The Absolute/Relative problematic
- From: John Jones <jonescardiff@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2008 21:59:12 +0100
I want to tackle some problems associated with absolute and relative positions. I will introduce these problems through a popular example of motion:
If I travel at the speed of light then all distances are reduced to zero. It follows that if I travel at LESS than the speed of light and where distances are NOT zero, then there must be a correlation between speed and length (eg., as given by the Lorentz expansion/contraction). This correlation is real, but is it absolute or relative? We might think that if it is real, then it must be absolute; yet relativity says otherwise.
If I demand, and get, an "absolute" correlation between speed and length, then it seems I can establish absolute motion and rest. Such a demand is met by a framework that enfolds our universe of motion. Motion in our universe can then be externally and absolutely assessed. However, this leads me into an infinite regress: the framework that offers an absolute positional reference must itelf be absolutely positioned by a yet higher framework. I do not want to go down the path of an infinite regress.
The infinite regress of frameworks is just one problem that arises for absolute positions: frameworks, of course, have boundaries, and boundaries are problematic for both absolute and relative positions. Boundaries support a common medium through which information can pass from one framework to another without bias. This will again bring an infinite regress where each such 'medium' is simply another framework with its own boundary, itself requiring yet another common framework that allows information to pass through ... ad infinitum.
In light of these problems I do not want to suggest that there is either a higher framework or any boundary in our world/s that marks out absolute or relative positions or states.
So, we must abandon the absolute/relative schema: we cannot succesfully pose what is real in terms of either an absolutism or a relativism. So I suggest instead that motion is neither relative nor absolute (both 'relative' and 'absolute' employ problematic boundaries) but is manifested by a 'manifesting-framework' that manifests motion but is not itself characterized by motion. Such a manifesting-framework would remove the problems associated with absolute and relative positions.
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Confusion about gödels proof for con(ZF+CH)
- Next by Date: Re: Minimal logic valid?
- Previous by thread: Ryhmän sfnet.harrastus.lemmikit.koirat virallinen kuvaus
- Next by thread: Calculus vs. Non-contradiction?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
