Eise

See it this way: getting out of a gravitational field costs energy. Objects with mass lose kinetic energy, which means they slow down. Light also has energy, but it is not dependent on its speed, because it always has the same speed. But the energy of light is related to its frequency. So light 'loses frequency', which means its frequency goes down, i.e. it becomes redder. Now imagine a light beam with less energy than needed to get out of the gravity field. It would have no energy anymore, which for a wave simply means it does not exist anymore. At the event horizon EM radiation just has not enough energy to escape. Physically maybe not completely correct, but it might help to develop your 'physical intuition'... It is true, using daily intuitions it is impossible to understand modern physics. Throwing away physical theories because it does not fit your intuitions is the worst you can do. (In fact, it is one of the strongest motivations of so many 'crackpot theories' that are also posted on this forum).

Ethan Siegel in 'Start with a Bang': Why You Should Doubt ‘New Physics’ From The Latest Muon g-2 Results It throws doubt about the correctness of the theoretical calculation of the value of g-2. So there might not be a discrepancy between experiment and theory, because the calculation is not rock solid. But hey, how many articles appeared with new physics explaining neutrinos traveling faster than light? Hundreds? But it was an experimental error. This time I set my bets on a wrong calculation.

Of course, I forgive you: even stronger, anyone can correct my English. Wasn't it you who said you wanted to know English perfectly, at least on your deathbed? As long as the stream of the discussion is not disturbed, any correction is welcome. You know, there are so many ways that the same, or nearly the same (especially in none English ears) sounds can be written in English. My favourite is the [i:]: peace piece pee release receive retrieve But life, live, and yes, lose and loose are difficult too to remember. But I try to improove! The one about the police is also an eye-opener. The astonishment of the American police officer is great to see! That is one question further. The question as asked, takes a kind of "we all know what we mean by 'justice'" as starting point. But yes, if you want to get to the presupposition of the question, that one should be answered too. You slowly are getting a philosophical inclination MigL... Good to see!

Don't expect too much from me... Ethics never was a main topic for me. I would say, as any sensible person, just the risk of giving capital punishment to an innocent should be reason enough to refrain from it. And AFAIK deterrence seldom works. So I think incarceration might be the best solution, in the first place simply because we put somebody away who has proven to be dangerous, in the second place we, i.e. society must attach consequences to people who do not want to play by the rules. However, if a society does not take the chance to rehabilitate the offender, it is not much use. Just putting somebody in jail, specially when it is overfilled, you create offenders and possibly more radical ones too. In this respect, it seems to me that there is a huge difference between prisons here in Europe, and in the USA. Most of the times rehabilitation is the aim. Therefore we might take some risks, letting out somebody who will still act criminally (which hurts extremely when its is murder on innocent people), but I think a lot more crimes are committed by ex-inmates who were radicalised by their life in prison. To get a glimpse of the difference between the USA and Scandinavia, there is a short series about 'the Norden'. This is the episode about prisons (the others are just as interesting): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfEsz812Q1I To get back at capital punishment: there are also examples of murderers who felt much remorse about their killing, and ended up meeting the family of the victim, or became meditators, even meditation teachers to their fellow inmates. These are pretty extreme examples of course, but just killing a criminal, or putting him/her in jail purely as punishment I find useless, and not something a civilised society should do. Punishment yes, but for the betterment of offender and society. A loose-loose is the last we want, no?

Then the world is absurd. See a ball and feathers falling in vacuum:

Wow, 'sphere of existence'... Where can I find that sphere? I did not say that daydreaming or its interpretations do not exist. I said that their existence is different from that of physical objects, because when there were no humans (or other similar conscious entities), there would not be daydreaming.

Janus is right, it was an argument from Galileo against the Aristotelian view on falling objects. In Aristotelian physics, an object twice as heavy as another, falls twice as fast. Galileo's argument works against that viewpoint, but not against Newton's, in which all objects fall with the same velocity (or better acceleration), independent on their mass, and therefore independent on their weight in the same gravitation field. So you are physically and historically wrong. Just to add, Galileo is the first person known, who said that all objects fall the same way, independent of their mass.

