BaalChatzaf Posted November 3, 2016 Share Posted November 3, 2016 Everyone has his/her own personal Now. It is the personal Now that separates the personal past from the personal future. Issac Newton believed in an absolute Now where time flowed the same for everyone. He was wrong. Einstein showed that relative motion affects the length of time intervals objectively measured. There is no one universal rate of time flow or one universal measure of time intervals. Space intervals depend on the motion of the person doing the measurement. The Minkowsky space-time interval is invariant relative to motion differences. Even so the ordering of events is not absolute. Simultaneity is not absolute. So time, one of the basic measures of events is not entirely objective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted November 4, 2016 Share Posted November 4, 2016 3 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said: Everyone has his/her own personal Now. It is the personal Now that separates the personal past from the personal future. Issac Newton believed in an absolute Now where time flowed the same for everyone. He was wrong. Einstein showed that relative motion affects the length of time intervals objectively measured. There is no one universal rate of time flow or one universal measure of time intervals. Space intervals depend on the motion of the person doing the measurement. The Minkowsky space-time interval is invariant relative to motion differences. Even so the ordering of events is not absolute. Simultaneity is not absolute. So time, one of the basic measures of events is not entirely objective. All you have to do is particularize the motion being measured. The Earth revolves around the sun in about 365 days. Etc. The subjective passage of time is an experience, not a measurement. Space and time are ideas, not things. Measuring a measurement is like measuring a ruler. It's the ruler that measures. Mathematics is not a science, only a tool of science. Mathematical physics is a contradiction. It's math or it's physics. Physics is not a tool of mathematics. Mathematics is a tool of physicists. --Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted November 4, 2016 Author Share Posted November 4, 2016 45 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said: All you have to do is particularize the motion being measured. The Earth revolves around the sun in about 365 days. Etc. The subjective passage of time is an experience, not a measurement. Space and time are ideas, not things. Measuring a measurement is like measuring a ruler. It's the ruler that measures. Mathematics is not a science, only a tool of science. Mathematical physics is a contradiction. It's math or it's physics. Physics is not a tool of mathematics. Mathematics is a tool of physicists. --Brant Changes do occur in the cosmos. That is the basis of time. While NOW might be subjective there are objective changes that take place. The total entropy of the cosmos is increasing. That is because energy disperses in non reversible processes. When energy produces work irreversibly its ability to do further work diminishes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moralist Posted November 5, 2016 Share Posted November 5, 2016 On 11/3/2016 at 7:59 PM, BaalChatzaf said: While NOW might be subjective there are objective changes that take place. What each individual experiences in the present moment is subjective because people are totally subjective beings... ...however the reality of present moment itself is objective because that's the only "time/place" where those objective events can actually happen. People can only subjectively agree or disagree with what is objective. They can never be it. You can easily determine the extent of your own subjective agreement or disagreement with what is objective simply by examining the results of your own actions in your own life. Every totally subjective being is totally subservient to totally objective reality. Intellect and emotion mean nothing. Only what people actually do matters. Intentions are irrelevant. Quote The total entropy of the cosmos is increasing. ...just as the entropy of each individual's life is increasing. Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted November 5, 2016 Share Posted November 5, 2016 2 hours ago, moralist said: What each individual experiences in the present moment is subjective because people are totally subjective beings... ...however the reality of present moment itself is objective because that's the only "time/place" where those objective events can actually happen. People can only subjectively agree or disagree with what is objective. They can never be it. You can easily determine the extent of your own subjective agreement or disagreement with what is objective simply by examining the results of your own actions in your own life. Every totally subjective being is totally subservient to totally objective reality. Intellect and emotion mean nothing. Only what people actually do matters. Intentions are irrelevant. ...just as the entropy of each individual's life is increasing. Greg Since you think people are "totally subjective beings" you need to say why you think this. You can't be saying the physicality of the living human organism isn't part of objective reality. Science is used to discover objective truths. Why would a totally subjective being care about that? Scientists and laypeople also discover and know objective truth by bumping into and then consequently not bumping into facts (objective) of