Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[HexHammer]

I'm sorry that you only have knowledge from over 100 years ago, when we now have very elaborate understanding of time. Our GPS systems are based on special relativity theory, where time is rather bizar.

Scientific theories are not provable since any experiment can disconfirm one (that is, science is based on induction). Hence, any philosophical theory can disconfirm one. I believe this disconfirmation was actualized when J.M.E Mctaggart wrote his famous article The Unreality of Time. Which, by the way, was is not written that long before Einstein. It is essentially the same era. Also, it is a false belief that just because we can apply theories it follows that the theory is a correspondent model of reality. We can still make predictions with Newtonian mechanics, but, of course, we don't live in a Newtonian world (supposedly).

I'm afraid you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. GPS sattelites proves Einstein's Special Relativity theory, and the new generation of GPS proves it even better.

[Fhbradley]

Scientific theories are not provable since any experiment can disconfirm one (that is, science is based on induction). Hence, any philosophical theory can disconfirm one. I believe this disconfirmation was actualized when J.M.E Mctaggart wrote his famous article The Unreality of Time. Which, by the way, was is not written that long before Einstein. It is essentially the same era. Also, it is a false belief that just because we can apply theories it follows that the theory is a correspondent model of reality. We can still make predictions with Newtonian mechanics, but, of course, we don't live in a Newtonian world (supposedly).

I'm afraid you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. GPS sattelites proves Einstein's Special Relativity theory, and the new generation of GPS proves it even better.

You're using the word 'proves' incorrectly. Proof is a result of deduction. The natural sciences are not deductive sciences. Gps sattelities could surely support or give evidence for the ideas within Relativity, but that's quite distinct from proof. Also, just think about the postulates of the special theory of relativity. If those are falsified, the whole theory goes (since each proposition within the system is dependent on other propositions).

[HexHammer]

You're using the word 'proves' incorrectly. Proof is a result of deduction. The natural sciences are not deductive sciences. Gps sattelities could surely support or give evidence for the ideas within Relativity, but that's quite distinct from proof. Also, just think about the postulates of the special theory of relativity. If those are falsified, the whole theory goes (since each proposition within the system is dependent on other propositions).

It's heartacheingly that you speak from an ignorent point of view, instead of an enlighten point of view, you have no actual idea of how GPS sattelites works.

[Fhbradley]

You're using the word 'proves' incorrectly. Proof is a result of deduction. The natural sciences are not deductive sciences. Gps sattelities could surely support or give evidence for the ideas within Relativity, but that's quite distinct from proof. Also, just think about the postulates of the special theory of relativity. If those are falsified, the whole theory goes (since each proposition within the system is dependent on other propositions).

It's heartacheingly that you speak from an ignorent point of view, instead of an enlighten point of view, you have no actual idea of how GPS sattelites works.

Good argument.

[dowhat1can]

HexHammer, in truth Fhbradley is correct about the fallibility of science as based on inductive reasoning. There's every reason to suppose there will be improved theories in physics which will not be completely consistent with Einsteinian physics.

I'm sorry that you only have knowledge from over 100 years ago, when we now have very elaborate understanding of time. Our GPS systems are based on special relativity theory, where time is rather bizar.

Not that this point is important to the nature of time, but as a matter of fact, GPS was originally based on Newtonian physics -- only later were minor corrections made to sharpen the predictions:
[quote="Henry F. Fliegel and Raymond S. DiEsposti, GPS Joint Program Office "GPS and Relativity: An Engineering Overview""] The Operational Control System (OCS) of the Global Positioning System (GPS) does not include the rigorous transformations between coordinate systems that Einstein's general theory of relativity would seem to require - transformations to and from the individual space vehicles (SVs), the Monitor Stations (MSs), and the users on the surface of the rotating earth, and the geocentric Earth Centered Inertial System (ECI) in which the SV orbits are calculated. There is a very good reason for the omission: the effects of relativity, where they are different from the effects predicted by classical mechanics and electromagnetic theory, are too small to matter - less than one centimeter, for users on or near the earth.[/quote]

I'm sorry that you only have knowledge from over 100 years ago ...

Simply because McTaggart wrote "The Unreality of Time" in a 1908 issue of Mind is not in itself a reason that the theory is false -- any more than to say that Einstein's general theory cannot be true since it was proposed in 1915.

[HexHammer]

@ dowhat1can, I'm afraid your deeper point escape me, as I don't clearly see the argument against my claim being valid.

[dowhat1can]

I'm afraid your deeper point escape me, as I don't clearly see the argument against my claim being valid.

HexHammer, I tried to make three points with respect to three of your claims -- none of the points are "deep."

• [1] Science is fallible -- scientific theories are constantly being revised, improved, or replaced -- this historical generalization would apply to Einsteinian theory as well.
  [2] The Global Positioning System was not in fact based on Einstein's theory of relativity but was based on Newtonian physics.
  [3] The date of a theory's proposal is not a prima facie factor in proving its inadequacy.

Of these points, which need clarification?

[HexHammer]

I'm afraid your deeper point escape me, as I don't clearly see the argument against my claim being valid.

HexHammer, I tried to make three points with respect to three of your claims -- none of the points are "deep."

