Philosophy Discussion Forums

Steve3007 wrote:
In my experience it's true that people rarely openly and immediately admit to having been swayed by the words of others. But, after internally digesting their words, can often be gradually moved over time.

And of course, this invites the question: what do you want? Do you want to describe a new and more effective way of understanding the world than the current methods? Or do you simply want to show the flaws in the current methods? Do you want people to say "yes! you're right! Everything I've learnt so far is wrong!". If you want that, then of course you've got to work hard for it.

I don't want from this. I in the moment of this IS this (so to want this is like saying "I want me". However, it is already existent - don't need it, already have it). I am not looking for gain. This is just an expression of process. It doesn't have to be taken on board in order for I to feel gain - to feel wanted. It is just a process of mind expressed. Sometimes I paint pictures and paintings are only satisfying if there is delight in seeing an art process occurring - making its own statement - seeing where it will go and change. It is not for changing anyone else. Any anyone else that feels changed is completely their business. I don't want others to change. Others always change when they change. It has nothing to do with me. Others express a particular process - I express a particular process. Everything is an expression of process. Some processes that others express just do not hold particular interest necessarily, but then with my expressions I have no expectations that they will necessarily hold particular interest. They just get expressed. I wave my hand, and that is an expression. My waving hand could mean a lot to a particular someone and absolutely nothing to most. It doesn't matter.

On flaws? I guess I like an opportunity to define better my expressions, or I just like to see any particular mood that I experience expressed through different mediums. There is painting, for instance. There is philosophy forums, for instance. I like rubbing up against other moods and other's moods just as I like mixing different colors to see whether they look messy or sweet. Either way, sweet or messy, there was expression. Ideally sweet, but mess was needed on the way (in order to recognise sweet, maybe. Or the fun of seeing mess turn sweet which means mess has its place).

Steve3007 wrote:"An object that is apparently standing still is perceived as a standing still object by the same activity which is the observer."

Yes. There is an act of observation, involving both an observer and an object, in which the observer watches an object for a period of time, perceives no change in position of that object relative to himself and concludes that the object is stationary relative to himself.

Or else he perceives no change in distance between two other objects and so concludes that they are standing still relative to each other, regardless of his own movement. (Note: You use the pronoun "it" for the observer. I use the pronoun "he" merely to avoid confusion as to whether I'm talking about the object or the observer.)

I use "it" to describe a process. A man or woman observer, or a bob and a jenny observer, is really a process. "Jenny" or "woman" doesn't observe. A process observes.

The process named "jenny" is really an object in itself. So an it is essentially observing another it. The object is also some process. Even a rock is a process. It appears to be still, but it is a process that moves in relation to other things. It is breaking down or accumulating mass (as lichen and such-like possibly grows on it, and such organisms breakdown into dirts thereby adding to the rock). And so a rock can change into a different type of rock. So it is not ever still.

My conventionally perceived identity is an it - an object. But to me ("me" merely meaning a particular understanding or view, or "me" merely meaning a particular pattern of thought - of ideas - a particular PROCESS, therefore) this conventionally perceived and conveniently named ( now, apparently, to other thought patterns, identifiable) object is nothing more than an experience. The rock, as it arises in consciousness (comes into a field of experience), is an experience. The conventional, identified by others "me", is an experience. The observing process is an experience. All these things just arise in consciousness.

Steve3007 wrote:Standing still relative to what? It's not necessary to perceive oneself as standing still relative to any third thing in order to conceive of light, or anything else, as travelling relative to oneself. One simply has to be aware that all motion is relative.

All motion is relative, but only by various motions. Various speeds. Everything moves. Light is not a thing, an object, and it does not move.

The "one" that apparently has to be aware that all motion is relative is not really aware. That "one" perceives relativity, but is not aware of a non-relativity in order to really understand relativity. It conceives of relativity because it itself is relative. But it does not understand itself, and therefore does not understand relativity (and therefore its relative self). It invents mathematics as an attempt to understand relativity, but it tends to leave itself out of the equation by making itself an observer of relativity. The observer IS relativity.

