Rational Metaphysics

Sorry Fixed Cross, but the dishonesty, it's too heavy. Do you see that James S Saint might have been a goddamn fucking genius if it weren't for the principal instinct he follows which dictates, not as a side-effect but as a drive, the falsification and mediocritization of human activity of any sort, logic quite included?

The problem is Crist. I came in here saying that, and I leave on it. Hope y'all catch on soon, it has all been written.

See you soon friends; and I hope you either die soon or undergo honesty soon, James. The first step is to know, not think, know you are going to die some day. The next is to make an honest store of your experiences. Last is a decision regarding what way, having only what you have lived and the knowledge of death, you will approach human, logic, life.

Otherwise, please die. I love you.

Take care.

.. "and the darkness fleas Before The Light", and usually with attempted curses along the way.

A Volkswagen is not a Rolls Royce. And a Pinto isn't even a Volkswagen. A Pinto is designed to fail, to cause its own annihilation. But hopefully at the expense of others... well, at least in the paradigm of monetary gain... someone else's gain.

James S Saint wrote:

Capable wrote:

1) Things that exist are affecting (other things);

2) Any thing (let's say X) is being affected by a) other affecting things, and b) X's own PtA.

3) X's PtA is also being affected by X, via X's affection causing drain (or entropy) upon the store of PtA from which it came/comes

One cannot say that a thing is "affecting itself" except in loose terms. If a truly singular "thing", having no separate internal components, were said to be affecting itself there would be no change. The affecter and the affectee would be the same item, in the same location. The proposed changing would occur instantaneously, having no separation at all and thus could not be said to "have changed from one state to another" because there would have been no time between the two proposed states, thus there must have been only one state. Without change of state from being at one state at one time to another state at another time, one cannot claim any "affect".

Right, and one cannot claim that any change has occurred, either. The notion of change necessarily implies a whole host of things, such as multiple entities, temporal and spatial distances.

I wasn't trying to say that "a thing is affecting itself", actually I was only saying to say that a thing's (again, let's say X for simplicity) PtA is affecting it. X exists/affects because it has PtA, and this PtA is a separate entity from X; they are not the same thing. Thus it is correct to say that the PtA that conditions X, by which X exists/affects, is affecting X? (Again, this is not saying that X and the PtA which conditions X are the same thing, but rather is saying the exact opposite, that they are not the same thing).

Quote :

We haven't gotten into "time" yet, so this is getting a bit ahead. Time and distance are epistemologically related. They both determine each other. The measure of one translates into the measure of the other. What we call "time" causes what we call "distance". This is all related to special relativity. But if either time or distance are truly zero between proposed two items, then there is no separation or distinction at all between the items. And we call that state, "one item" because we are only concerned with affects coming from that thing and if there is no separation in properties, there can be no distinction in resultant affects. In Effect, one of the proposed two items, doesn't really "exist" by our definition of "existing".

Yes. But it would be impossible for any thing to exist without existing spatially AND temporally, at least to a minimal degree. This would be impossible because, as you say, such a thing could have no affect, it could cause no change either in itself or anything else, therefore given P1 we can ignore the existence of such entities.

Even though we are starting from the basics and working forward from there, we might as well come out now and say, perhaps P5, that nothing can exist which does not have at least a minimal level of spatiality and temporality. This is a direct consequence of the fact that all existing things have affect.


By the way, I agree about the necessity of things/the universe to be exactly as it is. This seems to be necessarily implied by every rational ontology. Free will and choice or "randomness" can also exist, but these are relative entities and depend only upon finite subjectivities which finitude creates these "errors", or self-reflexive voids in which "freedom" may appear. Freedom in this sense is defined only as the existence of multi-dimensional frameworks of causality in which one level does not fully comprehend those others from which it comes or to which it refers its own effect, but nonetheless still captures something of this comprehension in itself, structurally, necessarily. Free will is the middle ground of self-referential consciousness that is able to both respond to itself and unable to respond to the actuality/totality of itself. But I suspect all this stuff about necessity and freedom you are wanting to save for a later point in the discussion.

Currently due to security issues and this site, it takes from 20-30 minutes for me to log on and from 5-10 minutes to make a post or even update a page. So please forgive delays. My PC is modified and doesn't allow advertising probes beyond a certain level and if I disable that, this site crashes my system.

Capable wrote:

James S Saint wrote:

Capable wrote:

1) Things that exist are affecting (other things);

2) Any thing (let's say X) is being affected by a) other affecting things, and b) X's own PtA.

3) X's PtA is also being affected by X, via X's affection causing drain (or entropy) upon the store of PtA from which it came/comes

One cannot say that a thing is "affecting itself" except in loose terms. If a truly singular "thing", having no separate internal components, were said to be affecting itself there would be no change. The affecter and the affectee would be the same item, in the same location. The proposed changing would occur instantaneously, having no separation at all and thus could not be said to "have changed from one state to another" because there would have been no time between the two proposed states, thus there must have been only one state. Without change of state from being at one state at one time to another state at another time, one cannot claim any "affect".

Right, and one cannot claim that any change has occurred, either. The notion of change necessarily implies a whole host of things, such as multiple entities, temporal and spatial distances.

I wasn't trying to say that "a thing is affecting itself", actually I was only saying to say that a thing's (again, let's say X for simplicity) PtA is affecting it. X exists/affects because it has PtA, and this PtA is a separate entity from X; they are not the same thing. Thus it is correct to say that the PtA that conditions X, by which X exists/affects, is affecting X? (Again, this is not saying that X and the PtA which conditions X are the same thing, but rather is saying the exact opposite, that they are not the same thing).

