Philosophical implications of Einsteinian physics

[TINNY]

I don't know much. So it would be nice if people can explain why it is such a big deal. There are some who speculate that the special characteristics of light has something to do with spirituality. And I've also seen (not read) an article about this topic by the British logician-philosopher Bertrand Russell. I prefer you explain instead of listing out links although its better than nothing.

[Tormod]

Okay, I for one will need more to go on than this. Do you have any links to sites where I can read about the connection between light and spirituality (as related to Einstein and not just the importance of light to the human psyche)?

I don't know much.

Yes, your favorite quote. I don't believe it for a second, old friend.

[Tormod]

Here is one link which links Russell with light, but I don't see any connection with relativity:

Russell: The Metaphysician's Nightmare
http://www.luminary.us/russell/metaphysician.html

And here are some interesting quotes from
http://cns-alumni.bu.edu/pub/slehar/quotes/russell.html

To say that you see a star when you see the light that has come from it is no more correct than to say that you see New Zealand when you see a New Zealander in London. Your perception when (as we say) you see a star is causally connected, in the first instance, with what happens in the brain, the optic nerve, and the eye, then with a light-wave which, according to physics, can be traced back to the star as its source. Your sensations will be closely similar if the light comes from a lamp at the top of a mast. The physical space in which you believe the "real" star to be is an elaborate inference; what is given is the private space in which the speck of light you see is situated. It is still an open question whether the space of sight has depth, or is merely a surface, as Berkeley contended. This does not matter for our purposes. Even if we admit that sight alone shows a difference between an object a few inches from the eyes and an object several feet distant, yet you certainly cannot, by sight alone, see that a cloud is less distant than a fixed star, though you may infer that it is, because it can hide the star. The world of astronomy, from the point of view of sight, is a surface. If you were put in a dark room with little holes cut in the ceiling in the pattern of the stars letting light come through, there would be nothing in your immediate visual data to show that you were not "seeing the stars". This illustrates what I mean by saying that what you see is not "out there" in the sense of physics.

and

There is no direct spatial relation between what one person sees and what another sees, because no two ever see exactly the same object. Each person carries about a private space of his own, which can be located in physical space by indirect methods, but which contains no place in common with another person's private space. This shows how entirely physical space is a matter of inference and construction.

But I still lack the step between Russell and Einstein.

[TINNY]

Yes, your favorite quote.

I just realized that too. Funny how you notice such small things. Anyway, that's cool. I'm putting it on my signature.

[sanctus]

Originally Posted by TINNY

I don't know much. So it would be nice if people can explain why it is such a big deal.

I guess you know why it is a big deal, it revolutioned the way the world was seen! All the people resaerching on the existence of the ether were told that the ether doesn't exist. Think for example about the Michelson and Morley experiment, they invested I don't know how much time in trying to prove the existence of the ether and Einstain theory just tell them that their tentative was to in vain.
Adding to that, I guess you know that einstein got the Nobel price, but did you know that his theroy was to revolutionnary so that they preferred (i.e they weren't courageous enough) giving him the price for his explication of the photoelectrical effect.

The simplest reason to see why it is revolutionnary is that before adding to the ether, there seemed to be (at least many believed) something like an absolute time scale (see Galileo transformations), his theory stated that there exists no such scale, time is slow or quick only when compared to another time scale. If this is not revolutionnary.
It's enough to look a bit into it and you'll see there is already a lot of revolutionnary stuff, that changed the global worldview (and is therefore a philosofical implication), without needing any spiritual elements.

[TINNY]

Thanks, Sanctus. Easily understood. Is there any metaphysical implications?
I don't understand any of B. Russell's.

[sanctus]

Yes, there is and it's the one you want it to be.
I mean, you can see the metaphysical implications how you want, i.e:
for somebody it might mean that god exists as the speed of light is finite and constant and therefore the principe of causality is conserved and therefore there is some kind of order in the universe, what implies the existence of god;

for somebody else it might mean that god doesn't exist as the speed of light is finite and constant, which means as well there is nothing which interacts with our world that travels faster than light and therefore an all knowing god can't exist, because he couldn't know something at the same time that is separated in space.