Sigh. Are you intentionally misunderstanding me? What when there is no Queen of Britain? Then there are no balancing policies of her either. They do not depend on me, or you, but definitely on HM Elizabeth. Electrons on the other hand, would continue to exist even if no human would be there to detect them. So different kind of things exist in different ways. That is my whole point. There is no general EXISTENCE, except if you use such wavy definitions that I used as a reaction on Alex Mercer's post . Existence is not an attribute, as being white, or being rich, etc.

I fully agree, but you are not reacting on what I actually said. And you have not refuted anything, you have just contradicted some view without a single argument. Just look at it this way: if something, principally, cannot play a role in our lives, can you then say it exists? And then I am not looking at historical accidents. E.g. a photon produced by a star in a galaxy billions light years away, arriving at one of its planets surely does not play a role in our lives. But photons definitely effect our lives very much (how else could you read this?). So photons exist, even if we happen not to observe them because they do not reach us. Your view seems exactly what I warned about: to reduce the meaning of 'existence' to one category (physical existence in this case). But I mentioned many more. If we take your view, 'existence' meaning 'existing independently', then a whole lot of 'things' we normally see as existing, wouldn't: holes, shadows, juridical laws, laws of nature, institutions, thoughts, feelings. None of these exist independently. If I were Descartes, I would say, yes, namely the mind. But I am not. ('Res extensa' i.e. everything that takes place in space vs 'res cogitans', the mind). I just reacted to Studiot's question, which was about time. But surely you are right that much what applies to time, also applies to space. A possible answer to your question could be 'mathematical truths'. But that, as said, is a complete new topic in itself. I do not want to go there now.

Sure, for many 'things' existence means 'existing in time'. But there are a few exceptions, which I think I mentioned already: mathematical truths, laws of nature to name just two. And as said, time itself.

Sorry, I am too lazy to look up the exact place where you made the link. But I think only for some categories existence and time are related. Surely for physical processes, but it becomes difficult when you think about laws of nature, and then that which I left out: mathematics. And then think about time itself. There you could get in a definitional loop. (And if this does not fit to your link, then please refer to it, or say it again, maybe a little bit different after my exposé.)

'Existence' is a word with 9 letters. And if you want to know about the concept behind the word, I think I showed that it depends on the context: existence of what? If you want a general definition you would get something like 'something exists if it can play a role in somebody's life'. And here you see something else: 'existence' is the substantivation of the verb 'to exist'. So the existence of what are you interested in? To give again another example: space and time. One could call them the 'stage' on which causal processes occur (Pity that Markus is away now, he surely had to say something about it from the viewpoint of general relativity...). But they themselves do not exist in the same way as physical objects or processes exist in space and time. Space does not punch a ball, neither does time. Asking for THE general, meaning of EXISTENCE, leads to nothing other than all kind of philosophical apories, getting people confused. And if you insist on one meaning, it will lead to some bad metaphysics.

