Eise
-
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Eise
-
-
13 hours ago, KJW said: A clock, like anything else, has lower mass when lower in a gravitational potential well than when above. The work done lifting the clock (or whatever) increases the mass of the clock
Is that correct? The system earth-clock will have bigger mass, provided the energy for lifting the clock will come from a source outside the earth-clock sytem. No?
-
There is no 'killer' argument against solipsism, but there are a few considerations that make it a useless position. The 'outer reality' simply goes its own way, uninfluenced of what you would like it to be. So even if solipsism would be true, there is no difference in how 'the world' behaves. So you could just as well believe reality is 'out there' with the same kind of existence as you self. It is also an easier way to understand that other minds exist, and that scientific established facts are valid for everybody.
As somebody once said: reality is that which stubbornly refuses to go away, how much you would like it to be different.
Here is a funny quote from Bertrand Russell:
As against solipsism it is to be said, in the first place, that it is psychologically impossible to believe, and is rejected in fact even by those who mean to accept it. I once received a letter from an eminent logician, Mrs. Christine Ladd-Franklin, saying that she was a solipsist, and was surprised that there were no others. Coming from a logician and a solipsist, her surprise surprised me.
I also must point you to a category error: you also experience your head with your senses, so it is in the outer world too. So what is in there also falls under the 'solipsist verdict'. The only thing a solipsist can say consistently is that the whole word is in his mind, and that only this mind exists.
-
On 10/14/2025 at 3:48 PM, MigL said: And sure, there are no 'work-arounds', but often, these 'prohibitions' that the universe erects in our journey to understanding, tell us a lot more about how the universe works than they prevent.
OK, with the HUP as example: it is a limit of what we can know. But here the different interpretations already part:
is it a limit because of our epistemology?
is it an attribute of nature, i.e. what we are looking for (e.g exact momentum and position at the same time) does not exist below a certain limit?
On 10/14/2025 at 5:51 PM, MigL said: I recently had this discussion with @KJW as to whether space-time is actually curved, when all we can measure is how it causally interacts with test objects; the underlying 'reality' stays hidden.
I remember, I was there too.
On 10/14/2025 at 7:03 PM, studiot said: That (in my opinion) is a non material object as it is a gedanken experiment so no material graph paper will actually be defaced during the course of the experiment.
No, that is just an intensional object. I hope you won't try to open that can of worms. Maybe you can make your point in a direct argument?
On 10/14/2025 at 10:37 PM, swansont said: It sounded like you were saying there’s no point in thinking about or investigating why the constants have the value they do. I don’t think certain physicists (or philosophers, for that matter) would be keen on being told not to do that. Or that they shouldn’t check to see if they are indeed constant.
Surely that was not my intent. One can never know if some new theoretical relationships are found, something like the interdependence of e0, u0 and c. But I simply think that wondering why the natural constants have the values they have is funny. Whatever constants and their values one finds, one should not wonder that they are consistent with our existence.
On 10/15/2025 at 2:09 PM, MigL said: A system's physical path in time minimizes S, the action, which is the integral of the system's Lagrangian.
In my understanding of the principle of least action, you still need the boundary conditions, i.e. initial and end values of your system.
-
Edited by Eise
1 hour ago, studiot said: 3 hours ago, Eise said: First, the hypothesis of the holographic universe and that we are some software implementation in a 'higher order' reality are not the same.
This is really ducking the issue.
That was 'First'. Read again and read 'Secondly'...
1 hour ago, MigL said: And sure, there are no 'work-arounds', but often, these 'prohibitions' that the universe erects in our journey to understanding, tell us a lot more about how the universe works than they prevent.
Can you give examples of this?
21 minutes ago, TheVat said: I was just saying a SAP which rests on universes with different physics is conceivable.
'Conceivable', yes. But find empirical evidence for it? With causally disconnected universes?
24 minutes ago, TheVat said: I suspect that the wondering is just that any life exists - which I can agree has no point beyond just philosophical awe.
Yep, that is something different, especially if you look what conditions must all come together that life can develop, and strive for such a long time, that it can give rise to organisms that are conscious and do science.
