether you have even thought about what reality might look like behind the math?

Perhaps it is helpful to know that I am coming at this largely from the angle of General Semantics;
General semantics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Also I noticed the Wikipedia page for "Metaphysics" includes "Space and time" section which includes metaphysical questions of space that just reveal some of those semantical aspects regarding how we understand time and space;
Metaphysics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I skipped few things because I didn't think they were very relevant. If you want a comment on something I've skipped, just ask.

-Anssi

Model and theory are precisely defined in science. Relativity is a theory.

Originally Posted by AnssiH

Physics is different from ontology. I think you are missing slightly the topic of this discussion when you bring in absolutely standard definitions of standard physics models.

And you are missing the point that physics is one of the best tools ontology has.

Originally Posted by AnssiH

The discussion is about what is reality like; what is it that makes those physics models valid.

You wonder why I’m bringing up physics when you say we are trying to figure out what makes physics models valid. Humm...

Originally Posted by AnssiH

Validity of a model means here that it produces correct predictions. The same observable predictions can always be achieved through different assumptions about unobservable reality (and different classification of the observable reality). But you keep insisting "time" is fundamental because you see it in our physics definitions. Other people are discussing what is it in our knowledge that allowed us to define something like "time" in our physics models.

I’m sorry, clearly the fact that all of science is built on the fundamental assumption that time is more fundamental than movement has absolutely no relevance to the topic of which is more fundamental

Originally Posted by AnssiH

Likewise, nothing can move without change. That is what ldSoftwareSteve was saying. The idea being that things change in our experience, and therefore a definition of time is sensical and can yield (together with identifying "objects") a valid predictive model of reality.

Either change is completely synonymous with movement in which case it has brought nothing to the table or it is different and no one has yet defined it. Either way there is no substantive argument here. Not in ontology nor in epistemology nor in any endeavor of science or reality. This is obvious and your objection is entirely based on the fact that I'm the one saying it.

I understand what softwaresteve is saying. I’ve seen that surface scratched many times. I’ve never seen where it’s going...

Originally Posted by AnssiH

That is, it is not really invalid when Modest says "time" is required by the physics models and without it motion could not be described. It is required by the physics models, but that does not mean reality works that way. You can take "motion" or "change" as fundamental (=without cause) property of reality, albeit you are not really able to defend this (and why that is so, should be pretty clear if you think about how we conceive anything in reality)

Likewise, it is not really invalid when ldSoftwareSteve says "change" gives rise to the definitions of "motion" and "time", when you talk about how do we come about perceiving reality the way we do.

You guys see how you are talking slightly next to each others?

On the contrary, you’ve just twisted steve’s point and my point into your own reasoning. For instance, when I say “no example can be given otherwise”, I’m not talking about physics models (nor theories nor laws). And, when steve says there are two kinds of change, he’s not talking about what you’re talking about. Every post you (probably inadvertently) steer the discussion into your ideas of expectations of reality. I understand why that is, but you might consider there are alternative methods and ideas that are in fact more historically useful than the concepts you continue reiterating.

Originally Posted by AnssiH

Like I mentioned before, the definitions of DD's epistemological analysis have got "changes" (to the undefined data) underlying concepts like "motion" and "time". But that is not an assertion about reality; it is just an assertion about our knowledge; We cannot really investigate objectively what is the underlying cause of the changes in that data, as we can only investigate that matter through the model we have built according to that data. It is important to note the word "model", because in that data by itself there are not explicit "objects" that "move".

Yes, I’ve followed DD’s theory for some time now and, again, I know exactly where you’re coming from.

Originally Posted by AnssiH

Yeah exactly, but also other way around, it doesn't really matter how ugly your description of reality is; if it makes correct predictions for the future it is valid. I have hard time understanding why some physicist comment that string theory, since it seems to have only unobservable properties differing from older physics models, is merely a philosophical bastardization of those old models. That implies that those physicist believe the old models somehow have ontological truth to them more than string theory.

On the contrary, it implies that string theory may not have any basis in reality. Multiple string theories have made identical predictions with different theoretical structure. Which is correct to reality? None make any useful predictions that can yet be tested so they are all outside the valid definition of scientific theory. String theory makes more assumptions about reality than the standard model.

Originally Posted by AnssiH

Well, both models yield same predictions; it would be far more objective to see them both as equally valid; I really don't see how either one could somehow be closer to ontological reality than the other if they really do yield exactly the same observable predictions. I see the arguments for and against equally valid models as the same as people arguing whether everything moves by invisible fairies carrying them or is it rather invisible elves. Neither can be said to be ontologically valid apart from simply believing so.

