Clock-experimental proof of special relativity

[Dale]

it is true that you cannot disprove it under my definition.

Then your definintion is non-scientific and the discussion doesn't belong here.

If you choose to modify your definition of "deterministic" to something which is falsifiable then I will be glad to discuss further.

 

[Vorde]

But your definition is impossible to disprove! It's like saying god exists because prove he doesn't.

The thing about my definition is that it can be disproved, and Quantum Mechanics disproves it. The problem of the Andromeda paradox (please read the wikipedia article on it, its short and will allow me to refer to it without explaining the whole thing) is that one observer may look at andromeda and say that the aliens have yet to make a decision, and the other observer will look and say they have made a decision. But that second observer won't actually know what the outcome of the decision is until the light reaches him, and therefore he knows nothing.

The relativity of simultaneity allows for differing definitions of what is past, present and future, but at no point will it allow anyone to know anything definitely about their future.




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rietdijk–Putnam_argument

 

[rocket123456]

Then your definintion is non-scientific and the discussion doesn't belong here.

If you choose to modify your definition of "deterministic" to something which is falsifiable then I will be glad to discuss further.

How can we falsify empirical reality which is the basis for all proofs? we can't so should we give up science because of that?

It's about giving evidence and wheter they can be explained without determinism as the world-view.

 

[rocket123456]

But your definition is impossible to disprove! It's like saying god exists because prove he doesn't.

But that second observer won't actually know what the outcome of the decision is until the light reaches him, and therefore he knows nothing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rietdijk–Putnam_argument

Correct he knows nothing about the outcome.. but the main question is can he prevent what the other observer has already witnessed? Penrose says no-- and accordingly argues for predeterminism.

 

[Dale]

How can we falsify empirical reality which is the basis for all proofs? we can't so should we give up science because of that?

Nonsense. If it is non-falsifiable then it isn't science. We should give up useless non-falsifiable definitions like yours in favor of science.

 

[rocket123456]

Nonsense. If it is non-falsifiable then it isn't science. We should give up useless non-falsifiable definitions like yours in favor of science.

My question was not answered. You are just repeating yourself.

There are some things we have to assume in science that are not falsifiable, yet if we assume they are correct everything else makes sense and follows.

"non-computable"(to use penrose expression) Determinism would be such a thing.

 

[Vorde]

There are some things we have to assume in science that are not falsifiable

No. There are some things in science we have to accept as true, but all of these things are very falsifiable, like the constancy of the speed of light. This is accepted as true without a fundamental reason as to why, but it would be very, very easy to show that this is not true were it not true. Because we can't, we say it is true.

 

[rocket123456]

No. There are some things in science we have to accept as true, but all of these things are very falsifiable, like the constancy of the speed of light. This is accepted as true without a fundamental reason as to why, but it would be very, very easy to show that this is not true were it not true. Because we can't, we say it is true.

You cannot falsify the validity of the emprical reality independent of your mind, all your appeals would be the very things I question-reality itself.

Does it make sense to question it? no.. but it is not falsifiable.

 

[Vorde]

But that is a trivial assumption in the physical sciences, determinism is not.

 

[rocket123456]

But that is a trivial assumption in the physical sciences, determinism is not.

Oh so now it's if it's trivial... just a moment ago your answer was a resounding NO.

Thus the lack of falsifiability does not rule out scientifc inquiry.

Now on to the subject of determinism and your claim that it's not a trivial assumption:

"The law of causation, according to which later events can theoretically be predicted by means of earlier events, has often been held to be a priori, a necessity of thought, a category without which science would not be possible." Bertnand Russell.

"Where determinism fails, science fails." Russell...

That does give a rather strong impression of the trivial assumption of the non-falsifiable thesis of determinism, at least in Russells mind.

 

[Vorde]

Three things.

One, I was referring to the existence of the universe separate from the mind as a trivial assumption in the hard sciences. And disagreeing with this belongs in philosophy and not in this forum.

Two, if it cannot be falsified, it is not a scientific theory.

Three, cause and effect and determinism are two very separate things, look them up before you continue arguing based on things you don't understand.

