$0 Challenge

[K Buckmaster]

There's a serious straw-man argument going on. I'm a skeptic, and yet I don't accept the "static view" as you're defining it. You're talking about an immutable, predetermined future. I don't buy that at all, and I don't believe relativity implies any such thing.

If I understand your challenge--you defy anyone to prove the existence of the present objective reality--it sounds like a question of philosophy. I don't think you can prove that (I could be asleep and dreaming absolutely everything), and you also can't disprove it (the nature of hypothesis testing is that you have to have a falsifiable hypothesis to begin with).

this is a commonly used technique to dismiss what I'm raising here... label it 'philosophy' rather than 'science' then the problem can be put on the shelf. That is the selective application of sceptism which I'm pointing to.

The reason people reject the static view is they don't like the idea of an immutable, fixed future. That's the motivation - but that's not scepticism... its arbitruary preference.

 

[The Atheist]

this is a commonly used technique to dismiss what I'm raising here... label it 'philosophy' rather than 'science' then the problem can be put on the shelf. That is the selective application of sceptism which I'm pointing to.

The reason people reject the static view is they don't like the idea of an immutable, fixed future. That's the motivation - but that's not scepticism... its arbitruary preference.

 

[wollery]

In other words, you're saying we have no free will, so if I came and kicked you in the gonads really hard, (just a thought experiment, no threat implied) and you sued me for damages, I could claim that by your beliefs I had absolutely no choice, since the future is fixed.

If you were to sue me it would imply that you believe me to have free will and thus the future is not fixed. Or would you suggest that you suing me is also already predetermined. Of course I have to write this message, since I have no free will to choose not to, just as you have no option but to respond to it with contempt.

 

[LordoftheLeftHand]

If you believe, and you almost certainly do, this unproven notion - that we live in a world that evolves through the coming into existence of 'the future', then the challange (to escape hypocrisy) is some proof: that our present moment is an objective physical reality; really exists and not just to us; some proof that our world evolves in accordance with our now - rather than simple being the static world described by relativity.

If you don't believe that effects follow causes, why did you post to a forum? Surely you posted here (cause) so others could see your message and respond (effect).

I raise this challenge in this place, because I have a conviction that there are the (physical, not 'supernatural') phenomena of telepathy and precognition. So to the sceptics here - I ask them to recognise the forest in their own eye.

At this point it really dosen't matter which medium you think telepathy and precognition are propagated on. But once you demonstrated them, we'll be beating down your door to learn how they propagate!

To quote Einstein:

Appeals to Einstein are not going to reflect well on your crackpot score, this is going on your permenant record! (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html)

James Randi?

If you want the attention of Mr. Randi you should put in an application (http://www.randi.org/research/challenge.html).

LLH

 

[Horatius]

No - because one view adds something that the other doesn't - its for those who believe in that added something to show that its really a feature of the world. There's no better statement of the sceptical position.

...

Your argument is that because time is what we call temporally anisotropic (of which entropy is an example) it therefore comes into existence and can't be static. That doesn't follow - you need to explain why that's necessarily the case.

So here, you're adding a "extra" thing, that your fixed space-time is temporally anisotropic, with no explanation for why that should be so. So now we're back to an even footing, one view that assumes a "coming into existence" without proof, and one that assumes a mechanism for "temporal anisotropy" witout proof or explanation for why that is so.

One of the things we have observed about the space-time we can percieve (the here-and-now slice) is isotropic behaviour. Physical laws are constant throughout space-time. Energy flows only from high energy/low entropy places to low energy/high entropy places, but the universal averages of these qualities is fairly uniform.

The static space-time theory has no ready explanation for anisotropic time, but if we allow for the "coming into existence" phenomenon, that gives us a mechanism for explaining why entropy flows in only one direction.

The weakness in the static model explains away the apparent weakness in the dynamic model. Thus the dynamic model is to be preferred, until some actual evidence for the static model is produced.

So get on with producing that evidence. And by evidence I don't mean sophomoric philosophical twaddle.

 

[wollery]

Nominated.

 

[K Buckmaster]

In other words, you're saying we have no free will, so if I came and kicked you in the gonads really hard, (just a thought experiment, no threat implied) and you sued me for damages, I could claim that by your beliefs I had absolutely no choice, since the future is fixed.

