What property of the universe leads us to conclude that it required a cause to exist?

[Moonstruck888]

I understand that speed x time = distance; but this is a measurement not a causal interaction. What I am trying to say is you are assuming because the numbers add up that the particular method that it is correct; and because the arbitrary agencies involved fit; that they are the causal agencies.

There is no assumption. The equation works, always. It has been verified by an incalculable number of tests…

Accepting something works is different from understanding why something works. Discerning causal interactions and essential/accidental characteristics is fundemental in organising knowlege.

It takes a clever man a lot of time and effort to get to grips with the Standard Model and understand why a physical object must have a duration. There’s simply no way I can explain it simple terms in a bite sized paragraph. All I can tell you is that the duration of a physical object, a particle, is related to time as a function of Planck’s constant and the particle’s mass in electron volts.

I’m sure you’ll agree that to a non specialist, this:



Is not particularly enlightening.

Discovering what a thing is is more important than discovering how it works - at least for the Philosopher.

Fair enough. Let the philosophers do the philosophizing, let the scientists do the science and let the engineers do the building…

 

[Moonstruck888]

Then read one of mine. I am fully behind JohnDamian. And John, Moonstruck’s ‘The only reason you don’t accept Special Relativity is because you are scientifically illiterate,’ is par for the course.

1. He is scientifically illiterate.
2. The 1971 clock experiments are not the only verification of Relativity.
3. The Anti Relativity links that John posted were on a par with the Roswell conspiracy theories.

Still, if you want to waste your career on Anti-Relativity nutterism, don’t let me stop you.

 

[JohnDamian]

There is no assumption. The equation works, always. It has been verified by an incalculable number of tests…

Replication does not show causal determination - there’s a cheesy rhyme for you.

The digits represented between the parenthesis imply an extra-causal determinance; or at least the potentiality thereof. Thus I would take such “calculation” as speculative rather than critical.

Good academic practice has no room for error or uncertainty of any type. Be it Physics or Philosophy.

 

[Moonstruck888]

Replication does not show causal determination - there’s a cheesy rhyme for you.

Nice rhyme, but I couldn’t agree less. Replication absolutely shows causal determination. That’s one of the things the scientific method is built on.

The digits represented between the parenthesis imply an extra-causal determinance; or at least the potentiality thereof. Thus I would take such “calculation” as speculative rather than critical.

Actually, I’d be willing to bet they’re just the standard error. I wouldn’t worry about them.

Good academic practice has no room for error or uncertainty of any type. Be it Physics or Philosophy.

There are theoretical limits to measurable accuracy. Heisenberg proved that the uncertainty in any observation of a system with related variables, position and momentum for example, or time and energy, will always be more than or equal to Planck’s constant by 2Pi.

 

[JDaniel]

…; if time is real then time is an object.

I’m sorry. Did I miss something? Would you mind saying again what “object” Time is? It is imperative that I acquire as many of those time-objects as I can afford.

jd

 

[JDaniel]

SNIPPED

By the way, I thought Time = Duration. We might as well say that Time is Time, or, Duration is Duration, don’t you think? Perhaps I’m wrong.

jd

 

[JohnDamian]

Nice rhyme, but I couldn’t agree less. Replication absolutely shows causal determination. That’s one of the things the scientific method is built on.

Getting the same answer is not the same as getting the right answer.

Actually, I’d be willing to bet they’re just the standard error. I wouldn’t worry about them.

The standard error is contained in those parenthesis; although standard error itself should never be applied to an object in and of itself; but only applied to how that object interacts with others. You say yourself;

There are theoretical limits to measurable accuracy.

This may be acceptable for minor experiments and inventions; but when it comes to absolute claims on the universe the chance that a fundemental aspect of a thing has even slight deviation is unnacceptable.

I’m sorry. Did I miss something? Would you mind saying again what “object” Time is?

Time is a real thing - hence time is an object. Even for an idealist time is a concept - hence time would be an object.

 

[Moonstruck888]

Getting the same answer is not the same as getting the right answer.

Getting the right answer is the same as getting the right answer. Law of non-contradiction.

The standard error is contained in those parenthesis; although standard error itself should never be applied to an object in and of itself; but only applied to how that object interacts with others. You say yourself;

This is absolutely ridiculous. Once again, you demonstrate a total lack of any knowledge or seriousness. Every calculation that has ever been done or ever will be done has error in it.

This may be acceptable for minor experiments and inventions; but when it comes to absolute claims on the universe the chance that a fundemental aspect of a thing has even slight deviation is unnacceptable.

John, the Heisenberg limit is a Universal Absolute. The error isn’t arbitrary, it’s carefully quantified. That’s real investigation John. That’s what people at the cutting edge who do real work have to think about. As an armchair philosopher, you can get away with spouting any rot you wish, but in the real world we have to do things by the book and put care and attention into them.

Time is a real thing - hence time is an object. Even for an idealist time is a concept - hence time would be an object.

I think we need an operating definition of what an object is here. A physical object would be material the way I think of it.

 

[JohnDamian]

This is absolutely ridiculous. Once again, you demonstrate a total lack of any knowledge or seriousness. Every calculation that has ever been done or ever will be done has error in it.

What is the error in 2+2=4?