Four, Russell, like many others (including Einstein) did not like the non-determinism of Quantum Mechanics. The theory which all of them strongly objected to has since been shown to be incredibly accurate and has led to QED, the most accurate theory of all time (QED has been verified to a higher degree of accuracy than relativity). Your original question interested me a lot, but you are making circular arguments, and they are hurting, not helping you.

 

[Dale]

My question was not answered. You are just repeating yourself.

Yes, I am repeating myself and will continue to do so as long as you continue to use a non-falsifiable definition. I did not answer the question because the question is non-scientific and doesn't even deserve to be asked here, let alone answered.

 

[rocket123456]

Four, Russell, like many others (including Einstein) did not like the non-determinism of Quantum Mechanics. The theory which all of them strongly objected to has since been shown to be incredibly accurate and has led to QED, the most accurate theory of all time (QED has been verified to a higher degree of accuracy than relativity). Your original question interested me a lot, but you are making circular arguments, and they are hurting, not helping you.

The so called verifications of the standard quantum mechanical interpetations(copenhagen interpretation) are compatible with the bohm-interpretation being the correct one. It's meaningless to report future verifications if they do not rule out the competing theorys.

As David Bohm himself said: The observations verify both the standard interpretations as much as they do of his own interpretation- for each experiment.

 

[Vorde]

You aren't making any sense. I didn't say anything about interpretations, I just talked about the theories themselves.

 

[rocket123456]

Three things.

The theory which all of them strongly objected to has since been shown to be incredibly accurate and has led to QED, the most accurate theory of all time (QED has been verified to a higher degree of accuracy than relativity).

The theory they objected to was the copenhagen interpretation not quantum mechanics.. and then I refer you to my previous post.

There are deterministic interpretations of quantum mechanics as you know and these are verified for each time the copenhagen version is.

 

[Dale]

There are deterministic interpretations of quantum mechanics as you know and these are verified for each time the copenhagen version is.

Not if you use a scientific (falsifiable) definition of determinism.

 

[rocket123456]

Not if you use a scientific (falsifiable) definition of determinism.

In what sense is the copenhagen interpretation anymore falsifiable than the Bohm interpretation?

 

[Dale]

In what sense is the copenhagen interpretation anymore falsifiable than the Bohm interpretation?

I never said it was. In fact, I already told you:

I am not interested in interpretations of QM, just the math.

All I said is that YOUR definition of determinism is non-falsifiable and therefore non-scientific.

Regardless of interpretation, the math of QM is non-deterministic in the usual scientific (falsifiable) meaning of the term, as I described above. And therefore scientifically speaking, SR is compatible with non determinism.

In order to reach the opposite conclusion you have had to rig the question by using your definition of determinism so that not only is there no evidence against your position, but there could never possibly be any evidence against it even in principle. That isn't science.

 

[rocket123456]

In order to reach the opposite conclusion you have had to rig the question by using your definition of determinism so that not only is there no evidence against your position, but there could never possibly be any evidence against it even in principle. That isn't science.

Most physicists claim we live in a block-universe. The clock-experiment verifications would only be possible in a 4-dimensional universe thus proving determinism. That was my point with this thread. You can falsify my statement that determinism is empirically proved by giving an alternative explanation for the clock-alteration of measurements.

Just because you can't falsify my thesis doesn't mean you can seriously neutralize it.

 

[rocket123456]

In fact I confronted a physicists I was friendly with on to the clock experiments and the neccesity of determinism. He said well there's always the multi-verse.. but of course many worlds is completley pre-determined.. so that would only entail instead plural-determinism.

 

[Dale]

You can falsify my statement that determinism is empirically proved by giving an alternative explanation for the clock-alteration of measurements.

Just because you can't falsify my thesis doesn't mean you can seriously neutralize it.

The clock alteration measurements are a completely irrelevant red herring. As you said, there is no experiment which could possibly be performed which would falsify your concept of determinism. That is what it means to be unfalsifiable.

So your definition is compatible with any and all theories, including ones where clocks don't alter. Experimental results cannot provide evidence against your definition, therefore they cannot provide evidence for it either. Which is the reason why your definition of determinism is non scientific and completely useless.