Steve3007 wrote:""Standing still" is a perception based on measuring."

...on measuring one's position relative to other people or objects.

Yeah. Its just a position. Or, a juxtaposition. Even the art of measuring - the tools of measure, are just a position. The position that is measure again presumes it stands outside of relativity and then measures it. But it is always INSIDE relativity. It presumes an observing position - an objective position. But it is just a particular presumption. Calling a rock "still" is just a particular presumption. What things are called are not what they are. What things are called are particular presumptions of what they are, from an assumed "objective" position.

Steve3007 wrote:Yes. Bearing in mind that the whole concept of "standing still" only makes sense as "standing still relative to something".

And "standing still" is a presumptive name for something that is never still.

Steve3007 wrote:"Relativity IS the measuring brain. That is where relativity is. That is where the "still" object is."

And this is where you lose me. Are you talking here in the subjective idealist sense and saying that all external objects only exist as perceptions in the observer's brain? Are you saying that the concept of relativity, and other concepts, exist only inside brains?

Maybe I covered this when I spoke of "processes" further up there.

Steve3007 wrote:If so, I think the answer is the same as the one given to Bishop Berkeley. I can't refute it, but it's not a very useful viewpoint. It's almost always useful to think of the world as existing externally.

World existing externally to what? I don't find that useful. Science finds it useful because it fulfills its presumptions. It is convenient.

Granth wrote: (Nested quote removed.)

Within this imagined scenario, as "growing space" apparently carries Light from the past to me, what am I? What is this "you" in your little poem?

You are an observer, a point of reference that is traveling through time.

Granth wrote:(Nested quote removed.)


How could one not be "confused" (but I prefer 'unconvinced') that your poetic presumption, your imagined little picture, has anything to do with what light is or does?

I am not trying to "convince" you or anybody else that my ideas are true. They are my opinions and deductions of explanations for the "why" of many known facts of science. My goal is to explain these ideas so that they can be understood. Then you can make up your own mind whether or not you should believe any of it.

Granth wrote:(Nested quote removed.)

I believe in no preconceptions that I sit here or anywhere, or that time is passing (passing what? Passing something that apparently sits here?). I never sit anywhere. I experience a something presumed as sitting in or on something presumed as a place, but this has nothing to do with me in terms of my identity or where my identity may be (and in any particular adopted position).

Do you have a "sense of time"? Does time always go into the future? Does your perspective as an observer change over time? Is your position in space absolute as well as relative?

Granth wrote:An energy front that is beamed at something people presume is light which speeds? Light does not go anywhere. It is a constant.

If something is constant, then it doesn't go anywhere??

I am driving down the road at a constant 60 mph. Since it is constant, I am not going anywhere?

You better explain that.

Light travels from matter to matter (as light). It also travels into and sometimes through matter once it arrives there (as energy).

Light is the transfer of energy across space. Space is the separation between matter.

Granth wrote:(Nested quote removed.) Science creates its own puzzles and therefore gets its own clues to suit whatever science presumes science is. Science therefore creates its own correct perspective and then presumes it is correct regardless of any other perspective. It is therefore not particularly interested in any other clues and perspectives other than its own JUST in order to feel correct. Not really much different to religion. Science is also that snake with its own tail in its mouth. But at least it feels things have been done properly. It feels good about that (as it goes about killing off any other possible alternatives). Science, as you have described, seems like nothing more than a form of pride. Science doesn't seek to overcome itself and its pride. It is quite insular just as any ego is. It believes in itself.

Notice the part that I underlined. I am trying to explain a different (non-traditional) perspective...but I guess you are not interested.

Explain away I doubt you are bothering anyone, at least you have the common decency to answer peoples questions. I find it interesting but disagree on several issues, but then interpretation is philosophy so knock yourself out.