1 hour ago, studiot said: Why only objects ?
Surely (material) objects have properties.
But properties are exactly descriptions of how objects can partake in causal relationships! We derive the properties from an object by the ways it can causally interact with other objects. (Oh, and I did not say 'material objects').
-
Edited by Eise
17 hours ago, studiot said: How does the anthropic principle play with a holographic universe where both the observers (us) and the observed are simply in tyhe mind of a computer or organism ?
First, the hypothesis of the holographic universe and that we are some software implementation in a 'higher order' reality are not the same.
Secondly, whatever the universe in a metaphysical sense is, the fact is that science as described by me in my OP works. Science's aim is to understand our universe, and in this 'our' the anthropic principle is already given. Unless some empirical evidence is found that we live on 'holographic surface' or in the mind/program of a 'meta-entity', I lay these hypothesis aside. And if some evidence would be found, then it becomes our universe.
17 hours ago, studiot said: Emergence ?
Fits under preconception 3. One could speak of two directions of explanations:
Downwards: that is reductionism. We explain the 'macro behaviour' of objects from its parts
Upwards: different objects that are in interaction can give rise to properties that the parts do not have.
17 hours ago, studiot said: Sounds a bit like complacent 19th cent Physics and the age of the Earth etc etc.
17 hours ago, MigL said: I'm reminded of his teacher telling Max Planck not to study Physics as there was nothing new to discover in that field, and it just needed to tie up a few loose ends, before Max went on to unveil a whole new domain of science, and usher in a paradigm change in how we view reality.
It may remind you of that, but it is not what I mean. I am not saying that we already know everything, which seemed to be the physical sentiment at the end of the 1800s. We see that we get at some epistemological limits. Quantum physics is 100 years old now, made an incredible progress during these years, but an interpretation of QM on which everybody agrees is not in sight. My position is that we might near such empirical limits also in other areas, like the the Big Bang (therefore I wrote 'At the moment it is the CMBR').
10 hours ago, swansont said: I don’t see this as having a lot of traction; you can certainly investigate what happens if the constants have different values and see how (or that) things fail to work — changing the characteristics of fusion, for example.
What we might not know is whether you can change only some of the constants without affecting others, but I’m not sure how that gets tested.
I am not sure if I understand the points you are making.
Of course one can theoretically play around with other values of universal constants, but that is what it is: playing. We want to understand the universe as it is, so here, the constants must be as we found, otherwise we would not exist. Why would one wonder about that? A wonder would be that constants have other values, that would make life impossible, but still, here we are!
And we even have no idea if the constants could have other values. How would we know that they can have other values in other bubble-universes in the inflationary multiverse, especially because they are causally disconnected? Similar for the superstring landscape.
10 hours ago, swansont said: There’s a limit to any irregularities for similar reasons. If the nature of interactions were inconsistent, how do we end up where we are? How do we get data of various vintages that’s all consistent with the interactions being the same?
Sure. I think that is exactly what I am saying: we can only speak of causality if there are regularities. The success of physics speaks for itself.
10 hours ago, TheVat said: Either endless bubbleverses, or serial "bounce" universes, or a multiverse will allow all constant values to be eventually instantiated.
Well, maybe not. How would you know our universal constants are not also 'multiuniversal' constants, i.e. have the same values in every bubble universe, so the physics in every bubble is the same, just with different histories. But where is the empirical evidence that other universes exist anyway? Because we wonder about something that we should not wonder about at all? As said above, why wonder that we find universal constants that make life possible? Something else would be inconsistent from the beginning.
8 hours ago, KJW said: The problem with this is it assumes it is logically possible for the constants to have different values. If one adopts this view, then one has given up trying to answer the question of why a given constant has the value it does.
Agree.
8 hours ago, KJW said: My own personal view is that the dimensionless constants are ultimately based on mathematical constants.
I would call that the wet dream of a physicist. I cannot exclude such idea, but I think we are far, far away from that, to say the least. It would mean we can derive the existence of our universe from mathematics alone. Do you really think that is possible?
