Quote:
|
Originally Posted by niin
Would it not be more accurate to say that for two things to interact...they would have to share the same time?
Would you not agree...that they cant really share the same place (space)?
i guess you do, but i would like to know for sure.
|
I think it very much depends upon what you are talking about and exactly what you mean by "sharing". Under the common understanding of Bosons, they have no problem sharing the same space. But my position on these issues is not so simple as your question implies. But, with regard to space and time, I would point out that interaction wise on an anthropomorphic level they are quite different from one another. Most of us have a reaction time on the order of a tenth of a second. Light, roughly the fastest thing around, can go completely around the earth in that time. Thus, again anthropomorphically speaking, being in the same place is no where as critical as being at the same time.
Thus it is that one could seriously contend that there might be "action over a distance" without seriously confronting difficulties in our anthropomorphic view of personal experience; however, direct physical interaction between entities existing at observably different times becomes a thing much harder to accept as a common experimentally examinable phenomena. Forensic scientists would love to have a machine which would detect exactly what existed in a given space yesterday.
Actually, a scientific construct consistent with experiment is rather a different issue which needs to be carefully established.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by niin
What philosophical issues?
|
Oh, I could make those quite clear if I could find someone who could understand my paper
"A Universal Analytical Model of Explanation Itself". To date, I have pretty well failed to achieve that and I doubt success will occur any time soon. You claim an interest in logic; perhaps I could interest you.
I went into physics because physics seemed to be the only field which relied only on things it could prove had to be so. As a child, I was always very concerned with what was true and what was bull. I was very much schooled on that old adage, "anyone who believes more than ten percent of what he hears, fifty percent of what he reads, or ninety percent of what he sees with his own eyes is gullible" and I took it quite seriously. In most fields, it is quite difficult to figure out what one should believe but physics and math seemed to have a handle on the issue.
By the time I got to graduate school, it began to dawn on me that physics was actually as bad as any other field when it came to the foundations of the field. Mathematics on the other hand, I find to be somewhat immune from these problems. Personally I define mathematics to be the invention and study of self consistent systems and, as such, there is nothing to believe except the conclusions following from the axioms: that is, the whole field is essentially tautological. But physics claims to be otherwise. That is, physics claims not to be tautological. However, when one gets down to the fundamental underpinnings of physics, it seems to me that there are some major problems unrecognized by the academy.
When I was a graduate student (many long years ago) I happened to read
Gamow's "Mr. Thompkins in Wonderland". It was a lot of fun and pointed out some interesting things; however, the section about QM (a world where Planck's constant was a large number) was clearly wrong. At the time I made a somewhat concerted effort to lay out a correct picture but found that I could not. In essence, Planck's constant is in so many different relationships that I could not find a starting position I could have confidence in (that would be circumstance where all of the foundations upon which the argument was to be built were independent of the value Planck's constant). At the time, I was left with the very strong impression that Planck's constant was defined in a circular manner. (I commented to a professor and got the response, "get your head out of your ass, there is nothing circular about the definition of Planck's constant" so I dropped the issue.)
As time went on, I found more and more relationships which seemed very much to be defined in a circular manner when carefully examined on a fundamental level. At this point, I am myself convinced that Physics is indeed a tautology as I have actually worked out the tautology in detail. However, I have never been able to communicate the entirety of my logic to anyone. Over the years, I have condensed the essence of my discovery into a document of around three thousand words (the url given above), but have found no one willing to examine the logic. Whether it is the abstract nature of the logic, the alien nature of my approach or simple misunderstanding of the steps I do not know as no one has ever informed me as to on what step they dropped the thread of my logic. Most never talk to me after seeing the document. A few pay little attention to what is said there and just misinterpret and disparage some little detail in order to justify not reading it but the far more common behavior is to just go away.
If I can find anyone who can follow the logic behind the equation expressed at the end (which is a totally tautological construct) the rest of physics can be expressed entirely in terms of solutions to that equation which is not at all difficult to demonstrate (that is where the issue of representing time arises). One would think I ought to have it over standard physics fundamentals by appeal to Occam's razor if nothing else as I manage to express the entirety of physics in one succinct equation.
The real question is: "Is physics a tautology or not?" Now maybe you see why physicists abhor me. I think they see me as the anti-Christ of the scientific community.
Have fun -- Dick
