What is "spacetime" really?

[watcher]

If there's nobody in the forest to hear, the falling tree STILL makes a sound! :lol:

 

the wave is not the sound. without an ear to hear there is no sound.

 

But, says the "ontological view", our observations and minkowski spaces and equations and telescopes and thought experiments do NOT IN ANY WAY have ANY AFFECT on the ontological reality of the universe. Our observations cannot cause a distance to change or a mass to increase or an elapsed time to slow down. On the other hand, this all means that we cannot observe the ontological universe as it really is.

 

yes, they just happened just the same.

i would say that this ontological reality presented itself to us as we observe it.

and you are right this is the end of the ontological view, it is unknowable except as how we perceived it. our ability to perceive it depends on how our organs of perceptions evolved in it. although i think that cognitive science can stretch this idea a little bit further, but why the OP has chosen to debunk SR/GR eludes me.

[modest]

If you could you would "see" that the limit of lightspeed and the delay in seeing things at a distance does not mean that faraway objects are "in another timeframe." Now is still now "for" all stars, even though we can not see "what's happening now" *there!* It will take a few years (or a billion) for the image of their "now" to reach us. But it is still now everywhere, always.

 

I say If two events are happening at the same time anywhere in the universe, they are simultaneous.

 

Events are either simultaneous or they are not. Those happening now are simultaneous and those happening at different times are not simultaneous.

 

The wikibook I quoted earlier touches on this:

 

There is sometimes a problem differentiating between the two different concepts "relativity of simultaneity" and "signal latency/delay."...

 

Special Relativity/Introduction - Wikibooks, collection of open-content textbooks

 

You appear to be confusing signal delay with the relativity of simultaneity. In special relativity light is understood to travel at c. If an observer is 8.3 light-minutes from an object (as we are 8.3 light-minutes from the sun) then we see or observe the sun as it existed 8.3 minutes ago.

 

If a person on earth observed two flashes of light at the same time one of which originated on earth and one that originated on the sun then the person would conclude (using special relativity) that the two events causing the two flashes of light were not simultaneous. The event on the sun would have happened first taking some time for its light to get here.

 

Typically if something is moving at a velocity of x meters per second and it travels a distance of y meters then it originated y/x seconds ago. For example, if a person sees a flash of lightning 3.4 kilometers away and takes a picture of it then he will conclude that the flash of lightning happened (3.4 km / 300,000 km/s) 0.0000113 seconds before the shutter on the camera opened.

 

Like Pyrotex, I'm very curious how you would define "simultaneous" and "right now". What kind of events (or "things") would you consider simultaneous and would you say such things existed in the other's "right now"? Are there any examples of things you would not consider simultaneous? Could you give examples?

 

~modest

[Pyrotex]

...i am not discounting your ability to see things differently about the universe. but as you have already realized by now, what is being questioned by so many here is the logical consistency of your interpretation of your cosmic observations. ...

watcher,

I think you are still talking about observing the events in the universe.

I think Michael is talking about the reality of those events independent of observation.

Two different things, perhaps? :lol:

[watcher]

watcher,

I think you are still talking about observing the events in the universe.

 

i think i am talking about

1. the elements of these events are not independent with each other

2. these relationships can be observed

3. the discrepancy of measurements bet two F of R is not dependent on observation. iow, my space is not your space. and your time in not my time. hahaha. i think.

 

btw have you figured it out why there is discrepancy?

 

I think Michael is talking about the reality of those events independent of observation.

i think the OP is talking about

1. space is independent of these events

2. time is not independent of the observer

3. these claims were based on his observations.

 

i think that's the difference

[Michael Mooney]

Maddog,

I think I am getting a glimmer of what it is that Michael is getting at.

 

In the "ontological view" of the Universe, the existence of each and every particle, photon, field and object is totally independent of observation. That is, the reality of those things is not affected by whether or not they are being observed or measured.

