Objectivism Online Forum

Established Views

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

You cannot actually measure length contraction.  Any ruler which is brought about to measure the contraction of something else will also be contracted and therefore the effect is cancelled out and cannot be measured.  The same sort of thing applies for the movement of a clock, if the hand of  a clock has slowed down, your bodily movements and ability to read the clock have likewise slowed down to a similar degree making you oblivious to any such effect.  This is all when you are moving at a constant speed without accelerations, like in your scenario of the ship and police officer.

There have been experiments done where a pair of atomic clocks were synchronized nearly-perfectly and then one remained stationary as the other was flown around the world in a plane.  When the plane landed, the moving clock was running slow.

I would call that a specific measurement of time contraction.  For one thing, this confirms relativity; for another it demonstrates how human beings are capable of working around it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity

He claimed that  a creature living in a free floating box in outer space will experience "gravity" if the box is suddenly accelerated by a string attached to the outside.  Some "force" compels him to the bottom of the box where the reaction force allows him to stand up.  He thought that was analogous to what we experience on the Earth as gravity.

The force is called Centrifugal force; the reason why a bucket full of water, when spun along its vertical axis, will force the water up the sides of the bucket.  This has been verified long before Newton and can be demonstrated at home, by any average person with a bucket full of water.

Gravitational force is the motion of space and time as it "falls" into matter, continuously.  This is why someone standing on the ground is accelerating against the flow of space while a parachute-enthusiast in freefall is at rest, relative to space.

With centrifugal force, your motion in one direction forces you in a different direction, which overall creates the effect of radial gravity.  The same is true of gravity-gravity (and they are analogous) except that within a gravitational field, in order to be standing still, one has to be falling.

If you stop to give it some honest consideration you'll see it really doesn't contradict Objectivism, the primacy of existence or the rational faculty in any way.  It's counterintuitive but it is NOT subjective and it can be understood by anyone who's willing to try.

If you'd like a much more detailed (and doubtlessly more accurate) explanation then you should try reading Brian Greene's books.  He's a physicist who has written several books specifically for the purpose of enabling normal people with little spare time to understand quantum physics, relativity, et cetera.

Edited by Harrison Danneskjold

Share on other sites

Why don't you have to calculate drop zones in say increments of 25k miles, doesn't the earth rotate at roughly this speed? If a skydiver is not experiencing the same accelaration as the observer on the ground, would not he 'zoom' by pretty quick?

Share on other sites

There have been experiments done where a pair of atomic clocks were synchronized nearly-perfectly and then one remained stationary as the other was flown around the world in a plane.  When the plane landed, the moving clock was running slow.

I would call that a specific measurement of time contraction.  For one thing, this confirms relativity; for another it demonstrates how human beings are capable of working around it.

Time, Clocks, and Causality, by Michael Miller explored this topic a bit back in 2005. If nothing else, you should find it an interesting read.

Share on other sites

There have been experiments done where a pair of atomic clocks were synchronized nearly-perfectly and then one remained stationary as the other was flown around the world in a plane.  When the plane landed, the moving clock was running slow.

I would call that a specific measurement of time contraction.  For one thing, this confirms relativity; for another it demonstrates how human beings are capable of working around it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity

Yes, I have heard about the atomic clocks flown about.  I have also read that the actual dilation of time needs more proof than accelerating a clock.  There is a distinction between what happens to the operation of a clock due to accelerations and what actually happens to time itself.  For instance, just because a watch accelerated at an immense rate may lose a few seconds does not mean anything has happened to time as such but only that the acceleration affected the moving hands.  This has to do with way a watch functions and the same goes with an atomic clock.  To accept this as proof of time dilation and not consider the possiblity that it is a mere artefact is not scientific but i'm sure many scientists would.  I reject Einstein’s view of time in the first place.  Time isn’t an actual entity (it is an enumeration of a constant cyclical motion by man) so it cannot become dilated.  Only objects can be dilated.  The only way “time dilation” makes physical sense in a given reference frame is if everything started going slower including all of the molecules making up that reference frame and even then “time” hasn’t done anything it is what you are using to gauge time which has slowed down.

The force is called Centrifugal force; the reason why a bucket full of water, when spun along its vertical axis, will force the water up the sides of the bucket.  This has been verified long before Newton and can be demonstrated at home, by any average person with a bucket full of water.