(Note btw how the definitions of string theory are also suddenly seen as ontologically real... "Reality has got 11 dimensions" etc... Ehh.... that's part of the definitions of the model, it means it is valid to model reality with such and such number of dimensions, but it doesn't mean suddently that is somehow ontologically valid. Who defined reality before we did? God? Don't think so)

To question the ontology of the standard model is questioning the existence of fundamental particles like electrons and photons. To question string theory is questioning strings. It’s in fact not even correct to say that both string theory and the standard model can’t both be right. They may well be. Would you say newton’s laws of gravity and Einstein’s GR can’t both be right? Yes, they can both be right and your description above is wrong.

Originally Posted by AnssiH

That is also semantics. One can conceive a situation where one particle disappears and another appears. Is that better described as "movement" or "change"? And who cares? More interesting is that you can also say quite confidently that there's no example of movement that didn't require change. Just, in a nutshell, we are not talking about how specific concepts are defined in specific physics models, but how do we come about defining any concepts at all, in ANY possible valid models.

It could be you don't see it reasonable at all to investigate epistemological issues behind our valid models, but I think it is reasonable already for the reason that it forces you to think about your models more objectively. It is like General Semantics in that it forces you to perform some mental hygiene; it forces you to classify certain features of your reality as semantical of nature, and certain features as objective logic. It makes you less prone to make arguments that are purely based on belief. You need belief in your everyday conception of reality, but not in your assertions about how reality is or what is "fundamental" (whatever "fundamental" means)

Yeah, just keep pointing out that there are different possible interpretations. Don’t give any examples or show how my interpretation is wrong. Your argument is equivalent to saying: You’re wrong because you could be wrong. What am I supposed to do with that?

Originally Posted by AnssiH

...it makes you less prone to make assertions like this. For someone coming into this discussion and not knowing you are referring to standard physics models rather than ontological reality when you say that, they would immediately assume you think that time is an ontological dimension, like a static canvas where future and past exists all the time and that you assume only your consciousness moves through that time.

Ok, take your paints back over to your canvas and paint your own picture. So far, it’s blank and I’m quite happy with mine.

Originally Posted by AnssiH

I doubt you see things that way, I can only assume you don't see ontological considerations of spacetime as reasonable at all? Since you know it is called Minkowski spacetime, I assume you also know that Einstein was not thinking in terms of spacetime at all when he put out the first papers of Special Relativity. That interpretation arose later. Have you thought what other interpretations are possible?

What other interpretations are possible?

Originally Posted by AnssiH

Did you read the "An unorthodox view on relativity" thread? It would be interesting to hear what you think about it. (I think I have provided enough material about ontological perspective of this for you to understand that predictionwise validity of relativity is not questioned at all)

http://hypography.com/forums/philoso...elativity.html

Yes, I have. And you’re absolutely correct - this discussion belongs there.

Originally Posted by AnssiH

Absolutely not. Physics is different from ontology and they should not be confused with each others. Valid model makes correct predictions in terms of things have been defined by them

Physics does a fine job of informing us of ontology.

Originally Posted by AnssiH

No, but objectively thinking, we should not assume any ontological reality to them either. An axiom is "true" within the model itself; it can be part of a valid (=makes correct predictions) and self-coherent worldview.

(I'm just jumping in here because it is clear you are dismissing many arguments by forgetting the difference between ontology and valid models)

Oh, I get why you’re jumping in here. I also can spot a “model” that makes no predictions. By the way, you like that word ‘model’ don’t you?

Originally Posted by AnssiH

Gravity is a good example because there exist many valid ways to model it and those valid ways can be interpreted ontologically differently. Objectively thinking, we should not make any assumptions as to the ontological reality behind the phenomenon we call "gravity". In that sense it is in fact somewhat wrong to say "gravity is ontologically real", since it is possible to model reality without ever invoking the idea of "gravity" as anything by itself; in general relativity for example, it is just a side effect of how "matter" and "spacetime" interact. i.e. just a name for some pattern we see.

I should mention also that seeing something "under the microscope" doesn't yield its ontological reality because we see reality the way we conceive it in our minds.

How we ‘model’ gravity in the ‘theory’ of general relativity doesn’t make it any less real. If mass curves spacetime and we see attraction between masses then gravity refers to that curved spacetime. Did you miss my point that there are real processes of the universe that we can’t touch?