reality. Subjective being is actually subjective valuing. All valuing is subjective. Some values qua values are subjective and some objective. Archetypically water is an objective value subjectively valued. If you are dying of thirst in the desert you'll gladly exchange your gold for a canteen of water. Even if not gladly you'll still do it. --Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Letendre Posted November 5, 2016 Share Posted November 5, 2016 So Bob, are you saying that if you and I were separated by many light-years, each with a red button, that we could never, in principle, push the buttons simultaneously, right? I've heard such things but still don't accept it. You have explained before that GPS would not work accurately at all if the appropriate relativity adjustments were not made. So why we could we just made the appropriate adjustments? I could flash a light and you would push your button X of your seconds after seeing it. I would push my button Z of my seconds following my flash. We know our distances from each other and relative speeds, so why couldn't we just make the appropriate adjustments and achieve simultaneity? I can't see why not, in principle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted November 5, 2016 Share Posted November 5, 2016 25 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said: So Bob, are you saying that if you and I were separated by many light-years, each with a red button, that we could never, in principle, push the buttons simultaneously, right? I've heard such things but still don't accept it. You have explained before that GPS would not work accurately at all if the appropriate relativity adjustments were not made. So why we could we just made the appropriate adjustments? I could flash a light and you would push your button X of your seconds after seeing it. I would push my button Z of my seconds following my flash. We know our distances from each other and relative speeds, so why couldn't we just make the appropriate adjustments and achieve simultaneity? I can't see why not, in principle. The separation is impossible. --Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted November 5, 2016 Share Posted November 5, 2016 On 11/3/2016 at 7:59 PM, BaalChatzaf said: Changes do occur in the cosmos. That is the basis of time. While NOW might be subjective there are objective changes that take place. The total entropy of the cosmos is increasing. That is because energy disperses in non reversible processes. When energy produces work irreversibly its ability to do further work diminishes. This is positing a beginning and an end to existence. It doesn't explain how energy got all ginned up to be dispersed in the first place. The contradiction is fundamental for if you start with a high energy state it can happen again. Thus you are also saying the Big Bang never happened--that is, you should but don't; that's between the lines. With math anything can be proved if you can get a mathematical proof to start with. But a mathematical proof is tautological and empty. It's axiomatic but that's merely a contradiction further removed. Math has nothing to do with axioms which appertain only to the totality of existence and man's mind apprehending this. Existence has always existed because non-existence cannot for it's an idea only. --Brant which is mind boggling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted November 5, 2016 Author Share Posted November 5, 2016 5 hours ago, moralist said: What each individual experiences in the present moment is subjective because people are totally subjective beings... ...however the reality of present moment itself is objective because that's the only "time/place" where those objective events can actually happen. People can only subjectively agree or disagree with what is objective. They can never be it. You can easily determine the extent of your own subjective agreement or disagreement with what is objective simply by examining the results of your own actions in your own life. Every totally subjective being is totally subservient to totally objective reality. Intellect and emotion mean nothing. Only what people actually do matters. Intentions are irrelevant. ...just as the entropy of each individual's life is increasing. Greg As a person develops from fetus to functioning person his local entropy is decreasing. The total entropy of the universe always increase. But a local decrease of entropy is possible provided the process they produced it has as an entropy such that its entropy plus the resultant local entropy produces a sum greater than the original entropy of the universe. Entropy decreases locally when a process or object becomes more structured but the global entropy of the universe always increases. Life would not be possible with out net entropy production. When crystals form in a solution the total entropy of the chemical process that makes the crystals increases. An enthalphy decrease in a chemical process is always accompanied by in increase into total entropy which produces a decrease in Gibbs Free Energy. The Free does not refer to expense. It refers to the amount of energy capable of producing mechanical work or its equivalent. Please see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamic_free_energy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted November 5, 2016 Author Share Posted November 5, 2016 2 hours ago, Jon Letendre said: So Bob, are you saying that if you and I were separated by many light-years, each with a red button, that we could never, in principle, push