• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Relativity and absolute spacetime.

lifegazer

Philosopher
L
Joined
Oct 9, 2003
Messages
5,047
As always in my threads, it's important that the reader recognises the fact that the things we sense are not real in themselves, but are abstract representations of things.
So, we see that Relativity is a theory which applies directly to the world we sense.

But is there an absolute reality of spacetime, existing beyond the sense of one? Does the world actually exist, absolutely, beyond our subjective sensations of it?
Those of you wishing to cling onto your belief in a reality beyond the sense of one would be wise not to blurt out "There's no such thing as absolute time or absolute space.", for if you do, you kill the existence of a world beyond your sense of it.
Don't forget that relativity is a theory which relates to our sense of spacetime... and it's certainly true that there is no absoluteness about space or time in our mind.
But the question asks about the absolute reality of spacetime existing beyond the sense of it. And so the question is credible.
It deserves an answer.

This could be an interesting conversation and you may need to get back on your knees again shortly.;)
 
lifegazer said:
As always in my threads, it's important that the reader recognises the fact that the things we sense are not real in themselves, but are abstract representations of things.

--snip--
Click to expand...
As always in your threads, it'd be nice if you established this "fact," rather than expecting us to all go along for the ride. :)
 
Can I request that this be put back in the philosophy forum? It relates, ultimately, to the nature of reality. It asks of a reality beyond the sense of one. It's not really a thread that wants to discuss the specifics of relativity.

PLEASE
 
Uh oh we're about to see the word "absolute" get complete missused, abused and missinterpreted by LG like infinity got mangled in his previous newly abandoned thread.

Buy the assumptions, take the ride.
 
uruk said:
Uh oh we're about to see the word "absolute" get complete missused, abused and missinterpreted by LG like infinity got mangled in his previous newly abandoned thread.

Buy the assumptions, take the ride.
Click to expand...
Feel free to address the OP uruk.
 
Just to point out something that I can't tell if you understand from your OP.

Space is not absolute. Time is not absolute. Spacetime, however, is absolute. This is covered in SR and GR. In fact, this is one of the basic properties of spacetime that comes out of GR, and is a result of the absoluteness of the speed of light.
 
lifegazer said:
Can I request that this be put back in the philosophy forum? It relates, ultimately, to the nature of reality. It asks of a reality beyond the sense of one. It's not really a thread that wants to discuss the specifics of relativity.

PLEASE
Click to expand...
Seconded.
 
Boy, you never tire of attacking relativity, do you? And when the Philosophy.com folks tore you a new one, did you learn anything? Apparently not.

Discussing relativity moves the topic from philosophy to science. I know, you think that philosophy is superior to science, and that topics discussing 'reality' belong in philosophy; however, your voice does not agree with how we define science and philosophy.

Philosophy tends to discuss what we don't know about reality; science tends to discuss what we do know. Philosophy seeks to understand the meaning, purpose, 'higher nature' of reality; science deals with the nitty-gritty, the gearworks and programs, of that reality. Relativity is definitely a science now - perhaps it was once a philosophy, but since reality has verified it, largely, it is a science now.

Or that's my take on it - but, hey, I'm just a plonker who wants explanations of infinite distances and 0-dimensional objects.
 
To be fair, all we have to explore the world around us is our senses which may, or may not give an accurate representation of the universe around us. We have no way of engaging with the universe without usin our senses.

For example the experimentally confirmed observation that the speed of light in a vacuum iis fixed may be delusion shared by the experimentalists. Cows may not actually exist, it could just be that we interpret something which has the size and shape of, say, a '76 Pinto to be a cow if it's bright orange.

If one choses not to deploy Occam, we can imagine any set of circumstances.

Lightgazer isn't actually wrong, he just fails the "so what ?" test
 
Feel free to address the OP uruk.
Click to expand...
First, let's get our definitions straight so that there is no "squirming room" by you or the other members of the forum.

Define what YOU mean by reality. absolute, spacetime, and sense of a reality.

Also we need to know when you are talking about our minds and god's mind. Or atleast when you are talking about our sensed reality, the reality where our minds exists or the reality where god exists.

In addition; If there are subjective sensations, are there objective sensations?

