eon_rider

So you really need someone to tell you this? With great respect I think it's clear that Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and the other major world religions out there have little to do with the philosophers, Hobbes: great modern materialist and political theorist (social contract). Locke: moderate empiricist and political theorist, influenced American "Founding Fathers". Hume: Radical empiricist, Critic of religion; also famous during his lifetime as a historian. Kant: Famous for his argument that mind shapes reality, and his ethical theory that emphasized reason, duty and rights over desires (major rival to Utilitarianism). Also famous for his jargon, formidable writing style. Hegel: German system builder, emphasized historical development of thought. Mill: English genius who wrote about logic, language and math, political theory, science, ethics . Known for development of Utilitarian theory in ethics and his arguments on behalf of freedom of press/speech. Nietszche: famous relativist, critic of Christian ethics. William James: great American psychologist and philosopher, proponent of pragmatism and concept analysis. Russell: worked in all areas of philosophy. Famous for emphasizing analysis; influential critic of Hegelian philosophy, important philosopher of logic and mathematics. Political activist. Prolific writer. Wittgenstein: brilliant student of Russell, focussed on language and knowledge (also aeronautical engineer and amateur architect) Carnap: influential scientific empiricist. Emigrated from Austria to U.S. Sartre: French Existentialist, novelist, became a Marxist Quine: influential Harvard empiricist, logician, behaviorist and pragmatist. Polished writer. Jerry Fodor (CUNY, Rutgers): focusses on philosophy of language; famous for his Language of Thought theory. Entertaining writing style. Saul Kripke (Princeton): has focussed on philosophy of language and modal logic. Very clear writer. John Searle (Berkeley): works in philosophy of language and mind; critic of French "deconstructionism" and of artificial intelligence. Also very clear writer. So what do you think? Are they the same? We're not even scratching the surface of the differences. Not even the surface of the surface. LOL. But is that fair enough?

Ok. I was kiddin, but you know the difference. google it. Dictionary.com it Wikipedia it. Call or visit and talk to an outstanding professor of philosophy about the difference. Call and talk to an outstanding theologian about the difference. OR Even talk to a very thoughtful physicist about the difference. If your being funny then I'll reply they are spelled differently. If you are being serious then I don't know what to say. Peace, Eon. PS. Nice avatar....cute... I'm still looking for a funny one.

your bias. lol.

Not an expert however, I'm starting to think you can't mix talk of multiple "present realities" and SR or GR without argument and confusion. If one just takes S/GR for what it is, and does not try to talk about multiple realities then things seem to go smoothly. If you are asking are there multiple present realities in a philosophical context then the debate can go full steam ahead. But that may be another section of the site. I keep making this mistake myself. (Mixing the two) So I'm trying to know S/GR a little better, and certain areas of philosophy a little better so that I can separate the two, and not confuse apples with oranges. If it is apples and oranges? LOL I hope that helps and I bet a better informed scientist, or philosopher will chime in. Personally I think the question is fantastic and I get prodded about it tooo! But mathematicians and scientist are going to say. Wrong section of the forum. (that's what they tell me at least...LOL....and that's OK...totaly understandable. S/GR is suppossed to be physics and only physics.) But S/GR is very profound. I don't think that point is argueable. best Eon. PS. I'm still learning.

Comment: Science Forums is cool. Just a positive comment. nuff said, Eon.

Philosophy and Religion do not come under the same umbrella. They should be able to each have their own areas on the board. Sharing the same space confuses the two seperate subjects. Any one second this? Should they get their own area. Does it matter? Eon.

