The Half-life of Facts.

@fresco,

Quote:

We may be tempted to assume (like Newton) that there is some sort of independent fixed reference frame called "reality" but that is all it is...an assumption.

Duh... Who knows anything with absolute certainty? Everything is an assumption, even the existence of the universe, or of language. But there are good assumptions to have, and there are bad ones. The assumption that there exists an objective reality is a logical necessity amply buttressed by empiric evidence, and a good assumption to have if one wants to live a mentally healthy life and to build a functional society. As I said, our society is sick and crippled by an abundance of reality deniers.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

For the nitpickers..

Quote:

Originally introduced by Sir Isaac Newton in Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica, the concepts of absolute time and space provided a theoretical foundation that facilitated Newtonian mechanics.[1] According to Newton, absolute time and space respectively are independent aspects of objective reality:[2]

Absolute, true and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature flows equably without regard to anything external, and by another name is called duration: relative, apparent and common time, is some sensible and external (whether accurate or unequable) measure of duration by the means of motion, which is commonly used instead of true time ...

According to Newton, absolute time exists independently of any perceiver and progresses at a consistent pace throughout the universe. Unlike relative time, Newton believed absolute time was imperceptible and could only be understood mathematically. According to Newton, humans are only capable of perceiving relative time, which is a measurement of perceivable objects in motion (like the moon or sun). From these movements, we infer the passage of time.

To quote Newton again:

Absolute space, in its own nature, without regard to anything external, remains always similar and immovable. Relative space is some movable dimension or measure of the absolute spaces; which our senses determine by its position to bodies: and which is vulgarly taken for immovable space ... Absolute motion is the translation of a body from one absolute place into another: and relative motion, the translation from one relative place into another

Wikipedia.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

As I said, our society is sick and crippled by an abundance of reality deniers.

...aka people who disagree with you and each other, especially about the state of health of "society" Wink

.

...and not " logical necessity"...rather a "functionally useful axiom".

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

So far, I have not read anything to dissuade me that we simply use the words "reality" and "fact" for what dynamically works for us, and as we change, our world changes and what works changes. We may be tempted to assume (like Newton) that there is some sort of independent fixed reference frame called "reality" but that is all it is...an assumption.

When you guys are bandying about with all that nonsense, I stay out of the way and let you bandy...but when a comment is made that is demonstrably incorrect...I gotta stop by:

Quote:

We may be tempted to assume (like Newton) that there is some sort of independent fixed reference frame called "reality" but that is all it is...an assumption.

Actually...even if it were an assumption (it really isn't)...THAT WOULD BE THE FIXED REFERENCE REALITY.

I am damn near certain you can see this by now, Fresco...what I cannot understand is why you will not acknowledge it.

If there is no independent fixed reference frame called "reality"...

...then that is the independent fixed reference frame reality. That makes the notion that it IS an assumption incorrect on its face.

By the way, Fresco...the assumption that there is NO fixed frame reality (which I suspect you are making)...definitely IS an assumption.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Fresco...why not take the position that there MAY BE a REALITY independent of human experience...for your philosophy group. Let them know you are playing devil's advocate for the position to see as many of its faults as possible.

Why not see what you can do with it.

1 Reply

@fresco,

In your quotes, Newton defines what the terms "absolute time" and "absolute space" mean. But his laws of motion, which he describes and applies later in the book, turn out not to depend on absolute space. They apply equally to all inertial frames of reference, and they are the foundation of what we call Newtonian physics.

That being said, I can see how this Wikipedia article gave you a wrong idea of Newtonian physics and the role of absolute frames of reference in it. I shouldn't have said you were trying to dazzle people. I take this point back.

1 Reply

@fresco,

Quote:

1. Physiology appears to be necessary for cognition but cannot account for it.

You state this as if it is a fact. I submit that if facts have half lives then your statement is no longer true.

3 Replies

@parados,

Give evidence for your "no longer true".

2 Replies

@Thomas,

Point noted. But the fact ( Wink

) that Newtonian physics can be subsumed under relativistic principles does not detract from Newton's original absolutist beliefs.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Fresco...why not take the position that there MAY BE a REALITY

If you are talking about "absolute reality" you might as well be talking about "God", and as an atheist, I don't need such concepts of inaccessible absolutes to get through the day.

2 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

Give evidence for your "no longer true".

What is "evidence?"

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

Quote:
Fresco...why not take the position that there MAY BE a REALITY

If you are talking about "absolute reality" you might as well be talking about "God", and as an atheist, I don't need such concepts of inaccessible absolutes to get through the day.

It is amazing Fresco you say this 2 posts after asking Parados for "evidence"...you really really ought to stop with this double criteria of yours. This is precisely the reason why it is so hard to take you seriously in an honest attempt to debate different points of view...and speaking on your point to Parados let me remind you once more that absence of proof is not proof of absence. You ought to clarify that Science has not yet provided a full account of psychological processes through Biology. So don't jump to any conclusions when there is none. I am also glad you got to learn through Thomas what Newton really asserted about the Laws of motion once they apply just the same to all inertial frames of reference.

0 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

Quote:
Fresco...why not take the position that there MAY BE a REALITY

If you are talking about "absolute reality" you might as well be talking about "God", and as an atheist, I don't need such concepts of inaccessible absolutes to get through the day.

No one is asking you to talk about GOD or gods, Fresco...but nice try. And nice editing of my statement also. The statement actually read: "...why not take the position that there MAY BE a REALITY independent of human experience"

You know that when I am talking about " a REALITY independent of human experience" I am not talking about a GOD (although I do not exclude that either)...but simply about a REALITY to which humans simply do not have access.

For the sake of debate, that is a possibility (a probability, even)...and I am just suggesting you might gain some insights if you took that position in debate.

0 Replies

...Frank suffices to say any children which is more then 3 years old gets to learn about the persistence of reality when you are not looking.
Before 3 when you ask a child to hide they usually opt for putting their hands in front of their eyes in the hope the world can't see them.
Persistence of reality is something any normally developed human being assumes for a fact very soon in life. Ironically they get to learn it by experience.

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

Point noted. But the fact ( ) that Newtonian physics can be subsumed under relativistic principles does not detract from Newton's original absolutist beliefs.

No, the relativistic principles are not a reinterpretation of Newton by modern physicists. They are a discovery of Galilei's preceding Newton. Newton imported them into his work. (For details, you can search the Web for "Galilean transformation".) Remember, you can define a term whether or not you believe in the concept it stands for. Your quotes show Newton defining what he means by "absolute space" and "absolute time". They don't show him describing what he thinks of these concepts. To do that, he needed to write the rest of the Principia.

2 Replies

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

fresco wrote:

Give evidence for your "no longer true".

What is "evidence?"

You're a cruel, cruel man, joefromchicago.

0 Replies

To those cartoon vultures waiting to pounce on my request for "evidence" about a postulated shifting of views about the inadequacy of reductionism, I am perfectly willing to negotiate the point. All I can say is that I have not come across such potential evidence . On the contrary, the empirical evidence cited by so-called "second generation cognitive scientists" supports the non-reductionist view, separately arrived at by philosophical discourse alone.

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Are you saying that Newton had no belief in absolutes as a substrate for his mechanics ? (See first two paras of my quote)

2 Replies

@fresco,

Its irrelevant once they apply to relative frames of reference just as well.
I would advise you to spare some time with TTC videos to get a fair grasp on these matters before you post on them. This one in particular might be useful:
TTC - Black Holes, Tides, and Curved Spacetime - Understanding Gravity
Lesson 2 - Free fall and innertia. Lesson 3 - Revolution in the Heavens. Lesson 4 - Universal Gravitation.
For instance the principle of Inertia is valid and independent of the relative speed you chose for frame of reference. Acceleration in free fall due to gravitational pull acts exactly in the same way whatever the frame of reference you take.

0 Replies

The Half-life of Facts.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know