Philosophy and Physics

[Living Student]

1. Can length be an attribute of existence but of no particular existents?

2. If distance is a relationship between two entities, what is it about either entity that one is relating to the other?

My answers:

1. No

2. I can't conceive of an answer. This is because distance is not a relationship between two entities i.e. is not based on individual properties of either entity but is rather the sum total of the lengths of all objects *inbetween*.

There isn't a "distance" property which one percieves in one object and then another or both at the same time and in comparing the two comes up with a relationship of distance.

There is the length of objects. And distance is the sum total of the lengths of all objects *inbetween* two entities.

I don't know; I hope this helps somebody.

[stephen_speicher]

"Living Student" wrote:

"... distance is not a relationship between two entities ..."

Sure it is. Distance is a relationship between the location of two entities, i.e., a spatial relationship. We quantify that distance through a measurement process, either directly or indirectly. For instance, we may measure the spatial separation between the two entities by laying a fixed ruler between the two, or, knowing the speed of light, we may indirectly derive the spatial separation by measuring the time for light to travel from one entity to the other.

[y_feldblum]

LivingStudent, what invisible, intangible, indetectable entities exist between two stars? What are some of these entities' observable attributes - these entities which no one yet has succeeded in observing?

Whatever you cannot imagine - I cannot imagine hypothesizing things into existence. Human knowledge is primarily inductive; either induce the concept of ether (that which exists everywhere) by perceptual observation or reject it as arbitrary as I do.

RadCap, I have seen nothing in the first five chapters in OPAR to contradict my position (which I think lucifer supports). Also, I fail to see how you arrive at your assertions - such as: the universe has no shape when it is filled solid, but it has shape when not. Also, may I suggest reading Flatland as a solution to your pimple dilemma?

I would welcome a challenger.

[RadCap]

Actually y, I said OPAR should be pulled out IN ADDITION to Intro to Obj. Epistemology (not in place of it, as you seem to have done). ItOE deals with the specifics (including the thing you dont 'grasp' about shape of the universe). OPAR provides a logical presentation of all the concepts which validate the OE explanations.

As to your suggestion to read "Flatland," a modern day version of "The Republic" is not a good source of debate to support an argument against objectivists.

[y_feldblum]

I have seen nothing in the first five chapters of OPAR or, to my recollection, in any of ITOE to contradict my position.

[stephen_speicher]

"y_feldblum" wrote:

"... what invisible, intangible, indetectable entities exist between two stars? What are some of these entities' observable attributes - these entities which no one yet has succeeded in observing?"

Surely you are not implying that, literally, nothing exists between two stars? It is one thing to say that you do not know the nature of what exists, but another thing entirely to imply that there exists ... nothingness. "Nothing" is not a different kind of something. "Nothing" is the absence of something. It is, literally, no thing.

What can be said scientifically in any given age is dependent on the details of the science and technology available at that time. Some years ago all we had were telescopes with which we observed in visible light. Now the Chandra X-ray telescope regularly provides spectacular images of energetic radiation which was was not visible to the naked eye.

But, philosophy is not dependent on any particular scientific knowledge or technology, and it can properly assert that which is true of existence per se, in any age. More than two thousand years ago Parmenides recognized that the universe is a plenum -- there are no gaps of nothingness -- and that fact necessarily remains true today. The job of science is to identify the nature of that plenum, and it cannot ever validly question its existence.

[argive99]

But, philosophy is not dependent on any particular scientific knowledge or technology, and it can properly assert that which is true of existence per se, in any age. More than two thousand years ago Parmenides recognized that the universe is a plenum -- there are no gaps of nothingness --  and that fact necessarily remains true today. The job of science is to identify the nature of that plenum, and it cannot ever validly question its existence.

Stephen,

I have been reading Robert Anton Wilson's Quantum Psychology on the reccomendation of a friend. It is essentially an assault on Aritotelian logic and Aristotelian certainty. So many contradictory claims are made based on quantum mechanics that if you took them seriously your head would spin; ie multiple universes, observer created reality, acausal and non-deterministic phenomena, backward in time causality, etc etc.

Could you briefly outline a rational approach to quantum theory or point to somewhere where I can look. I have read Lewis Little's paper but I also read both Travis Norsen's and David Harriman's rejection of it. I am confused as heck over this and am tired of reading types like Wilson that revel in contradictions.

Any help would be appreciated.

[stephen_speicher]

"argive99," I am not sure exactly what you are asking.