Unfortunately, the original thought showed a total conceptual misunderstanding on my part. What was brilliant, and I’m thankful, and I hope I don’t forget is how Lars n Co, Spyman, Big Moosie, Jakiri (pimpin Nixon, and doom song..lol), Severian, Tycho, Tom Mattson, Transdecimel, Tomas Kirby, robotochan, and Swansont ALL graciously helped clear up the issue as best they could for a lay person (non expert). My question showed a misunderstanding. The replies all helped to correct it and clarify. I’ll never understand S/GR like most of those guys and gals, but their input did clarify and correct a few key things and I’m grateful. Yea for physics forum. Ok. .... so thanks, Eon. PS. a little discussion to clear up a misconception is great when it works, but unfortunately not always a guarantee. Still when it works it works.

anyway you like, of course. I'm sure you can find a tape measure or ruler somewhere. You could be 100 percent correct Atheist, but that is not what he wrote. His question is below. So yes there is a difference between the measurement of time and time itself. As pointed out. Then he makes a statement. Then he asked a second question. He's just repeating the question. I assume he really meant what he asked, not something else. Fair enough? We're on the same side really I think.... I agree, if he says he meant something else than you may be totally correct. OK? Win/win here...is good. Look. Honestly, I don't know? My best guess would be the philosophical answer to "what is time" is eternally un-concludable. And forever ponderable. But in science, here's one definition: "Time measurements are used to quantify how far apart events occur." Atheist pointed out some other non-philosophical types of time used in science and math. I'm told that several types of time are used in math depending on what you are observing or theorising, or measuring. All of them (in the scientific context) are used to measure temporal events in some way. Sorry to go on for so long. Best to all, Eon.

Thanks for replying so expertly and patiently. I did jump from A to B. Apologies, I was being chatty due to interested in the subject. You are a scholar and a gentleman. Thanks for the link. I'll read it now. Time is an interesting subject for me. Always has been. very best, Cheers, Point taken. I understand what you are saying. Non-relativistic quantum mechanics is truly the abode of a serious mathematician. Talking mathematics with in a thousand foot radius of NRQM is completely germane. The maths is well well well beyond me. Very best again sir. Eon. PS. There is no "respectful tipping of the hat" smilie...lol...so the effusive yellow smiley face above is the best I can offer.

I think it's just a small issue of how you define absolute and relative, or objective and subjective in reference to reality. It's nothing more than semantics. Physics works. No worries. Whether one calls it the study of all things absolute (objective) or all things relative (subjective) to each other {or relative (subjective) to the observer} be it the scientist, or whomever. Is the plane relative to the ground? Yes. Is speed relative to mass? Yes. Is a star relative to another star? Yes. Is a cell relative to another cell or its constituent parts? Yes. Can you talk about these things or anything in isolation? No. I don't think so. Everything in time and space has to reference either the observer or another part of itself, or another object, or be in relation to something other then itself or else it has no meaning. The difference gives it meaning. Differences are relative to each other. Do we call all these things the study of objective reality? Sure. Why not? who cares? The term objective sounds more sturdy and unshakable, than the term or idea of the study of all things subjective (relative). The observation of an objective and absolute reality presents a better image. Less crack pot. In the end the whole debate is tiny. Call science what consensus insists it be called. I don't see why it's such a big deal? But never mind. "Science is the study (observation and measurement) of objective reality" Everybody happy? best Eon. PS. My 2 cents only. Not a big deal, the more I think about it. PPS. sorry...the lead up was important....back to your original question Is there a difference between "a measurement" and "the thing measured." ? The answer should be clear now. Go measure a wall, or anything and tell me if your measurement and the thing you are measuring are the same thing. Is your measurement the wall? Say you measure the time it takes to walk across a room on your stop watch. Is the measurement of the time (the number on the stop watch), the same as the "time" that passed during the walk? One's a representational number or measurement of a time event, and the latter is the actual time event. How can they be the same? The former can represent the latter, but it can't be the same. best again,

after he (J.B.) explained it for the lay person I understood it better. Very cool paper. Thanks for the link.