the buttons simultaneously, right? I've heard such things but still don't accept it. You have explained before that GPS would not work accurately at all if the appropriate relativity adjustments were not made. So why we could we just made the appropriate adjustments? I could flash a light and you would push your button X of your seconds after seeing it. I would push my button Z of my seconds following my flash. We know our distances from each other and relative speeds, so why couldn't we just make the appropriate adjustments and achieve simultaneity? I can't see why not, in principle. actually we could relative to a frame of reference within which we were both at rest. That is relative simultaneity. There is no absolute simultaneity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Letendre Posted November 5, 2016 Share Posted November 5, 2016 1 hour ago, BaalChatzaf said: actually we could relative to a frame of reference within which we were both at rest. That is relative simultaneity. There is no absolute simultaneity. Meaning you and I would say "simultaneous" and any party at rest relative to us would agree with us, right? While a party zooming along relative to us would say one of us pushed first? And another party zooming along in the opposite direction would say the other one pushed first, is that right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Letendre Posted November 7, 2016 Share Posted November 7, 2016 On November 5, 2016 at 2:19 PM, Brant Gaede said: The separation is impossible. --Brant Hi Brant. i don't understand what you mean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted November 7, 2016 Share Posted November 7, 2016 8 hours ago, Jon Letendre said: Hi Brant. i don't understand what you mean. The "separation" is an idea only. You literally can't do the experiment. --Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Letendre Posted November 7, 2016 Share Posted November 7, 2016 2 hours ago, Brant Gaede said: The "separation" is an idea only. You literally can't do the experiment. --Brant Meaning that the idea that Voyager I has left the solar system and continues to recede from us by about ten miles per second is no more reflective of reality than the idea it is still on the launchpad? I might still not understand you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted November 8, 2016 Share Posted November 8, 2016 12 hours ago, Jon Letendre said: Meaning that the idea that Voyager I has left the solar system and continues to recede from us by about ten miles per second is no more reflective of reality than the idea it is still on the launchpad? I might still not understand you. 12 hours ago, Jon Letendre said: Meaning that the idea that Voyager I has left the solar system and continues to recede from us by about ten miles per second is no more reflective of reality than the idea it is still on the launchpad? I might still not understand you. I'm referring to the hypothetical mind experiment that cannot be done--except conceptually. A lot of (mathematical) physics seems to be of that sort. If you want to go back and requote my initial point of reference post we can start this discussion over again. --Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moralist Posted November 8, 2016 Share Posted November 8, 2016 On 11/5/2016 at 0:04 PM, Brant Gaede said: Since you think people are "totally subjective beings" you need to say why you think this. You can't be saying the physicality of the living human organism isn't part of objective reality. Oh, not at all Brant! Our physical accountability to all of the physical laws is absolute... however the CONCLUSIONS everyone draws from from their own experience are ALL totally subjective. They can only either subjectively agree or disagree with objective reality... but can never be objective reality. Now why is this so? Because the subjective conclusions we each choose to draw from our own experience are not physical... but acting on them is. This is why I've said many times that to assess how well your totally subjective conclusions either agree or disagree with objective reality, you need only to examine the objective physical results of your own actions in your own life. Quote Science is used to discover objective truths. Why would a totally subjective being care about that? Your own physical life depends upon your own discovery of objective truths. Quote Subjective being is actually subjective valuing. All valuing is subjective. Some values qua values are subjective and some objective. Archetypically water is an objective value subjectively valued. If you are dying of thirst in the desert you'll gladly exchange your gold for a canteen of water. Even if not gladly you'll still do it. People are literally dying of thirst for truth. Water is an objective physical reality rather than a value. Value is what we subjectively conclude from our experience of objective reality. Subjective valuing also implies objective morality. The effects of either subjectively agreeing or disagreeing with completely objective moral law have very objectively real physical consequences. Now why do I say moral law is also as objective as physical law? Because all of our totally subjective agreements or disagreements with it CANNOT change what It Is. Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moralist Posted November 8, 2016 Share Posted November 8, 2016 On 11/5/2016 at 3:32 PM, BaalChatzaf said: As a person develops from fetus to functioning person his local entropy is decreasing. Many adults never develop into functioning persons. They're helpless babies who couldn't even make a living without sucking off of their mommie government. Our own physical entropy is fact. However, humans are not only physical because they can have ideas. Thought itself is not physical. It has physical effects only when we act upon thought. Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted November 8, 2016 Author Share Posted November 8, 2016 6 hours ago, moralist said: Many adults never develop into functioning persons. They're helpless babies who couldn't even make a living without sucking off of their mommie government. Our own physical entropy is fact. However, humans are not only physical because they can have ideas. Thought itself is not physical. It has physical effects only when we act upon thought. Greg thought is an electro-chemical activity that takes place in the brain and nervous system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Letendre Posted November 9, 2016 Share Posted November 9, 2016 21 hours ago, Brant Gaede said: I'm referring to the hypothetical mind experiment that cannot be done--except conceptually. A lot of (mathematical) physics seems to be of that sort. If you want to go back and requote my initial point of reference post we can start this discussion over again. --Brant Ok, maybe later after election calms down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted November 9, 2016 Share Posted November 9, 2016 3 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said: thought is an electro-chemical activity that takes place in the brain and nervous system. Correctamente! --Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moralist Posted November 9, 2016 Share Posted November 9, 2016 6 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said: thought is an electro-chemical activity that takes place in the brain and nervous system. IF that's true... then you are solely a mass of amoral compulsive chemical reactions with no personal responsibility for your behavior... ...and that is a pillar of faith in the secular political religion of liberalism. Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted November 9, 2016 Author Share Posted November 9, 2016 6 hours ago, moralist said: IF that's true... then you are solely a mass of amoral compulsive chemical reactions with no personal responsibility for your behavior... ...and that is a pillar of faith in the secular political religion of liberalism. Greg There is something about the biology of primates which produces an "impulse to rectitude" . Even chimps and bonobos manifest something like "rules of fairness" in their activities. Elephants manifest something like compassion. So even if there is no metaphysical basis for goodness or responsibility there is some kind of biological mechanism that prodjuces a regulatory mode of constraint on observable behavior in some species of animals. It maybe that the biological processes underlying sentience and autonomy produces something like compassion and an urge to fairness. There is much more in our biological and psychological make up that produces more than crude reflex behavior. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted November 11, 2016 Share Posted November 11, 2016 On 11/9/2016 at 4:57 AM, BaalChatzaf said: There is something about the biology of primates which produces an "impulse to rectitude" . Even chimps and bonobos manifest something like "rules of fairness" in their activities. Elephants manifest something like compassion. So even if there is no metaphysical basis for goodness or responsibility there is some kind of biological mechanism that prodjuces a regulatory mode of constraint on observable behavior in some species of animals. It maybe that the biological processes underlying sentience and autonomy produces something like compassion and an urge to fairness. There is much more in our biological and psychological make up that produces more than crude reflex behavior. You don't seem to be getting your physicalities--your brain--around free will which is the basis of morality, philosophy and scientific investigation. Chosen choices come directly from genetics? Biology? --Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moralist Posted November 16, 2016 Share Posted November 16, 2016 On 11/10/2016 at 6:57 PM, Brant Gaede said: You don't seem to be getting your physicalities--your brain--around free will which is the basis of morality, philosophy and scientific investigation. Believing you don't have free will is the result of being a government contracted employee and being told what to do for all your life. Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted November 16, 2016 Author Share Posted November 16, 2016 5 hours ago, moralist said: Believing you don't have free will is the result of being a government contracted employee and being told what to do for all your life. Greg Not true. I know several people who work for government who believe they have free will and I know several people who -never- worked for government who do not believe they have free will. The question of free will is NOT objectively decidable. There is no way of quantifying free will (even if it does exist) and no technology available to humans can test for it or its lack. The question of free will is in the same category as the question of whether minds or souls exist. These questions are not empirically testable. Government has nothing whatsoever to do with the theological-metaphysical question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now