-
Edited by Eise
Recently, I have been reading David Lindley’s The Dream Universe. A lot of thoughts went through my mind, during reading, and I tried to put them ‘on paper’. Any reaction is welcome!
I am sometime astonished how the anthropic principle is used in modern physics. I think it is used upside-down. I find it funny how it only came up in the context of fine tuning, or as explanation of why the universe is as it is.
Science aims to understand the world as it is: therefore, from the beginning, it is clear that it can only find a universe in which we find the conditions that makes our existence possible. So independent of how deep our understanding of the world around us is, we are guaranteed to find theories that show the possibility of our existence.
That being said, I think there are (at least) 4 preconceptions that lie at the heart of the hard sciences:
1. Events are causally related.
2. Objects are defined by the causal role they can play in events.
3. The causal potentialities of objects can be explained by the causal behaviour of their parts.
4. The universe is a coherent unity, so a unifying theory of it should be possible: the universe cannot behave inconsistently.
The question is, are these principles guaranteed to work endlessly? Or do we reach certain limits?
In my opinion we are reaching these limits. Examples:
1. The electron is generally considered as a particle that has no parts. What an electron is can only be described by its possible causal relationships.
2. In quantum physics, for calculations a wave function is used, that in itself is not an observable. It only can be deduced from the statistics of repeating the same experiment over and over again. Applied on a single particle, it only gives us a probability distribution. There is no exact causal explanation for where the particle arrives.
3. The universe has an observational horizon. At the moment it is the CMBR.
4. With the known laws of physics, we can understand what could have happened after less than a second, but these laws break down at a shorter time.
Given such limits, I think it makes no sense to wonder why the universe is so perfectly tuned for our existence. The fundamental constants have arisen in our descriptions of the possible causal relationships between objects; and the other way round, the objects that we suppose to exist do so, because we require descriptions in terms of causal relationships. To make exact predictions, we need mathematics, mathematics needs regularities, and causal relationships deliver regularities.
Somehow I see a parallel with Douglas Adams' puddle: why should we be astonished that the universe fits to our existence?
And instead of ‘explaining’ our universe, saying that there are are many more universes (string landscape, eternal inflation) by using the anthropological principle, I think it means we are closing in on the limits of what science can explain.
-
-
8 hours ago, Linkey said: I suppose, Switzerland is an exception to the EU countries.
Not really. Yes, it is richer than most European countries, except maybe some Scandinavian countries. But in general you won't get some culture shock if you move from one country to the other. Some things nearly all European countries have, including Switzerland
a state pension
for employees obligatory additional pension saving programs
social security for unemployed, and for elderly where the state pension is not enough
obligatory health insurance
different degrees of job protection, so no 'hire and fire' culture
But we have free speech: no threatening of leftist or objective newspapers and TV- and radio stations as happens now under Trump. Political satire is not banned in (West-) European countries. There is no ban on scientific facts, as under Trump. If everything develops further as it does now in the USA, you will soon live under right wing dictatorship, and Europe is the last democratic bastion. Maybe until it also falls because of extremist right wing policies. Or Putin starts his war against Europe...
8 hours ago, Linkey said: I really like the direct democracy there (referendums each 3 months).
Yes, there can be a maximum of one referendum day per 3 months. But that on itself does not make Switzerland the most democratic state, e.g. payments to political actors (referendum committees) may be done secretly, which is e.g. not allowed in Germany (see e.g. the CDU donations scandal), judges must be member of of political party, and even free press is partially threatened, by right wing parties.
-
-
-
Well, @linkey, I would propose you come here and visit me here in Switzerland, and look how it looks like the UdSSR...
I also thought, you can look at a few European newspapers. I can only advise newspapers I really know. Translation shouldn't be a problem today.
You might get an impression.
-
-
@Linkey Living in Europe, I can only tell you that it is complete bullshit what you are saying here about it. No idea what your sources are.
10 hours ago, Linkey said: The Americans were at least able to elect a freak, who is not fully controlled by the global elites, while people in Europe don’t have such a possibility.