• [1] Science is fallible -- scientific theories are constantly being revised, improved, or replaced -- this historical generalization would apply to Einsteinian theory as well.
  [2] The Global Positioning System was not in fact based on Einstein's theory of relativity but was based on Newtonian physics.
  [3] The date of a theory's proposal is not a prima facie factor in proving its inadequacy.

Of these points, which need clarification?

I'm afraid it needs no further clarification.

1) basing your arguments on assumptions and spekulation doesn't really sway me.

2) I'm afraid you have been misinformed, it has long been known that GPS are based on Einstein's Special Relativity Theory. Here is a random search on google.

But what about Einstein's theories of special and general relativity? One could hardly imagine a branch of fundamental physics less likely to have practical consequences. But strangely enough, relativity plays a key role in a multi-billion dollar growth industry centered around the Global Positioning System (GPS).

http://physicscentral.com/explore/writers/will.cfm

3) don't take it so litteraly when I say date and year, you should know the more suble interpetation of what I say.

[Fhbradley]

Hexhammer,

The fallibility of science is not mere "speculation". In basic logic, you'll learn about the distinction between deductive arguments and inductive arguments. The problem with using induction is that it never generates its conclusion with certainty. That is, it is not necessary for the conclusion to be true and hence why most end with "It is probable that p." As a consequence, any result of an induction can be falsified by one mere counter-example. One cannot say for all x such-and-such if there is one counter example, since laws are universal quantifications. For a "theory" to be true, it must be true for all instances of its occurrence.

If you think science doesn't change, then you most likely don't know why Einstein is "important".

[James S Saint]

Time is merely a measure of relative change.
..nothing magic.

..and measures of things, don't go around creating things without the help of someone doing the measuring.

[wanabe]

Measurement is the arbitrary thing really, not time, measurement is relative. It's this idea of something ending that leads us astray. It a known fact that electrons are part of atoms, and electrons can go an infinite distance away from their nucleus, hence any object could have infinite length, on the atomic level. We stop measuring when it stops being convenient for the purpose we intend, as atomic accuracy is rarely needed for day to day purpose we don't use it.

[HexHammer]

Hexhammer,

The fallibility of science is not mere "speculation". In basic logic, you'll learn about the distinction between deductive arguments and inductive arguments. The problem with using induction is that it never generates its conclusion with certainty. That is, it is not necessary for the conclusion to be true and hence why most end with "It is probable that p." As a consequence, any result of an induction can be falsified by one mere counter-example. One cannot say for all x such-and-such if there is one counter example, since laws are universal quantifications. For a "theory" to be true, it must be true for all instances of its occurrence.

If you think science doesn't change, then you most likely don't know why Einstein is "important".

This concept of time isn't just some random idea of science, sure science is fallible, but this GPS system is a proven fact, and not really something that you should dismiss out of defyance to science with mere rethorics, if you have something specific please provide it, else sieze and desist with this dismissal.

[Fhbradley]

This concept of time isn't just some random idea of science, sure science is fallible, but this GPS system is a proven fact, and not really something that you should dismiss out of defyance to science with mere rethorics, if you have something specific please provide it, else sieze and desist with this dismissal.

No one ever said the concept of time is a random idea of science. You're missing the point. I've already explained to you that you're misusing the term 'prove'. Again, proof is the result of deduction not induction. The natural sciences are based on induction, so, therefore, it consists of no proofs. So either respond to the problem of induction or I'm not going to reply anymore since I have no time to explain myself over and over.

Note that to say a theory in science cannot be proven is not to say it isn't in fact true. It's just to say it cannot be proven to be true, it can only be falsified.

[HexHammer]

This concept of time isn't just some random idea of science, sure science is fallible, but this GPS system is a proven fact, and not really something that you should dismiss out of defyance to science with mere rethorics, if you have something specific please provide it, else sieze and desist with this dismissal.

No one ever said the concept of time is a random idea of science. You're missing the point. I've already explained to you that you're misusing the term 'prove'. Again, proof is the result of deduction not induction. The natural sciences are based on induction, so, therefore, it consists of no proofs. So either respond to the problem of induction or I'm not going to reply anymore since I have no time to explain myself over and over.

Note that to say a theory in science cannot be proven is not to say it isn't in fact true. It's just to say it cannot be proven to be true, it can only be falsified.

What I have been trying to say, is that in all your posts your explenation has been invalid. Relying on fantasy and fairytales usually doesn't have anything to do with reality.

[Fhbradley]

No one ever said the concept of time is a random idea of science. You're missing the point. I've already explained to you that you're misusing the term 'prove'. Again, proof is the result of deduction not induction. The natural sciences are based on induction, so, therefore, it consists of no proofs. So either respond to the problem of induction or I'm not going to reply anymore since I have no time to explain myself over and over.

Note that to say a theory in science cannot be proven is not to say it isn't in fact true. It's just to say it cannot be proven to be true, it can only be falsified.

What I have been trying to say, is that in all your posts your explenation has been invalid. Relying on fantasy and fairytales usually doesn't have anything to do with reality.

Invalid? How so? So I'm wrong about the distinction between deduction and induction? Please support your contentions. As usual, you make an insult without actually addressing the issue.