The force in the example I gave isn’t a centrifugal force.  I meant that the creature in the box is being pulled in a perfectly straight line; the force is only a tension force on the outside of the box.  The inertia of the creature makes it appear from inside the box as if a gravitational “action at a distance” type force is acting on the creature.  This is Einstein’s thought experiment.  You could call it a fictitious force if you’d like because it arises due to the reference frame we are looking at.

Gravitational force is the motion of space and time as it "falls" into matter, continuously.  This is why someone standing on the ground is accelerating against the flow of space while a parachute-enthusiast in freefall is at rest, relative to space.

I can’t comprehend how space or time could “fall” into matter.  Space—talking about the concept at bottom and why it exists—is just a relation of entities (as given by Aristotle) OR if by “space” we are talking about the substance which permeates the universe, an “ether” of sorts, that IS matter.  And like I said I accept the definition of time as enumerated motion which I think was given by Aristotle (not sure).  So I think there is a problem of definitions here.

If you'd like a much more detailed (and doubtlessly more accurate) explanation then you should try reading Brian Greene's books.  He's a physicist who has written several books specifically for the purpose of enabling normal people with little spare time to understand quantum physics, relativity, et cetera.

I have tried to understand it for a number of years and still am trying to.  I can find as many objections to it as I can find explanations for it.  The objections have always made more sense to me.  In fact, most of what people say about it, in favor of it, makes no sense at all.  I have read one of Brian Greene’s books but it didn't help me understand much of anything.  If I am remembering correctly he gave lots of very unphysical metaphors about Bart Simpson skate boarding and so forth (could have been a different book I am thinking of).

Share on other sites

...Einstein may very well have been wrong.  Actually we know he almost-positively was, because of certain details about Relativity which don't match reality unless you invoke Dark Matter- which smacks of a square peg to patch up a blatant problem.

"bioengine" meant the Einstein's special relativity. The Dark Matter business is from the other Einstein's relativity theory, the theory of gravitation.

Besides, the latter is both internally consistent and consistent with most observations, i.e. seems to be a very powerful theory, but its predictions (in particular movement of galaxies) depend on the mass of the Universe.

The problem is that the visible mass, the one emitting light, is too small to explain some observations, so that a natural assumption is that there could be some unaccounted for matter which is visible - the Dark Matter. Observations are carried out to try to observe it - indirectly. There is another type of "missing" mass, the so called Dark Energy.

One does not give up lightly a theory with so many brilliant results - on tries to see first if one has used it correctly.

Edited by AlexL

Share on other sites

I have read one of Brian Greene’s books but it didn't help me understand much of anything.  If I am remembering correctly he gave lots of very unphysical metaphors about Bart Simpson skate boarding and so forth (could have been a different book I am thinking of).

No, that's Brian Greene.  I don't know why he insists on using the Simpsons in almost every single example but I can't say I disliked it.

I have tried to understand it for a number of years and still am trying to.

I apologize for that insinuation.  I was pressed for time and in my haste I typed before thinking.

The only way “time dilation” makes physical sense in a given reference frame is if everything started going slower including all of the molecules making up that reference frame and even then “time” hasn’t done anything it is what you are using to gauge time which has slowed down.

Exactly.  When we talk about time passing more slowly for someone, every particle in every atom of their body literally moves more slowly.  You gauge this by comparing their time to someone else's- the relations of time- hence time is relative.

To accept this as proof of time dilation and not consider the possiblity that it is a mere artefact is not scientific but i'm sure many scientists would.

This is true.  There are always multiple possible explanations for any observation; potentially an infinite number.

But I could rattle off literally dozens of phenomena that are accounted for by a single theory: relativity.  Would you really find dozens of disconnected explanations more plausible?

I can’t comprehend how space or time could “fall” into matter.  Space—talking about the concept at bottom and why it exists—is just a relation of entities (as given by Aristotle) OR if by “space” we are talking about the substance which permeates the universe, an “ether” of sorts, that IS matter.  And like I said I accept the definition of time as enumerated motion which I think was given by Aristotle (not sure).  So I think there is a problem of definitions here.

Alright.

Imagine the surface of a large body of water.  You can sail across it in any direction you please, it is affected by your boat and affects your boat in return (it resists changes in motion- like accelerated motion) and it has many similarities to the fabric of space and time.

A gravitational field would be like a whirlpool; like the water draining from a bathtub.