Originally Posted by AnssiH

And it isn't. In my opinion it is only helpful. Mental hygiene.

I’m sure your view of reality is much better informed than Berkeley or Mach.

Originally Posted by AnssiH

This also implies you are confusing ontology and physical models. What we have is a model that predicts the future of some data. The explicit meaning of that data is not known, as the predictive model includes many arbitrary choices. That map not being the territory means exactly that; The map is a (valid) conception of the terrain.

No, this implies that you don’t know the difference between a model and a spacetime metric.

Originally Posted by AnssiH

Nor are they trying to do that. Physics is different from ontology. The realization is that we are absolutey required to create mental concepts in order to conceive reality at all. That is why there's a concept of "noumena", it refers to reality before it has been classifyed as "anything" by any predictive model, and one cannot make any predictions about such form (nor can such a form be conceived mentally, because mental conception is those concepts that have been created about the data)

Trust me, it is helpful to understand that distinction. Plus, suddenly reality seems even far more beautiful than how you first conceived it

It would be good mental hygiene for philosophy to realize why it has done so poor a job of informing science. I believe it is possible for this branch of science to make wonderful contributions. Unfortunately, when the objective is not real contribution, what can the outcome be? To think that definitions of time and space are suspicious merely for coming from science and having useful application. To think we need to write a thousand word essay on alternate interpretations without presenting even one. To object to something that has stood on it’s own validity for a century without offering one counter example. That’s not science and it sure shouldn't be philosophy.

~modest

[modest]

Originally Posted by ldsoftwaresteve

dkv, I liked your statement that proposed using the characteristics of the smallest particle for measuring time and space. I liked it because it was kind of novel.

There's a thread that is in line with this: Universal Scale.

~modest

[Overdog]

Modest:

Please do not assume that my empiricist challenge to your claim to knowledge is the same as the ontological one. I am still waiting for an explanation as to how you can know time has objective reality.

Why can't I know it, too? Prove it, show evidence, or admit it is your opinion.

I have no choice but to ask you this question, for the sake of my own integrity, and the integrity of science.

We have to answer to the same challenges we level against the creationists.

It's the right thing to do.

Otherwise, we cannot defend against their claim that science is religion, too.

Edit:

One other thing I'd like to add. If it weren't for the contributions of Philosophy, I suspect you would probably be living in a cave.

[modest]

Originally Posted by Overdog

Modest:

Please do not assume that my empiricist challenge to your claim to knowledge is the same as the ontological one. I am still waiting for an explanation as to how you can know time has objective reality.

Why can't I know it, too? Prove it, show evidence, or admit it is your opinion.

As I've replied to you before, the reality of time is an axiom and therefore by definition cannot be directly proved or disproved by a single observation.

Originally Posted by Overdog

I have no choice but to ask you this question, for the sake of my own integrity, and the integrity of science.

We have to answer to the same challenges we level against the creationists.

As I've replied to you before, there is no real system of the universe that needs god to be fully and completely described while every real system of the universe needs time to be fully and completely described. The evidence is therefore for the axiom of time and against that of god. I'm not sure what about this is unclear or what about it needs clarified for the integrity of science. It's a pretty common opinion.

Originally Posted by Overdog

It's the right thing to do.

Otherwise, we cannot defend against their claim that science is religion, too.

Science neither proves nor disproves things like time, gravity, and god. It uses whatever concepts are useful and does not add concepts that do not add value. God has never been needed in a physical law so it isn't yet part of science. Time is in almost every physical law and is therefore a useful part of science. I don't see the problem there, perhaps you can be more specific.

Originally Posted by Overdog

Edit:

One other thing I'd like to add. If it weren't for the contributions of Philosophy, I suspect you would probably be living in a cave.

I actually agree that philosophy is very useful. I could talk in depth about the usefulness of greek philosophy and if you look around these forums you'd see I have to some degree. There is, however, no use in philosophy shunning modern science. The two need to work together. Only when that happens will physicists start to realize they need an ontological interpretation of the theory they have (which may work quite well without that interpretation yet are incomplete as they stand) and the philosopher realize that laws, theories, and models of physics are indeed a valid description of reality - and a quite good one at that. They need to work together. Since it's appropriate, I'll quote the same old essay from the same old philosopher:

It is also, to an extent, a question that is separate from science--since a scientific theory may work quite well without out needing to decide what all is going on ontologically. Some realization of this, unfortunately, leads people more easily to the conclusion that science is conventionalistic or a social construction than to the more difficult truth that much remains to be understood about reality and that philosophical questions and perspectives are not always useless or without meaning. Philosophy usually does a poor job of preparing the way for science, but it never hurts to ask questions. The worst thing that can ever happen for philosophy, and for science, is that people are so overawed by the conventional wisdom in areas where they feel inadequate (like math) that they are actually afraid to ask questions that may imply criticism, skepticism, or, heaven help them, ignorance.

