tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2202092988208583550.post7950640253663098041..comments2024-03-04T15:09:00.479-08:00Comments on The Scientific Worldview: Matterless Motion Strikes Again!Glenn Borchardthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09394474754821945146noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2202092988208583550.post-43136641273752590172015-06-22T13:52:41.724-07:002015-06-22T13:52:41.724-07:00Comment 20150619
Bill, you wrote:
GB: "......Comment 20150619 <br /><br />Bill, you wrote:<br /><br />GB: "... the fact that microcosms require motion does not make characteristics objects..."<br /><br />Correct. Characteristics are "what objects do", but no single object MOVES, since that's merely a relationship between TWO objects. Therefore, it can't be an inherent quality of one.<br /><br />[GB: Bill, your <i>finity</i> is showing again. I guess you are in good indeterministic company as that was a telling critique of Newton's First Law of Motion. A body moving through perfectly empty space would be identical to one that was not moving at all. Motion would not be a fundamental property of such a beast. The Fourth Assumption of Science, <i><b>inseparability</b></i> (Just as there is no motion without matter, so there is no matter without motion) would not apply to it. That was classical mechanics. Today, we need to adopt neomechanics. Perhaps you need to reread "The Scientific Worldview," at least that part about the necessity for each object (i.e., “microcosm”) to have a macrocosm. <br /><br />Unfortunately, you are doing what indeterminists have done for centuries, hypothesizing perfect isolation. Despite their belief in <i>absolutism</i> and <i>disconnection</i>, perfect isolation never has been observed. In Infinite Universe Theory, no microcosms are ever isolated and thus each is always in motion with respect to the infinity of supermicrocosms in their environments. You seem to be harkening back to the old positivists and operationalists, who judged motion based on whether or not they could measure it. Sorry, but the infinite universe does not care at all about what anyone can measure. Its various parts just keep moving with respect to the rest of its parts.]<br /><br /> <br /><br />Glenn Borchardthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09394474754821945146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2202092988208583550.post-719123233571283872015-06-22T13:46:15.053-07:002015-06-22T13:46:15.053-07:00No. Theories can be falsified; fundamental assumpt...No. Theories can be falsified; fundamental assumptions cannot be falsified. That is what makes them fundamental. True, some theories are indeterministic and others are deterministic. Indeterministic theories lead to a free-will conclusion, while deterministic theories do not. Bligh, I think that you should reread TTAOS.Glenn Borchardthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09394474754821945146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2202092988208583550.post-58474930733131547992015-06-22T10:36:55.204-07:002015-06-22T10:36:55.204-07:00GB: "That is true for most 'second object...GB: <i>"That is true for most 'second objects,' but it is not true for all of them..."</i><br /><br />I think you've conceded my point: unless/until they collide, the relative motion of one has no influence on the existence of the other.<br /><br />BG: <i>"... the fact that microcosms require motion does not make characteristics objects..."</i><br /><br />Correct. Characteristics are "what objects do", but no single object MOVES, since that's merely a relationship between TWO objects. Therefore, it can't be an inherent quality of one.Westmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02865166433794584552noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2202092988208583550.post-84816057101081286532015-06-22T09:20:05.311-07:002015-06-22T09:20:05.311-07:00Are not all theories in-deterministic assumptions?...Are not all theories in-deterministic assumptions?<br />BCBlighhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10160829900151513063noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2202092988208583550.post-89842582291214601742015-06-22T09:12:45.319-07:002015-06-22T09:12:45.319-07:00Bligh:
That just shows the power of opposing assu...Bligh:<br /><br />That just shows the power of opposing assumptions, as I pointed out in TTAOS. Progress in science is possible only when we use deterministic assumptions. The regression in physics demonstrates what happens when indeterministic assumptions are used.Glenn Borchardthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09394474754821945146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2202092988208583550.post-68458031893469850242015-06-22T09:02:14.083-07:002015-06-22T09:02:14.083-07:00[GB: No, motion is required for any physical objec...[GB: No, motion is required for any physical object to exist.....]<br />I agree with GB.<br />BC<br />Blighhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10160829900151513063noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2202092988208583550.post-2457953075857346922015-06-22T08:57:55.076-07:002015-06-22T08:57:55.076-07:00Impasse.