A ship anchored just beside the whirlpool would experience accelerated forces, just like the pressure of the ground beneath your feet, while a ship which was passively allowing itself to fall in wouldn't.

Why don't you have to calculate drop zones in say increments of 25k miles, doesn't the earth rotate at roughly this speed? If a skydiver is not experiencing the same accelaration as the observer on the ground, would not he 'zoom' by pretty quick?

Actually, I was referring to upwards acceleration; not horizontal.  Since space is falling in the direction of gravity's pull, someone in freefall is stationary because they're matching it; someone standing on the ground is technically moving upwards.

But that's a very good observation and I believe it's called the Coriolis effect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coriolis_effect

Share on other sites

The problem is that the visible mass, the one emitting light, is too small to explain some observations, so that a natural assumption is that there could be some unaccounted for matter which is visible - the Dark Matter. Observations are carried out to try to observe it - indirectly. There is another type of "missing" mass, the so called Dark Energy.

One does not give up lightly a theory with so many brilliant results - on tries to see first if one has used it correctly.

Indeed.

When I said that Einstein was probably wrong, I meant it- in the same way that Newton was wrong before him and Aristotle was wrong before that.  I do think that his theories are, by far, the best and most accurate ones that anyone has given for these issues- yet.

So I'm trying to advocate them.

Share on other sites

Exactly.  When we talk about time passing more slowly for someone, every particle in every atom of their body literally moves more slowly.  You gauge this by comparing their time to someone else's- the relations of time- hence time is relative.

First of all, I don't think you could possibly compare your watch to someone elses as you were going.  I don't want to go into this but is "the problem of simultaneity" which Einstein goes on about endlessly.

Also remember that if this is your definition of time moving more slowly, all you would have to do is turn the clock perpendicular to the direction of motion rather than parallel to it.  I am assuming that molecules only move more slowly with their component of motion in the direction of travel of the macroscopic body (which may be false but also doesn't bear on what I'm about to say next).  You may not understand what I'm getting at but it is in keeping with Einstein’s “light clock” in which a beam of light which bounces off of two parallel plates in a moving coordinate system is used to keep time.  As the coordinate system increases in velocity it takes the beam of light longer to catch up with each plate so there are fewer bounces per minute, hence "time" is dilated.

If the two plates, instead of moving perpendicular to the direction of the bouncing light photon, moved parallel to it, the effect of “dilated time” is not seen.  This means that it loses all physical meaning and is merely an artefact produced by the way time is measured.  The same can be said of any clock which is used to "prove" time dilation.

This is true.  There are always multiple possible explanations for any observation; potentially an infinite number.

But I could rattle off literally dozens of phenomena that are accounted for by a single theory: relativity.  Would you really find dozens of disconnected explanations more plausible?

This is why induction must be used to determine the cause of observations.  There have been countless cases in the history of science where numerous observations were gathered up under one theory which could explain them all… and the theory turned out wrong.  You can’t jump to the conclusion that a theory is good because it comes up with explanations for each observation.  Einstein’s interpretation of relativity doesn’t make physical sense or provide physical explanations for what it claims which is why it is based on subjectivism and the explaining of appearances rather than causes, a statement I’ll explain more below.

As far as the dozens of phenomenon, you would have to list them for me to consider each one in turn as proving relativity or not.

Alright.

Imagine the surface of a large body of water.  You can sail across it in any direction you please, it is affected by your boat and affects your boat in return (it resists changes in motion- like accelerated motion) and it has many similarities to the fabric of space and time.

A gravitational field would be like a whirlpool; like the water draining from a bathtub.

A ship anchored just beside the whirlpool would experience accelerated forces, just like the pressure of the ground beneath your feet, while a ship which was passively allowing itself to fall in wouldn't.

You are giving me a metaphor about a boat in the water.  In order for me to believe this you would have to explain what is the boat and water representing.  Giving such a concrete metaphor does not explain your earlier statement in which concepts or relations were flowing into matter.  Earlier you said space and time flow into matter.  Only matter can actually flow, the flow of time is a metaphor because time is a concept denoting enumerated motion, not an existent (it only exists in our heads as a concept).  Space, strictly speaking cannot whirlpool or flow as space is just a relation of entities, as in “there is much space between us when it comes to relativity”.  If you are talking about an actual ether, that is, matter which exists continuously throughout the entire plenum of the universe, this could possibly flow, but I have never seen an experiment verifying this.   As far as I know no one has ever detected or measured the ether yet in an experiment, we simply can infer on philosophical grounds that it must be there.  I am certain you are wrong when you say that Einstein believed space was material because looking back at his books he explicitly rejects the ether as unnecessary, he believes space is empty geometrical points and yes he still believes this can warp (many physicists believe that fields are just mathematical points in space, nothing more substantial).

