Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Past hour
  2. The math leads to Galileo's experiments with projectile motion, right? The parabola is therefore a relational existent between the object and its trajectory. A gravity thread represents the reification of a relational existent that has been separated from its object. Without the cannonball flying through the air, there is no objective basis for the parabola's existence.
  3. Today
  4. My (preliminary) questions are perfectly legitimate, with no shade of ad hominem. Now I know that the “theory” is YOURS and I understand that what you wrote under the title “Gravity Threads - A Theory” is ALL that is about this “theory”.
  5. To bounce off this... What is your educational background in physics? My main comment is I'm wondering about the foundation this is based on. I really am curious.
  6. If someone else wants to start trailblazing, I've got an Easter party to attend right now.
  7. Let’s have a self contained journey here... this hill I’ve set up needs a trailblazer who is not me... it’s not meant for me to do solo... it’s more fun with more participants... what is wrong with my sandcastle if the math is “consistent” with it?
  8. A great mind once said: "Things having possible attributes or properties can always be mentally inverted with a background of attribute or property having a propensity to manifest as a thing."
  9. Unless and until the theory can be validated by observation /experiment evidence it stands only as mere speculation. If his theory has any prediction different from existing science then those could be tested... Fantasies can always be conjured from nothing (here quite literally) in order to “validate” the existence of the somethings we DO observe. Things having possible attributes or properties can always be mentally inverted with a background of attribute or property having a propensity to manifest as a thing. At least one error in this is the perceived motivation that things which are, need an explanation for their being. That somehow nonexistence is coherent but existence is not... the premise is that things must at their base come from the nothing... because only “nothing” has explanatory power. Here we see a mix of this exaltation of zero with a touch of monism (a very old and common tendency... “all things are water”).
  10. Right. We're not trying to cause waves here. The difference between internal versus external threads can wait for now.
  11. I appreciate your input... but can we deal with one thing at a time?
  12. The ax^2+bx+c is the form Newton and Galileo used from the framework of the historical point in time which they made their observations. According to a long lost ancient Pythagorean text, the exact shape of the gravitational threads would have also been dependent on whether they had been formed by being cut or being rolled.
  13. This seems like another theory. I like it but I am unsure about it because the parabola which we observe directly is a simple second order polynomial. If other higher order terms were present in the math we might have seen evidence for the spool. As it is, our direct evidence is of the form ax^2 + bx + c
  14. Thank you SpookyKitty, Doug Morris, Grames, Boydstun, StrictlyLogical, merjet, MisterSwig. Sorry for the delay. Here I’ll address the key questions that came up as well as try and steer the conversation back towards the nub of John A. Macken’s book The Universe is Only Spacetime (http://onlyspacetime.com). MisterSwig Yes I was speaking in an awfully loose way when I said Macken argues that the universe can be “reduced” to only spacetime. Not a literal reduction, just that all manifest complexities of the universe/existence could be ‘built out of’ spacetime alone. Regarding dipole waves: he is indeed working with a huge assumption that dipole waves exist on the as yet imperceptible QM scale (accounting for ‘the uncertainty principle’) — but he’s up front about where the assumptions reside within his theory. On the “space-filling nature” of these dipole waves: in physics waves are simply oscillations of (rather than within) ‘a field’ which doesn’t so much ‘fill the space’ but effectively defines space itself. One dipole wave can be distinguished from another despite ‘no gap’ between them in the same way we can discern a sea wave’s crests from its troughs. With less directly perceptible electromagnetic waves one needs to detect and establish the mean within a given wave frequency, then contrast this with the positive/negative variation in amplitude. There are no absolute gaps anywhere, ever, in my model. Furthermore, I take the crests (and/or the troughs) to be the basis for what we detect and grasp as ‘entities’ — those parts of spacetime that cross a certain amplitude threshold. SpookyKitty There is a quintessence difference between Macken’s theory and General Relativity. GR embraces additional ‘essential ingredients’; mass/energy + space/time, whereas Macken’s is just space/time. Moreover, Macken moots that his theory resolves the GR/quantum gravity conundrum, so I’d lodge that it represents more than a restatement of GR. Doug Morris I’m glad someone had a peek at the source material. Have you had a chance to delve deeper? Is Macken’s thinking sound in your