Eise

I googled a citation with no reference in one of your posts. I could not imagine it was from a philosopher or physicist. And voila, one hit, your document. That was not an argument. I highly trust my crackpot detector. If your approach to GR and QM is really that revolutionary, why don't you publish it in an established physics journal? Just curious: do you an education as engineer? And/or have a career in IT?

No, I did not. I remarked that as pure mathematics, there are no different ontologies behind your mathematical expressions. Only interpreted as description of physical processes the question if there are different ontologies involved here makes sense. But I think the answer is 'no'. I had a look at your 'ROSS' document, and it does not make any sense to me. It seems a clear example of crackpottism to me. And I regret that you are misusing the citation of Dennett (which you probably took from my disclaimer). Dennett was a very science oriented philosopher, but his (scientific) interests were neurology, cognitive science, evolution; his main topic was understanding of consciousness, not physics. He has never published something about ontology of mathematics or physics.

Doing it again? Nope. Seen as mathematical expressions, you could just have written a = sqrt(b/cd) and a = 2 πb/c. It is only in the context of physics, suggested by the symbols you use, that they get meaning and describe different areas of mechanics. So mathematically seen, they are just numerical expressions, equalities. There are different operations involved, that's all. What 'physical actions'? Those in the brain of somebody calculating? What measurements? There are no 'measurements' in pure mathematical expressions. Again, if you endow them with meaning, physical meaning in your examples, then these expressions are related to physical relationships. If presented as pure mathematics, sure. Last time I looked, mathematics is used in nearly all sciences. Why are you so obsessed with physics? Take 'compound interest' as an example. Just look at all the mathematics! And maybe you discover a Taylor series in it? But Taylor series are also heavily used in physics. And AFAIK it was a pure mathematical discovery. Not really. Ontology and epistemology are different, but related disciplines of philosophy. But you can do epistemology very well without doing ontology. The other way round is more difficult, if you do not want to practice ontology completely detached of our daily and scientific worldviews. Let's just exaggerate a little: definitions are the objects in mathematics. And so they must be rigorous, otherwise you get 'no grips' on it with logic. As example take the definition of a vector space.

Not exactly, especially when concerning politics. Maybe I am not expressing myself so well; also I am still developing my ideas under the 'pressure' of the discussion here. But let me be clear: my aim is to have more quality in the discussions here, nothing more. A place where people can learn from each other. But not a place where people do not accept expertise at all. If somebody has some ridiculous, wrong, or unclear ideas about physics, but does not accept the expertise of physicists here, discussion will get nowhere; same with other areas, like chemistry, biology, math, and yes, even philosophy (I am not the only one with some philosophical background here...). In politics there can be reactions on publications, from books to recent events, but just some freewheeling thoughts based on just a gut feeling are not fruitful. I am hoping for argued opinions, with relevant and valid arguments. I do not know why I touch such a nerve with you. But I would invite you to think with me, not against me. Yep.

Thanks, @exchemist, that is what I mean. I see two ways science and politics are related, in two different directions: What politics does to science. The way science is threatened by Trump politics is a (terrible) example Science about politics: politology But I think with the latter arguments should be based on politological publications, not some wild speculations we get from @Linkey. So al less radical idea is to put posts like Linkey's into the speculations forum, with its special conditions. Perverse? I hope you see that is pretty exaggerated now. You do know that I have a degree in philosophy? But for the philosophy forum I would prefer that not every freewheeling thought is counted as philosophy. Philosophy questions are of course OK, but I think that philosophical opinions should be supported by philosophical or scientific literature.

Sure. See Wikipedia, especially here. And it is not the first time I mentioned this concept here. Try google with "indexicals site:www.scienceforums.net" (Yes, google finds more than the search function of the forum software). Oh, Studiot, and here is another citation from IEP, that might interest you: Italics by me. Of course. Challenging you to bring some sanity to this thread. Thank you. You're welcome.