There currently is no text which presents a non-technical or a technical understanding of quantum mechanics which is causal, local, and determinstic, all of which are fundamental requirements of a proper philosophy. So, if you want a non-technical presentation of qm, in historical context, minus the philosophic grasp, I would suggest Jim Baggott's "The Meaning of Quantum Theory," _Oxford University Press_, 1992. This is a short and relatively simple book, but it covers the essentials of the field in a manner accessible to the layman. The last I looked it was out of print, but readily available on the used book market.

For a non-technical overview of Little's TEW, which is a causal, deterministic, and local theory, see my three-part article at:

http://speicher.com/tew.html

I am very well-read in the field so, if you can be more specific as to your objectives, I can make various recommendations.

[ZiggyKD]

Stephen Speicher, I have read your three part series and wanted to thank you for putting the time and effort into creating it. I tried going through Little's paper initially, but had a hard time grasping the concepts he puts forth. Your series was a joy to read.

[stephen_speicher]

Stephen Speicher, I have read your three part series and wanted to thank you for putting the time and effort into creating it.  I tried going through Little's paper initially, but had a hard time grasping the concepts he puts forth.  Your series was a joy to read. 

I am glad you enjoyed the articles, and thank you for the kind words. The articles are in need of an update to reflect a number of changes and clarifications as the theory has developed. My own grasp of the issues has also been extended since the initial writing. But, nevertheless, the articles still communicate the essence of the theory in a non-technical way.

Incidentally, seeing your avatar makes me glad to have you on my side, considering all the armor you wear.

[Richard_Halley]

Yes, Mr. Speicher. I would also like to thank you. I had not previously seen your articles, and they answered a number of questions which I had concerning Little's theory.

[stephen_speicher]

Yes, Mr. Speicher.  I would also like to thank you.  I had not previously seen your articles, and they answered a number of questions which I had concerning Little's theory.

You are very welcome, Mr. Halley.

Now, if you will just whistle the theme from your Fifth Concerto for me, we can call it even.

[Richard_Halley]

Working on that now, Stephen...

I have to write the first four first though... might be a little delay.

[y_feldblum]

Stephen Speicher, at what speed do Little's elementary waves move?

[stephen_speicher]

Working on that now, Stephen...

I have to write the first four first though... might be a little delay.

That's okay. For things of value, I am willing to wait.

[stephen_speicher]

Stephen Speicher, at what speed do Little's elementary waves move?

The elementary flux travels at c, the speed of light, a fact which is imposed by relativistic concerns.

[RadCap]

y

I am confused. You spent the last five pages of posts asserting that absolutely nothing exists between, for example, planets - that space literally is nothing. And you insisted that matter and energy moved 'through' this nothing (but not 'through' it because there was nothing to move through). Many of us disagreed with you. We stated nothingness cannot exist. We stated something must exist. For the sake of convenience, we called that something 'ether'.

You have attacked this view whenever it has been asserted.

Now Stephen shows up and proclaims the exact same thing - except he uses the term 'plenum' instead of 'ether'. Yet you don't challenge him on this. You don't disagree with him and ask him for proof of this plenum - for a list of its attributes etc.

What's going on?

[stephen_speicher]

I was glancing through some of the earlier posts here, and this caught my eye.

All of today's scientific models rely on the implicit denial of any sort of ether or spatial existence.  See the Michelson-Morley experiment.

It is a common mistake to think that the 1887 Michelson-Morley experiment proved there is no ether. The experiment failed to detect a stationary ether, but did not alone rule out a partial dragging theory, such as that advocated by George Stokes, where there is full drag at the Earth's surface, tapering off to zero at some distance. However, 38 years later Michelson, who himself was an advocate, disproved Stokes' ether theory [ A.A. Michelson and H.G. Gale, "The Effect of the Earth's Rotation on the Velocity of Light," _Astrophysical Journal_, vol. LXI, Part I, pp. 137-139, Part II, pp. 140-145, 1925].

In 1892, however, Hendrik Antoon Lorentz, a Dutch physicist, devised an ad hoc means of explaining the Michelson-Morley experiment in terms of an ether. What was later to be called the Lorentz Ether Theory (LET) shares the same mathematical formalism and makes the same experimental predictions as Einstein's special theory of relativity (SR). The two theories -- Einstein's SR which discards the ether, and Lorentz' LET which relies on it -- are experimentally indistinguishable.