Who is right? Both and nobody , because it's just a matter of interpretation.

At least that's the way I see it.

[TINNY]

You're saying that interpretations are subjective? That there can't be a correct one and a wrong one?
I think it depends on your worldview and purpose. So the correct one is one that best explains your worldview or achieves your purpose. As you said, it's how you want it. But... no... can't be arbitrary... uh I'm confused.

for somebody else it might mean that god doesn't exist as the speed of light is finite and constant, which means as well there is nothing which interacts with our world that travels faster than light and therefore an all knowing god can't exist, because he couldn't know something at the same time that is separated in space.

At the speed of light, time does not pass right? So light can be anywhere instantaniously thus know everything. But then, from our perspective, it would take time for the light to arrive. I don't quite understand this part. Is this the twin paradox thingy? Also, all forms of information is stored by light energy and transmitted through light energy and there is no knowledge beyond that intrinsic to lights, right?

There are many popular science books about this right? What does it say? I've never read any -can't understand them.

[sanctus]

Originally Posted by TINNY

You're saying that interpretations are subjective? That there can't be a correct one and a wrong one?
I think it depends on your worldview and purpose. So the correct one is one that best explains your worldview or achieves your purpose. As you said, it's how you want it. But... no... can't be arbitrary... uh I'm confused.

Why shouldn't it be possible that's arbitrary? It fits very well in my worldview. If you think it's not arbitrary, it fits very well your worldview and for you your interpretation is the correct one. Nothing to be confused about, only that if you got the latter worldview it must be hard to accept the former, while the other way around it works very well. I guess that's why you are confused and I'm not.

Originally Posted by TINNY

At the speed of light, time does not pass right? So light can be anywhere instantaniously thus know everything. But then, from our perspective, it would take time for the light to arrive. I don't quite understand this part. Is this the twin paradox thingy? Also, all forms of information is stored by light energy and transmitted through light energy and there is no knowledge beyond that intrinsic to lights, right?

There are many popular science books about this right? What does it say? I've never read any -can't understand them.

I'm only pretty sure, not 100%, but I believe that at the speed of light time passes as well as anywhere else. The diffculty about all this is that it's relative (funny how the most popular phrase of physics isn't as trivial as it seems). Relative means that, for you time passes always the same rate independently of the speed you are (i.e you will always feel a second as a second), but your time might be slower or quicker THAN for somebody in an other referencial system; that's why time is relative.Time is only slow or quick in relation to another time.

[TINNY]

only pretty sure, not 100%, but I believe that at the speed of light time passes as well as anywhere else. The diffculty about all this is that it's relative (funny how the most popular phrase of physics isn't as trivial as it seems). Relative means that, for you time passes always the same rate independently of the speed you are (i.e you will always feel a second as a second), but your time might be slower or quicker THAN for somebody in an other referencial system; that's why time is relative.Time is only slow or quick in relation to another time

assuming that the photon is conscious, then the photon will feel it is taking a long time to get to places? but that we see it moving instantaneously? or is it the other way around?

Why shouldn't it be possible that's arbitrary? It fits very well in my worldview. If you think it's not arbitrary, it fits very well your worldview and for you your interpretation is the correct one. Nothing to be confused about, only that if you got the latter worldview it must be hard to accept the former, while the other way around it works very well. I guess that's why you are confused and I'm not.

what is the purpose of interpreting? is it to lend support to our ideology? like for example, a national leader wants to wage war, then he will interpret survival of the fittest as a justification that fighting and destroying other race/nation is necessary for the . And his interpretation cannot be wrong as long as the scientific data is right?
maybe i should ask it this way: is science neutral?
or: natural science is neutral and social science is subjective?