 

If there's nobody in the forest to hear, the falling tree STILL makes a sound! ;)

 

Everything exists as it is, wherever it is, independent of subjective measurement or judgement of any kind whatsoever. And this "existence" occurs in the everywhere-eternal Now. The universe doesn't need us to tell it what it is. End of the "ontological view".

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, Michael.

 

Aside from that --- in addition to that --- separate from that, we have humans. Us. And we observe the universe and try to understand it. We derive equations, such as SR, to "explain" what we observe. We create concepts such as "spacetime" and "elapsed time" and "local time" to, again, help us understand what we experience and observe.

 

But, says the "ontological view", our observations and minkowski spaces and equations and telescopes and thought experiments do NOT IN ANY WAY have ANY AFFECT on the ontological reality of the universe. Our observations cannot cause a distance to change or a mass to increase or an elapsed time to slow down. On the other hand, this all means that we cannot observe the ontological universe as it really is.

 

Spot on, Pyrotex! Thank you. So, in the aftermath of creating concepts such as spacetime, science describes "it" as having certain characteristics as if it actually existed as a "real thing" (the false ontological assumption) that has curvature, shape, expand-contract-ability, and that the "time" component is some "thing" that can slow down or speed up as an actual entity beyond the obvious fact that clocks slow down under the conditions this thread has belabored to death.

 

If the forum will re-read my post to maddog above (#431) I am still open to discussion on the relative ontology of the "matrix field" of relativity (including the improved math describing gravitational effects and lightspeed limitations) in contrast to the "matter field" of the actual cosmos (territory) the former field (map) is describing and "coordinating."

(The latter sprung from Modest's links a few pages ago on "The Hole Argument" as an artificial duality between what's "in the hole" and what's "outside the hole." Same artificiality as claiming that "spacetime curves"... etc.... yet Einstein stated that without the manifest phenomena of matter and light having curved trajectories, "spacetime" would not exist as an independent medium. To my knowledge no one here has addressed this specific ontological contradiction.

 

Michael

[Michael Mooney]

AnssiH:

"I can't be sure, but I think Erasmus is talking about logical consequences of specific definitions, and he is talking about it in terms of relativistic spacetime without necessarily meaning it as an ontological assertion. I am assuming so because of his post #424, as he seems to be asking you to focus on the logical consequences of your ontological standpoint, and quite correctly points out that it is possible to draw out those logical consequences. So, like DD, I would say Erasmus is quite spot on with that comment.

 

Again, the thread title question is ontological. If "spacetime curves," etc., what, in the real world is it that "has curvature. A curved " theoretical matrix" is not "curved space." Space, ontologically, is the emptiness between "things", not a thing with such charateristics, itself.

Then I have asked repeatedly for anyone here to give one example of another spacial "dimension" besides the obvious three. (Not counting "time"... granted as the fourth dimension as long as it is not reified into a "dilating thing itself."

 

See my arguments for the validity of Euclidean space, and the ontological lack of validity in the non-Euclidean cosmology... as having no referents in the "real world."

 

The problem with communication here is, that even when someone has stopped looking at relativistic spacetime as an ontological thing, they tend to persist to talk about physics with that terminology because it is practical. So, communication about ontology can become somewhat confusing as you never really know how people mean their assertions.

 

Your commentary is not very clear either. At least I get the feeling that you are insisting on some ontological starting point simply out of "common sense", in which case you need to think about what is meant by common sense and where you get it.

 

I maintain that the burden of proof is on non-Euclidean theorists to show what "curved space", etc. actually is in the real world. Likewise "time dilation" as an actual phenomenon besides clocks slowing down.

 

For example, you talked about distance measurements. But of course you have to first carefully define all the aspects of what it means to measure some distance, and different definitions simply lead you to different results.

 

And yet all distance measurements listed on many science websites and textbooks, for instance, between sun and all the planets, are very well known and not up for debate as to how they were measured. How relativity corrects for the lightspeed factor in the time delay for different relative perspectives is entirely another subject, and I have never argued with the results.