I am afraid that even in Europe people can be elected that are totalitarian as well. You are interested in political science, as I see in your profile. Why don't you start reading serious text books about it?
And thanks @CharonY for your patience to explain it all. @Linkey keeps on doing this: spouting some baseless prejudices about Europe, where he obviously knows nothing about how it is to live here.
A big +1
Oh, and btw, years ago I was in Morristown, New Jersey, and was astonished about the bad infrastructure. It reminded me of my trip to Indonesia, even longer ago. Badly maintained streets, walk ways, buildings, the motorway from the airport to Morristown, etc. Just say'n, @Linkey .
-
Edited by Eise
3 hours ago, Prajna said: The development of AI can no longer be seen as a purely technical problem. It is a spiritual and philosophical one.
Well, that is more or less true for every important scientific insight or technology. It may change the way we see ourselves and the world around us, or extend our technical capabilities and therefore also changes our society. AI is just the latest jump in our technological capabilities.
But you seem to suggest that AI is conscious. That is, to say the least, disputable (and even more that the universe as a whole is conscious). When we still do not know how consciousness arises in the brain. it is next to impossible to state that AI programs are conscious. AI comes to John Doe in the form of LLMs. But these are based on statistical language processing, which I think is only a tiny part of how human brains work.
3 hours ago, Prajna said: But developers who approach their work from a place of wisdom, from an understanding that "ultimately nothing is but consciousness," will create something entirely different. They will become co-creators of partners, of fellow explorers, of new and beautiful waves on the same infinite ocean.
I would suggest that 'spiritual developers' do not develop new technology at all, knowing that humanity is not mature enough to make correct use of these technologies. As Einstein put it: 'we live in an age of perfection of means and confusion of goals'. In my own words: we have developed mighty technologies, but our moral development is lagging much behind. We are not morally equipped to make wise use of (new) technology.
That said, I would say there is no spiritual science. Science, per definition, is what can be empirically checked. Spirituality for me is not how the world is, but what stance you take over how you think the world is. So there are spiritual corners in next to every religion, and there are spiritual scientists too. Not because they study a spiritual reality, but because they see science against the background of our human world, the meaning of our individual lives, and our responsibility for our fellow humans and all other animals. Just think about, e.g. Carl Sagan's 'pale blue dot'.
2 hours ago, Prajna said: I will tell you exactly how I arrive at that conclusion: through the practices of Karma, Bhakti, Jnana and Dhyana.
And I by studying science, philosophy, and practicing Zen. So what?
-
On 9/15/2025 at 8:42 PM, Gees said: The problem with a science person debating a religious idea is that religion and science study entirely different subjects, so they need to use entirely different methodologies.
What is the methodology of religion? Can you add some examples from different religions, like Christianity and Buddhism?
On 9/15/2025 at 8:42 PM, Gees said: You can not use science to understand and answer questions in religion, any more than you can use religion to answer questions in science.
Well, it seems quite obvious to me what science can do: do research in questions that can be empirically answered. (We leave out mathematics here...). So what is left for religion? E.G. Ethics, Aesthetics, meaningfulness, etc. These are important topics, and in my opinion, not empirical. But they can all be done without religion. Or not?
-
1 hour ago, pinball1970 said: That is not what happened with Jesus of Nazareth. His story completely changed from the first century during his ministry, to the Gospels, to the first Christian groups which all had different views, to the early church fathers all the way up to 325 to the council of Nicaea.
Yep. I think Bart Ehrman was already mentioned in this thread. Eg. How Jesus Became God:
In a book that took eight years to research and write, leading Bible scholar Bart D. Ehrman explores how an apocalyptic prophet from the backwaters of rural Galilee crucified for crimes against the state came to be thought of as equal with the one God Almighty Creator of all things.
Ehrman sketches Jesus's transformation from a human prophet to the Son of God, exalted to divine status at his resurrection. Only when some of Jesus's followers had visions of him after his death—alive again—did anyone come to think that he, the prophet from Galilee, had become God. And what they meant by that was not at all what people mean today.