A potential is a measure of something's ability to change something else. But it isn't of infinite value. There is a limit as to how much change something can bestow onto something else, how much affect it can have. That measure is in units of PtA. What that means is that as one thing is affecting another, the potential that it had is being "used up". Its PtA is decreasing because it only had a limited ability and it has already expressed a portion of that total amount.

Any affecting, in this case, means that a potential is changing. And also, reciprocally, any potential that is changing means that affecting is taking place. The two measures are inextricably associated. One can say that affecting IS potentials changing, the "positive" affecter's potential decreasing and the "negative" affectee's potential increasing (positive and negative being merely relative).

This is evident in electronic circuits wherein a voltage ("electric potential") "drives" current to a destination wherein the potential at the destination increases, such as the charging of a capacitor (a storage device). How much affecting on the potential of the capacitor a source can have is determined by the potential of the source. A 10 volt source cannot increase any capacity above 10 volts.

Thus far, we have really only been talking about a point to point issue, the potential of one point to affect the potential of another point, "A" affecting "B". In reality because voltage sources and capacitors involve a great many "points of potential" within each, the averages are what is typically of concern rather than the point by point issues. This gets involved into the concept and concern of "energy" and "conservation of energy". We can get into that if you like merely to show how RM:AO can indisputably prove that energy must always be conserved even without any of the evidence of the principle.

The method of Science serves only to confirm that a theory is not invalid. It does that by the process of seeking contrary evidence to the theory. Such verification is very important, but an interesting attribute to RM:AO is that RM:AO can know of a necessary truth before such verification takes place. RM:AO is not dependent upon experience except as a verification to ensure that logic errors have not been made.

If it is totally certain that there are no logic errors (however someone might manage that), Science can never dispute RM:AO. If any experiment is done concerning an RM:AO confirmed assertion and displays something other than what RM:AO demands, the experiment will be what is at fault, usually due to a presumption on the part of the experimenter. But thus far, I have found no such contention in that everything I find that actual Science has actually witnessed, confirms what RM:AO predicts. The fact is that if one were genius enough thousands of years ago, there is nothing professed by Science today that he could not have already told you back then. But of course, until you see it for yourself, me saying that doesn't mean much.

Science has merely been helping to guide Man back onto a more sound footing by demanding demonstration of the details of his speculative theories. There is a race between Man's sentient sanity and Man's lustful insanity. And at this point, it seems about a 90% probability of his insanity winning out and him going out. RM:AO helps to jump ahead of the game so as to help breach the final lap toward sanity by knowing ahead of time to where Science is leading Man.

In physics terms, we are currently talking literally about electric potential or "charge". And we have determined that the universe has no option but to be formed of electric potentials changing or what they refer to as "electromagnetic waves", "EM". At this point, we have not determined that EM is the ONLY thing that is involved, but that will come later.

Capable wrote:

it would be impossible for any thing to exist without existing spatially AND temporally, at least to a minimal degree. This would be impossible because, as you say, such a thing could have no affect, it could cause no change either in itself or anything else, therefore given P1 we can ignore the existence of such entities.

Even though we are starting from the basics and working forward from there, we might as well come out now and say, perhaps P5, that nothing can exist which does not have at least a minimal level of spatiality and temporality. This is a direct consequence of the fact that all existing things have affect.

You and I can easily believe that, but until RM:AO details everything involved in such a supposition, let's not just presume it. RM:AO seriously doesn't get along with presumption regardless of any probability of truth involved. Presumption is THE seed of ALL error/"sin". "The Devil is in the details." So let's not leave any details left unchecked for hidden presumption and demise (people have already gone the presumption route for thousands of years).


But before we proceed, can I get a confirmation of agreement on
P4) Affecting directly implies one thing influencing or changing another thing, two "things; an "affecter" and an "affectee".
and
C2) For any one thing to exist, more than one thing must exist.

a) agree
b) disagree
c) other?

I have to keep careful track, confirm each concern.

Okay, this has gotten out of hand as I knew it would but far quicker.

It is clear that the verb "affecting" implies an affecter and an affected. This is implicit in the meaning of the word, that is a matter of grammar.

It reminds me of Heidegger, paraphrased: As long as be still believe in Grammar, we are stuck with God.

Of course, value ontology is designed to deal with this, not so much to get rid of God directly, but to expose him in grammar, and thereby gain control.

It rejects the notion of an objective perspective, whereby there is an all seeing "unmoved" eye on both the affecter and the affected. VO is itself an interpreting perspective, fitting in its own definitions (it values the world in terms of its structural integrity) and knows itself to be such. So far this has been unclear to me in terms of RM - how does RM regard itself, in terms of RM?

Value ontology values the world in terms of value ontology. I.e. it describes itself in the same way as it describes everything else. This is why it is philosophically - linguistically hermetic.

FC, yes that is a very important point, about the consistency of how value ontology approaches everything, including itself.

James, yes I agree with P4 and also with C2. It is clear that affection necessarily implies an affecter and an affectee, just as it is also therefore clear that affection necessarily implies the existence of more than one entity or, as you say, "for any one thing to exist, more than one thing must exist".

Fixed Cross wrote:

Of course, value ontology is designed to deal with this, not so much to get rid of God directly, but to expose him in grammar, and thereby gain control.

It rejects the notion of an objective perspective, whereby there is an all seeing "unmoved" eye on both the affecter and the affected. VO is itself an interpreting perspective, fitting in its own definitions (it values the world in terms of its structural integrity) and knows itself to be such.  So far this has been unclear to me in terms of RM - how does RM regard itself, in terms of RM?

Value ontology values the world in terms of value ontology. I.e. it describes itself in the same way as it describes everything else. This is why it is philosophically - linguistically hermetic.

Really?