 

The funny thing with relativity, as you well know, is that by its definitions the distance is seen as a function of the velocity of the observer. I think the real purpose of this thread is to talk about, what is the ontological meaning of such a circumstance (including the circumstance regarding simultaneity), yes? The answer has been voiced few times already

 

Yet, ontologically, distance between objects does not actually change with differences in observational perspectives. That is the point I have beat to death here.

 

Simultanaity simply means happening at the same time. It has nothing to do with "event duration" which we call "time."

Often times I have asked this forum to consider, just as a thought experiment, that cosmos as a whole is always "happening" in the continual present. "Time frames" are conceptual devices, but "time" is not a thing and "frames" are local points of view.

No question that it takes X amount of time for images to travel from "there" to here. But the reification of "time itself" is another matter... half of the error of reifying "spacetime." This is the ontological challenge of this thread.

 

Btw, to improve your communications, perhaps try E-prime?

 

I am notorious for "run-on sentences." It is actually difficult for me to "chop up" my flow of thought into smaller, more "digestible pieces" with periods. I do sometimes edit in periods later but not always.

Thanks.

Michael

[maddog]

Maddog,

I think I am getting a glimmer of what it is that Michael is getting at.

 

In the "ontological view" of the Universe, the existence of each and every particle, photon, field and object is totally independent of observation. That is, the reality of those things is not affected by whether or not they are being observed or measured.

 

If there's nobody in the forest to hear, the falling tree STILL makes a sound! ;)

 

Everything exists as it is, wherever it is, independent of subjective measurement or judgement of any kind whatsoever. And this "existence" occurs in the everywhere-eternal Now. The universe doesn't need us to tell it what it is. End of the "ontological view".

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, Michael.

Either I don't comprehend "Ontology" or I challange the concept of "independence of observation". If a tree falling in the proverbial forest without someone to observe it

might happen, though you would never "know it". Not even any evidence for it unless you

went to look for that evidence. Then you could only make for an inference or a theory

on the nature of falling trees.

 

Again from the Wiki definition

Ontology in philosophy (from the Greek ὦν, genitive ὄντος: of being <part. of εἶναι: to be> and -λογία: science, study, theory) is the study of the nature of being, existence or reality in general, as well as of the basic categories of being and their relations. Traditionally listed as a part of the major branch of philosophy known as metaphysics, ontology deals with questions concerning what entities exist or can be said to exist, and how such entities can be grouped, related within a hierarchy, and subdivided according to similarities and differences.

I take "Reality in general" as to mean actual existence. That which takes evidence.

Otherwise, I could say Santa Claus has an Ontology of existence, or the devil, or the

Tooth Fairy, etc. I don't require some evidence to be gathered. A tree yes is an object

we can all relate to. Yet if one doesn't even go to where the tree allegedly fell. What

does it matter.

 

Aside from that --- in addition to that --- separate from that, we have humans. Us. And we observe the universe and try to understand it. We derive equations, such as SR, to "explain" what we observe. We create concepts such as "spacetime" and "elapsed time" and "local time" to, again, help us understand what we experience and observe.

Accepted.

But, says the "ontological view", our observations and minkowski spaces and equations and telescopes and thought experiments do NOT IN ANY WAY have ANY AFFECT on the ontological reality of the universe. Our observations cannot cause a distance to change or a mass to increase or an elapsed time to slow down. On the other hand, this all means that we cannot observe the ontological universe as it really is.

I don't even imply such change per se. However, I do propose the ultimate test is what

is observed over what I "ontologically" speculate about. Observability has more proximity

to the "physical world" (prefer not use "Real") than Ontology. What is the Ontology of

your though processes. Where is that in the physical realm of things.

 

I don't say this to taunt. I am actually considering that Thought has an aspect in the physical

world. Maybe. I am not sure how to take what the meaning of the Ontology of thought

though.