Calrid wrote:......................................... I think your posts are pseudo science unless you have an experiment to back up your claims. ....................

My posts are based on a theoretical perspective from which to "interpret" data. Scientific experiments yield data. But that data must be interpreted to infer any conclusions.

I am not trying to tell you or anyone, "You must look at things in this way!"

I am just saying, "If you can look at things in the way that I am describing, you can then make some conclusions about the data."

-- Updated December 31st, 2013, 9:44 am to add the following --

Calrid wrote:Explain away I doubt you are bothering anyone, at least you have the common decency to answer peoples questions. I find it interesting but disagree on several issues, but then interpretation is philosophy so knock yourself out.

I am trying to find some common ground from which to start.

Let's consider a thought experiment. Let's say that we have a tiny piece of matter & antimatter that we can collide together, at a specific point, in deep space & produce an unrestricted flash of light energy.

What will that energy do (relative to the point of collision) from time = 0 (time of colision) to time = 1 sec, to time =2 sec, to time =3 sec?

What if light was instantaneous, as it has been suggested? What if it did not travel in time.Light itself does not experience time so how can we place ourselves into the theory of light with respect to time? If we can not measure the speed of light in one direction, what exactly are we measuring? Fascinating subject that will intrigue us for years.

Granth:

World existing externally to what? I don't find that useful. Science finds it useful because it fulfills its presumptions. It is convenient.

Externally to your mind. I suspect the mere fact that you exist and survive testifies to the fact that you find it useful at least some of the time.

Regarding the previous things from your post:

It's an interesting viewpoint and I appreciate the effort, and I broadly agree with your definition of a "process" as far as it goes in that post. But I still can't see anything there that justifies taking any radically different position from the conventional one on the subject of the description and prediction of observations, although I still find it very difficult to wade through your posts and find anything of substance. I'll try to pick out some of the bits which seem to say something testable about the world:

Everything moves. Light is not a thing, an object, and it does not move.

Expressed purely in terms of "observation events":

Movement consists of two or more observation events separated by both time and space. The things which we notice to be invariant between these events are the things that we normally think of as indicating them to be observations of a common physical entity. So we make the mental model, based on these observation events, of a physical entity changing its spatial position. i.e. moving.

This model called "movement" is useful for connecting, describing and predicting observation events.

It is still useful to use this model when considering light. If, for example, I experience two observation events: 1. a laser beam firing a pulse towards the moon. 2. a detector registering a flash of light with similar properties coming from the moon a couple of seconds later, it is useful to think of some light as having "moved" from the laser to a reflector on the moon and back again.

Has it "really" moved? Has the object in my first paragraph here "really" moved? I don't understand the distinction. The model is useful. We'll continue using it until it stops being so.

It invents mathematics as an attempt to understand relativity, but it tends to leave itself out of the equation by making itself an observer of relativity. The observer IS relativity.

No. I would say it invents mathematics as an attempt to describe and predict observations. One such set of mathematical descriptions is called "relativity". If leaving anything out, whether that be the observer or anything else, results in an unacceptably low accuracy in those descriptions and predictions then it will show up. If the descriptions and predictions turn out to be accurate enough for the present purpose then clearly nothing which is necessary for the present purpose has been left out.

And "standing still" is a presumptive name for something that is never still.

I suspect this is a little like those times when people claim that "solid objects are not really solid because they're mostly empty space". They are, of course, just as solid as they always were. We've just reached a slightly deeper understanding of what it means for something to be solid. But that doesn't affect the original set of observations which we defined as being the criteria for labeling something as "solid". So it doesn't suddenly render solid objects less so.

Likewise, if you're going to make claims about whether something is stationary or not, you first have to define the set of observations, including measurement tolerances, that you choose to associate with the concept of "being stationary". Then make some observations of something and see if it fits the criteria, within the given tolerances.