Edited by bioengine

Share on other sites

I never liked any theory or idea that treats time as an existenial force or entity, it is a concept describing a relation between entities.

Another concept in physicis I have trouble fully wrapping my head around is gravity, I do though think it is a force(existentially), but thought experiment-wise , if one could calculate the exact center of say the earth and measure the effectsd of gravity relativr to that point, when 'passing' this point would the attractive force change vector(? sorry not sure how to ask this in conherent scientific way). The example came up in a movie I saw recently, the most recent Total Recall flick.

Share on other sites

As far as the dozens of phenomenon, you would have to list them for me to consider each one in turn as proving relativity or not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity

You are giving me a metaphor about a boat in the water.  In order for me to believe this you would have to explain what is the boat and water representing.

You are the boat and space is the water; the whirlpool is the gravitational field of the Earth.

The pull of the anchor on the "stationary" boat is analogous to the pressure of the ground beneath you; the sinking ship demonstrates that weightless and stationary sensation of falling.  When in freefall you are at rest.

Earlier you said space and time flow into matter.  Only matter can actually flow, the flow of time is a metaphor because time is a concept denoting enumerated motion, not an existent (it only exists in our heads as a concept).  Space, strictly speaking cannot whirlpool or flow as space is just a relation of entities, as in “there is much space between us when it comes to relativity”.

If space is purely a Classical abstract and not an existent then why does Relativity explain what Newtonian Mechanics cannot?

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-02/6-02.htm

Space, as a useful metaphor for measurement, is an inaccurate description of reality.

If you are talking about an actual ether, that is, matter which exists continuously throughout the entire plenum of the universe, this could possibly flow, but I have never seen an experiment verifying this.   As far as I know no one has ever detected or measured the ether yet in an experiment, we simply can infer on philosophical grounds that it must be there.  I am certain you are wrong when you say that Einstein believed space was material because looking back at his books he explicitly rejects the ether as unnecessary, he believes space is empty geometrical points and yes he still believes this can warp (many physicists believe that fields are just mathematical points in space, nothing more substantial).

Higgs' Field, which was only recently verified to exist.  (I'm excited)  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson

http://science.howstuffworks.com/higgs-boson.htm

I should mention that I have never actually read Einstein, myself.  I tried once but couldn't stand the formalism.

But this ether, which you mention, is composed of countless Higgs Bosons (basically gravitons) which interact with matter very similarly to any other field.

What do the Higgs Bosons move through; their version of space?  I have no idea.  If you figure that out I'd be very interested in knowing it.

I never liked any theory or idea that treats time as an existenial force or entity, it is a concept describing a relation between entities.

Neither do I, but it does seem to be the most likely hypothesis.

Another concept in physicis I have trouble fully wrapping my head around is gravity, I do though think it is a force(existentially), but thought experiment-wise , if one could calculate the exact center of say the earth and measure the effectsd of gravity relativr to that point, when 'passing' this point would the attractive force change vector(? sorry not sure how to ask this in conherent scientific way). The example came up in a movie I saw recently, the most recent Total Recall flick.

Yes.

If you were to fall down a hole to the center of the Earth, and then keep going, gravity would be reversed (relative to you) to the opposite direction.

What does this mean for the movement of space, itself?  I'm not aware of any answer provided by modern physics, but the possibilities are fascinating.

(Tangent: where does this mysterious profit come from, which causes companies to start wars and conquer the world?  Somewhere below the gravity well, perhaps. . . )

Edited by Harrison Danneskjold

Share on other sites

Actually I think you missed my overall point , if the vector would change and the pull would reverse realtive to that specific point, does that mean  that the atoms of matter that occupy that specific space ( the 'actual' center) have/possess/exert more 'gravity' than atoms at the surface which I 'passed by or thru' without measurable notice, on my way to 'passing by or thru'   the same type of atoms which happened to be situated at the center of planet ? And if so ,how?

