Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Eise last won the day on November 27 2019

Eise had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

417 Beacon of Hope


About Eise

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Location
    the old world
  • Favorite Area of Science
    Physics, Astronomy
  • Biography
    University degree philosophy, subsidary subject physics
  • Occupation
    Database administrator, a bit of Linux too

Recent Profile Visitors

8222 profile views
  1. Flying a helicopter is definitely not easy. I don't know about modern helicopters, with a lot of computer assistance, but I think professional pilots must still be able to do it the hard way so they can handle emergency situations. A small simulator experience, like yours: I once played around with the flight model simulator. In the beginning I did not even succeed in flying forward. I just curved up a little forward and then the helicopter fell back along more or less the same trajectory, going backwards and up. Like a pendulum. As soon as I changed some other rudder, I went really forwards, but also down, so I had to increase power, which brought me again in a pendulum like movement etc. Just realise that the flight model simulator is made to learn to fly plane and helicopter models, so it better be realistic, otherwise you would crash your dear flight model on your first real flight. On the other side, models of course do not behave exactly as their real counterparts. Why don't you try a helicopter crash course? My son once did that. 3 Evenings theory, and then half an hour real flight. Costs were about 600 bugs, which at the present exchange rate might be about $600.
  2. Sorry, dimreepr, but most of the times I am missing concreteness in your reactions. I discovered that when I react to possible interpretations of vague arguments or questions I have to write a long reply, then I get another short reaction that at one side seems to show that I interpreted you wrong, and at the other side forces me to write another long reply, etc. And then you react you do not have the time/energy/intention to read long texts... If the topic interests you, I would suggest to illustrate your questions or arguments with examples, preferably taken from real life, that can give your reactions the clearness for a fruitful discussion. It is true, iNow and me are trained in scientific, resp philosophical discourse, and so we can meet (and cross swords...) on a pretty abstract level. But that in itself is not a sign of intelligence, it just means we are used to the words (I hesitate to write '.. and concepts ...'), and ways of thinking. But abstract thinking can also hide a lot of differences and nuances. Therefore I often ask for concrete, real life examples. If an abstract concept really means something to a speaker, shows itself if the person can still make the connection with concrete life. And that also reduces the chances that two people use the same word, but think different things by it.
  3. Well, I am pretty sure that I did not design myself. What I am, at least originally, is of course beyond my control. Just as a real life example, my wife very much likes fruit, vegetables raw and cooked etc. But I like chocolate, beer, whiskey, smoking etc. So I said to her she is awfully lucky that she exactly likes food that is healthy. But I cannot change myself (well, a tiny bit maybe). 'I' am build up by many influences, most outside my control. But they made 'me' who 'I' am. And if 'I' can act according to who I am, I am free. There is only one person who decides if you will react again on this posting: you. But 'you' came not from thin air, you have a (causal) history. It build up your character, made you to the person you are now. The question if you are free or not has to do with how well you can act according to what you have become.
  4. Yes. I see that you use 'being able to want what you want' as definition of free will. Doesn't that sound absurd?
  5. Isn't this an open door? This sounds nearly as 'OK, it is your opinion'. A showstopper that is as good as 'it is just semantics'. I use the simplest definition of free will that I know of: being able to do what you want. Whereby the 'you' is that bag of water, that hears, speaks, walks, acts, thinks, creates scientific theories etc, not some entity in the bag of water, that is supposed to be causally independent from the rest of the body or universe.
  6. No, it doesn't. The example shows that personality trades can change under the influence of parasites. But the concept of free will (or its counterpart 'coercion') applies to the relation between what you want, and what you do, not just on your character. Say, I have drunk too much alcohol, and under its influence I want to balance on a balustrade of a 100 meter high bridge. Happily enough my friends stop me from that, but that means they are limiting my free will (on good grounds of course) at that moment.
  7. As the antecedent is true, so is the consequent... No. Normal rotations are rotations in space, not of space. Same with rotations in spacetime: they are not rotations of time, space or whatever. That seems a contradiction to me. When we cannot receive information from another parallel universe, then how can any mass or energy have an impact on our universe? I think your use of 'magic' shows what your speculations definitely are not: science. And to repeat it once more: time and space are interrelated, but they are not the same.
  8. I stand corrected. I should have mentioned them in the reverse order: movement in time only (object does not change spacial coordinates) or movement in time and space. Thanks, I rather not contribute to the confusion...