Xris wrote:What if light was instantaneous, as it has been suggested? What if it did not travel in time.Light itself does not experience time so how can we place ourselves into the theory of light with respect to time? If we can not measure the speed of light in one direction, what exactly are we measuring? Fascinating subject that will intrigue us for years.

Time IS instantaneous. Light is not.

"What" we are mesuring IS the radius of expansion over that time period.

-- Updated December 31st, 2013, 12:35 pm to add the following --

Steve3007 wrote:........................ I suspect this is a little like those times when people claim that "solid objects are not really solid because they're mostly empty space". They are, of course, just as solid as they always were. We've just reached a slightly deeper understanding of what it means for something to be solid. But that doesn't affect the original set of observations which we defined as being the criteria for labeling something as "solid". So it doesn't suddenly render solid objects less so.

Likewise, if you're going to make claims about whether something is stationary or not, you first have to define the set of observations, including measurement tolerances, that you choose to associate with the concept of "being stationary". Then make some observations of something and see if it fits the criteria, within the given tolerances.

Exactly. "Stationary" is a relative relationship. One thing can remain in the same position relative to another thing. So we say, relative to thing #1, thing #2 is stationary.

The other important aspect to the concept of "stationary" is what physicists call, "no preferred frame of reference".

If you are on an ocean liner, doing a steady 20 knots, in a straight path, on calm seas and you are playing tennis, there is no adjustments needed to your method of play, as compared to playing tennis on solid ground. That constant speed of 20 knots has no effect on the physics of the game.

I think xris has forgotten how this whole deal works he is making extraordinary claims, we should not even attempt to prove our claims until he proves his wild conjecture, don't indulge the guy he's not going to answer any questions, and frankly is just here to troll I think. He's the classic po mo troll. Seen it a hundred times before you wont get a straight answer out of him he is just playing a game. Trolls are pointless specks of **** who go out of there way to **** up anything they come into contact with for there own selfish ends. Better off reporting them when they get all weepy and angry and start throwing their toys out their pram, and wait until they come back on a sock puppet account. Then rinse and repeat.

Just put him on ignore like I have until he gets a clue or answers any one question or actually does anything except arm wave. Waste of everyone's time talking to the guy IMO. Sadly I can still see quotes, and he's still talking nonsense in lieu of tackling anyones argument or justifying his own, put him on the naughty step, it's all children deserve.

If he's not a troll he's doing a damn fine impression of one so the distinction is academic.

But hey if you want to poke the trolls for **** and giggles go for it the whole passive aggressive ignore culture isn't working on the infants. So there's no harm, basically bullies are not dissuaded from doing what they do by either moderators, your ignore feature or anything else, the only real way to tackle them is to have a zero tolerance policy and just ban them arbitrarily with no more thought than you would give a speck of dust. And if the user base gangs up on them within the rules of course, it will prove a far bigger deternet than burying your head in the sand and hoping they go away or pick on someone else. In the age of IP snooping, proxies, proxy servers and VPN the one eyed man is a dick. The system is buried in 20 year old dogma that was obsolete 15 years ago.

You know everyone can join any forum they want at any time and avoid any ban why are you still trying to stop trolls by setting up firewalls that didn't work 15 years ago? Are you stupid or just lazy?

AB1OB wrote:................................................ I am trying to find some common ground from which to start.

Let's consider a thought experiment. Let's say that we have a tiny piece of matter & antimatter that we can collide together, at a specific point, in deep space & produce an unrestricted flash of light energy.

What will that energy do (relative to the point of collision) from time = 0 (time of colision) to time = 1 sec, to time =2 sec, to time =3 sec?

No answers? OK, here's my "experiment":

We are going to study how light behaves in deep space (to eliminate noticeable extraneous variables).

We have a way of gently aiming the antimatter & matter so that they collide at a specifically positioned point relative to our observation points and create a short electromagnetic "flash".