Share on other sites

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity

You are the boat and space is the water; the whirlpool is the gravitational field of the Earth.

The pull of the anchor on the "stationary" boat is analogous to the pressure of the ground beneath you; the sinking ship demonstrates that weightless and stationary sensation of falling.  When in freefall you are at rest.

To say, "when you are in freefall you are at rest" is meaningless.  This is just self contradictory.  Only by some highly convoluted logic could this have meaning in the physical world.  When you are in free fall you are accelerating, I can't part ways with galileo on this one.  Not to mention this still doesn't explain anything physically.  So you say gravity is a whirlpool,  whirlpool of what?  Again, space can only be like the water if space is material, which Einstein did not believe.  Secondly even if we do treat space as matter and gravity is some kind of whirlpool, I think you are forgetting that a whirlpool is a sink.  There must be a constant flow of some "Stuff" into the center of the Earth, which to me means it either vanishes there or is accumulating.

If space is purely a Classical abstract and not an existent then why does Relativity explain what Newtonian Mechanics cannot?

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-02/6-02.htm

Space, as a useful metaphor for measurement, is an inaccurate description of reality.

Relativity does not explain what newtonian mechanics cannot.  Most of the equations of relativity weren't Einstein's inventions first off.  Other people came up with most of them, people who had different interpretations than Einstein did.  Secondly, just because a mathematical formalism is considered accurate, it doesn't mean the theory attached to it correctly explains reality.  Think about Ptolemy's epicycles.

But this ether, which you mention, is composed of countless Higgs Bosons (basically gravitons) which interact with matter very similarly to any other field.

What do the Higgs Bosons move through; their version of space?  I have no idea.  If you figure that out I'd be very interested in knowing it.

Higg's field is not the ether.  I don't know what it is but this is what the link you sent me described, "The Higgs is neither matter nor force".  That is not the ether, which is matter.  The universe is a solidly packed plenum and at present no one knows the nature of that plenum stuff.

I also don't think the first link you sent me satisfies my previous objections to experiments "proving" time dilation or length contraction.

Share on other sites

Actually I think you missed my overall point , if the vector would change and the pull would reverse realtive to that specific point, does that mean  that the atoms of matter that occupy that specific space ( the 'actual' center) have/possess/exert more 'gravity' than atoms at the surface which I 'passed by or thru' without measurable notice, on my way to 'passing by or thru'   the same type of atoms which happened to be situated at the center of planet ? And if so ,how?

Well, to be exact, if you were sitting at the exact center of the Earth then you'd still be gravitationally attracted to the Earth; but instead of being beneath you it would surround you.  (I didn't think of this last night)

So you would be pulled outwards in every direction, which can't be a pleasant experience.  You would probably begin to notice this as you were passing through.

I did miss the point.

To say, "when you are in freefall you are at rest" is meaningless.  This is just self contradictory.

While driving down the road at 60 MpH you are at rest, relative to the car beside you which is moving in the same direction at the same speed.

While in freefall you are at rest, relative to space itself.  This is strange and counterintuitive but not contradictory.

Secondly even if we do treat space as matter and gravity is some kind of whirlpool, I think you are forgetting that a whirlpool is a sink.  There must be a constant flow of some "Stuff" into the center of the Earth, which to me means it either vanishes there or is accumulating.

Not the center of the Earth (I'd like to clarify) but into each and every particle in the universe; the gravitational field of the Earth is aggregate.

But yes; a constant flow of something into somewhere, at which point it must do something else.

Most of the equations of relativity weren't Einstein's inventions first off.  Other people came up with most of them, people who had different interpretations than Einstein did.  Secondly, just because a mathematical formalism is considered accurate, it doesn't mean the theory attached to it correctly explains reality.  Think about Ptolemy's epicycles.

I'm fairly sure that Einstein's Field Equations were invented by Albert Einstein.

I haven't heard of any alternative interpretations and I don't know what Ptolemy's epicycles are; I'll have to get back to you on that.

Higg's field is not the ether.  I don't know what it is but this is what the link you sent me described, "The Higgs is neither matter nor force".  That is not the ether, which is matter.  The universe is a solidly packed plenum and at present no one knows the nature of that plenum stuff.

The Higgs' Field, don't ask me how, supposedly endows matter with mass, intertia and weight (and consequently time and motion, as we know them).  This is cutting-edge particle physics and I still haven't been able to grasp how that would work.