Seriously?

No "God perspective"??

Hmm..

Are you sure that you want to go down that track?

I have been requesting precision in VO definitions since I first heard of it. This is the first time I have heard anything that not only could RM:AO not accept, but I don't think any RM ontology would be able to accept for long. Let me explain why by introducing you to my little devil stumper.

How would VO interpret the following scenario?

) You have the classic Einstein train passing the train station.
) At the station there is a photo stop clock which only stops if it experiences simultaneous flashes from both sides.
) And also there is a car on the train that has an identical photo stop clock mounted exactly in the center of the car.
) That same train car also has timed photo-flashers mounted at both front and rear (blue in the following animation).
) The flashers are timed such as to both flash at the exact moment that the two photo stop clocks are aligned.

The question becomes one of which, if either, photo stop clock will stop.



I'm not aware of any current physics ontology (or philosophy) that can answer that question. Special relativity ("relativism", "perspectivism", "solipsism", "exerientialism", "subjectivism") would demand that each clock both stops and also doesn't stop. But in the end, either a clock is stopped or it isn't.

No matter what ontological contortion you come up with, as long as you remain consistent, comprehensive, and relevant, you won't be able to answer that question without an "objective perspective". RM:AO can answer it.

Please forgive the offensive "grammar", but;

Devil,
... meet God.

It is an "objective" fact that subjective facts exists. This does not imply a god perspective, rather it implies only one thing... existence.

Things exist. This is a FACT, meaning that it is not (necessarily) ontically relevant at all. (Although it might be). Rather it speaks to grammar itself, which is not the same as saying that it speaks to existence itself. There is a difference between talking about what exists and talking about how we talk about what exists, and this is crucial to understand.

VO proposes that the idea of an objective god-perspective is antithetical to reason, and unnecessary. Perspectives are built from the ground-up, based on subjective-historical materialities which are conditioned by whatever causes exist/ed from which they arose-arise. When causal conditions break down too much, things "vanish", meaning they can no longer self-value and thus their valuing (their materiality, their form, their "being an organization of force/power) is dissolved down to more molecular sub-values and appropriated by other stronger self-valuings in the vicinity.

If a god-perspective/objectivity did exist it could only come into existence via a process of emergent subjective material causality, built from the ground up, which means of course that it is not objective but only a reified subjectivity. If there is a god, it comes second, not first.



As for the train example... why does the light from the two flashes inside the train-car move at different speeds from each other in the station perspective, and conversely, move at different speeds from each other at the station, from the train perspective? The constancy of c states that the flashes of light travel at c regardless of the relative motion of one frame compared to another.

Breaking it down: the train passes the station and both clocks align; at the moment of alignment, flashes occur on the corners of the train and directed at both clocks; regardless of which perspective you take, station or train, and regardless of the relative speed of the train to the station (and of the station to the train, from the train's perspective) the flashes of light will, assuming the distances between each flash and the clocks are equal as they seem to be, strike the clocks at exactly the same time. According to Relativity both time dilation and length contraction will occur within the moving frame of reference to "adjust" for the additional velocity/distance which would normally add to the time it would take the flashes at c to travel, but in fact does not add because as we know c is constant regardless of a frame's relative motion. The illustration itself seems to be mistakenly set-up, as it does not account for time dilation and length contraction factors that will "adjust" the frames in order to accommodate the constancy of c.


...And the existence of time dilation and length contraction speaks well to VO (especially a VO augmented with tectonics); physical existences are subject in their physicality and seeming constancy of spatiality and temporality to being relatively similar to other physical existences, to things other than themselves. This is mutual self-valuing, or what you might call the mutual conditionality of causalities that depend upon each other, and upon lacks of potentially destabilizing causes, to exist. This is what VO proposes. All things are self-valuings that are also groupings of lesser self-valuings in relation to each other given wider shared values by which forms are held in existence; these forms also share and compete values with other forms and conditions and thus you get a Heraclitean flux, a will to power reality. Looking at Relativity, time dilation and length contraction given large divergences relative to the speed of light between two or more perspectives/self-valuings is an example of how the information, the possibility of sharing values between these perspectives/self-valuings is pushed to limits of its own ability. If there is no way for two self-valuings to adequately communicate their values to each other, to share and conflict them, reality "itself" begins to break down. This is because reality "itself" is nothing more than these shared values-references to begin with.

Capable wrote:

It is an "objective" fact that subjective facts exists. This does not imply a god perspective, rather it implies only one thing... existence.

Things exist. This is a FACT, meaning that it is not (necessarily) ontically relevant at all. (Although it might be). Rather it speaks to grammar itself, which is not the same as saying that it speaks to existence itself. There is a difference between talking about what exists and talking about how we talk about what exists, and this is crucial to understand.

If that is to say that "things exist" is true for everyone, how is that not an "objective perspective" or "objective reality"? How can something be a "FACT", yet merely be subjective?

Capable wrote:

VO proposes that the idea of an objective god-perspective is antithetical to reason,

Care to share what reasoning led to that conclusion?

Capable wrote:

..and unnecessary. Perspectives are built from the ground-up, based on subjective-historical materialities which are conditioned by whatever causes exist/ed from which they arose-arise. When causal conditions break down too much, things "vanish", meaning they can no longer self-value and thus their valuing (their materiality, their form, their "being an organization of force/power) is dissolved down to more molecular sub-values and appropriated by other stronger self-valuings in the vicinity.

So, "we don't know where it came from but... now that it is here... everything has self-valuing or gets absorbed into something else that has self-valuing."

I wouldn't argue with that, although RM:AO does know where it came from.

