geordief

Senior Members
  • Content count

    1361
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

78 Excellent

About geordief

  • Rank
    Organism

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

8255 profile views
  1. Time and space

    I half addressed that earlier to say that I didn't think this but gave no reason... apart from bias. https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/115336-time-and-space/?do=findComment&comment=1061119 Perhaps it might be the case that a reality can be understood as both subjective and objective. The world does indeed continue indifferent to our observing it but is a different place for our doing so (observing it) . We do all observe a different reality but we also share (and are a facet of) the same objective reality without a contradiction.
  2. Time and space

    Apparently it is now. But when we look back on the astonishing discoveries that have been made in all sorts of areas of science and physics it does not seem to me unlikely that at some (perhaps quite near) point that that particular mystery will be resolved (to be replaced by another head scratcher) The way forward ,it seems to me is simply by making and assimilating further observations .They are the two headed sword that clears the path ahead but makes an almighty new mess as it does so.(if metaphors can be thus mangled )
  3. Time and space

    But something is real that has led us to model it as a curvature (of coordinates) ,isn't it ?We don't know what it is and anyway the question of what was behind that would repeat itself,wouldn't it? Does the definition of "real" as a modeling process that repeats itself (like turtles) allow us to actually better define what we mean when we say "real"? (a bit like the calculus of the limits)
  4. Is Israel evolving into a fascist nation?

    Not sure about a fascist state as it has been under physical attack and has a duty to its citizens to protect them. But a quasi state yes. An exceptional carve out. The treatment of Jews (and others) by Germany during and before the war has led up to this unsustainable position where no perfect position can be hoped for. That is not to say that within this intolerable situation elements within Israel cannot make the situation even worse (They are now) This latest development does betray the Ideals on which Israel was presumably founded. Edit I missed "evolving." That is a genuine fear.
  5. Time and space

    Nothing to add. It seems like we might have a similar approach. Perhaps you can point out any bad errors or misstatements (it is all the fashion these days ) in my own past 3 or 4 answers in this thread. Do you like my "model of the modeled" idea.? What about my idea that models are a subset of natural processes and not set apart from them? Not entirely sure about your last point,which (I italicised) .....although I would like it to be correct.
  6. Time and space

    Still,I have heard people say that the universe does not need our observation for its processes to continue their merry way (in response to some who claim that things only happen when we observe them) I agree** with that former view and wonder whether we can extrapolate (maybe it's just an analogy rather than an extrapolation) and say that "the modeled" exists in spite of our error prone attempts to model it (albeit,apparently more and more closely) As an aside I am interested that you say that the electron field permeates all space as I had been wondering if it was the case. Is one of the theories that this field is quantized? Would that place a limit on its "range"? **why I do agree apart from innate bias ,I can't say.
  7. Time and space

    I think I meant "underlying" or "responsible" ,something behind the facade. (is that turtle territory?) Actually, are there different kind of charged particles? Are there particles that carry the weak/strong force which repel or attract similarly to electric charges? No ,but physics (physical models) are,to my mind a subset of natural phenomena and so the "is a donkey real" question could perhaps be seen as category of thing/name** question that bore a relation to the model vs the modeled question (well it is a question I have asked myself) which does seem to crop up from time to time on these forums. (it seems easy to mistake the model for the modeled and this gets pointed out occasionally ,esp when it comes to spacetime) **can the "name" be considered as a model of the "thing" in a kind of way?
  8. Time and space

    You know something (different) exists. It is just a matter of putting a name to it. Yes there could be any amount of phenomena causing the effect (interaction) but we only give a name for those we can distinguish between (in this case I am guessing there is but one kind of electric field but I could well be mistaken) We could apply a similar argument to "is a donkey real?" We know something there is real ,but is it a donkey? Maybe its an ass.. or a facsimile or Trump on one of his better days. I wonder if the onus is not rather on anyone who doubts whether any particular thing is real (as opposed to "exactly so") rather than on the common sense main on Maine St who knows something is real but doesn't claim to be able to say what exactly it is (even it it seems blindingly obvious)
  9. Time and space

    Sure . Well I answered yes ,that electric fields exist physically and are not a model. Are you saying that they are just a model? To expand I would say (not wishing to presume as my education is nothing to write home about) that "electric field" could equally refer to the abstract model as to the "real thing" that I am claiming it is. Language is inadequate to draw the distinction (well it has not seemed necessary to use language to draw the distinction ,maybe except in a roundabout way) But ,yes it seems to me that we can **feel an electric field and so would assume it was a real thing just like any other (but would not feel the same way about the abstract model that attempts to describe it on its own terms) **eg we can feel electrostatic fields when they make our hair stand up
  10. Time and space

    Yes. I know when they were first discovered they seemed magical (seemed like action at a distance) but does that not apply to any new discovery? Do colour blind people doubt that colours are real?
  11. Time and space

    Does that Feynman quote really only apply to quantum systems? We wouldn't talk the same way about a cat in a box** would we ? The cat would be real and the box would be real . Not that it would be necessarily helpful to point that out but it would be pretty indefensible and bewildering to say that things we interact with on an everyday basis were somehow "not real" or "almost real" would it? ** not that cat
  12. Time and space

    Well what I am getting at is that your examples seem a bit like the clock that is right twice a day. I f you attempt to use the correlation between the two processes to estimate what the correlation would be a second time around ,then errors would enter the scenario as the setup could not be repeated exactly. To address Markus' point a little more directly (well tangentially) if anyone were to show how time based processes emerged fro timeless processes this would be an amazing achievement but I haven't heard that this has been done (or even attempted?)
  13. Time and space

    What about repeatable accurate predictions?
  14. Time and space

    Does that still allow one to make predictions? (I am guessing no ) If not is this method of measuring change only trivially rigorous?
  15. Time and space

    Any specific examples? A is a function of B. What might that function look like? Would B be the inverse function of A?