GB-all things are matter. Matter is the ...Impasse. <br />GB-all things are matter. Matter is the most fundamental thing. <br />BC-all things are motion. Motion is the most fundamental things.<br />BW-all is semanics.<br />FN-all is interpretation.<br />Socrates-I know nothing<br />Blighhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10160829900151513063noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2202092988208583550.post-45384898172340591502015-06-21T17:10:19.515-07:002015-06-21T17:10:19.515-07:00Comment 20150619
Bill, you wrote:
>Those who...Comment 20150619 <br /><br />Bill, you wrote:<br /><br />>Those who “think for themselves” invariably learned that from others also.<br /><br />Perhaps, but once they learn how to do that, they do it.<br /><br />[GB: Sorry, but that probably won’t amount to much “thinking.” That is why folks who are isolated from others and from current events are unlikely to be creative. The thinking that goes on inside such individuals merely rakes over previously stored data. They risk sounding like broken records. It might have limited success for deduction, but it cannot possibly work for induction.]<br /><br />It's just semantics. Physical objects are a subset of "things" in common English.<br /><br />[GB: That is because ordinary folks, including regressive physicists, tend to objectify (or reify motion). In neomechanics, we are careful to define things only as physical objects. If what we are discussing does not have xyz dimensions, we do not call it a thing.]<br /><br />>... each contains submicrocosms in motion with respect to each other.<br /><br />That may be true, but it is not necessarily true that "all things vibrate". <br /><br />[GB: False, all things contain other things in motion that we call submicrocosms. Your tendency toward the indeterministic assumption of <i>absolutism</i> is showing. You might imagine some things that you believe do not vibrate, but there is no evidence for that. Attempts to achieve zero motion and the zero temperature that would indicate that always fail. The upshot: Absolute zero cannot be achieved, as pointed out in "The Scientific Worldview."] <br /><br />What your axiom says is that nothing can exist unless there is another thing (object) which is moving relative to the first. <br /><br />[GB: That is true. Univironmental determinism assumes that all things in the universe must contain other things inside them and outside them.]<br /><br />But, physical objects don't "know" about any other things in motion--unless/until they collide. They don't "care" about whether or not the other object exists. <br /><br />[GB: You are correct that most microcosms do not care about what is inside or outside them (except for sentient beings, of course). In any case, that is irrelevant for this discussion.]<br /><br />The relative motion of the second object has no influence on the existence of the first.<br /><br />[GB: That is true for most “second objects,” but it is not true for all of them. If univironmental determinism teaches anything, it is that each microcosm exists at the behest of the supermicrocosms outside it. The perfect isolation you are proposing can exist nowhere in the universe. All microcosms are like balloons that would explode were it not for the atmosphere that surrounds them. That is why gravitation is fundamental and universal. Without gravitation, no microcosm would hold together long enough for you to proclaim its independence from the macrocosm.]<br /><br />In philosophical terms, you're "reifying" relative motion as a required characteristic of all physical objects ... something you condemn.<br /><br />[GB: No, motion is required for any physical object to exist. You may call it a “characteristic,” but the fact that microcosms require motion does not make characteristics objects. For instance, the color blue is a characteristic of blue birds, but it is not an object. The objects involved are feathers, which have xyz dimensions, which reflect light motion of that wavelength, but there is no object called “blue” that could be separated from a blue bird. Again, motion is what microcosms do. Matter exists; motion occurs. Existence is the property of xyz portions of the universe. Motion does not exist, only objects exist. Reification or objectification is the tendency to consider motion as an object. Folks have a tendency to do that in everyday use just as you do when you include events and processes in your definition of “Westmiller things.” That kind of thinking has penetrated physics to its detriment. We need to completely avoid it.]<br /><br />Glenn Borchardthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09394474754821945146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2202092988208583550.post-41584236313971691772015-06-21T08:33:41.346-07:002015-06-21T08:33:41.346-07:00GB: "Those who 'think for themselves'...GB: <i>"Those who 'think for themselves' invariably learned that from others also."</i><br /><br />Perhaps, but once they learn how to do that, they do it.