And despite how you've taken my last few posts, I agree with this. So chew on that before calling out my intentions again.

~modest

[Overdog]

Originally Posted by modest

As I've replied to you before, the reality of time is an axiom and therefore by definition cannot be directly proved or disproved by a single observation.

So you you cannot prove it.

As I've replied to you before, there is no real system of the universe that needs god to be fully and completely described while every real system of the universe needs time to be fully and completely described. The evidence is therefore for the axiom of time and against that of god. I'm not sure what about this is unclear or what about it needs clarified for the integrity of science. It's a pretty common opinion.

So it is an opinion.

Cool. No need to discuss the rest of it, it seems we are in agreement.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

In the heat of the moment, perhaps this discussion is turning chaotic.

And I for one am confused about a lot of what has been said, especially since this thread is asking what time is and it's under the Philosophy of Science umbrella.

So to imply that we shouldn't discuss the nature of time or even propose that it doesn't exist because 'science uses it and it works' so therefore it exists seems rather unfair.

So maybe I'm wrong here or quite possibly missing the point. What is the difference between 'Philosophy of Science' and just plain 'Philosophy'? And I don't want a reference to a body of work, I want a short and sweet version - something to the point. I don't want to contemplate Aristotle's Philosophy or Greek Philosophy, I want to know what the domain of philosophy is and where does the Philosophy of Science fit into it? I assume one subsumes the other.

What kinds of things are fair game and what are not?

And where do we, as beings trying to comprehend existence, fit into Philosophy? Is it a subject that is necessary and if so, why? What value does it provide? Because, if there are other creatures that are trying to do the same, it should apply to them too, right? But maybe I should wait until someone defines Philosophy first.

[dkv]

Originally Posted by ldsoftwaresteve

dkv, I liked your statement that proposed using the characteristics of the smallest particle for measuring time and space. I liked it because it was kind of novel.

Still, it simply changes the units of measure. Time would be measured by using an event, nothing different from a clock or radioactive decay.

What causes the event within the smallest particle? What causes the change that we use as reference to measure other changes?

Perhaps I am making the same mistake as many of you are making, if indeed it is a mistake. I am working from a model, my model. And that model says that change is an effect and has a cause. I don't consider change as primary. I consider it as secondary.

So any discussion involves a model of existence. Or at the very least, it involves assumptions about the basic nature of existence and that sure feels like a model.

I would say that the cause of change is a fundamental thing. Perhaps it is the fundamental thing. Time is just our way of relating our awareness of one change to another.

There is one thing that we could actually conclude about change, in a generic physics sense. Since we can relate one change to another and the relationships remain constant, all change might have a common cause.

Forgive me if it sounds like I'm repeating myself. Each time I do, it feels like another layer being peeled away or my understanding is becoming more solid. This time I've included Ansii's 'fundamental' reference and hopefully in a proper and hygenic way.

Thanks for liking the concept.
As I said the time is not just about change... it is about a periodic change...
Time cant be attributed to any object if it lacks periodicity in observational space otherwise we end with a absolute time which can not be used in different frame of references and it wont serve the idea of measurement.
Is it a conincidence that we can perceive time and space?
Is it a coincidence that we find periodicity in the motion of planets and atoms?
Is it a coincidence that we find periodicity in life?
No...
We are able to measure what we are intrinsically made of.
Similarly it will not be wrong to state that even particles carry an intrinsic time and properties of space.
Intrinsic time and space in a particle frame of reference is as good as the clock and rods of classical world... just like the heart which beats at regular intervals ,intrinsic time determines the world view from the point of view of particles...
That is why GR and SR can't be applied to cases where the particles are of different types... GR assumes all particles are similar in nature therefore it uses only geometrical relativity in space time.
However when we take into consideration the particle dependent time then some particles which are initially at rest will naturally appear to be moving slowly and some will appear moving fast relative to each other...
In other words there is no fundamental escape from the relativity which gives us the expansion of universe...