Capable wrote:

If a god-perspective/objectivity did exist it could only come into existence via a process of emergent subjective material causality, built from the ground up, which means of course that it is not objective but only a reified subjectivity. If there is a god, it comes second, not first.

Again, care to share what reasoning brought that conclusion?

Capable wrote:

As for the train example... why does the light from the two flashes inside the train-car move at different speeds from each other in the station perspective, and conversely, move at different speeds from each other at the station, from the train perspective? The constancy of c states that the flashes of light travel at c regardless of the relative motion of one frame compared to another.

The light must travel at one speed no matter which perspective you take. From the station, all light is traveling at speed "c" relative to the station. Thus if you were standing at the station, you must expect the train clock to move out from center and thus not stop.

If you are standing on the train, again all light must travel at speed "c" relative to you. Thus you must expect the station clock to move out from center and thus not stop.

Each perspective sees its own clock centered the whole time and thus each perspective must expect its own clock to stop.

But reality only yields one future state.

Capable wrote:

Breaking it down: the train passes the station and both clocks align; at the moment of alignment, flashes occur on the corners of the train and directed at both clocks; regardless of which perspective you take, station or train, and regardless of the relative speed of the train to the station (and of the station to the train, from the train's perspective) the flashes of light will, assuming the distances between each flash and the clocks are equal as they seem to be, strike the clocks at exactly the same time. According to Relativity both time dilation and length contraction will occur within the moving frame of reference to "adjust" for the additional velocity/distance which would normally add to the time it would take the flashes at c to travel, but in fact does not add because as we know c is constant regardless of a frame's relative motion. The illustration itself seems to be mistakenly set-up, as it does not account for time dilation and length contraction factors that will "adjust" the frames in order to accommodate the constancy of c.


...And the existence of time dilation and length contraction speaks well to VO (especially a VO augmented with tectonics); physical existences are subject in their physicality and seeming constancy of spatiality and temporality to being relatively similar to other physical existences, to things other than themselves. This is mutual self-valuing, or what you might call the mutual conditionality of causalities that depend upon each other, and upon lacks of potentially destabilizing causes, to exist. This is what VO proposes. All things are self-valuings that are also groupings of lesser self-valuings in relation to each other given wider shared values by which forms are held in existence; these forms also share and compete values with other forms and conditions and thus you get a Heraclitean flux, a will to power reality. Looking at Relativity, time dilation and length contraction given large divergences relative to the speed of light between two or more perspectives/self-valuings is an example of how the information, the possibility of sharing values between these perspectives/self-valuings is pushed to limits of its own ability. If there is no way for two self-valuings to adequately communicate their values to each other, to share and conflict them, reality "itself" begins to break down. This is because reality "itself" is nothing more than these shared values-references to begin with.

Try it before you buy it. Neither length contraction nor time dilation fixes the conundrum. Contract whatever you want. Dilate whatever you want. Just be consistent. Look at each small piece of action, one step at a time. They will not add up. Feel free to just make up any numbers just for an example. It won't matter if it is Lorentz correct or not.

It is easy and common to throw out "well you have to consider...X... then it all works great."

Easy to say, but "try it before you buy it". There is nothing that will work out, "will answer the question", without an objective frame of reference.

If you think that you have a legitimate solution, state it one step at a time, noting the position of each item of concern. Look carefully. You will probably see your mistake before you post it. But please don't make general statements that are supposed to answer the problem until you look to see if they really do, "clarify, verify...". Hand waving isn't allowed.


..and btw, "reality breaking down" is an oxymoron.

I may be missing something, but the paradox seems a perfect example of the result of faith in the consistency of grammar (as subject-object relation in language), where grammar is itself the variable in question. It seems to me that, given that everything is set up properly, both clocks would stop, because the frame of reference is defined by looking at the problem objectively (or from above as in the pictogram), and thus, by logical extension, equal in the train and the station. To arrive at an actual answer, you would have to formulate the space-time variables (and deduce the timing) from within either the train or the station. You'd have to choose a perspective.

So what this means is that you can not both look at the problem objectively and have relativity apply to it. Ultimately only the relativity is objective. But that does not gives us an ontology. So instead of "objective", value ontology conceives a shared reality as inter-subjective. There is simply no ground or need to formulate an objective perspective, as the world follows from the subjective with a great consistency. Objectivity rests on a consistent means of defining a subjectivity. Logic is such a means. Consistency is relative to everything else - life is relative to the consistency of life-death, for example - but at the limit of such context is the consistency itself in full form - (the speed of) light.

Relative motion does not compare as relative motion when compared to the motion of light. Light does not lend itself to relative measuring, we have to measure off it. Light only self-values in two dimensions - the wave, rather, spiral. It propagates with infinite immediacy - i.e. the immediate which, when it exists in three dimensions, is gravity. Unavoidable, standard to both time and space.

"A" PtA, or something of which it can be categorically stated that it is a unit of PtA, requires structural consistency. Grammatically speaking. It requires "God" (first cause) in our grammar, within VO it requires, self-valuing and valuing in terms of this self-setting value-standard-consistency, or however deeply you want to convolute this grammatical construction which is  by definition incomplete.

I expect that this is not acceptable to everyone; it requires that one thinks of the meanings of words as fundamentally ambiguous. James - I suspect that you see this as obfuscation, but it is rather recoiling from a superstitious trust in language. It is being aware of the threats within that what is given us to think with.

I regard philosophy as two branches, one of which is exactitude in languages developed to be as exact as possible, and the other as the overcoming of custom language as it stands between man and clarity, perception, truth. Language is a mirror, and to break this  mirror is bad luck for it means that one stands alone in a dark cosmos without any laws. That is: with laws one no longer can take for granted, as the realization has struck that these laws much closer to what the person is himself than he can see.