 

This might be a bit off topic: A book I am reading is considering an Ontology in physics,

though this subject is in Quantum Mechanics rather than General Relativity. In The Road

to Reality, by Roger Penrose (2004), Ch 29, p 786, Roger describes basically 6 different

Ontological approaches to QM have been used since QM first started back in the twenties.

All of these approaches were mechanisms to get a deeper understanding of Reality.

According to Roger there is even no current consensus on which is closest to the actual

world. Since it is that current dogma of QM & QFT do not agree with GR (generalization of SR) there is some definite concern for attempting to discern a better

understanding of a Quantum Gravity.

 

I will say this back and forth about some Ontological presencing of things, Now, whatever;

without some desire at least for corroboration (evidential) amounts to nought.

Might as well debate how many Angels can dance on the head of a pin (same as that

Deck chairs on the Titanic again).

 

[bTW my answer to how many is the same number of devils :)] :)

 

maddog

[maddog]

Spot on, Pyrotex! Thank you. So, in the aftermath of creating concepts such as spacetime, science describes "it" as having certain characteristics as if it actually existed as a "real thing" (the false ontological assumption) that has curvature, shape, expand-contract-ability, and that the "time" component is some "thing" that can slow down or speed up as an actual entity beyond the obvious fact that clocks slow down under the conditions this thread has belabored to death.

"Real thing" and "Physical thing" may not in all context be equivalent. Depends on your definitions.

If the forum will re-read my post to maddog above (#431) I am still open to discussion on the relative ontology of the "matrix field" of relativity (including the improved math describing gravitational effects and lightspeed limitations) in contrast to the "matter field" of the actual cosmos (territory) the former field (map) is describing and "coordinating."

I question that with out being able to make use of the mathematics that all would be dependent upon.

(The latter sprung from Modest's links a few pages ago on "The Hole Argument" as an artificial duality between what's "in the hole" and what's "outside the hole." Same artificiality as claiming that "spacetime curves"... etc.... yet Einstein stated that without the manifest phenomena of matter and light having curved trajectories, "spacetime" would not exist as an independent medium. To my knowledge no one here has addressed this specific ontological contradiction.

I may have to go back and find this as I don't quite get this whole point at all.

 

maddog

[belovelife]

i think the realtionship is space and energy in a vector of time

 

whereas when you add energy to an object, it's bend in space-time is observed as movement

the the simple act of moving is itself a bend in space-time

 

(now the multi-dimentional concept would be where things move in each specific instance of space in time)

 

so the change in form of energy from say magnetism to movement, would bend space in time

to relative to the change in energy, or vector of energy on a 3 dimentional model of the instinces of energy

 

so the relationship of space and energy as single points, would be observed as the interactions

of space and energy at the current moment in time

 

while there are limits

like the speed of light, limits the movement of energy in space based on speed

where speed is the limit of the bend in space the that specific axis of the form of energy can obtain

 

think of photons and elecrtons being this relationship

-1<-|->+1

where

-1 = electron

+1=photon

0 = magnetism

where the photon and the electron have differt properties involved in the way it reacts to space

(ie, volatage, amperage, wavelenght, )

 

now the photon would be (in all its forms) different intensities of energy on this axis

not bound by a proton

and the electron would be energy that is bound by a photon

 

and the proton would be the opposite version of energy on the same plane

 

where energy and matter have a relationship on one plane of

the representive values of

the relationship of enegy in space

 

i can elaborate on this if you want, but this is an intro to my theory

[modest]

(The latter sprung from Modest's links a few pages ago on "The Hole Argument" as an artificial duality between what's "in the hole" and what's "outside the hole." Same artificiality as claiming that "spacetime curves"... etc.... yet Einstein stated that without the manifest phenomena of matter and light having curved trajectories, "spacetime" would not exist as an independent medium. To my knowledge no one here has addressed this specific ontological contradiction.