Are you challenging me?? I hope you understand that I will not read Adhanom Andemicael's monster postings. But yes, he seems extremely bewitched by language. I'll make a few remarks that might help, even if I have not much hope. It is important to get what 'indexicals' are. These are words which meanings are completely dependent on the context in which a sentence is said (or written). Examples: 'I', 'now', 'today', 'here' etc. It is easy to formulate sentences that are empirically correct, but have no meaning at all without taking the context into account, e.g. "I am here now". You will agree that the sentence is true, but without knowing where I am, what time it is (you may read the sentence when I am not here anymore, but somewhere else (also indexicals)). So to make it meaningful we need a spacetime diagram with exact space- and time-coordinates where I said "I am here now". As an example in conventional language: "Eise was/is at Zürich central station at October 3rd, 2026 CE at 11:22". In these terms I could have uttered "I am here now" the whole trip to Zürich, being correct all the time, but its meaning changing every time. But you can draw a spacetime diagram with my world line, and mark every event where I am saying "I am here now". One other problem is the use of the metaphoric meaning of "time flows" Nope. Time does not flow: time is what makes flowing possible. Every change in our physical universe is dependent on the fact that there is something like time. I was traveling by train to Zürich, i.e. a change in spacial coordinates; particles decay after a certain time. (As an aside: one can turn around this dependency: we know of time because we experience changes). A spacetime diagram is a spacial (2-dimensional) depiction of events living in space and time. But you cannot draw time on a piece of paper (I do not get a line when I put a pencil on paper for a certain time). So time is drawn as a line, an axis on the paper, with generally the speed of light as conversion factor, for good reasons. In special relativity c is the conversion factor between space an time in the Lorentz transformations. In this depiction it is clear what a 'moment' literally is: a point. (But realise this is an abstraction: physically everything takes some time, or it disappears behind the Heisenberg uncertainty principle...) Nope. It is a process. Nope. "The present" is an indexical. Indexicals are no entities. They are references which meanings are wholly context dependent, see above.

I live in Switzerland since about 30 years, and I can confirm that especially outside big cities, normal people are pretty honest and friendly. And yes, my wife once lost here wallet in a small wood, and she got it back, including the money. Spicy detail: it was found by a Portugese child, so an immigrant. (Maybe Portugese are as honest as Swiss?) But in politics and trade you will find about the same level of dishonesty as in most Western-European countries. Take e.g. the F-35 scandal. Then lot of referenda are not executed as they were intended (e.g. about secondary (holiday) homes, or referenda overruled years later by our government, even by decree. (Obviously our rightwing secretaries of state were looking on how Trump does this. E.g. we had a successful referendum, forbidding building nuclear power plants (this was shortly after the Fukushima incident). Now the secretary of state has lifted the ban, on decree. So, no, Switzerland is not a political paradise, and many people feel confined in too many rules and regulations. Sure many of these are good, but others are absurd, or too detailed; not rational at all. One thing however I want to mention as a (mostly) positive point. We have 7 secretaries of state, and all bigger parties (from rightwing to socialist) that together form the government (Bundesrat). So very often compromises are already starting there, even before new laws are coming into parliament (Nationalrat). For general information about Linkey: he posts the exact same texts in Civicswatch. Just under another nickname (Spathi). And I agree with @MigL that this seems to be less and less a science forum. It is interesting to see that the physics forum does not allow for political discussions, but obviously some members would like discussing politics: Civicswatch is an 'off-spring' of the physics forum; a lot of the CW members are also on PF. So just as a wild idea (I am not sure if it is a good idea myself): why not close the politics forum here, and refer to CW.

First I have to react on this: Must be a glitch or some logic (the OP was Studiot) of the forum software. I referenced this: (Press on the arrow above right in the posting where I originally inserted it) Everybody who thinks that something like 'truth' exists. Compare it with colour: 'redness' does not exist; red things do exist, or red light. In this way 'truth' applies to statements (and reports, and stories, and and...). Well, English is 'versatile enough' (isn't it, Studiot?), that one can say of a statement that it is the truth. But it just means that the statement is true. And a true statement is the expression of a fact: a fact is a correct description of a state of affairs. And, yes, very clearly against several posters here: for me a 'subjective truth' is a self contradiction. 'truth' means true for everybody. Otherwise it is a deeply felt conviction. This is not true and is not a fact. It is opinion and maybe conjecture. This is what you wrote in your example: So, in your example, did you kill the man or not? Is it, just because nobody believes you, suddenly not a fact anymore? What is the difference next four sentences: "At this moment the sun is shining during I am typing." "It is true that at this moment the sun is shining during I am typing." "It is a fact that at this moment the sun is shining during I am typing." "The truth is that at this moment the sun is shining during I am typing." There are some subtle differences of why somebody would use one of these formulations. But they all express the same state of affairs. True 🙂. I just wanted to say this as I see it. I know you didn't use it, but I wanted to give the extreme where somebody thinks what he believes is the truth, and therefore also true for those who do not believe it. Sorry, I am running out of time. I just wanted to add this as background for my viewpoint. Taken from Jürgen Habermas' communication theory. I copied it from Google AI (search argument: "3 areas of truth habermas"). (Italics by me) Just to add: I am very well aware that there is more to life and communication than validity claims. One could even say that above is an 'empty scheme' that must be filled with what lies outside it.