See, this language is obscure, it requires meditation - "are you human?" -  the words are only doorways.

In the darkness, RM makes of the rational mind a torch to illuminate what can be brought to light out of the dark. VO becomes like a Homeros, a blind poet, to grasp the world in the dark by defining it already, in such terms that it makes the darkness dance.

Do you see what I mean? A rhetorical question. I find it tragic that we can not meet at this point.  

Value ontology is like this poet - without defining it, always already-apprehending it - by its maximal power and glory.

Homeros as a metaphor for value ontology.

VO is ahead of the curve, RM is equal to the curve. What happens from RM perspective has already happened from the VO perspective. RM is the particulars, in which there is objectivity - 'already present' in time or in necessary consequence. In human terms -

RM: PHT - "Perception of Hopes and Threats" - Capable, can you give a value ontological definition of all three of these terms?

I want to see if we can come to a RM:VO terms here - a subsection of RM where an appropriate(d) version of VO can serve to boost the psychological power of RM.

Hopes and threats - James, you discuss these subjects very often, perhaps more than the raw mechanics of RM logic. And bizarrely accurately, it is with your perception of these threats, and hopes, that I often disagree. It's not that I disagree that you perceive real threats, but you often see only a threat where these is also a hope. Perception of hopes within threats... that is the gateway to subjective philosophy, from defining to being creative law.

Ours is not a great quantum of power compared to a galaxy, but a galaxy has no freedom because it is not as limited in what it comprises. A panda bear has a lot of freedom because it is rather limited in what it comprises. It has the greatest context.

Within context, values become hopes and threats.

Value ontologically these can be regarded as constants defining a specific tectonic level of self-valuing, which translates into a consistent affect. Such constants are crucial to functioning on whatever plane there is.

I recognize the constants of RM, and see them as emerging from the subjectivities involved (what you've defined as infinitesimal bits of PtA. I agree with how you've defined their interaction in that post about money and afflates, that was truly brilliant. Nevertheless, I understand each and every 'smeared out', slightly non local bits of PtA as ontological units, which must have not one but two properties: affecting the world and being affected by the world.  It can only continue to exist if the affecting is related to the being affected by. This consistency is the self-valuing. It may be instantaneous but as long as it has its affect, it must be something that we can not leave undefined, that we can not merely judge in terms of its behavior. We must see what causes this behavior. What causes a PtA to have the potential to affect?

The answer is so very close that it's always in the dark, too known to be illuminated. All poetry is this noble, always hilariously failing attempt. We all know what it tries to say, but it always asks a slight effort from us - namely, that we make the leap of fate to take it as making sense, in a way we can make for it. It has to affect us. Hence, a poet never knows what he is doing, but he is doing it so well that this new way becomes the law.

"It was impossible, but the Dragon did not know it, and he made it happen".
- Definition of the Dragon moon sign.

"From the plane of Mind I come, I rule."
Theosophic definition of the sign of Aries, analogous to the Dragon.

What is a measure of PtA to itself?
Nietzsche calls this self an illusion. A bundle of wills. Buddha does the same. Buddha rejected the illusion because it is false, but Nietzsche explicitly embraced falsity because he so much loves the illusion. RM accepts the falsity (private interest as a justified fact) and builds a truth that sustains it. VO is the mind of the falsity. It is no longer false.

Fixed Cross wrote:

I may be missing something, but the paradox seems a perfect example of the result of faith in the consistency of grammar (as subject-object relation in language), where grammar is itself the variable in question.

It seems to me that, given that everything is set up properly, both clocks would stop, because the frame of reference is defined by looking at the problem objectively (or from above as in the pictogram), and thus, by logical extension, equal in the train and the station.

To arrive at an actual answer, you would have to formulate the space-time variables (and deduce the timing) from within either the train or the station. You'd have to choose a perspective.

So what this means is that you can not both look at the problem objectively and have relativity apply to it. Ultimately only the relativity is objective.

The animation is divided so as to show both perspectives (just so I wouldn't have to make two of them). If you are at the station, you see the top half. If you are on the train, you see the lower half. I showed both merely to show how each person would have to make a different prediction.


A person cannot predict based upon someone else's perspective except by presumed theory, "If I were over there, I would be seeing it this way...".

So the person at the station has no choice but to "see" the light arriving at his own clock simultaneously. And while he is watching that take place, he is seeing the train clock move out from center of where the light began. So FROM HIS OWN PERSPECTIVE, the train clock could not stop.

All four photons are identical. They are all out in the air and have no reason to be traveling at different speeds. The fact that two are headed toward the other clock is irrelevant to the speed with which they travel.

The only relation that part has to the theory of relativity is the presumption that "light travels at the same speed for all observers". Given that one foundational assertion, the station master would have to conclude that the train clock could not receive light from both flashers simultaneously.

If I had not shown the train perspective, then everyone would just say, "well okay. Looks good to me. It's kind of obvious." Think about it in slow motion. Think for a moment that you are standing at that station. Wouldn't you think it obvious that the train clock is moving out from center and thus wouldn't stop? You are "seeing" the light headed toward the train clock, almost as though it were a baseball or a bullet. If you theorized that the train observer was watching those bullets, would you think that he would see them coming at him simultaneously? Or would you expect him to realize that he is moving out from center?

The problem is when you look at it all from the train's perspective and you end up with the exact opposite prediction.

The theory of relativity says that each must make their own measurements and predictions without ever assuming that there might be some objective perspective, the "God-perspective". It is declaring an ontology based entirely upon subjectivism.

But because using that theory leads to a contradiction, a "paradox", the subjective, "relative" ontology is not coherent or consistent.