Your model is good... cause definitely leads to effect there is no doubt about that.. However relatively speaking the causes will appear due to intrinsic nature of time and space... when actually nothing has been happening.

I find the idea the very beautiful and complete.

[AnssiH]

So far your only objection to the current standard definition of space and time as dimensions is that other less useful interpretations exist. You apparently don’t want to advocate any of those - you’re just pointing out that they’re there.

Obviously I don't want to advocate the ontological reality of any of them, as that would be a completely arbitrary choice. A mere belief. It's like the argument of "fairies vs. elves".

If you want to rearrange the laws of physics and fundamental variables that get put in them then go ahead. If it is consistent like our current understanding and makes similar or better predictions then I’m all for it.

Yes, I'm glad you see things that way at least. You might be interested to follow DD's analysis because it sheds a lot of light on exactly this issue. Apparently one reason why people have not reviewed his work very much is that many people are unable to see that the definitions in their worldview really can be "rearranged" into a different but predictionwise equally valid model, much like algebraic equations can be rearranged. (And much like it is with algebra, you cannot just change one term in the equation and still keep it valid; you must change the whole thing into a different self-coherent set of definitions)

They cannot see this fact because they do not recognize how they investigate reality completely from within their valid worldview. Every day, they see the effects of the entities they believe to exist, and cannot trivially comprehend how could it be said they do not exist. They see those effects because that is how they interpret their sensory data. But those entities simply do not exist in different valid models, because they are not defined in that raw data that is to be explained. The noumena that gives rise to such definitions, can be considered "real". The definitions by themselves are immaterial references to those patterns. Including "gravity", "time" and "space". Simple as that.

You wonder why I’m bringing up physics when you say we are trying to figure out what makes physics models valid. Humm...

When you bring up physics, you are investigating the possibilities from within your worldview. There is not much wiggleroom there, as that is like investigating what single terms can be changed in an algebraic equation without making it invalid.

You need to begin from considerations of how some raw data stream could be defined in valid manner & without making undefendable assumptions about its ontological reality.

Either change is completely synonymous with movement

And when you investigate this from the point of view of defining undefined raw data, one particular issue that arises is that you need to somehow assume that certain features of that data are referring or "caused" by the "same object" from one moment to the next (and once again many different ways to define "objects" exist. For one that differs very much from Standard Model, see that Milo Wolff's definition of spherical standing waves).

"Movement" requires one to identify some pattern as the "same object" (i.e. there must be a definition for "object" that is said to be "moved")
In "change" one object disappears and another appears.

Note that we are very much talking about epistemological concepts; concepts that are used to understand reality. There is no way to probe the ontological reality of either assumption.

And that is why "change" is synonymous with "movement" only in your personal worldview. Otherwise such an assertion cannot be defended.

On the contrary, it implies that string theory may not have any basis in reality. Multiple string theories have made identical predictions with different theoretical structure. Which is correct to reality?

It implies none of the models - that make the identical predictions - may not have "any basis on (ontological) reality". Including Standard Model. You insist certain things in your own worldview are "real", while apparently you are able to question the ontological validity of some models. Like Overdog is saying, you are very much operating on beliefs.

Your comment also implies you think "the simplest" model must be the one that has got "basis on reality" while others don't. That is exactly the kind of ontological assumption you should not make. First, "simplest" by what criteria? And second, why on earth would reality be "like" the simplest way to describe it?

It is like asking people, who don't know how combustion engine works, to explain what is it that makes a car propel itself onwards, without looking what is inside. So the person who comes up with the simplest explanation is also correct to how that car works?

It’s in fact not even correct to say that both string theory and the standard model can’t both be right. They may well be. Would you say newton’s laws of gravity and Einstein’s GR can’t both be right? Yes, they can both be right and your description above is wrong.

Like I've said many times, they are all "valid", as in they make correct predictions about the raw data. There can always exist multiple valid models that explain ALL of our past; for all we know they are "right". But we also know they are not all "ontologically correct", as they explain the same phenomenon with different concepts.

Good understanding of epistemological concepts reveals that with very high likelyhood, none can be "ontologically correct", that sort of question is moot. That realization immediately lifts all valid models on the equal footing. And there's no reason to argue about elves and fairies.

What other interpretations [of relativity] are possible?

I've already mentioned few in post #448.

The assumption that reality is a static spacetime block is just one interpretation.

Another would be that reality does not exist in any definite "now-state" before it is being observed.