I may have to go back and find this as I don't quite get this whole point at all.

 

maddog

 

From post 398:

 

I believe the cosmos exists independent of human observation. I believe general relativity implies that distance is not a meaningful concept unless there is some mass or some particle with which to reference such a distance. I hesitate to mention this because the reason general relativity implies this is not the reason you think, so this is not going to be helpful... Nevertheless...

In general relativity, the hole argument... is interpreted by philosophers as an argument against manifold substantialism, a doctrine that views the manifold of events in spacetime as a "substance" which exists independently of the matter within it.

 

-

source

What is space? What is time? Do they exist independently of the things and processes in them? Or is their existence parasitic on these things and processes? Are they like a canvas onto which an artist paints; they exist whether or not the artist paints on them? Or are they akin to parenthood; there is no parenthood until there are parents and children? That is, is there no space and time until there are things with spatial properties and processes with temporal durations?

 

These questions have long been debated and continue to be debated. The hole argument arose when these questions were asked in the context of modern spacetime physics. In that context, space and time are fused into a single entity, spacetime, and we inquire into its status. One view is that spacetime is a substance, a thing that exists independently of the processes occurring within spacetime. This is spacetime substantivalism. The hole argument seeks to show that this viewpoint leads to unpalatable conclusions in a large class of spacetime theories. Spacetime substantivalism requires that we ascribe such a surfeit of properties to spacetime that neither observation nor even the laws of the relevant spacetime theory itself can determine which are the correct ones. Such abundance is neither logically contradictory nor refuted by experience. But there must be some bounds on how rich a repertoire of hidden properties can be ascribed to spacetime. The hole argument urges that spacetime substantivalism goes beyond those bounds.

 

-

source

Now... I would think you should find this agreeable. You do not like the reification of spacetime and you do not like giving material or mechanical properties to distance or duration. The argument above supports that position pretty strongly.

 

It's a philosophical argument regarding the ontology of the spacetime manifold which in no way resembles Michael's description of the argument.

 

~modset

[AnssiH]

Just a quick reply;

 

"I can't be sure, but I think Erasmus is talking about logical consequences of specific definitions, and he is talking about it in terms of relativistic spacetime without necessarily meaning it as an ontological assertion.

Again, the thread title question is ontological.

 

I meant, that Erasmus' comment implied that he does not suppose ontological reality to spacetime. I don't either, if it hasn't been clear yet.

 

The point to focus onto then is, what are the logical consequences of your chosen ontology.

 

See my arguments for the validity of Euclidean space, and the ontological lack of validity in the non-Euclidean cosmology

 

I said "chosen" ontology up there because euclidean space is also a defined thing, and its epistemological aspects should be well considered before lifting it up to any ontological status either. Euclidean space is also a way to understand reality, don't you think? Just to be explicitly clear of my thoughts, I am looking at non-euclidean space and euclidean space both as data tracking methods that are defined in our heads. You are clearly frustrated over people not being able to see spacetime as a handy mental conception of reality. But can you see euclidean space as a handy mental conception of reality?

 

For further clarification of what I mean, I'll just refer to my post #435

 

-Anssi

[Michael Mooney]

The wikibook I quoted earlier touches on this:

 

 

You appear to be confusing signal delay with the relativity of simultaneity. In special relativity light is understood to travel at c. If an observer is 8.3 light-minutes from an object (as we are 8.3 light-minutes from the sun) then we see or observe the sun as it existed 8.3 minutes ago.

Here is the piece from your link on signal delay vs the relativity of simultenaity.

 

There is sometimes a problem differentiating between the two different concepts "relativity of simultaneity" and "signal latency/delay." This book text differs from some other presentations because it deals with the geometry of spacetime directly and avoids the treatment of delays due to light propagation. This approach is taken because students would not be taught Euclid's geometry using continuous references to the equipment and methods used to measure lengths and angles. Continuous reference to the measurement process obscures the underlying geometrical theory whether the geometry is three dimensional or four dimensional.