Guessing at what the other person might be seeing is exactly what they were trying to avoid when they came up with relativity. What confounded them was that original assertion that "light must be observed to travel at the same speed by all observers". That assertion is close to being true, a little too close for them to be able to measure the difference at the time. By now, they would have corrected with better measurements except for the fact that they had gotten into the race to dominate the world. Now it is an issue of saving face, so they aren't in any rush to expose such a fundamental presumption on their part after pushing relativity so very hard.

Let's get this part settled before we get into grammar issues.

Do you understand the construction of the situation in the anime and the conundrum, regardless of whether you have an answer for it?

Btw, since I know you to be interested in mysticism, magick, and Rabbinical scriptures,  perhaps I should mention that what we are discussing has been scripturallly referred to as the “Sword of God”, “Subjectivism”. And what we are doing is gently laying that Sword of God upon the Anvil of God (where upon the angel (concept) called “Straight Line” was splattered into “smeared confused points”), “Rational Metaphysics” (impossible to divide).  And then we are saying;

Sword of God,
… meet Hammer of God. .. “Definitional Logic”.

I was kind of hoping to not find VO caught in the middle because if you think being between that "rock and a hard place" is bad... "you ain't seen nuthin yet."


You can either learn to use it or look forward to someone using it upon you.
The choice is always yours, of course.

I don't get it. In the train perspective pictogram, it appears like the light emitted from the train is actually influenced in its speed by the speed of the train. It looks like the photon on the left is moving to the station slower than c, as if the speed of the train is subtracted from it, and the photon on the right is going faster than c, as if the speed of the train adds up to it.

Are you saying that the speed of light is not constant but depends on where it's emitted from? Say, if a star of a ten million lightyears away was moving away from Earth at half of c, then its light would take 15 million years to reach us?

The dilation of space time is what makes string theory senseless. Who cares what something looks like when it's not moving? The actual answer is that it is not looked if its not moving. The speed of information is not a problem, it is part of the schema of theoretization, so theorizing beyond it existence disippates from imagination.

Fixed Cross wrote:

If I understand correctly, that is where length contraction occurs.

If the train moves, the distance between the emitter and the stations clock is an object which contracts in size.

If I move, the length of anything not moving in the same direction with the same speed, decreases, thus also the distance between me and the station. Therefore light has to cross a smaller distance, or so it appears. The light appears to be both relatively (extremely marginally) slower (c-myspeed), and having to cross a (extremely marginally) smaller distance. I suppose this is what the Lorenz transforms calculate.

So length contraction compensates for the differences in the speed of light relative to the trains movement.[/i].

Okay, let's talk about length contraction.

According to the Lorentz length contraction, anything that is moving with respect to YOU, is shorter. So from the station perspective, the entire train car is shorter. That means that BOTH flashers are closer to the station clock, but the clock is still centered.

So by shortening the train car, the light doesn't have as far to travel, as far as the station is concerned. But the train clock is still centered. And it is still moving out from center at the instant wherein the flashers go off. Thus shortening the train car yields the same problem and merely reduces the expected amount of time for the flashes to reach the station clock.

On the train, things are a little different. The flashers are moving WITH the train. That means that the distance from the flashers to the train clock do not change, the station itself is merely shorter (irrelevant). So the train expects a little more time to pass before the light reaches the station clock. But the real problem is still the same, the station clock is still moving out from center.

Thus length contraction didn't really change the problem because the clocks are still moving out from center as far as the other observer is concerned.

Time dilation ends up with the same kind of situation... nothing relevant will change the problem.

If I understand correctly, that is where length contraction occurs.

If the train moves, the distance between the emitter and the stations clock is an object which contracts in size.

If I move, the length of anything not moving in the same direction with the same speed, decreases, thus also the distance between me and the station. Therefore light has to cross a smaller distance, or so it appears. The light appears to be both relatively (extremely marginally) slower (c-myspeed), and having to cross a (extremely marginally) smaller distance. I suppose this is what the Lorenz transforms calculate.

So length contraction compensates for the differences in the speed of light relative to the trains movement.

Pezer --
"The dilation of space time is what makes string theory senseless. Who cares what something looks like when it's not moving? The actual answer is that it is not looked if its not moving. The speed of information is not a problem, it is part of the schema of theoretization, so theorizing beyond it existence disippates from imagination."

Indeed, the moving is the existence, and therefore the speed of light, the ultimate movement, is the only constant.

Everything is measured most accurately not against a zero-state, which is impossible as where there is a measurer there is no zero state, but against full-capacity movement.

Gravity, it appears from e=mc^2, is a direct derivative of the speed of light, depending on the condition in which light finds itself.

Space and time are derivatives of gravity.

FC, for some reason my reply to your last post is appearing above your last post. I might have caused that in trying to deal with the communication issues between this site and me. It would take me another 10-15 minutes to move that post into proper position.

James--

I'd like to get back on track with your explication of RM; I have agreed to P4 and C2. Please continue.

One thing first, though... you have not answered FC's question: are you or are you not claiming that light is traveling at different speeds in your train/clock example? Are you claiming that the speed of the moving frame of reference adds or subtracts to the speed of the light moving in that same frame, with respect to the stationary frame's perspective?

Capable wrote:

James--

I'd like to get back on track with your explication of RM; I have agreed to P4 and C2. Please continue.

One thing first, though... you have not answered FC's question: are you or are you not claiming that light is traveling at different speeds in your train/clock example? Are you claiming that the speed of the moving frame of reference adds or subtracts to the speed of the light moving in that same frame, with respect to the stationary frame's perspective?

I think that my last post answers that, but...

What I am "claiming" is that;
1) according to the Theory of Relativity, the speed of light is always the same, "c", for ANY and every observer regardless of the direction of the light (toward the other guy or toward yourself).