If you were to sue me it would imply that you believe me to have free will and thus the future is not fixed. Or would you suggest that you suing me is also already predetermined. Of course I have to write this message, since I have no free will to choose not to, just as you have no option but to respond to it with contempt.

Life presents itself as one of choices... however if the universe is static then the process of making whatever choices we make is embedded within the universe... part of the world's history includes your thinking 'shall I reply or ignore this post' - a part of it's history that is no different from the lava flowing down a volcano.

If the world is static then these events are neither pre nor post determined, but causality is given an altogether softer meaning, the 'past' does not precede the 'future' in existence but simply lies further along the plane. What we call 'causal' events are concomitant. In the same sense that when you push upon an object, it is held to push upon you - action and reaction, what we label 'cause' and 'effect' (due to our temporal prejudices) have an equal status in the fixed objective world.

 

[K Buckmaster]

So here, you're adding a "extra" thing, that your fixed space-time is temporally anisotropic, with no explanation for why that should be so. So now we're back to an even footing, one view that assumes a "coming into existence" without proof, and one that assumes a mechanism for "temporal anisotropy" witout proof or explanation for why that is so.

Both schemes include temporal anisotropy as a 'given'.

The static space-time theory has no ready explanation for anisotropic time, but if we allow for the "coming into existence" phenomenon, that gives us a mechanism for explaining why entropy flows in only one direction.

How? (I can quite readily concieve of a non-anisotropic universe than nevertheless unfolds in time or successively comes into existence as ours is claimed to)

 

[Slimething]

Let's do the numbers

I find this intriguing although I must confess that I am no good at metaphysical stuff. I am pretty good at math, though. I need a few things to determine whether or not this "static universe" concept really holds water.

1. I know of no instance where Einstein or any other physicist outside a well-stocked bar claimed that t1 = t2 for any two different "times". I am interpreting your statements to say just that. Would you do me the favor of posting your/other's static theory in mathematical language? If what you say is true, we can always state that delta-t is always 0?

2. Please post the entire piece from which you quoted Einstein. I don't believe that he said anything that would negate the effect of time.

Or do I have it wrong? And if so, restate your premise but include a mathematical presentation of same.

Thanks.

 

[K Buckmaster]

I find this intriguing although I must confess that I am no good at metaphysical stuff. I am pretty good at math, though. I need a few things to determine whether or not this "static universe" concept really holds water.

1. I know of no instance where Einstein or any other physicist outside a well-stocked bar claimed that t1 = t2 for any two different "times". I am interpreting your statements to say just that. Would you do me the favor of posting your/other's static theory in mathematical language? If what you say is true, we can always state that delta-t is always 0?

2. Please post the entire piece from which you quoted Einstein. I don't believe that he said anything that would negate the effect of time.

Or do I have it wrong? And if so, restate your premise but include a mathematical presentation of same.

Thanks.

1) You're not interpreting me correctly at all. If you get the book "Readable Relativity" by Clement V. Durrell then it expresses the static view (or at least the original did, I haven't seen the reprint) and will give you some of the mathematics of Special Relativity.

2) The quote is from a condolence letter.

I don't have a link to it, nor anymore a copy, but its been published in this book

Einstein, Albert and Michele Besso: Correspondence 1903-1955 (Hermann: Paris, 1972)

(German with a French translation)

 

[CapelDodger]

I haven't called anyone anything. I wrote "to escape hypocrisy" as in "so as not to be a hyprocrite".

Explain away "So to the sceptics here - I ask them to recognise the forest in their own eye." Not the forests that might be in our eyes, the ones that are there. You refer, of course, to the mote-and-beam parable - which is precisely about hypocrisy.

However, the abuse I've been getting clearly tells me - I am indeed in the wrong place.

You started with abuse. What response did you expect? Sympathy?

 

[Loss Leader]

I think I've got a handle on the OP. Let me know if you guys think this is what's going on. Buckmaster's train of thought is thus:

1. Time either flows forward like a rivulet of water on a windowpane or is a static chain of time bubbles (like pearls on a strand).
2. If time is static, then it should be more likely that psychics are real because all they would have to do is communicate between already-existing time bubbles and that has to be easier than seeing where the rivulet will run down the window.
3. These skeptics think they're so smart.
4. But they have to agree that it's more likely that time is static because I have a letter that Einstein wrote to a friend on the death of a loved one which seems to point that way.
5. And once they agree that time is static, they will have to agree that psychics exist.
6. Then they'll realize that all of their "skepicism" has led them to woo and they will disappear in a puff of logic.
7. And I will be crowned smartest man in the world!
8. Vive La Revolucion!