In other words, it *assumes the "geometry of spacetime" as a given.* It does not explain the difference between "signal delay" and the "relativity of simultaneity." Rather it "avoids the treatment of delays due to light propagation." It also posits four dimensional geometry without a real-world referent... merely the assumption of "spacetime" as a given. Par for the course.

 

If students do not grasp that, from the outset, modern Special Relativity proposes that the universe is four dimensional, then, like Poincaré, they will consider that the constancy of the speed of light is just an event awaiting a mechanical explanation and waste their time pondering the sorts of mechanical or electrical effects that could adjust the velocity of light to be compatible with observation.

 

Yet, the ontological reality (or lack therof) of the "fourth dimension" is swept under the rug. I have already given my "explanation" for the constancy of lightspeed regardless of the velocity of its source or target. It doesn't require a mythical 4th spacial dimension. I will find it again if you like.

Modest:

If a person on earth observed two flashes of light at the same time one of which originated on earth and one that originated on the sun then the person would conclude (using special relativity) that the two events causing the two flashes of light were not simultaneous. The event on the sun would have happened first taking some time for its light to get here.

Of course. "Signal delay" while light travels the distance.

 

Typically if something is moving at a velocity of x meters per second and it travels a distance of y meters then it originated y/x seconds ago. For example, if a person sees a flash of lightning 3.4 kilometers away and takes a picture of it then he will conclude that the flash of lightning happened (3.4 km / 300,000 km/s) 0.0000113 seconds before the shutter on the camera opened.

 

Obviously. Is there a point in this somewhere?

 

Like Pyrotex, I'm very curious how you would define "simultaneous" and "right now". What kind of events (or "things") would you consider simultaneous and would you say such things existed in the other's "right now"? Are there any examples of things you would not consider simultaneous? Could you give examples?

 

Done that already. "Simulataneous": Happening at the same time. There is only right now... everywhere. The time it takes light to travel through space does not change that. Obviously what we see has already happened, as the image required "time" to reach our eyes. There is a major communication gap here.... still.

There is not one "right now" for this person at this location and another "right now" for that event at a far away location. Yet, of course we will see that event however long after it happened. This all seems so obvious to me.

 

~modest

Here again is a litany of the obvious:

Any/all events that happen at different times are "not simultaneous." What happened last week, wherever it happened in the whole cosmos, is not happening now. Obviously! What is happening now, wherever in the cosmos, is not simultaneous with what happened last week... wherever. This is a "no brainer!" The confusion here lies in the time delay for "seeing" what happened at whatever distance from the observer. I do not nor have I ever denied this. It is blatantly obvious.

 

Michael

[belovelife]

to support my statement, refer to post one in

http://hypography.com/forums/strange-claims-forum/18942-conceptual-science.html

 

the rest of the posts are supposition

and i would like to be corrected if my statement in post one is wrong

 

(although my post IS in thought process linear to the idea)

[Michael Mooney]

MM:

"See my arguments for the validity of Euclidean space, and the ontological lack of validity in the non-Euclidean cosmology"

 

AnssiH:

I said "chosen" ontology up there because euclidean space is also a defined thing, and its epistemological aspects should be well considered before lifting it up to any ontological status either. Euclidean space is also a way to understand reality, don't you think? Just to be explicitly clear of my thoughts, I am looking at non-euclidean space and euclidean space both as data tracking methods that are defined in our heads. You are clearly frustrated over people not being able to see spacetime as a handy mental conception of reality. But can you see euclidean space as a handy mental conception of reality?

 

I think we all understand 3D space and the concept of time as the motion or "duration of event" factor in the cosmos... i.e., dynamic, not static.

 

A point is a locus. (no dimension) A line is a distance, one dimensional. A plane is an area, two dimensional. A volume is three dimensional space. It can either have a shape or be infinite space with no boundary in any direction (no "end of space.)