2) If that is the case, then if anything is moving with respect to the observer, light must be approaching that moving object either faster or slower than toward himself depending on the direction of the light and the moving object. So from his perspective, the OTHER clock cannot stop because light is approaching one side of that other clock faster than the other side of that other clock, merely because that other clock is moving out of center.

3) Due to that logic, each of the two observers must predict that their own clock will stop and the other clock will not.

4) The length contraction doesn't change that issue because the length of the train car is irrelevant to the symmetry of the situation. Both clocks must remain centered during the light travel time and from both perspectives, yet they cannot.

5) Time dilation merely changes at what time reading one would predict his own clock to stop, but he would still insist that the other clock doesn't stop.

James S Saint wrote:

Capable wrote:

James--

I'd like to get back on track with your explication of RM; I have agreed to P4 and C2. Please continue.

One thing first, though... you have not answered FC's question: are you or are you not claiming that light is traveling at different speeds in your train/clock example? Are you claiming that the speed of the moving frame of reference adds or subtracts to the speed of the light moving in that same frame, with respect to the stationary frame's perspective?

I think that my last post answers that, but...

What I am "claiming" is that;
1) according to the Theory of Relativity, the speed of light is always the same, "c", for ANY and every observer regardless of the direction of the light (toward the other guy or toward yourself).

2) If that is the case, then if anything is moving with respect to the observer, light must be approaching that moving object either faster or slower than toward himself depending on the direction of the light and the moving object. So from his perspective, the OTHER clock cannot stop because light is approaching one side of that other clock faster than the other side of that other clock, merely because that other clock is moving out of center.

3) Due to that logic, each of the two observers must predict that their own clock will stop and the other clock will not.

4) The length contraction doesn't change that issue because the length of the train car is irrelevant to the symmetry of the situation. Both clocks must remain centered during the light travel time and from both perspectives, yet they cannot.

5) Time dilation merely changes at what time reading one would predict his own clock to stop, but he would still insist that the other clock doesn't stop.

Let's see.. the clocks are in alignment for only one instant. They approach each other, align for an instant in which time photons are released from the corners of the train, one set toward each clock, then the clocks are not in alignment as the train continues to move to the side.

The scenario as you are using it involves prediction, not actual occurrences; this is because we know that the clocks WILL each stop, because light will hit both clocks at the same time. This is because of your premise 1 above, that c is always constant (and in each perspective, the clock is not moving additionally with respect to the source of the photons, which means that the DISTANCE between each source-point and the clocks is equal on both sides.) Since the clock is stationary in its own reference frame (obviously) and the distance which the light must travel is equal on both sides, and we know that c is constant, ergo the clocks will be struck at the same time and shut off.

So the problem becomes: how does the other frame PREDICT the event happening? Well, it would predict that the clocks both stop, because it would understand what I just said, that given the theory of relativity the light, traveling at constant rate of c, will strike the clock at the same time. the observer in the other frame knows this, so whatever his Newtonian-like measurements of the changing distances are, he is aware that these measurements are bound to a level of incorrectness due to the constancy of c.

Einstein used examples like this train/clock one all the time, they were designed to show the inconsistencies in the Newtonian approach. Your examples does just this, it shows that if you act as if the movement of the clock in the other frame than yourself adds to the distance which light needs to travel, you would calculate (PREDICT) that the other clock does not stop; however, observation would refute that prediction, because this scenario played out would experience the clocks as actually turning off... "Hm," the observer tells himself, "how is it that my prediction was in error? Oh wait, yes it is because of Relativity! c is constant, therefore the clocks DO stop, as I observed."

To Sum:

1) the clocks DO both stop, given that c is constant and that each clock is stationary with respect to its own frame of reference (and the photons, being constant at c, do not vary their speed regardless of their initial movement)

2) the observer mistakenly calculated that due to the clocks PERCEIVED motion to one side (from the observer's own perspective) that the clock would not turn off.

3) the observer performs the experiment and sees that the clock DOES turn off.

4) the observer corrects his predictions by realizing that Relativity explains why the clock turned off, and why his previous Newtonian-based prediction was in error.




Regarding the actual purpose of this topic: P1-P4 and C1-C2 are accepted. Please continue.

I see the error more clearly now. It just occurred to me that this is the same perceived problem as what you get when an astronaut rockets off into distant space at high velocity relative to c, then comes back; according to Relativity the astronaut should be much younger than his twin who remained on earth, because the astronaut has been traveling at near-c and thus his own time experience has been slowed relative to the stationary Earth. HOWEVER, from the perspective of the astronaut, the EARTH is the one that moved away at high speeds, then returned, therefore the twin on earth should be the one who aged younger, while the astronaut aged normal.

Clearly the astronaut and the twin are not both younger and not younger than each other after the space journey.

So where is the error? Relativity draws a distinction between the frame which is accelerating and the frame that is not accelerating; the key here is that acceleration means that the frame is NOT STATIONARY TO ITSELF any longer. There is a difference between acceleration and constant movement.

So is the train A) moving at a constant speed or B) moving at an accelerating (non-constant) speed?

A)
If the train is not accelerating (its movement is constant velocity) then it remains stationary to itself at all times. Likewise the frame of the station is experienced by the train-perspective as also moving at a constant (non-accelerating) speed relative to the train. If this is the case, the train-perspective observer will calculate (PREDICT) (assuming he has knowledge of Relativity) that the clock on the station will shut off because he knows that a) the station clock is actually at rest with respect to itself and b) the photons started at an equal distance from the clock and travel at constant c. In this case, both clocks DO turn off.