Yes, pity isn't it? Because the context in which somebody declares the existence of something is essential. 'Things' (the quotes are there to do a warm-up for what is coming...) exist in totally different ways, depending on the kind of 'things' we are talking about. So let's try a few examples, with my comments. Existence of a ball This would fall under what I would call physical existence. It means that a ball can exist independently from its immediate surroundings, and can play a role in causal relationships. It can be moved by another physical object, and it's movement can move other objects Existence of rain Rain is an example of a process. One could defend, a bit exaggerated, that if the above description of 'existence' is the only correct one, then rain does not exist: what exists are water drops (physical objects), falling down from clouds. But I think this comparison shows at least a difference with the previous one: without some physically existing things, processes cannot exist. Existence of a hole Holes cannot exist independently. E.g. if you have a cannon ball, you can completely remove all its surroundings, and it is still a cannon ball (fire it up to the sky with more than escape velocity, and it will further exist in vacuum). Remove the complete surroundings of a hole, and there is no hole anymore. 'Holes' are more or less a byproduct of what we conceive as normal. Say we have a golf ball, rolling over the lawn. The hole in which it drops is on one side very real: in the end, dropping is a physical process. But physically it is better described as the absence of supporting ground, as it is around the hole. Having the hole under the ball, the ball van continue its natural movement, which is following gravity. Existence of the one Ring One could say it has narrative existence. In cases of stories, e.g. one can even reach some kind of objective existence in these stories. One can answer questions about an imaginary object, and the answer can be right or wrong. "Does the one Ring of Sauron has a jewel in it?" If you read the Lord of the Rings, you know it hasn't. Does the Ring exist? Well, not physically, in our physical world. But it definitely exists in the context of the story. Existence of rules and laws Does there exist a law that you should drive on the right side of the road? In many countries (sorry Studiot ;-)), yes. But such 'human laws' exist in the sense that people made it, and act accordingly (and might be fined if they do not). Existence of laws of nature That is pity enough a very tough one. It is clear (otherwise science would not be possible) that there exist (!) regularities in nature. However the laws of nature are our formulations of these regularities. And we can be wrong about these formulations. But one could say they exist, at least in the sense that scientists discuss about them, technicians apply them, and describe at least partially the observations and experiments we have done. Existence of other cultural phenomena Does science exist? Science, from the viewpoint of 'existence', is a meaningful conglomerate of all the above. I think we could make this list longer and longer (I left out mathematics, that would become a topic in itself). But moral of the story is: there is no general concept of 'existence'. But in our daily life, using the concept, it often is pretty clear what we mean, and is not problematic at all. Seeing the concept 'existence' as something having a well defined meaning, leads to all kind of philosophical diseases. I think I have said nothing revolutionary in this post, but a lot of the confusion in such kinds of 'fundamental questions' arise because the seemingly simple structure of language put a spell on our way of thinking: in this case 'one word - one concept'). Philosophy is a way to free us from these kind of spells. Just having a philosophical opinion (or better an opinion about a philosophical subject) doesn't help a bit in reaching intellectual clarity. Psst... I think it is your Avatar...

That would be the same as arguing physics is BS, because there are so many crackpot theories (see our Speculations section). One should look what professional, academic philosophers have to say about 'existence', not at philosophical 'hip shots' of people who are not knowledgeable about what philosophy has to say about the topic.

Hi Markus, This is regrettable for us. I will miss your expert knowledge on relativity, your honesty, and your nearly endless friendly reactions, even on the most weird ideas that are posted here. This friendliness is already a clear sign that you are on the right track. I also like very much that you showed us all that there is no contradiction between the spiritual path you are going, and a scientific world view. And not to forget, your openness on your autism, and your setting straight some misunderstandings about being on the autistic spectrum from your own experience. Somehow I nearly feel like I found a kind of friend, possibly I am not the only one that feels that way. I take it as a sign that you are progressing on your path, you are not the first Buddhist I encounter (in real life and on the internet) that gives me such a feeling. So it is an empirical statement . I like the idea of sending you a 'post card' So here is mine: I've been camping here on my own for nearly 2 weeks (in 1991, but went there a few other times), on the Great Blasket Island at the end of the Dingle peninsula; between the two unroofed houses a bit right from the centre of the picture. I wish you all the best, and hope very much get further on your path. A deep 'gasho' for you from me. I hope we will meet again, here, or even once in real life. Who knows? Eise

Thank you for your welcome. But I do not know yet if I am 'back'. It is just that, due to corona measures, I am now working at home (since October), and for some reason it is tiring me more than working in the office. Then additionally to my work, posting meaningful postings here is just another task, instead of fun. So no promise when I chime in again. But be aware! I am still reading the forum nearly every day. And because this was such a clearly real philosophical theme, I had to write my little exposé. No, not necessarily. And as a a heuristic principle, not a methodological one, it is not the 'way to truth'. And it is also not very precise: how does one count assumptions, or entities involved in your scientific theories. Ockhams razor is helpful, but not decisive for the soundness of a scientific theory. I think one should not use Ockhams razor outside a scientific context. (Weren't you an engineer?) So I cannot subscript to your position: You do not compare scientific theories here. And different ways to tackle a practical scientific target, are perfectly fine. Classical mechanics is a great example. It doesn't matter for the outcome if you use the laws of Newton directly, or use the Lagrangian, or whatever. In the end, it is already proven that they are empirically, even mathematically, equivalent. So in the end, both approaches are belong to the same theory. Just pick the method that leads you to the conclusion in the easiest way. That sounds nicer, yes. I also hope it means exactly the same. You can always correct my English, in the end, it is not my mother tongue. And speaking the noblest of English on my dying bed sounds a a nice idea!