Or one could imagine each inertial frame is part of a multiverse, i.e. we switch to a different "space" (where the "now"-states really exist differently from each others)

Am I right to assume that you see spacetime as a static block where future and past exists all the time, and you therefore assume your "consciousness" is the only thing that is actually "moving" through that sapcetime? Don't worry, I am not here to argue about whether reality is like that; I believe that is a self-coherent way to see things. But I am somewhat worried if that really is the only interpretation that you think is possible?

How we ‘model’ gravity in the ‘theory’ of general relativity doesn’t make it any less real. If mass curves spacetime and we see attraction between masses then gravity refers to that curved spacetime. Did you miss my point that there are real processes of the universe that we can’t touch?

Did you miss my point of how we are the ones who define things and thus decide what constitutes a "process". You claim that your use of the word "real" does not mean you suppose it's more than our definitions of some unknown reality, yet you are ready to point out that "string theory" may not have any basis on reality. Well, it has got exactly the same basis on reality as any model of "gravity"; it explains the patterns we see.

It would be good mental hygiene for philosophy to realize why it has done so poor a job of informing science.

It has done a lot of good. For one, Einstein did need to investigate his "common sense beliefs" - step outside of his own personal worldview - to realize that it is indeed completely valid to define "simultaneity" - against all common sense - as relative to the direction of movement. Of course initially he had to battle a lot of people who were too immersed in their personal worldview to understand how such a definition could be valid.

Einstein did not, as far as I know, make any strong implications about the ontological reality behind the (predictionwise) validity of such a definition. I know he definitely did not like Minkowski's spacetime interpretation at first, albeit he did come to think of relativity in those terms later. (On the other hand he has also referred to things like "space" and "time" and "force" as "concepts", so I suspect he was trying to avoid the ontological questions of his models) And now we are in a situation where spacetime interpretation is quite common, and very many people are too immersed in it to see how different definitions are indeed quite possible.

Here's another fun fact about the history of physics. Ludwig Boltzmann was the person who managed to model the behaviour of gases in terms of kinetic behaviour of "atoms" and "molecules". Although that model was predictionwise valid, the scientific community at the time was too immersed in their personal worldviews to believe such things as "atoms" or "molecules" could really exist. Boltzmann become so depressed by the ridicule from the scientific community that he eventually hanged himself. (Before scientific communite became to accept his model... ...of course immediately assuming model = reality)

These days of course many people are absolutely convinced "atoms" and "molecules" are ontological things by themselves. All I can say is, if a model makes valid predictions, it can be used! Rest is belief. That should be the contribution of philosophy to science.

Other way around, one thing where physical models are helpful for ontological considerations is that when you think about a lot of alternative models and their interpretations, you can see how different self-coherent definitions really are possible. Such is the case with QM also. And different ontological interpretations of relativity imply different ontological interpretations for QM. For one, static spacetime implies transactional interpretation for explaining Bell Experiments. You (and everyone else thinking about "time") might find this interesting;

Quantum mechanics and spacetime

Also Bell Experiments are interesting in that they by themselves imply absolute simultaneity; they can motivate one to interpret relativistic relationships in a manner that makes absolute simultaneity ontologically real. And yes, against all the intuition that you have inside your personal worldview, such interpretation indeed is completely possible.

In the end, I should reiterate that the one view on relativity - that I find quite reasonable and if DD's treatment has no fata flaws can be logically proven - is that the relativistic transformation between inertial frames is an unavoidable consequence of how entities can be defined in any "raw undefined data", if you do it self-coherently and without undefendable assumptions. It took us a long time to end up with relativistic transformations in our physics models because we were so slow to drop off those "undefendable assumptions", one by one, from our models.

That, if anything, would be a fair contribution of epistemology & ontology to science. Too bad most people are too immersed in the validity of their personal worldviews to investigate such possibility

-Anssi

[ldsoftwaresteve]

This reminds me of meetings I've been in where the person who called the meeting forgot to bring documents and pictures to talk about. The phrase, 'on the same page' has its roots in those situations. People are talking and nodding or disagreeing but nobody is communicating. We're talking about different things.

Perhaps it's because we don't have an adequate way of referencing that which is below the object level or, it's too easy to get sidetracked or both.

Everything has been said. Now, how do we go back and analyze it without creating more noise?

Well, I guess I was wrong. Just read Ansii's response and he has more to say and I want to read it all. I did.

Ansii, thanks. I'm learning that I wasn't as far off as I thought. This time I think I understood almost everything you said. The only thing I would suggest is to not let us fools drag you down and stop you from helping DD.