EDIT: The anchor produces 500 horsepower as IT IS ANCHORED TO THE FIRST SHIP! (not anchored to the shore) The two ships are like one. The weight is doubled. So the anchor produces 500 horse power for the second ship. Actually horsepower has multiple definitions depending on how it's applied so even if the second ship as I'm suggesting is anchored to the first ship I'm not sure if weight is even a variable affecting the distribution of horse power in this particular system. LOL... or there are multiple answers to the question depending on approach and/or other unknowns not revealed in the question. So several answers posted may already be correct. Not sure.

Just for fun. Apoligies if it's boring. It's not just about time. well-defined by who? by space-time? or by us? Our neurology does some serious filtering of the raw data of the universe. Our measuring instruments are caught up in that bias, to suit our biological make up and perception. It's a bit self evident. Bell, Einstein, Mermin, Feynman and many others have said some interesting things about human perception and physics. so back to time... I don't think one can't use or build an instrument to empirically gather data unless it interfaces with our human brain and body. (perceptual bais is passed onto any instrument we build be it a clock or a super collider) We can't see out of the fish bowl so to speak at the current time. But we're getting better at it, I believe. That makes science really important and interesting. The calculus is the last word? Singularities, and the 12, 20, 24 plus dimensions of respectable main stream science are not exactly empirically testable and do seem to have a kind of math building the multi-dimensional reality. Perhaps if we build it, it will come. Some beautiful and brilliant math, I am told. But how can math build reality? Can't a Galilean spacetime diagram also be just a diagram and not a proof that our current notion of time is spot on?. Best and apologies for lack of clarity. I'm no expert. I'm just asking questions like my science teachers taught me to. Anyway...What's your view of time? Any good links? best, eon.

Actually........just finished reading a paper on time published in Foundation in Physics Letters by Peter Lynds Very cool theory of time that's got some good logic in it, but seems to upset aspects of calculus. His theory of time certainly appears to clear up an ancient paradox or two. (Zeno's) His personal story's pretty amazing too. One can google info about his papers on time and his story if interested. eon.

Respectfully, I think one can't say that all of this theory lacks ANY testable feature. F-MRI's and other brain scanning advances may allow testing of whether specialised neurons fire with certain frequencies to mark the passage of time. Measuring neural activity and human perception with imaging is improving every year. Neuroscience is very much a hard/solid, measurable science. 2003 Reith lectures have some cool stuff on what scientists are learning about brain function and human perception of the world. Dr. Ramachandran is very very cool. Explains things clearly. best, eon. PS. http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/reith2003/lectures.shtml The BBC hosts the site. I think you need real player to listen. You can read the text but it's flat compared to the listening to it. I think, but I'm not sure, that Dr Ramachandran expands on the text also.

It's a question of great interest. But I think it does have little bearing in the lab. But time is debated often by scientists. Not just philosophers. As long as time is a variable in scientific equations, in business, in home life, in ageing, then it is naturally a subject of interest to many. (just my 2 cents conflated with my reading on the issue.) so...Time is only a conceptual apparatus on the one hand, but on the other it may be a physical system of some kind. Neural changes may mark time in a certain areas of the brain, Neural changes happen in response to environmental changes, then we translate that into the hard fact that time has passed. It could be all areas of the brain, and nervous system, and body marking changes in the environment in concert and marking it somewhere in the brain. My understanding is that atomic clocks mark the vibrations or changes of certain atoms. We conflate (synchronise?) our natural sense of time (internal marking of environmental change) with the information from the clock. Be it an atomic clock or wrist watch or whatever. (before clocks time was marked externally by sunsets and sunrises, change of seasons, and ageing) To sum up my weak understanding: Time may be simply an neural measure of "change in environment." T = CIE time = change in environment? I dunno? I think science can nail it down better in the future. I've never read any definitive answer as to "what time is". I'm no expert. best, eon. PS. Anyone have a link to a clear definitive explanation of time?

I think I'm actually asking in my question number 2 about "local realism". Einstein said the the Moon is "out there" even when no one is observing it, otherwise checking physical laws empirically would become unworkable. It seems the same would apply to "matter in boxes, and an observer's affects on that matter." So it would seem my question number 2 is a non-starter.