I think it is important too see what Ockham's razor is: it is a heuristic principle, not a criterion for truth. A fine modern translation would be that if you have two theories that explain exactly the same empirical phenomena, then the one which less assumptions is the better one. As an example: the Lorentz transformations were already derived by... eh... Lorentz, and later again by Poincaré, and again later by Einstein. But Einstein's version comes away with only 2 assumptions (relativity and the invariance of the speed of light). But there is an ambiguity in the different formulations of Ockham's razor. If you take the one mostly attributed to Ockham: "Entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity" it is about what we assume about reality. If we can explain phenomena without using God, angels, the luminiferious aether, or a preferred frame of reference, then they should not play any role in our theories. On the other side, we have such vague formulations, like "Plurality must never be posited without necessity". We could also apply, as I did above, on the number of assumptions of your theory. An example where both versions come in conflict is the multiverse. On one side, it posits the existence of many (infinite?) separate universes which is against "Entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity"; on the other side it may have less assumptions, because we do not have to explain why the laws of nature are as we find them in our universe. And then there is Einstein's formulation, something like "A scientific theory must be as simple as possible, but not simpler.". So as a heuristic principle, I would translate it as: if you want to explain a phenomenon, then start with the simplest possible hypothesis; if it doesn't work out, take a more complicated hypothesis, etc. So it is a way of selecting theories you want to probe first. But in all cases, experiment and observation decide if you are right or not. If a complicated theory works empirically, and simpler ones don't, the complicated theory is preferred.

That is wrong already. Assuming you mean that 'objects you drop from a tower, without pushing them in any direction', due to the earth's rotation, objects will not fall exactly straight. The top of a (high) tower has a higher speed then the surface of the earth. So an object will follow a curve, closing in to a straight line more and more during its fall. In your citation there is no mentioning of forces, only of movements. The example I gave above might be measurable, but I think that the rest of the movements does not contribute big enough to the deviation of a straight line to be measured.

What!? It was made for you!

Just to add my 2 cents: as a philosopher, I of course am aware of the many topics in philosophy. However, even philosophers should also be firmly rooted in practical life. And, as said, the philosophy forum is not the most busy one. If MSCs proposal would be implemented, I assume most of the subfora would stay empty, and indeed, the administrators would get the extra job to see if something is ethics or meta-ethics, social philosophy or philosophical anthropology, logic or meta-logic, cognitive philosophy or philosophy of science etc. etc. I am perfectly happy with the present categorisation, pure for practical reasons. On the other side, having a subforum in 'The Lounge' on Sculptures made of almonds is perfectly justified. 😋

Testing relativity formulas for the thread which name we do not mention... \[ t = \frac{{t}' + \frac{v{x}'}{c^{2}}}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^{2}}{c^{2}}}} \] \[t = \frac{{0} + {0.8} . {0.6} }{\sqrt{1 - {0.8 ^{2}}}}\]

Where did Pascal got the time to write such things down? According to most other philosophers, philosophy only exists in cultures where people have spare time. E.g. the Greeks had slaves, which gave their masters time to reflect on nature, society and themselves. People who have no time could be: full in the struggle of life: all their time is used to get food, shelter, and stay safe for any danger totally unaware that their world could be different as it is, i.e. accept the culture or society in which they live as a 'naturally given' and conform to to it without reflecting (My disclaimer could be extended from science to more or less all of life ("There is no such thing as philosophy-free science; there is only science whose philosophical baggage is taken on board without examination.")). Ideologically shaped societal dogmas are seen as 'natural', or 'obviously the best principles to live by'.

Here, a mirror...

That is a pretty useless example of very bad philosophy. you state that only facts matter in life you state that only numerically quantifiable observations count as facts And that without even one simple argument. This reduces your viewpoint to an irrational (and none quantifiable and non-factual) mental jerk.

Well, at least cladking has shown us extensively one example of bad philosophy. Ill informed about what science and philosophy are, or better, what scientists and philosophers do, cladking vents his ideas about them. To look back one the criteria I proposed earlier in this thread: Nope Hardly Nope Nope. Done.