The inner ring of observation points will all be positioned at a radius of 1 light-sec. the middle @ 2 ls and the outer @3 ls. (In other words, picture 3 concentric spheres. The observation points have to avoid shadowing other observation points but otherwise could be at any position on their assigned spherical radius.)

We set off the flash and analyse the RESULTS:

*No observer saw any flash until after time zero. *All observers in the inner sphere saw the flash at time = 1 sec
*All observers in the middle sphere saw the flash at time = 2 sec
*All observers in the outer sphere saw the flash at time = 3 sec

DISCUSSION:
This is what I mean by light expanding spherically.

After the flash is created, there is no relative motion in this experiment between any matter. (WHICH IS WHAT WE NORMALLY CONSIDER MOTION.) The only changes that occur in this experiment are the moving positions of where the light becomes visible. This is what we call, the speed of light.

Have I explained this spherical expansion of light concept is clearly?

Steve3007 wrote:
Externally to your mind. I suspect the mere fact that you exist and survive testifies to the fact that you find it useful at least some of the time. .

Everything of my experience is not out of mind. Facts and survival, which are experiences, are not out of mind.

Steve3007 wrote:Regarding the previous things from your post:

It's an interesting viewpoint and I appreciate the effort, and I broadly agree with your definition of a "process" as far as it goes in that post. But I still can't see anything there that justifies taking any radically different position from the conventional one on the subject of the description and prediction of observations, although I still find it very difficult to wade through your posts and find anything of substance. I'll try to pick out some of the bits which seem to say something testable about the world: .

If seeing if it will say something testable about the world as if the world is external to mind, then the test itself will be, as convention will have it, inherently flawed.

Steve3007 wrote:Expressed purely in terms of "observation events":

Movement consists of two or more observation events separated by both time and space. The things which we notice to be invariant between these events are the things that we normally think of as indicating them to be observations of a common physical entity. So we make the mental model, based on these observation events, of a physical entity changing its spatial position. i.e. moving.

This model called "movement" is useful for connecting, describing and predicting observation events.

It is still useful to use this model when considering light. If, for example, I experience two observation events: 1. a laser beam firing a pulse towards the moon. 2. a detector registering a flash of light with similar properties coming from the moon a couple of seconds later, it is useful to think of some light as having "moved" from the laser to a reflector on the moon and back again.

Has it "really" moved? Has the object in my first paragraph here "really" moved? I don't understand the distinction. The model is useful. We'll continue using it until it stops being so.

Ok. However, I don't need such a model for predicting anything. Those are science games. Science is tricked by appearances just as most of us are.

Steve3007 wrote:
Happy recluse: (Nested quote removed.)


I'd say the question has no physical meaning until it corresponds to a measurement.

So, the speed of light is not a constant? We can only claim that this beam of light, that we measured, travelled at the same speed as the other beam of light we measured yesterday?

I thought that relativity theory depends on the assumption that the speed of light is a constant irrespective of measurement or observers.

AB1OB wrote:
You are an observer, a point of reference that is traveling through time.

What do you think is me, with regard to this "you"?

AB1OB wrote:Do you have a "sense of time"? Does time always go into the future? Does your perspective as an observer change over time? Is your position in space absolute as well as relative?

I don't assume a position in space. I experience positions and space simultaneously.

I have experiences of motion which we measure using time. Therefore I sense "time" (although I am experiencing motion).

Change is what experience is.

AB1OB wrote:If something is constant, then it doesn't go anywhere??

I am driving down the road at a constant 60 mph. Since it is constant, I am not going anywhere?

You better explain that.

Every phenomena has no constant (because experience is change). Light, however, is constant. Light does not shape itself around bends in the road or bumps on the road, as a car's speed would.

AB1OB wrote:Light travels from matter to matter (as light). It also travels into and sometimes through matter once it arrives there (as energy).

Light is the transfer of energy across space. Space is the separation between matter.

Light does not travel into or through matter. Matter is light transformed.

Happy recluse wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


So, the speed of light is not a constant? We can only claim that this beam of light, that we measured, travelled at the same speed as the other beam of light we measured yesterday?

I thought that relativity theory depends on the assumption that the speed of light is a constant irrespective of measurement or observers.

It does, the speed of light only varies when it is impeded by a medium. In a vacuum it is always c.

AB1OB wrote:You are an observer, a point of reference that is traveling through time.

Granth wrote:What do you think is me, with regard to this "you"?

You are an observer, a point of reference that is traveling through time. What don't you understand about that?

AB1OB wrote:Do you have a "sense of time"? Does time always go into the future? Does your perspective as an observer change over time? Is your position in space absolute as well as relative?

Granth wrote:I don't assume a position in space. I experience positions and space simultaneously.

You don't assume a position in space. Yes, I agree. Because you (and all things made from waves) have to move to exist.

You experience positions & space simultaneously. OK. Since positions are created by relative space, I agree.

Granth wrote:I have experiences of motion which we measure using time.

Yes, you are correct IF you are referring to "relative motion" (motion between objects).

BUT you can NOT sense the "motion of absolute time".

Granth wrote:Therefore I sense "time" (although I am experiencing motion).

Change is what experience is.

Yes, this sense of time, motion and change is ALL "relative" motion & time. That is, motion and related time/change that we "observe" between objects.

You can experience (observe) changes in motion but without some thing to make it relative, you can not sense constant motion (and that is what "absolute time" is).

AB1OB wrote:If something is constant, then it doesn't go anywhere??

I am driving down the road at a constant 60 mph. Since it is constant, I am not going anywhere?

You better explain that.

Granth wrote:Every phenomena has no constant (because experience is change). Light, however, is constant. Light does not shape itself around bends in the road or bumps on the road, as a car's speed would.

The constant is the expansion of the universe. That constant expansion of the universe is the reason why we see the light expand. light expands spherically with the expanding space of the universe. (see post #39 above)

AB1OB wrote:Light travels from matter to matter (as light). It also travels into and sometimes through matter once it arrives there (as energy).

Light is the transfer of energy across space. Space is the separation between matter.

Granth wrote:Light does not travel into or through matter.

"sometimes through matter once it arrives there (as energy)",,,did you not notice "(as energy)"?

Granth wrote:Matter is light transformed.

And ice and steam are water transformed. So what? They have different properties while they are in different states of existence.

Matter follows a radial path through expansion and Light expands spherically. Which is the reason for the ability to see light as appearing to travel through space.

AB1OB wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


My posts are based on a theoretical perspective from which to "interpret" data. Scientific experiments yield data. But that data must be interpreted to infer any conclusions.

I am not trying to tell you or anyone, "You must look at things in this way!"

I am just saying, "If you can look at things in the way that I am describing, you can then make some conclusions about the data."

-- Updated December 31st, 2013, 9:44 am to add the following --


(Nested quote removed.)


I am trying to find some common ground from which to start.

Let's consider a thought experiment. Let's say that we have a tiny piece of matter & antimatter that we can collide together, at a specific point, in deep space & produce an unrestricted flash of light energy.

What will that energy do (relative to the point of collision) from time = 0 (time of colision) to time = 1 sec, to time =2 sec, to time =3 sec?

It depends how energetic the collision was, lets say since it is deep space it is near the speed of light, in that case the same thing that happens at CERN, you get a slew of particles created, some of which annihilate. You may up with some Strange or Top quarks too, since quarks can be produced in collisions although their existence is so fleeting it is hard to infer their presence at all.

If your looking for a Feynman diagram here's one for a proton/antiproton collision



ordinarilly we would expect the process to decay leaving energy which would then itself whiz off in whatever direction it was created at. We would observe this if we could see it as a bright flash of light. This energy would be travelling at c having gained momentum from the collision and resultant energy given off.