<br /><br />GB: <i>"That is utter indeterministic BS ..."</i><br /><br />It's just semantics. Physical objects are a subset of "things" in common English.<br /><br />GB: <i>"... each contains submicrocosms in motion with respect to each other."</i><br /><br />That may be true, but it is not necessarily true that "all things vibrate".<br /><br />What your axiom says is that nothing can exist unless there is another thing (object) which is moving relative to the first. But, physical objects don't "know" about any other things in motion - unless/until they collide. They don't "care" about whether or not the other object exists. The relative motion of the second object has no influence on the existence of the first. In philosophical terms, you're "reifying" relative motion as a required characteristic of all physical objects ... something you condemn.Westmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02865166433794584552noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2202092988208583550.post-5216609825917625972015-06-19T21:55:37.910-07:002015-06-19T21:55:37.910-07:00Comment 20150619 Westmiller
Bill, you wrote: “Sin...Comment 20150619 Westmiller<br />Bill, you wrote: “Since I'm a determinist, I don't believe human choice is free of causation, only that mental choices can be made independent of external influences or authoritarian teachings.” Sorry, but that is not true. No one ever acts in isolation from what exists and from the effects of what occurred in the past. That is why indeterminists are from indeterministic backgrounds. That is why people tend to have the same religion and the same politics as those who surrounded them in their past. The univironment does not allow anyone to be “independent of external influences or authoritarian teachings.” Those who “think for themselves” invariably learned that from others also.<br /><br />You wrote, “The same with "Westmiller Things", which are not all physical objects. This is consistent with the dictionary definition of "things" as including objects, qualities, events, occurrences, or situations:<br />http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/thing”<br /><br />That is utter indeterministic BS, and shows how much the Einstein’s objectification of motion has penetrated the culture. Things are xyz portions of the universe. Events are not things, they are what things do. It is silly to consider events to be things. If so, bring some of them to me so I can examine them.<br /><br />Also, it is not possible for two microcosms to be absolutely at rest relative to each other. This is because each contains submicrocosms in motion with respect to each other. In other words, all things vibrate, thus demonstrating that no two of them could be at absolute rest at any time. Whether we exist or could measure anything is irrelevant.<br /><br /><br /><br />Glenn Borchardthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09394474754821945146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2202092988208583550.post-50487721501280245902015-06-17T11:04:46.765-07:002015-06-17T11:04:46.765-07:00GB: "Like Bill Westmiller, who will not give ...GB: <i>"Like Bill Westmiller, who will not give up his belief in free will and “Westmiller things,” Captain Bligh will not give up his belief in matterless motion."</i><br /><br />I don't know "Captain Bligh", though I do agree with your responses to his comments. Unlike him, I do not believe in "matterless motion".<br /><br />My reservations about your stance on free will are mainly semantic. Since I'm a determinist, I don't believe human choice is free of causation, only that mental choices can be made independent of external influences or authoritarian teachings. You regularly use my meaning of free will:<br /><i>"Philosophy changes only when contradictions are obvious, the choice is clear..."</i><br /><br />The same with "Westmiller Things", which are not all physical objects. This is consistent with the dictionary definition of "things" as including objects, qualities, events, occurences, or situations:<br />http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/thing<br /><br />GB: <i>"Those who assume separability, such as Bill and yourself, think of motion as having an independent “existence,” considering it to be an object rather than what objects do."</i><br /><br />I don't believe that. Motion is a characteristic of matter, so it is a qualitative "thing", but not a physical object.<br /><br />My only objection to your axiom is the second clause: that matter requires motion. Since motion is always relative, it's a comparison of the changing positions of two independent physical objects. If their relative positions are not changing, both objects still exist. They may be moving relative to some other objects, but they don't cease to exist because WE are not measuring their positions. That's "hocus-pocus".<br />Westmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02865166433794584552noreply@blogger.com