opinion? Grames Lots to agree with here. You draw attention to a seemingly opposite theory: spacetime itself ‘results from’ quantum entanglement. With this or Macken’s theory, there is an issue about what has fundamental primacy, what is the horse and what is the cart so to speak: is there a level/scale where carts and horses dissolve into false dichotomies within a greater whole? Anyway yes, let’s all work towards making scientific ontology relate back to good ol’ human graspability — metaphysics done the right-way-around. Boydstun Good, that was a pertinent underscoring of how current GR+QFT views mass-energy as separate from spacetime (curvature). Spacetime — full entity or mere existent? At first glance it might seem reasonable to promote (causal) spacetime to the title of relational ‘entity’ whilst the mass-energy part gets to be called ‘entity proper’ (or, to be constant, absolute entity). We can’t experience the workings of GR+QFT directly, yet it is graspable by thinking in more familiar terms of separable solidity (mass-energy) from a nonetheless existent and interactive ‘background’ of relational Minkowski spacetime. Could such an active conception of spacetime indeed be ‘an entity’ under an astrophysicist’s epistemological thinking cap? Mmmm… Then follows an interesting back-and-forth with another rightly esteemed member of the forum, focusing on whether or not spacetime fits into the category ‘entity’… StrictlyLogical (NB, the debate about the four categories being mutually exclusive or not is an exceedingly good one, but I see it as ancillary to the core focus of this thread — is the universe only spacetime? — so I’ll refrain from chipping in here.) The upshot of this Boydstun–StrictlyLogical exchange is that SL reasons that spacetime curvature is (merely) a relational existent, not an entity. (I wonder if the awarded heart indicates that Boydstun accepts this or just admires SL’s argumentation?). But attention please: this categorisation of spacetime is based upon standard GR+QFT, is it not? The point of Macken’s overhaul of GR+QFT effectively ‘dissolves’ mass-energy into spacetime (spacetime as energetic field). Space is a relational existent, so is time — but Macken’s spacetime is a generative dynamic for entities (mass-energy) and therefore his conception of spacetime would arguably be more than mere ‘relational existent’ — perhaps something more akin to ‘existent/entity–process’ or ‘proto-entity’. Anyway, do you agree that Macken's notion of spacetime is no longer adequately captured by the term ‘relational existent’? I love you all, so I'll wind up… …in this conversation I see two main alternative choices for fundamental ontology of the universe… 1. GR+QFT: The universe = (mass-energy) entities (whether particles/waves/fields) + spacetime (as unavoidable corollary ~ the curvature of which is causal). Or 2. Macken’s ‘disentangled’ GR+QFT: The universe (of mass-energy entities) = spacetime (space-time dynamics). So, dear (meta-) physicists, which description fits best with what we now know?
  15. What's wrong with the theory? It appears to be missing a spool. For the thread to take the shape of a parabola, the spool would be needed to unwind the initial thread and provide the initial involute. If only a portion of the entire involute is considered, it might get conflated with a parabola. The more developed involutes more closely resemble a spiral. Rather than traveling along the thread, what is being described is the endpoint, and the course it makes as it becomes unraveled from the spool, where if properly wound, serves as an excellent example of a helical coil. The specific gravity, in this case, might be derived from the weight granted to the original development in the vacuum of having left out the spool around which the original thread was packaged and subsequently unraveled from thereafter.
  16. Let the math guide you... 1. The use of innumerable was with regard to the number of other kinds of threads. There are as many Gravity Threads as there are possible paths (let the math guide) and there are an infinite number of them. 2. Technically they emerge from the Earth, but they pass through every point in space near the Earth. As to why or how the Earth does it, that has not been discovered. The math tells us that they are there because of the way things move. 3. Again how and why things attach to the threads is a mystery. Experiment and the math tells us that they do. In fact an object is always attached to a thread. This can be proven by observation. If you quickly remove the external influence of a table down and out from under an object sitting on it. it will fall downwards on the Thread it was attached to along a path it was prevented from travelling on by virtue of the solidity of the table top. 4. As points along a line are continuous so too the attachments continually shift, but as any point on a line is only ever at one point, an object is attached only to one Thread at any one time. 5. what you say is consistent with the theory. If we create a vacuum in a jar falling things will follow single Threads in there. Newton and Galileo... They all used the math without being struck by the insight that the math was literally describing something real. A. What’s wrong with the theory?