In reference to your op.
You have not yet established that the things we percieve do not in fact also exists separate from our perceptions. It is an assumption you are wanting us to accept without proof.

Relativity is only a set of descriptions (expressed in mathematical terms) of the working of our universe (percieved by sense or otherwise). They explain the reason we observe what we would observe under certain circumstances. The leaps these descriptions made were formulated (based on previouse discoveries and observations) before man had the technology to make those observations. Now that our technology is becoming capable to make those observations we are discovering that most of those descriptions are accurate with what we observe now. (note that some of these observations have to be made with the use of machines or devices. Our "natural" senses are not up to the task.)
Now realise these descriptions do not require a human to observe the phenomena. the same observations can and will be recorded by a device. The observations in terms of standardaized quantities(i.e. measurements) will be the same for that observation point wether it be a human or a device designed to record the standardized, quantitized observation (i.e. seconds, feet, mass, wavelength, etc...)

Also relativity has only one absolute (same for all observers); the speed of light (measured in a standardized quantity) It's maximum velocity does not change for any observer. And by standardized quantity I mean an agreed upon measurement or unit. i.e. meters per second) Everything else is relative (excuse the pun) or rather just arbitrary points of reference.

Now this brings us back to the begining of this post. What is your definition for absolute? Is it "same for all observers" as it is used in relativity? or do YOU define it as something else?
We cannot have a disscusion until you let us know what your definitions are.
 
If you're talking about the theory of special relativity, and not a fuzzy obfuscation of it, then yes, there is absolute reality.

The "interval" between two events will be the same for any inertial reference frame. The interval between two events separated by distance d and time t is d^2/c^2-t^2.

This value is invariant for any given two events, and may represent the absolute reality behind varying relativistic observations.
 
Re: Re: Relativity and absolute spacetime.

phildonnia said:
The "interval" between two events will be the same for any inertial reference frame.
Click to expand...

Thanks phildonnia, that was what I was getting to. The interval is a combination of space and time that is the same for all observers. IN fact, Einstein objected to labelling his theory the "Theory of Relativity" at first, because his whole point was about the invariance of the speed of light and, for GR, the invariance of interval. Exactly the opposite of what most people portray his theory to be.
 
This value is invariant for any given two events, and may represent the absolute reality behind varying relativistic observations.
Click to expand...
I stand corrected on this point. Two absolutes.
 
Re: Re: Relativity and absolute spacetime.

phildonnia said:
If you're talking about the theory of special relativity, and not a fuzzy obfuscation of it, then yes, there is absolute reality.

The "interval" between two events will be the same for any inertial reference frame. The interval between two events separated by distance d and time t is d^2/c^2-t^2.

This value is invariant for any given two events, and may represent the absolute reality behind varying relativistic observations.
Click to expand...

So LG's "god" is literally the "god of a gap". Precious! :D
 
Well duh, the nihilist says, of course absolute space time doesn't exist. What exists is what exists, what humans apprehend is only an approximation of what exists.

And if you understood the theory of relativity then you would know that there is no absolute space time.
 
Re: Re: Re: Relativity and absolute spacetime.

Piscivore said:
So LG's "god" is literally the "god of a gap". Precious! :D
Click to expand...
And as they say on the London Underground......"Mind the gap"
 
Dancing David said:
And if you understood the theory of relativity then you would know that there is no absolute space time.
Click to expand...

Please read my post above. There is no absolute space, nor absoulte time. There is absolute "space-time", and we can quantify it.
 
Does anybody want to talk about my OP?

Relativity is a theory which relates to the sense of space and time.
We see the whole universe in our mind. The stars you actually sense exist inside of you.
It is sensed spacetime which can be warped.
It is sensed spacetime that we have different experiences of (as in the twin-paradox, for instance).

Clearly, there is a distinction to be made between a subjective/relative abstract-reality and a reality that exists, absolutely so, beyond our sense of one.

We cannot even prove that there is a real world. But we can ask how a theory that relates to the world in our mind would relate to the real world - if it exists.

Now, instead of talking about relative space and relative time, we must ponder the existence of absolute space and absolute time - a space and time unmoved by the mind's subjective/relative view of it.
This is what I want to talk about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom