That would be an absolute, yes? Also absolute is your statement that "nothing but chaos" exists at the level of the quantum. Cantor showed that infinite series have their own distinguishable order, and thus can we distinguish between two series of infinite numbers. Chaos always implies its opposite, so order is a metaphysical concept: we bring the notion of order with us wherever we go and are. Turn any concept on itself and the metaphysical aspect shows itself. For instance, what is the order of order? What could decide that but a prior-existing notion of order?
I go further with this stuff to say light particles don't exist. This is a fundamental implication of quantum physics, which was more tightly demonstrated by Zeilinger and his lab a few years ago.
As to the notion of aether, one can ask: what, if not something like a fixed reference like an aether, renders a given frame's time referenceable to its acceleration/velocity? Move one of two clocks and the "moved" clock's time has slowed relative to the other. What distinguished which clock moved? Movement is not "just relative."
I understand that, Sy, but what distinguishes what accelerates? What's the reference point for saying X accelerated and Y did not? That reference is not X or Y themselves.
Acceleration means inertial forces. One object "feels" the inertia, the other doesn't. No reference is needed.
It comes from the inertia. You had to accelerate (then decelerate) the object somehow, they don't do it spontaneously.
I understand that. But the inertia is not self-generated, yes? I mean, what's the reference point to even say "inertia"?
It is an intrinsic property of matter...count up the constituent particles and know the inertial rest mass.
Mach's principle? People always tell me it is included in special relativity but I never worked out exactly where.
"Intrinsic" means not relative to something else, right? That which is not relative is aether (absolute).
Even if it's spinning? But more to this point, it doesn't matter "where" anything is. Wherever it is, or was, it intrinsically there has or had inertia. Intrinsic is absolute.
You seem to be conflating relativity as it applies to motion, energy and time with properties which are intrinsic. Mass, electric charge, spin...these are properties that are intrinsic to the constituent particles of matter. No need to invoke an ether (or aether if you like) to accept that there are intrinsic properties.
Last edited:
The question of aether is this question of instrinsicality. Put it this way. Any theory must posit something intrinsic---or given, or assumed, or posited---to even function as a theory. Theory-variables---the equations and other specified relations---only gain meaning in reference to something posited as intrinsic. Relations are relations, after all, only in reference to some *what,* to a fixed value. This is Gödel's discovery: all systems of axioms remain incomplete because they all assume what they intend to prove. So relativity posits inertia, then seeks to prove how inertia works! That move is "incomplete" in Gödel's lexicon because it is a form of self-contradicting paralysis, the place the theory no longer works.
Well inertia goes back quite a ways before relativity and has a rich experimental history...see I. Newton. I'm afraid if you require any science to satisfy Godel's strictures you may need to fall back on mysticism and speak to the Architect. I'm OK with science describing how the universe works...why takes us into the area of metaphysics.
Because science is based on metaphysics. That's essentially what quantum physics says: the idea of "really existing" and intrinsicality and all that stuff don't make sense on the terms presented. But we have no other terms. We have intrinsic particle (Newton) and we have intrinsic wave (Einstein). When one leaps, as in quantum physics, to we have both, because this «both» is an inconceivable contradiction, something has to give. What gives? The subtler absolute that underlies both Newton's and Einstein's views: that this stuff is real.
What I'm saying here is that an appreciation of metaphysics is necessary condition to doing science well. It must be such a condition, because our entire physical language (like our fundamental words like particle and wave), or language itself, implies that which is not physical (= the metaphysical). I've merely attempted to demonstrate how this works using the example of some of relativity's fundamental concepts. At some point, those concepts hit a wall. They run headlong into that which is by the terms of that theory, per Gödel, necessarily implied (posited, assumed). Like an aether (or call it intrinsicality).
What I'm saying here is that an appreciation of metaphysics is necessary condition to doing science well. It must be such a condition, because our entire physical language (like our fundamental words like particle and wave), or language itself, implies that which is not physical (= the metaphysical). I've merely attempted to demonstrate how this works using the example of some of relativity's fundamental concepts. At some point, those concepts hit a wall. They run headlong into that which is by the terms of that theory, per Gödel, necessarily implied (posited, assumed). Like an aether (or call it intrinsicality).
Last edited:
The problem many have is that one can construct a sentence that is perfectly logical, but not physical.
I can say, "When one electron goes into one end of a wire, another electron pops out of the other end." But that has no physical meaning. If I assume that electrons are interchangeable and that there is no "unique" electron, that makes no intuitive sense, but that axiom leads to correct answers. If someone asks, "Why can't I tag the electron somehow and follow it?" the question is grammatically correct, but unphysical.
I can say, "When one electron goes into one end of a wire, another electron pops out of the other end." But that has no physical meaning. If I assume that electrons are interchangeable and that there is no "unique" electron, that makes no intuitive sense, but that axiom leads to correct answers. If someone asks, "Why can't I tag the electron somehow and follow it?" the question is grammatically correct, but unphysical.
Yes, it's a meaningless question. The so-called physical descriptions are conceptual elements necessary to garner some output or action, but they don't "represent" what's happening in any physically visualizable sense. Unphysical is metaphysical in my jargon. And yes, it's posited, necessarily.
And notice what's posited about those electrons: they're all identical! If they weren't, the theory would crumble.
Maybe it my bias as a simple engineer, not a scientist or metaphysicist, but for me the goal of science is to obtain an understanding of the universe that allows us to correctly predict behavior with high precision. When I press these keys with my fingers (that may not exist) all of the electronics between us (who may not exist) produces a beautiful illusion of communication. That pretty much cinches for me all of the science required to accomplish this task. If you're unsatisfied until you can positively determine whether or not all this is real, go to church (sorry Mods)!
- Status
- Not open for further replies.