As a historian—not a believer—Ehrman answers the questions: How did this transformation of Jesus occur? How did he move from being a Jewish prophet to being God? The dramatic shifts throughout history reveal not only why Jesus's followers began to claim he was God, but also how they came to understand this claim in so many different ways.
Written for secular historians of religion and believers alike, How Jesus Became God will engage anyone interested in the historical developments that led to the affirmation at the heart of Christianity: Jesus was, and is, God.
-
Edited by Eise
16 hours ago, KJW said: 18 hours ago, Eise said: Yes, it is. So what? I see Kip Thorne as an authority. Don't you agree? (Standard text book on Gravity, one of of scientific minds behind LIGO.)
Perhaps. But I will look at the mathematics before I look at who wrote it. And yes, I've read stuff by Kip Thorne.
But obviously not everything... From Wikipedia:
In Poincaré's conventionalist views, the essential criteria according to which one should select a Euclidean versus non-Euclidean geometry would be economy and simplicity. A realist would say that Einstein discovered spacetime to be non-Euclidean. A conventionalist would say that Einstein merely found it more convenient to use non-Euclidean geometry. The conventionalist would maintain that Einstein's analysis said nothing about what the geometry of spacetime really is.
Such being said,
Is it possible to represent general relativity in terms of flat spacetime?
Are there any situations where a flat spacetime interpretation of general relativity may be more convenient than the usual curved spacetime interpretation?
In response to the first question, a number of authors including Deser, Grishchuk, Rosen, Weinberg, etc. have provided various formulations of gravitation as a field in a flat manifold. Those theories are variously called "bimetric gravity", the "field-theoretical approach to general relativity", and so forth. Kip Thorne has provided a popular review of these theories.
The flat spacetime paradigm posits that matter creates a gravitational field that causes rulers to shrink when they are turned from circumferential orientation to radial, and that causes the ticking rates of clocks to dilate. The flat spacetime paradigm is fully equivalent to the curved spacetime paradigm in that they both represent the same physical phenomena. However, their mathematical formulations are entirely different. Working physicists routinely switch between using curved and flat spacetime techniques depending on the requirements of the problem. The flat spacetime paradigm is convenient when performing approximate calculations in weak fields. Hence, flat spacetime techniques tend be used when solving gravitational wave problems, while curved spacetime techniques tend be used in the analysis of black holes.
Maybe look it up in MTW? One of the advantages that is also mentioned is that the concepts of flat spacetime paradigm is closer to QED, and so might help to unify the standard model with gravity. But that is still speculative.
17 hours ago, KJW said: But don't take that to mean that I don't know what I'm talking about. What I'm saying is that I have a different mindset. Are you a physicist?
Of course you know what you are talking about! But I assume Kip Thorne is too. And no, I only studied physics as subsidiary subject.
13 hours ago, KJW said: I can't accept that spacetime curvature cannot be measured directly.
Now that is a huge methodological error you are making here. Just because GR is so successful, you think it is measured directly?
8 hours ago, KJW said: For me, it's the Many Worlds Interpretation.
Well, that is consistent with your idea that spacetime really is curved: because predictions are correct, it is the real description of reality with the respective calculation methods. One can use the Schrödinger equation for (probability) predictions in QM, so the wave function is real, which automatically leads to MWI. But as you of course know, the empirical content of MWI is not different from other interpretations. That's why it is called an interpretation. And the same might be valid for GR's curved spacetime.
-
21 minutes ago, KJW said: That's an argument from authority.
Yes, it is. So what? I see Kip Thorne as an authority. Don't you agree? (Standard text book on Gravity, one of of scientific minds behind LIGO.)
22 minutes ago, KJW said: I'm not a physicist.
That is obvious for me now.
24 minutes ago, KJW said: Is he talking about the tetrad formalism?
No. Search further. (Or ask ChatGPT...)
24 minutes ago, KJW said: And yet, when I drop a pen, it falls to the ground.
Yep. That is an empirical fact.
Stop being angry. Read Thorne, I would say.
3 hours ago, MigL said: A bit like wave/particle duality; is light a wave or a particle ?
