Re: Non-homogenous theories of space and time

From: Mike Helland (mhelland_at_techmocracy.net)
Date: 06/11/04 

Date: 11 Jun 2004 12:50:09 -0700

Bjoern Feuerbacher <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message news:<cac3c4$gu1$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>...

<snip>

> Well, and I think claims like "nature is a set of information that
> describe interactions" are beyond the scope of physics.

So you think that a working defintion of nature is beyond the scope of
studying nature?

Interesting.

Consider the claim that "the laws of physics are the same in any
inertial frame, regardless of position or velocity." You should
recognize this as a postulate of special relativity.

There is no way to test this in every inertial frame to see if its
true. However, as Einstein points out if we assume that this is true,
despite its metaphysical quality, then we can use it as a premise to
develop arguments that make specific physical predictions.

The claim of mine above serves the same purpose. We can assume that it
is true in order to make predictions about the measurements of an
event horizon.

You've objected to my definition of nature so let's try this from
another angle. If I say nature is:

"A set of information describing all interactions"

And if I can define observation as:

"An interaction that relays information to an observer"

Then we call also say that nature is:

"Every interaction" or "Everything that is observed."

If you find these definitions objectable or beyond the scope of
physics, can you suggest a working definition of nature that you do
not find objectionable and within the scope of physics? Or are you of
the opinion that no definitions of nature, even rough working
definitions, are entertainable by the study of the physical world?

> > You will just have to accept that there are unknowns about the
> > hypothesis as there is with every other physical theory and attempt to
> > understand what has thus far been presented.
>
> I think that what you present is not a physical theory, but
> methaphysical and philosophical musings.

I present a hypothesis that is a result of metaphysical musings.
Perhaps as evidence grows to support the hypothesis someday it will
become a theory. This is process of development for every theory. See
the example of special relativity above.

> >>Even for Newton, space wasn't absolute, AFAIK.
> >
> > Sure he did. He argued that space and time are fixed background
> > constants.
>
> Quote, please.

Newton discussed both absolute and relative space, obviouslly
believing in both:
http://acnet.pratt.edu/~arch543p/readings/Newton.html

Notice how he says that absolute space and absolute time are in their
own nature?

<snip>
> > Leibniz's ideas,
> > which are identical to what I've developed independently and
> > unknowingly, are able to shake the beliefs that space and time are any
> > sort of background, whether dynamic or static.
>
> What Leibniz thought (according to the link given below) doesn't look
> at all identical to your ideas, IMO.

Leibniz believed that space and time were products of the mind as a
result of forces. He believed that matter (atoms) are incomplete
observations of some more "deeper" type of matter called a "monad"
that contains all properties of observed matter. He beleieved that the
monad did not exist in space and time, or at least not the space and
time we are familiar with.

I believe that matter, space and time exist as analyses of information
about interactions (observations). I believe that there is a "deeper"
set of information in the universe that creates our information about
intereactions, and that this deeper, fundamental set contains its own
fundamental matter, space, and time.

They're the same ideas. I happen to think mine is presented more
consistently and clearly, but that has more to do with having
knowledge of relativity and quantum mechanics to work from, where
Leibniz didn't have those developments available to him. (Though, if
you'll notice, he was well on his way to postulating both of them
centuries before their official appearance!)

<snip>

> So far, you have only read pop science presentations of General
> Relativity. This is by no means "equivalent" to what you want to read
> me.

And you know this how?

<snip> 

--
Mike Helland
http://www.techmocracy.net/science/zeno.htm

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Non-homogenous theories of space and time
    ... >> So you think that a working defintion of nature is beyond the scope of ... >> studying nature? ... your claim is beyond the scope of physics. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Request for Review of a pre-print book titled, "Fundamental Nature of Matter and Fields"
    ... You would be told that nature has been 'shown' to be so weird that it is beyond anything we can possibly imagine and therefore can only be described in mathematical terms. ... Science generally attempts to understand nature, ... I am quoting others description of physics. ... jem one might say:o). ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Request for Review of a pre-print book titled, "Fundamental Nature of Matter and Fields"
    ... You would be told that nature has been 'shown' to be so weird that it is beyond anything we can possibly imagine and therefore can only be described in mathematical terms. ... Science generally attempts to understand nature, ... I am quoting others description of physics. ... It is clear why the rules were changed from the history. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Physics and the human condition
    ... the theoretical framework existing at the time of their construction. ... If "alternative physics" is also ... Which is more likely that nature is ... complementary methods and no such things as independent teams, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Lightspeed exceeded
    ... It tries to determine the law that nature operates by, ... The only rules in physics are the methodologies by which those laws ... It is NOT a good practice to do this in science. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)