 

[K Buckmaster]

Explain away "So to the sceptics here - I ask them to recognise the forest in their own eye." Not the forests that might be in our eyes, the ones that are there. You refer, of course, to the mote-and-beam parable - which is precisely about hypocrisy.

Its an expression, a turn of phrase, one way of saying there is a BIG intellectual inconsistency in people's position on this - no more than that. I didn't imagine I'd be offending anyone with my post, which certainly couldn't be said by some of the responders. My last word on that.

 

[Slimething]

I'll pass on this opportunity

So, I'm misinterpreting what you wrote but you can't tell me mathematically how. Interesting.

Then you want me to go out and get a book that states your case better than you can. Even more interesting.

Then you tell me that the quote you gave is from a condolence letter, not in any way connected to a scientific publication or lecture. This is truly astonishing!

I'm gonna have to give your challenge a pass. First, you can't explain it so that means you can't judge my entry if I were to posit one. Second, it's someone else's work and the challenge has already been met or attempted by the peer review system. Third, I find your presentation of your premise to be lacking and somewhat disingenuous.

Have a good day.

 

[K Buckmaster]

So, I'm misinterpreting what you wrote but you can't tell me mathematically how. Interesting.

Then you want me to go out and get a book that states your case better than you can.

I don't want you to do anything.

You asked me for some information so I spent some time thinking about the best place to direct you to get that information in the manner in which you were asking for it - and also in looking for the book reference for the quote. Clearly that was a waste of my time.

 

[fuelair]

I don't want you to do anything.

You asked me for some information so I spent some time thinking about the best place to direct you to get that information in the manner in which you were asking for it - and also in looking for the book reference for the quote. Clearly that was a waste of my time.

If you spend much time here - and please do not interpret that as a request - you will discover that people who make statements (especially statements that appear to be unintelligible, irrational, severely incomplete or antagonistic re:a specific point) that are not obvious on their face will be asked to provide proof - not sources (why should any of us bother reading a book or watching 10 hours of video to verify that someone misinterpreted a minor sentence on page 137 or that someone was taken in by faked films thoroughly and completely debunked years ago - both, with slight exaggeration, recent occurences not including yours above ). While I am perfectly happy to read on topics of major interest, there are too many other things of real interest to track down some incompetents' sources to expose their delusions, misinterpretations, misstatements, etc. So, if you can demonstrate with exact quotes/mathmatics etc. your arguments, great. If not, peddle them where someone cares -but don't make excuses that appears rather pathetic (and I strongly suggest you look up some of the others I listed, read their posts and see why I link you with them.

 

[Yahzi]

The non-static view (clearly yours) is that there is some additional quality to the world, of which we have no experimental proof or measurement to show that it is there.... a coming into and passing away of existence in step with our conscious experience.

Au contraire, my dear Buckmaster.

The experiment I outlined will provide you with all the experimental proof and measurement you require.

Perhaps we have a different idea of what "experiment" means. I think it means, "a test you can do yourself to acquire the personal observations necessary to reach a conclusion." You appear to mean, "a logical word-game that satisfies some arbitrary set of rules."

Godel's thereom demonstrates the weakness of formal proofs. Sadly, it is itself an extremely formal proof, thus gauranteeing that the kind of people who cite formal proofs as repudiations of reality will never understand it.

 

[Yahzi]

"I refute it thus!" said Dr. Johnson, kicking a rock.

Honesty compels me to admit that the famous patented Yahzi Baseball Bat Test (TM) is in fact lifted entirely from Dr. Johnson.

 

[K Buckmaster]

Okay, I've had several people being unpleasant. I imagined I would challange people's ideas, introduce them to some new ones and I presumed, get a good discuss going. That's very different what I got. I thought I'd continue with this thread since I started it. However I'm going to draw a line under it with this post. This is clearly not the place to have a serious discussion about the topic I raised, or a place where I want to spend my time.

Gone

 

[Slimething]

This is clearly not the place to have a serious discussion about the topic I raised, or a place where I want to spend my time.

Gone

If you mean that a science forum is not the appropriate place to propose a physical model without the math, I dare say you are right.

Be well.