 

This clearly describes the real world/cosmos. How then is the leap made to four spacial dimensions?

How is it that in non-Euclidean "space" a straight line is no longer the shortest distance between two points? Drawing it on a spherical surface is cool, but then the shortest distance (in the "real world") is through the sphere... like the needle I put through the arched paper in that argument awhile back. (Not refuted... no reply.)

 

Then on to parallel lines... which converge/diverge in non-Euclidean "space." How is that "really?"

 

Then there is the "hypercube" which, in the link (by Watcher) above was illustrated as merely an enlargement of the original cube. This does not establish a "real fourth spacial dimension."

 

Same with all the different "shapes of space"... spherical, parabolic saddle or inverted saddle... torus, etc. What is it exactly in the "real cosmos" that has shape?" It is the "stuff" *in space* in all of its various forms, or taken as a whole as "the cosmos" expanding out *into space.*

 

These are the ontological challenges I present in this thread.

And, "Oh, it's just a theoretical matrix" does not answer the ontological challenge.

 

Michael

[watcher]

Then there is the "hypercube" which, in the link (by Watcher) above was illustrated as merely an enlargement of the original cube. This does not establish a "real fourth spacial dimension."

 

the motion of 4d objects in 3d space as in the illustration is interestingly similar to the behavior of the velocity of light and the expansion of space (the balloon analogy). perhaps the velocity of light does not add and subtract to vectoral velocities simply because "C" is not a velocity. the same way that apple and orange don't add up. light and the expansion of space are very similar to the hypercube motion, they are scalar motions that radiate/expand in all direction as if coming "outwardly" from a point in 3d space. a point in 3d space can be thought of as the 4th dimension we call and perceived as time. which corresponds neatly in coordinate systems as time always being represented as imaginary part of a complex number as representation of higher dimensions (i,j,k). but i do strongly suspect that you would also dispute the expansion of space and ignore the unique behavior of light that is uncommon and counter intuitive to 3d space mindset the same way understandably it is hard to imagine a line perpendicular to 3d space.

 

as to curved space. please understand that the geometry of curved space is done in 4d.

the curved space represents newtons gravity. and gravity under the principle of equivalence is indistinguishable with the acceleration of space. acceleration is a form of motion and can also be represented as the curving of space. motion and hyper space geometry is the same. in QM where space and time are treated as discrete, would get the idea that motion are discrete and discontinuous. discrete motions are the result of the undulation of dtime and dspace seen as continous in macroworld. correlate this with string theory where the dimensions are considered as spectra of vibrations/frequencies, then you will get a pretty good picture of what spacetime is and why it is motion conscious.. for me of course

[Pyrotex]

the wave is not the sound. without an ear to hear there is no sound....

i would say that this ontological reality presented itself to us as we observe it.

and you are right this is the end of the ontological view, it is unknowable except as how we perceived it. our ability to perceive it depends on how our organs of perceptions evolved in it.....

Watcher,

I am beginning to see why Michael is a tad frustrated in this thread. :shrug:

 

You have managed to completely misunderstand me. :)

 

The point of the "tree in the forest" was NOT to make some clever observation on the definition of "sound". It was intended as straight metaphor. The tree falls. It disturbs the air, sending out "waves". This it does whether or not anybody "hears" the waves. The act of "hearing" does not "change" the "wave" into a "sound". Don't confuse semantics with physics. ;)

 

The ontological reality can ONLY present itself to us as a philosophical insight.

It CANNOT be "observed". We CANNOT "perceive" the ontological universe as Michael has described it.

 

Our "organs of perception", being as they are bound by the laws of physics, the constant speed of C, Special Relativity, etc, can ONLY perceive the "subjective universe". Mind you, everything YOU have said in response to Michael is absolutely True! :) Nothing you have said is false!