The difference though is that special relativity led to general relativity, and it was also quite naturally integrated with quantum mechanics in QED (quantum electrodynamics), while LET essentially stagnated and led nowhere. "y_feldblum" was wrong in appealing to the Michelson-Morley experiment, but he was correct that today's standard theories are not modeled on an ether concept.

[y_feldblum]

Surely you are not implying that, literally, nothing exists between two stars?

Does it look like it's possible to infer anything else?

It is one thing to say that you do not know the nature of what exists, but another thing entirely to imply that there exists ... nothingness

That which exists (and is under discussion) has no nature. After a hundred years of looking for evidence of any of its properties and not finding any, not a single property, it is reasonable to be certain that it in fact has no properties. And a thing with no properties, with no identity, does not exist.

"Nothing" is not a different kind of something. "Nothing" is the absence of something. It is, literally, no thing.

I try to be a bit careful how I phrase my ideas. I never said or implied that nothingness qua existent exists, only that nothingness qua not any existent in particular exists; ie, there is no entity which exists; ie, I describe as false any assertion that some entity exists.

What can be said scientifically in any given age is dependent on the details of the science and technology available at that time.

I'm quite confident that we have the technology and the equipment to detect any entity such as the one under discussion should it exist. We have had the technology for decades. Only, scientists spent lifetimes trying to find a glimmer of it and, finding nothing, no longer have any reason to look for it. Few scientific theories call for it, and none of the dominant ones do.

But, philosophy is not dependent on any particular scientific knowledge or technology, and it can properly assert that which is true of existence per se, in any age.

Ayn Rand recognized the status of philosophy and properly asserted that the fundamental materials that make up entities etc. are in the realm of science. This philosophy as far as I know stays away from telling us what exists and where and leaves that question to science.

More than two thousand years ago Parmenides recognized that the universe is a plenum

Until Galileo the world was considered the center of existence by all of philosophy.

The job of science is to identify the nature of that plenum, and it cannot ever validly question its existence.

The job of science is to look at existence, at entities, and ask, "what is it?" So far, science has answered, "that entity is not any thing in particular." Philosophy demands that we discard as arbitrary concepts whose referents are not any thing in particular.

Now Stephen shows up and proclaims the exact same thing.... Yet you don't challenge him on this.... What's going on?

I've answered the same questions several times; I haven't said a thing in this post that I haven't said before. Stephen showed up after a previous debate was resolved - or at least adjourned - with the same arguments that had been presented before the jury already, but the defense counsel has gotten in his car, taken a commute home, and read the plaintiff's summary of TEW.

The elementary flux travels at c, the speed of light, a fact which is imposed by relativistic concerns.

Something new here. Aren't relativistic concerns, in Little's theory, imposed by the elementary flux? If so, your answer is circular; if not, I didn't understand it.

Also, why does Little (as per your summary) discard the notion that STR is simply a replacement of Euclidean geometry with time in there somehow by Minkowski geometry? All it requires is the addition into the line element (definition of distance) of a single term to represent time? What about this theory is wrong?

Little (as per your summary) says that the gravitational lensing effect can be explained by his theory. I believe Newton's theory predicted the effect as well, much before Einstein; only there was a slight discrepancy between what the theories predicted experimental results should be, and the results favored GTR. Do the predictions of Little's theory regarding this effect specifically match the predictions of GTR as against Newton?

[stephen_speicher]

_feldblum, there are too many little quote and re-quotes here, so I will break my reply into two smaller posts.

I would like to concretize your star example so that I can be absolutely sure about what you claim. Say, for instance, that by some means we determine that the distance between Cygnus X-1 and Gamma Draconis is approximately 7100 light years. Are you actually claiming that those two stars are separated by that straight-line distance, and inbetween those two stars, along that straight-line, is, absolutely nothing? If so, philosophically speaking, I am speechless.

Now, scientifically speaking, the claim that "we have the technology and the equipment to detect any entity such as the one under discussion," is scientifically naive. There are many things in science that we are currently unable to observe directly, but are known to us by their effects. In fact, the standard theories are full of entities for which there is no direct observational evidence.

For instance, in quantum field theory, QCD (quantum chromodynamics) is currently our best gauge theory of the strong interaction. There has never been any observation of the quarks and gluons of QCD, yet they form the very basis of the theory. And, the existence of gravity in quantum field theory implies the existence of a massless particle of helicity +/- 2, but no one has ever detected this graviton. And in supersymmetric quantum field theory it is known that the graviton cannot be in a supermultiplet with particles of helicity +/- 5/2, so it must be in a supermultiplet with a massless particle of helicity +/- 3/2. This particle is called the gravitino, and it forms the basis of the field theory known as supergravity. And, can you guess what? No one has ever directly observed a gravitino either.