  17. I’m not here to advocate from a position of ad hominem or act in defence against a position of ad hominem. I am here to discuss ideas. What I believe is irrelevant to such a discussion. If that is a discussion you are interested in having, let’s begin! If not, no worries.
  18. Yesterday
  19. Is there an AI with conceptual consciousness? I'm not aware of one.
  20. I'll begin with some specific items: 1. I am puzzled by the use of "infinite" to describe the threads. Do you mean they are "without a limit" or "impossible to count"? If they have a limit, perhaps using "innumerable" in the beginning would help. I notice you used that adjective in the end. 2. Why do gravity threads emerge from points in space? What causes them to emerge and how? You say Earth creates them, but how? 3. How does an object attach to a gravity thread? What does "attach" mean here? 4. When an object shifts from one thread to another, what is its thread status while in transition? Is it attached to a thread even while shifting from one to the other? 5. You say that "absent other influence" an object is attached to its "perfect gravity thread." But isn't an object always influenced by Earth's atmosphere, unless you place it in a vacuum? So, under normal circumstances, would the object ever be attached to its perfect gravity thread? More generally, when I think of gravity, I think of Isaac Newton. What do you think he got wrong, if anything?
  21. Again: Are YOU the author of this "theory”? This IS important for me to know, because if it is yours, then: - you obviously agree with it - and you know everything about it and should be able to answer any questions. If it is NOT yours and you are simply interested in collecting opinions about it, please specify the link where it is systematically developed - its object, motivation for a yet another theory (in addition to Newton’s), its assumptions, concepts, results, applications, etc.
  22. Absolutely, any suggestion or criticism is appreciated. Even if someone thinks the theory is ridiculous, I'd like to know why. I have plans for additional essays, but will prioritize responding to reader's points or objections. Thanks.
  23. Excellent! Please demonstrate why this is a "joke", why it is "disastrous", i.e. please demonstrate what is "wrong" with the theory?
  24. Has a fetus ~earned~ the 'right' to continue living (after it reaches a predictable stage, primarily increasing and regular brain activity, one could venture) ? Not to be confused with the "right to life" of which individual rights are corollaries, applied to individuals much older who have freedoms of action. But it can (?) be protected by law on the basis of achieving "actual" status as a human being. Not at present, that's clear, but with individual rights.(Open to debate) (As the factual/logical argument goes, there is little change in its essential identity, between, say, 2 weeks before parturition, and 2 minutes after. If its life is ended in either case, the one is called abortion and the other is murder).
  25. This "theory" is a joke, sorry. E.g. “SOMETHING out there needs to be guiding objects as they fall…” Are you the author of this "theory” ? Besides, reminds me strongly of the disastrous Theory of Elementary Waves by Lewis D. Little, enthusiastically embraced, then abandoned, by some Objectivists. It assumed that “something” is guiding particles, namely mysterious but ubiquitous “elementary waves”. So – here we go again…
  26. For it to acquire rights the AI would have to be a conceptual consciousness, and that I fail to conceive of. An AI can be programmed for its knowledge (and its ethical system), but not the means to knowledge. iow, "fed' the content not the process - the "acts of consciousness". Therefore, it has no free will, cannot conceptualize independent goals, nor make independent evaluations, can have no autonomous values, (and not experience relevant emotions). Simply, it must have the 'capability to make errors', built in. A contradiction of the AI's purpose to men. Do we want to allocate rights to such a being? Somebody who knows more about AI, please expand.
  27. Do you want any help honing your theory i.e. strengthening it in response to possible criticism?
  28. In response to comments, I've posted a critique of David Hume. I talk about his method and theory on free will, compared to my own. I also provide the introspective evidence for my theory, as well as how it works with the law of causality. https://freewilltheory.blogspot.com/?m=1
  1. Load more activity
×
×
  • Create New...