B)
If the train is accelerating then it is NOT remaining stationary to itself (it is experiencing GRAVITY (the feeling of being pushed back into your seat) as well as length contraction and time dilation). The train-perspective observer will conclude that the station is stationary to itself, however, by calculating out his own acceleration velocity and measuring it against the station, thus concluding that HE is the one accelerating and the station is not. Because of this, the train-perspective observer will calculate that the clock on the station DOES shut off, because the station is not accelerating (even though the station APPEARS to be accelerating away from the train). The clock on the train, which is ACTUALLY accelerating (relative to itself) will have its own clock NOT shut off, because as you stated previously the distance which the light needs to travel to reach the clock is ACTUALLY changing (it is contracting in the direction of acceleration). From the perspective of the station, an observer will see that his own clock shuts off, and will see that the clock on the train does not shut off.

Also, see this explanation from Wikipedia:

"In physics, the twin paradox is a thought experiment in special relativity involving identical twins, one of whom makes a journey into space in a high-speed rocket and returns home to find that the twin who remained on Earth has aged more. This result appears puzzling because each twin sees the other twin as traveling, and so, according to a naive application of time dilation, each should paradoxically find the other to have aged more slowly. However, this scenario can be resolved within the standard framework of special relativity (because the twins are not equivalent; the space twin experienced additional, asymmetrical acceleration when switching direction to return home), and therefore is not a paradox in the sense of a logical contradiction. . . . Explanations put forth by Albert Einstein and Max Born invoked gravitational time dilation to explain the aging as a direct effect of acceleration.[2]"


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox

Capable wrote:

I'd like to get back on track with your explication of RM; I have agreed to P4 and C2. Please continue.

Well this process of thinking is very relevant to RM thinking (AO or not). So I'm afraid that we do need to get this hammered out, because if we change our way of thinking, then nothing RM says is relevant to anything. RM is based upon Definitional logic which is exactly what we are dealing with right now.

Capable wrote:

Let's see.. the clocks are in alignment for only one instant. They approach each other, align for an instant in which time photons are released from the corners of the train, one set toward each clock, then the clocks are not in alignment as the train continues to move to the side.

That is what both observers can agree upon. That is what they both observe.

Capable wrote:

The scenario as you are using it involves prediction, not actual occurrences; this is because we know that the clocks WILL each stop, because light will hit both clocks at the same time.

ALL thought is about "prediction". Your point is irrelevant.

Capable wrote:

This is because of your premise 1 above, that c is always constant (and in each perspective, the clock is not moving additionally with respect to the source of the photons, which means that the DISTANCE between each source-point and the clocks is equal on both sides.)

.. at the time of flash. Obviously the flashers keep going. The point of flash does not.

Capable wrote:

Since the clock is stationary in its own reference frame (obviously) and the distance which the light must travel is equal on both sides, and we know that c is constant, ergo the clocks will be struck at the same time and shut off.

The only thing "obvious" is that one's own clock is stationary (that is the definition of a given "perspective"). Each observes the other clock as not being stationary. That is what each observer actually sees and observes. That is not a matter of prediction or deduction, but of direct empirical observation.

Capable wrote:

So the problem becomes: how does the other frame PREDICT the event happening? Well, it would predict that the clocks both stop, because it would understand what I just said,

So what you are saying is that the observer, having observed, must now ignore what he sees taking place and accept the holy theory that the other person will see something different than himself and thus accept, not what he observed, but what the other person is predicted to observe.

Doesn't that strike you as a little odd that every observer, based upon what he observes, must ignore what he observes and accept a theory concerning what others observe and accept their perspective over his own? Do you seriously think that is what "relativity" means, "ignore what you see and accept what everyone else sees"?

What you have said is that even though I can directly see the other clock moving out of center, I must imagine and predict that the other clock sees itself not moving out of center and accept that other clock's perspective over myown.

Yet at the same time, that other clock's perspective has ME moving out of center, but I'm not going to accept his perspective on that point, else my "theory" would be wrong. So sometimes I accept the other clock's perspective and sometimes I accept my own direct observation. It all depends on whether I want the "theory" to turn out correct.

But interestingly, the theory itself says that the observer must only go by what he observes from his own perspective, not what he thinks that other perspective might be. You can't have it both ways and pick and choose when you want to use someone else's perspective and ignore your own.

Capable wrote:

traveling at constant rate of c, will strike the clock at the same time. the observer in the other frame knows this

So one observer is to correct his observation based upon what he thinks the other observer knows? What if the other observer didn't know that theory?

Capable wrote:

1) the clocks DO both stop, given that c is constant and that each clock is stationary with respect to its own frame of reference (and the photons, being constant at c, do not vary their speed regardless of their initial movement)

The real answer is that neither clock stops (depending upon other issues).

Capable wrote:

2) the observer mistakenly calculated that due to the clocks PERCEIVED motion to one side (from the observer's own perspective) that the clock would not turn off.

So an observer must ignore his own observation of motion and just presume that nothing is really moving? I think that he might find that difficult to accept since the train and station obviously don't stay aligned. How will he ever get where he was going?

Capable wrote:

3) the observer performs the experiment and sees that the clock DOES turn off.

Well, that is Your prediction based upon observers ignoring what they observe so as to accept a prediction theory and yield the ordained outcome.

Capable wrote:

4) the observer corrects his predictions by realizing that Relativity explains why the clock turned off, and why his previous Newtonian-based prediction was in error.

It isn't just his predictions that he must ignore, but his actual observation. He empirically observes the other clock moving out from center. But to accept the theory, he must ignore that and accept that it didn't "really" move out of center. And then of course, since it didn't really move out of center, it must not have been moving. He must conclude that the entire episode was merely a dream.