This; like tautologies; are certaintys. There is no reason to accept things that are not certain as though they are certain. By all means; adopt a practical methodology or idea; but don’t purport that it is certain when it is not.

John, the Heisenberg limit is a Universal Absolute. The error isn’t arbitrary, it’s carefully quantified. That’s real investigation John. That’s what people at the cutting edge who do real work have to think about. As an armchair philosopher, you can get away with spouting any rot you wish, but in the real world we have to do things by the book and put care and attention into them.

In the real world all arguments are either circular or presumptive. No argumentative limit is a “universal absolute”; and if you are to regard it is that is entirely arbitrary (such as me arbitrarily using predicate logic) - don’t try to pawn off your science as more accurate than philosophy when it isn’t.

I think we need an operating definition of what an object is here.

An object is a thing toward which a cognitive act is directed.

 

[Moonstruck888]

What is the error in 2+2=4?

This; like tautologies; are certaintys. There is no reason to accept things that are not certain as though they are certain. By all means; adopt a practical methodology or idea; but don’t purport that it is certain when it is not.

2 + 2 of what? 2 + 2 apples? Are the two apples identical? What particular property of them are we measuring, or is it just their mere existence? Maths is useful only when it has real world applications. Real world applications involve measurement, which involves error.

I very much doubt that you know what error in this sense actually means.

In the real world all arguments are either circular or presumptive. No argumentative limit is a “universal absolute”; and if you are to regard it is that is entirely arbitrary (such as me arbitrarily using predicate logic) - don’t try to pawn off your science as more accurate than philosophy when it isn’t.

Philosophy does not make measurements, accurate or otherwise. Science does, and it works. Science does things that actually have real world applications.

As far as Heisenberg’s Principle goes, it is not an argument, it’s an immutable certainty.

An object is a thing toward which a cognitive act is directed.

Under that definition, we have no argument. It’s so ludicrous that it could mean just about anything.

 

[JohnDamian]

2 + 2 of what? 2 + 2 apples? Are the two apples identical? What particular property of them are we measuring, or is it just their mere existence? Maths is useful only when it has real world applications. Real world applications involve measurement, which involves error.

I very much doubt that you know what error in this sense actually means.

I do know what error in this capacity means; it is a probabalistic impediment to certitude.

As far as Heisenberg’s Principle goes, it is not an argument, it’s an immutable certainty.

Nothing except tautologies and pure mathematics are immutable certainties.

 

[Moonstruck888]

I do know what error in this capacity means; it is a probabalistic impediment to certitude.

It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with probability. It is a measure of the limits of certitude.

Nothing except tautologies and pure mathematics are immutable certainties.

Maybe in your limited little world… Why don’t you take a long walk off a short pier and put this silly statement to the test?

 

[JohnDamian]

It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with probability. It is a measure of the limits of certitude.

If not probabalistic; what are the logical absolutes they use to define error; so they may have a referant for their numerical value?

Maybe in your limited little world… Why don’t you take a long walk off a short pier and put this silly statement to the test?

Upon reaching the conclusion of the pier (presupposing I traverse it succesfully) this leads to tautology (C V ¬C). taking C to be Cessation of walking.

Thus it is logically certain what the outcome be C or ¬C.

Now; in the real world there are rarely such dichotomies and as such we cannot have logical certainty about all potential outcomes; thus outside of specific tautological or mathematical statements we cannot have certainty.

 

[Moonstruck888]

If not probabalistic; what are the logical absolutes they use to define error; so they may have a referant for their numerical value?

I think I’m going to have to ask you to define whatever warped definition of probabilistic you’re operating under here. It looks to me again that you have no concept of what probability means in scientific terms…

Upon reaching the conclusion of the pier (presupposing I traverse it succesfully) this leads to tautology (C V ¬C). taking C to be Cessation of walking.

Thus it is logically certain what the outcome be C or ¬C.

Now; in the real world there are rarely such dichotomies and as such we cannot have logical certainty about all potential outcomes; thus outside of specific tautological or mathematical statements we cannot have certainty.

ROTFL!!!

Come on then, let’s see if you can walk on water…

 

[JDaniel]

Time is a real thing - hence time is an object. Even for an idealist time is a concept - hence time would be an object.

John:

So, would you admit that a yard is an object. I know that a yard stick is an object, but, what about a yard?

jd

 

[JDaniel]

I think we need an operating definition of what an object is here. A physical object would be material the way I think of it.

Wow! Moonstruck! I agree with you!

God bless,
jd

 

[Moonstruck888]

John:

So, would you admit that a yard is an object. I know that a yard stick is an object, but, what about a yard?

jd

By his definition, the tooth fairy is an object…

 

[Moonstruck888]

Wow! Moonstruck! I agree with you!

God bless,
jd

Don’t worry, even a broken clock is right twice a day…

 

[JDaniel]

By his definition, the tooth fairy is an object…

I guess. . . . You can, I suppose, objectify the length of a thing. Or, perhaps its weight. Notwithstanding the thing in question, we now have two “objects” present. When we look carefully, we will see a stone that is equal to the thing beside it of the same length. We have miraculously created the second object out of pure Nothing.

Just having a bit of fun, John. No meanness intended.

(BTW: although I am not great one in any way whatsoever, I am a Thomist. Just in case.)
God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Don’t worry, even a broken clock is right twice a day…

Great! That helps!

God bless,
jd