  9. Only if you take it too literally. Here again (as in see1 and see2, as in free will) one should be very clear what one means with the concept. I always find it helpful to start with the meaning in daily life. There the concept of 'moving' is very clear. It means that an (identifiable) object is at a certain place at one moment, and at another place a moment later. (I let out all kind of details, like continuity, I don't think we need them here.) So 'movement' is always movement in space. So if we want to know if something is moving, we compare the spacial coordinates at a certain time with the coordinates of the same object at a later time. Now, slowly going to 'real physics' it means there is a dependency of location on time. One step further: in movement we express the location as a function of time: at T0 A was at X0, at T1 A was at X1,at T2 A was at X2, etc. So you could put T and X in a graph from which you can read the location of the object for every time. Or: if you vary the time, you can read from the graph at which location the object is at every time. But what you clearly see (!) is that movement is a function of time. That means time and location do not play exactly the same role. That fact however disappears a little under the carpet when one makes spacetime diagrams, simply because time and place are both depicted as distances on paper (or screen in these days...). This is the spell that Michel12345 is suffering under. As to your question: does an object lying still on the ground move? In the daily life meaning: definitely not, because its space coordinates stay the same. Only when you add 'move through time' the confusion begins. In the sense 'does any coordinate of the object change?' then yes, the time coordinate changes. In the sense 'does any space coordinate of the object change?' definitely no. Special for you: maybe we should introduce move1 (change in space coordinates only) and move2 ((change in any coordinate, including time). Now, as a great aside: mathematically, many functions (called injections) have an inverse function. In this case that means one can see it the other way round: time is a function of location. That is generally not true for movements in space (you can return to the same location at another time), but we have special devices for which it is true: clocks. The location of the hands of the clock define the time (OK, you need a calendar too, but that is a minor detail...)
  10. You forgot my 2nd sentence: If you have the same location through time, then you only move in time, which means persisting in time in this case. When you change location, you are not only moving in time, but also in space. And you still persist in time. So 'persisting' has nothing to do with it. That is what objects always do, until the moment of destruction: persisting. I recognise my car when it stands still, and I still recognise it as my car when my wife drives with it. 'Persistence' is simply the way of being of certain kinds of metaphysical entities, identifiable as the same object through all kind of processes. So they can play a role in different events. And events do not persist: they only exist at an exact time and place. No, that does not make a Block Universe yet. It is just a spacetime map. You cannot draw any (meta)physical conclusions from it.
  11. My toes curl in their shoes... This is so utterly confused! Just read carefully, I cite, and emphasise: it occupies one unique set of coordinates" (only one time coordinate for one's current location in spacetime) But at a previous location it was another time coordinate, so another unique set of coordinates. Both are points on the world line on the spacetime map. Slowly I have the feeling I am debating the colour of a rose with somebody who is red/green colour blind, but denying that that is the case, and says that the flower and the rest of the plant have the same colour.
  12. I do not quite understand your question. Or it is obvious: the phrase "A was sitting at X0 at T0" means "The object called 'A' was sitting at X0 at T0". So there was an object at hand. No. The space (X0) where A was at T0 is (possibly) empty now. But it definitely was not at T0. The problem you seem to have is that on one side you are right that spacetime is a kind of unity, but but on the other side you do not see that time is not the same as a space dimension. By transforming time into a distance in a diagram, you lose this 'specialty' of time: what is special about time you must have always in the back of your head, when drawing events and/or processes in a spacetime diagram. E.g. when you draw a worldline that implies that an object is travelling faster than light, then you made an error. However nothing in the drawing tools of a spacetime diagram (pencil and paper, or gif-generator) can forbid this: you can draw what you want, even if it does not make any physical sense. Another example: drawing a line that implies travelling backwards in time. Easy to do, but physically meaningless (unless your are doing QFT, but I think we can forget that here). If you make a space-diagram of the chair now, it is empty. If you make a space-diagram of the chair at T0, A was sitting in the chair. If you make a spacetime-diagram of the chair, it must encompass both now and T0, which means you must show that A was sitting there at T0. Latter point simply means that you must mark the chair as 'occupied' at T0. A was sitting there, and he not sitting there now has nothing to do with it.
  13. Right. That is because now you have made a 'spacemap', and the only time dimension is in the animation. But time also does not 'multiplicate': in a spacetime diagram you depict events: objects, that persevere through time, must therefore be depicted as a chain of events: A sitting at X0 at T0, A sitting at X0 at T1, A sitting at X0 at T2, etc. That is a process, or a series of events.
  14. Yes. But on this map should be visible that A was at X0 at T0. No exception, otherwise the map is a false depiction of what really happened. So the right graph is definitely wrong. When A was at X0 at T0, then this should be shown. This fact does not change, never changes. The left graph is just confusing: on one side you show a spacetime map, being a depiction in space of a timely 'process', e.g. of A keeping seated in his chair, and then you add another time dimension by animating the graph. But in reality we only have one time dimension. So this the the only correct way to depict 'A was sitting in his chair at X0 from T0 to T4'.
  15. No, it is not: it is a God-like view of the universe, in which God sees past, present and future. If the location T-1 was occupied by A, then this is an unchanging fact, represented by a dot in the spacetime diagram. That dot will stay there, otherwise you are giving a false depiction of what happened at T-1 at X-0. And for such a 'Lord of the Ages' there is no now. 'Now' is only an expression referring to the same time when an utterance was made, and that presupposes that the one who is uttering the expression is in spacetime. 'God' lives outside the spacetime diagram.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.