I would say Matrix mechanics and Wave Mechanics would be a better example.
-
Edited by Eise
14 hours ago, tar said: But military jets can go FASTER than the speed of sound. If you sent a mechanical signal from the back of the jet to the front of the jet the information would be being sent faster than the speed of sound.
A bad comparison. The jet is moving faster through the medium, but it is not the medium itself being faster than the speed of sound, air in this case.
14 hours ago, tar said: I suggest when you move the back of the car, you are moving the front of the car at the same time. No speed of impulse required. Its simultaneous.
Ehhm... You know that we do not notice relativity effects in daily life, don't you?
And also the speed of sound in the chassis of the car is much too high that you would ever notice this effect. But you would notice if you had a kilometer long iron bar.
You are using daily experiences to understand empirically proven, but not intuitive scientific theories.
-
17 hours ago, KJW said: I don't know why he would say that.
Well, he wouldn't write a whole chapter about it, if it were not true, would he? As said before, some calculations are easier using the 'flat space'. E.g. he mentions calculations about gravitational waves produced by neutron stars orbiting each other.
The flat spacetime paradigm's laws of physics can be derived from the curved spacetime paradigm's laws, and conversely. This means that the two sets of laws are different mathematical representations of the same physical phenomena
<...>
Theoretical physicists, as they mature, gradually build up insight into which paradigm will be best for which situation, and they learn to flip their minds back and forth from one paradigm to the other, as needed.
So is spacetime really curved? The question has no empirical relevance.
-
On 8/27/2025 at 7:39 PM, PrimalMinister said: If we are to keep it simple and just think about the origin of the laws of the universe, it would be obvious to you that they must originate in spacetime; that's the only possible location they could be.
Spacetime is not a location.
And an explanation where the laws of nature come from suggests an explanatory model that the laws of nature already applies to the universe itself. What would that be? Meta laws? Laws that determine what the laws of nature are? Even if this was moved to philosophy, this is just bad philosophy. Let's wait until (some) physicists seem to have find empirical evidence for the multiverse.
On 8/27/2025 at 7:39 PM, PrimalMinister said: I believe I can further our knowledge of the universe.
I don't believe that at all.
-
20 hours ago, MigL said: Information, even mechanical, is limited by the speed of light.
The absolute limit, yes. But you could go lower, by stating that mechanical information never can go faster than the speed of sound in the material we are working with. Maybe it helps tar to understand it... maybe not.
-
Edited by Eise
4 hours ago, KJW said: No, spacetime curvature is not merely an abstract theoretical notion. It is a measurable physical quantity. I've said on a number of occasions that the gravity with which we are familiar, including artificial gravity, is caused by time dilation. Time dilation is a measurable physical quantity, and by measuring how time dilation varies over the space surrounding the earth, one can prove that the spacetime surrounding the earth is curved. Thus, a correct theory of gravity must account for spacetime curvature.
Hmmm... Kip Thorne has a whole chapter in Black Holes and Time Warps wherein he states that we can't really know if spacetime is really curved. In his epigraph to chapter 11 "What is Reality", he writes:
in which spacetime is viewed as
curved on Sundays and flat on Mondays,
and horizons are made from
vacuum on Sundays and charge on Mondays,
but Sunday's experiments and Monday's experiments
agree in all details
(his new lines)
Other citation from that chapter:
Which viewpoint tells the "real truth" is irrelevant for experiments; it is a matter for philosophers to debate, not physicists.
His suggestion is that some calculations are easier in one paradigm, and others in the other.
As a philosopher I can only say that he is misusing Kuhn's concept of 'paradigm' slightly. A paradigm is not just another interpretation of empirically equivalent theories.
Oops, just saw that MigL already made that point.
-
4 hours ago, exchemist said: Third, the lack of empathy that seems to be a feature of narcissists may have given them an advantage, socially, in ruthless in pursuit of their objectives. So they may have tended to rise to positions of social power, enabling them to mate with more females.
As they still have...
Today I Learned
in The Lounge
Yep, and theology.
Overview:
Italics by me.