So, your complaint that we have not directly observed the "entities" which exist between Cygnus X-1 and Gamma Draconis does not, in and of itself, disqualify a scientific theory predicated on the existence of such entities. Afterall, if you were to apply that requirement to our standard theories, our best theories would then just evaporate.

I'll address some of your other points and questions later in another post.

[Richard_Halley]

Are you actually claiming that those two stars are separated by that straight-line distance, and inbetween those two stars, along that straight-line, is, absolutely nothing.

More specifically, he claims that this is possible because distance is not determined by how much is in between two objects, but by some comparison between the identities of those objects.

He said previously that your straight line--actually, he said this about a ruler or tick marks I may place on that straight line--is no more than an epistemological tool for percieving that comparison, and that nothing need actually exist (not even your line) between the two objects for there to be distance between them.

[y_feldblum]

Stephen Spencer, you've provided attributes of some entities which scientists are now trying to positively identify. Please cite one [predicted] attribute of that entity which is under discussion (TEWIUD).

I did not complain that we cannot directly observe TEWIUD, but that we have never observed it, directly or indirectly, by any means whatsoever, nor do we have any reason to expect to aside from what I consider to be an arbitrary a priori hypothesis.

Richard Halley's answer on my behalf is, I believe, accurate on all points.

[RadCap]

Stephen

y needs more of a philosophic discussion about Parmenides and his reasons for believing the universe must be a plenum, than he needs a physics discussion pertaining to what that plenum might or might not actually be.

[stephen_speicher]

y_feldblum, previously I answered a single-line question here about the TEW, expecting that would be that. I should have made it clear before that there is an appropriate forum for discussion of the TEW, and I am always happy to answer any reasonable questions there. Since I did not make this clear before, I will answer a few of the questions you posed, but any future questions about the TEW should be addressed to the TEW list.

The answer to your question regarding relativistic concerns and the speed of the elementary flux is a bit involved. The waves are not waves in a medium; they are the medium. The phase velocity of wavefronts can be either greater than or less than c, but the coherent signal is independent of the wavefront, and it travels at c. It is in this sense that we say that the elementary flux travels at c. With the phase velocity being in the direction of the particle following the reverse wave, a proper relativistic transformation of the phase velocity occurs. But the only way that the coherent signal can transform properly -- the only way to achieve relativistic invariance of the waves -- is for the coherence velocity of the wave flux itself to travel at c. This is what I meant by "relativistic concerns." If you want to learn more about the details of this, see Section 7, "'Relativistic' Transformation Of The Waves," in Little's 1996 paper, available in html or pdf at http://www.yankee.us.com/TEW/

As to your question about special relativity: The TEW does not claim that special relativity is wrong -- it affirms the necessity of the Lorentz transformation -- but it does provide a physical basis for understanding why the mathematics of SR work. SR is a geometric theory; the TEW is a physical theory.

Regarding gravitational lensing: You are confusing gravitational lensing with just light deflection. The former is a consequence of the latter, but the latter has other effects as well. Newtonian physics had no counterpart of lensing, but it did predict the deflection of light near the Sun, one-half the value of that predicted by general relativity. It was in 1919, when the Eddington expedition confirmed the general relativistic prediction by measuring the slight displacement of stars during a solar eclipse, that Einstein was catapulted into world-wide celebrity fame. The whole history of this phenomenon is fascinating, and if anyone wants to hear more about it, feel free to ask.

As with SR, the TEW affirms general relativity and it gives a physical basis for the curvature of spacetime and for gravity. It is completely consistent with general relativity.

Any future questions about the TEW should be addressed to the proper forum, accessible from http://speicher.com/tew.html

[stephen_speicher]

More specifically, he claims that this is possible because distance is not determined by how much is in between two objects, but by some comparison between the identities of those objects.

He said previously that your straight line--actually, he said this about a ruler or tick marks I may place on that straight line--is no more than an epistemological tool for percieving that comparison, and that nothing need actually exist (not even your line) between the two objects for there to be distance between them.

When I was a kid, A friend of mine had a line which I always thought to be funny.

"You cannot argue with anyone who believes in nothingness. There is nothing to argue about."