The thought that it might be space is my own.  If it's responsible for the nature of motion, mass and gravity then it might be exactly the thing that relativity warps.

Actually, it occurred to me last night that we might be arguing two sides of the same coin.

What if space, itself, were absolute and immutable (as you suggest) but, in the absence of the Higgs' Field, all particles behave the way photons do?

That would mean that Einstein's relativity would be correct, as long as you think of it as relative to the Higgs' Field instead of spacetime, yet space and time themselves would be absolute since the Higgs' Field, itself, must exist inside of them.

In any case I'd like to check my premises because I'm not sure that what I'm advocating is still Relativity.

Share on other sites

Howstuffworks on Relativity:  http://science.howstuffworks.com/science-vs-myth/everyday-myths/relativity1.htm

I'll let Einstein speak for himself; I need to reevaluate some things.

Share on other sites

Harrison said

Well, to be exact, if you were sitting at the exact center of the Earth then you'd still be gravitationally attracted to the Earth; but instead of being beneath you it would surround you.  (I didn't think of this last night)

So you would be pulled outwards in every direction, which can't be a pleasant experience.  You would probably begin to notice this as you were passing through

See this is the part I find tricky, if I were at the center and surronded by the earth every point on and in my body should experience attractive forces from the rest of the earth, but those forces would be exerted on every point and in all vectors , so would they not cancel each other out leaving no net attractive force in any direction?

Share on other sites

See this is the part I find tricky, if I were at the center and surronded by the earth every point on and in my body should experience attractive forces from the rest of the earth, but those forces would be exerted on every point and in all vectors , so would they not cancel each other out leaving no net attractive force in any direction?

Correct, if the center of mass of your body coincided with the center of mass of the earth there would be no force.  The gravitational force is proportional to the inverse square of the distance between your center of mass and that of the earth.  The equation would be undefined as you got there.  The gravitational "tension" that is pulling any atom of your body "upwards" would be cancelled out by that pulling "downwards" as you say.

Edited by bioengine

Share on other sites

Correct, if the center of mass of your body coincided with the center of mass of the earth there would be no force.  The gravitational force is proportional to the inverse square of the distance between your center of mass and that of the earth.  The equation would be undefined as you got there.  The gravitational "tension" that is pulling any atom of your body "upwards" would be cancelled out by that pulling "downwards" as you say.

Nice post , it shows the point I had in mind. Without using any 'numbers' you showed how the 'maths' define or explain the phenomenon, and by implication that the 'maths' do not give rise to it, maths describe the science, they do not invent the what. It seems to me alot of modern physics throws out the what if their  maths say it just can't be, forgetting the maths are derivative in the first place. Just because the math shows string theories to be possible doesn't really mean much as to the existence of the things they describe.

Share on other sites

Quantum mechanics, on the other hand, blatantly contradict the law of identity.

It does not. QM is not the same as some specific interpretations. Same for the law of identity :-)

Einstein- he was an intensely vocal opponent of QM.

More precisely, of a specific interpretation, which he confused with QM itself.

It's [QM] also incompatible with relativity ...

This is a funny and unfair way to say that it has its limitations. For intermediate energies there is an extension called the Relativistic Quantum Mechanics, and for high energies, when particles may transform into each other, QM is extended into the so-called Quantum Field Theory, also a very deep and highly successful theory. Edited by AlexL

Share on other sites

The senses of a man with normal vision, to take the standard example, do not contradict those of a color-blind man. When the former says about some object, “It is red,” he must in reason mean by the statement: “It is an entity in reality of a specific nature such that, when it acts on my senses, I perceive it in the form of red color.” That is true; that is what it is. Similarly, if the color-blind man says “It is gray,” he has to mean: “It is an entity in reality of a specific nature such that, when it acts on my senses, I perceive it in the form of gray color.” That also is true; that is what  it  is. Neither statement conflicts with the other. Both men are perceiving that which is and are doing so in a specific form.

-Leonard Peikoff in OPAR, explaining how relative perceptions of objects may differ from one person to another, and remain equally valid throughout.

We may see different images but that doesn't mean we aren't looking at the same object; only that we have different perspectives on it.

Now hijacked by me and redistributed to Einstein.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×

• Topics

• 0
• 0
• 51
• 49
• 0
• 24
• 0
• 0
• 0
×
×
• Create New...