 

It's just that you are talking about the subjective universe that we can see, touch, smell, etc. Michael is talking about a Platonic Ideal -- the Ontological Universe -- the pure Beingness of the Existence of Reality Itself. This is philosophy, not physics.

 

You CANNOT observe the Ontological Universe. That would require that the speed of light be infinite, and consequently, that the energy density of the universe be infinite, which is obviously false.

 

Now, I'm still not sure that Michael's secondary conclusions are correct, but I'm willing to grant him that the Ontological Universe does in fact exist, it's out there. We will never be able to "see" it, but it's out there. ;)

[JMJones0424]

I have already proved the point that I am in way over my head on the physics involved in this question, but as I believe you are not exactly questioning the epistemology of the subject, perhaps I can still offer a valuable point of view.

quotes out of order, but placed in this order for my understanding

 

A point is a locus. (no dimension) A line is a distance, one dimensional. A plane is an area, two dimensional. A volume is three dimensional space. It can either have a shape or be infinite space with no boundary in any direction...

 

I think we all understand 3D space and the concept of time as the motion or "duration of event" factor in the cosmos... i.e., dynamic, not static...

 

This clearly describes the real world/cosmos. How then is the leap made to four spacial dimensions?

I believe AnssiH's point is that you are guilty of the very same fault that you accuse us of being guilty of in these statements. What is it that clearly makes your world view limited to a three dimensional Euclidean world view? There are many evidences that this world view is not supported by experiment, and if your world view does not recognize that experiment should at least describe our perception of the "actual" being of the universe, then what exactly are you arguing?

 

Then on to parallel lines... which converge/diverge in non-Euclidean "space." How is that "really?"

 

This is so simple that I am afraid to answer. By definition, parallel lines in non-Euclidean space converge and/or diverge. The problem you are making is that you are assuming Euclidean values are pertinent in non-Euclidean space. This is beyond the question of whether or not space is actually Euclidean or non-Euclidean. Once again, the point AnssiH was making is that you have provided no evidence that the universe actually is Euclidean, while experiment shows that it may not be.

 

Then there is the "hypercube" which, in the link (by Watcher) above was illustrated as merely an enlargement of the original cube. This does not establish a "real fourth spacial dimension."

 

This is such a basic misunderstanding, that I am afraid that once again I must be misunderstanding your point. If I were to draw a representation of a three dimensional cube on a two dimensional surface of a piece of paper, than surely you would recognize it as a cube. You are faulting a representation of a four dimensional object as being three dimensional, when in actual fact, it is two dimensional, and you are in error in not seeing the representation as what it is. How would you propose a four dimensional object be described in two dimensions? This is not to argue that four dimenisional objects exist, only that at some point, if one wishes to describe what one is talking about in regards to dimensions, one must be able to illustrate. Zero dimension is a single "Euclidean" (or even "Cartesian") point. One dimension is that zero-dimensional point extended, potentially infinitely, by ninety degrees into a line. Two dimensions is that one dimensional line extended by ninety degrees into a potentially infinite plane. Three dimensions is that plane, extended at a right angle, to a potentially infinite cube. And therefor, four dimensions, is that cube extended at a right angle, potentially infinitely. The figure that you have so much of a problem with is just a two dimensional representation of a four dimensional object. Please suggest an alternative if you do not find it acceptable.

 

You then go on to challenge the "ontological shapes of space". In three dimensions, space may be an infinite three dimensional object. But observations lead one to believe that in four dimensions or more, space is "flat" or at least nearly flat. Your failure to understand the ontology of this argument is distressing.

 

Ultimately, I think that epistemological observations should agree with the ontological "actuallness" of existence, but epistemological observations may never reveal all of the ontological "actuallness" because we are limited by that which we can observe. In other words, the epistemological universe we experience should at least be a subset of the ontological universe. You are repeatedly arguing data points as being ontological which do not agree with epistemological observations, and I think this is where we are having a huge disconnect.