That may be, but if one wants to clarify viewpoints, one should state these as precisely as possible. So do you really want to understand somebody's statements or do you only want to have a vague impression that you understand them? And I would say they are not, because they are not specific enough to proof their validity. In a philosophical discussion? I would say so. It can mean that people are talking, think they understand each other, and at the same time think something differently, because they attach different meanings to words and statements. Sure. But why call it truth? Does a Nazi military march convey truth? Philip Glass' opera 'Einstein on the Beach'? Bach's Matthew Passion? Wouldn't 'awe' be a a better word?

I agree with that, but not with I acknowledge that it is often used like that, but for me it makes no sense. Say Gees has a long explanation for the murder scene, but he is not the murder. Then it makes perfectly sense that he says "It is the truth!". Not just his truth, he really did not commit the murder. 'my truth' is a contradiction for me. Otherwise it is what you already touch on: a belief. Well, being precise is important in philosophical discussions. And where I agree that words in philosophical discussions should be defined as close as possible to their common use, more precise definitions are often necessary. Yep. But then one should formulate it differently: 'I find kiwifruit delicious'. Then the truth of it is dependent on the fact if you really like kiwifruit, or that you do not like them at all. And, as you suggest, it is a legitimate expression of someone's taste. (I would not call it a value judgement, but that is a minor point). TheVat makes the same point about belief: Sure, but one should be just more precise, and specify the time when the statement is valid. I would even say that both your statements are incomplete without mentioning the time. They suggest that the distance is fixed. No. In 'Churchill was born in 1874', stated in 1873 has no reference, so it has no truth value at all.

The concept of 'truth' is a language element that obviously bewitches many people. In fact it is just the substantiation of the adjective 'true'. Example: Of course: both refer to a true linguistical expression of a state of affairs. It says nothing more than that a statement is true. If I use the concept of 'truth', it is more a collection of true statements that are somehow related, e.g. in a murder case (to take the example of @Gees. From this view, the way (s)he uses the concepts of 'truth' here is nonsensical: The correct description of his example would be: It is true that (s)he stands over the shot body of a man (s)he despises, with a gun in his (her) hand It is true (s)he did not kill him It is true that (s)he was convicted for this murder. You can replace 'it is true' with 'it is a fact'. Even worse, you can discard of the phrase 'it is true that' completely: one is still saying the same. And to add: if somebody talks about 'Truth' with capital 'T', then he is making himself important... And I agree with what @TheVat posted.

A 'reaction' motor provides thrust by ejecting energized mass rearward, at velocity, to provide forward motion according to Newtonian mechanics ( essentially conservation of momentum ). Escape velocity is proportional to the square root of the mass you are attempting 'escape' from ( assuming a fixed radius of departure ). I don't see how your statement is valid. But dim is right in this case: I think the key in his statement is "with known propellants". It is the ratio of chemical energy and mass of the propellant, and the gravity of the planet that makes escape from a 'too heavy planet' impossible. Of course you can add more propellant, but if you need more propellant to lift the portion you added just before, you'll never get very far. Escape velocity has not much to do with that: this is rocket science (really, this time!), not ballistic mechanics. Only when the rocket engines are turned off escape velocity (from the point where the rocket is at that moment) is relevant.

With me it is very slow too. Logging in already took 2 minutes after pressing the button.

This idea is used as an illustration of Gödel's incompleteness theorem in 'Gödel, Escher, Bach'. Gödel, Escher, Janet Jackson'? Contracrostipunctus In this funny dialogue, Tortoise tells Achilles how he always succeeded to produce a record that could not be played on one of Crab's Hifi record players.