Got it. Thanks. Ok. It's a two state system. (a zero or one. Cat's alive or it's not) got it. Glad to know that Quantum Physics is not that weird. Pretty normal stuff. best eon EDITED TO ADD: 1 )How would one possibly get that information without opening the box? If you poked a hole in the side of the box and extracted some DNA you'd be interfering with the state of the binary system? Wouldn't you? So how could one get that DNA with out interfering with the system? (and collapsing the alive vs dead wave function.) I certainly don't know the answer. 2) A totally different question. What if it was not a binary system? Could one create a non-binary system where the object in the box was unknown, and one was attempting to postulate what might be in the box before I observe it? Then could the possibilities theoretically be infinite? Proving without the observer the true state of any matter in the universe is unknowable? (and totally dependant on the function of the observer or the act of being observed?) The first question is more serious. The second question is just for fun.

LOL... very funny cartoon. as to the question of possible states. Correct me if I’m wrong, but... Others keep talking about 2 possible states, but my understanding is that the particle (or cat) can be in not 2 states or 4 states or 10 states (I sound like I’m selling a set of steak knives on T.V. ) but an infinite amount of possible states until you take the top off the box. The whole 2 state thing was just to simplify but the cat could have turned into a giraffe, or a planet, or a sea monkey or whatever. (this correlates to all the possible states of the particle some how...lol... ) Is that somewhat correct?

Ok. I believe I get that. Because with in it's own reference frame the train is not moving at all. It's standing still. Zero Velocity. (Duh, my bad, as that is suppossed to be one of the major points of GR. ) Right? One can only say (the train/the object) is going .99© from the observational reference frame of the train it's travelling in. (or the immediately one bigger train. I can't think of the correct wording for it, but you get the idea.) I hope I get the idea too. LOL. best eon.

Thanks...more info....the learning just never stops....good stuff.... I'll study on... Well now I get it ...thanks for explaining...makes sense... very clear....Cheers and best.

I have a feeling someone will point out that any space/time distortion (compression) has similar limits related to the fact that nothing but light can travel at the speed of light. Not sure. lol. EDIT: AHA....while I was writing this post.... SPYMAN said it! You just answered my question. I think your right. thanks and best, eon PS. thanks Lars and BigM too....

EDITED: Thanks guys....I hear what you're saying. Thanks for the reply. Very much. And You are right, nothing can travel equal to the speed of light. So...let's make it .99c Would that work? Each train travels, within it's own reference frame at .99© Meanwhile "Space/time" is changing. (compressing or whatever) According to my understanding. My question remains, can we layer the reference frames like this for ever? ( ie. have reference frames nested within each other like this ad infinitum?) thanks

I'm trying to get my head around something in S/GR. Say we have a very large train that contains a smaller train with station inside it. (imagine a model train inside a full sized train) Next inside that 2nd model train set is an even smaller 3rd model train set. Inside this 3rd smaller model train set we have yet another 4th model train set, and so on until we have 10,000 trains travelling with in each other. (like Russian nesting dolls (matryoshka)) Luckily, the first train (alpha train) is very large and is several hundred parsecs long. Anyway, the journey of the first train begins. The alpha train takes off from the alpha station at the speed of light, or if that's not possible at .99© {ie. slightly slower than the speed of light} The 2nd train within the Alpha train then takes off at the speed of light {or .99©} in the same "forward and straight line" direction from the rear of the alpha train to the front. Then the 3rd train within the 2nd train takes off at the speed of light or {.99©}. Then the 4th train within the 3rd train takes off at the speed of light or {.99©}. All in the same direction. Straight ahead. All within their own frame of reference. We repeat this pattern 10,000 times. Can this go on for ever? Do we ever hit a space/time compression limit? Thanks. Hope this makes sense. If not, please let me know where you'd like me to clarify. Thanks much for any help, and sorry if this question is elementary. Eon.