Epsilon Pi said:
You certainly have the authority on this forum to prohibit, whatever you want, but I am sorry you must make philosophy if you want to make good science.
But you have to make
good philosophy to make good science. That means you have to provide arguments and evidence for your position, which you have consistently failed to do.
From my first post on this forum my point was established clearly, and it has to do with that impossibility to include the third in your reasoning. I hope you have read Aristotle, as it was him and his prevailing logic my starting point. The greatest mistake of philosophers at all times and as so scientists is precisely to think that it is not possible to conceive a framework without that logic; down in this same post, in your answers, there, we have a clear example of that mistake.
Are you saying that it is a mistake not to use an "included middle" in our logic?
Tom: First, it is not possible to have a "nonrelativistic Lorentz transformation". The Lorentz transformation is what tells us that time and space are coupled. And I have no idea of why you think that complex numbers can change this.
Epsilon Pi: Wrong, there is the possibility to have a "nonrelativistic Lorentz transformation" if you use complex numbers as starting point.
Wrong. It is possible to start from the Lorentz transformation and recover Einstein's 2 postulates from them. Furthermore, the Lorentz transformations
explicitly encode the coupling of space and time. In fact, it is the interdependence of spatial and temporal parameters in the Lorentz transformation that physicists
define as the coupling of space and time. As I said before, if you change the LT in such a way that space and time are decoupled, then it won't be the LT anymore.
But since you won't even look at the Lorentz transformations, it is hopeless to try to convince you on this. All I can do is correct you.
Behind complex numbers there is clearly a radical duality;
Duality between which two concepts, exactly?
there is the chance to have an equal sign with the third included,
Again, what is "the third"?
as in Euler relation; a symbol for separation of two different, as it were, orders of reality, so it is that symbol the one that permits us not to confuse, pearls and apples, space and time, wave and particle.
Since you have not said what those two orders of reality are, or how the Euler relation can be used to separate them, this makes absolutely no sense.
Tom: Second, there is no experimental evidence that requires time to be decoupled from space.
Epsilon Pi: If your paradigm do not permit to see that experimental evidence, you will not see it.
So that means you are not going to present it?
This is a cheap cop-out that is typical of crackpots who cannot defend their position.
Tom: Third, how can a conception of reality be philosophically correct if it embraces both time being coupled to space and time not being coupled to space? Certainly a good ontological theory must at least be logical.
Epsilon Pi: Yes, here is the point I pointed out up about the impossibility to include the third in your constructs.
It seems clear that you are saying that "the third" is "the included middle", but without your explicitly saying so I am not going to assume it. I will point out, however, that using an included middle reasoning system is hopeless because if the compound statement (P and ~P) is true, then it is possible to prove
any statement "true", whether it is true or not.
Surely it should not be thought that this is good philosophy.
Fortunately we have Euler relation, with its mentioned remarkable property that makes it an ideal tool to represent the covariant laws of nature.
The Euler relation does not "represent the covariant laws of nature". Tensor equations do that.
Yes, for the sake of applications we couple time to space, we close our systems, but that certainly does not mean all reality, as the same uncertainty principle has the chance to have both at the same time, a wave manifestation and a particle manifestation or complemetarity.
You just don't get it. "We" don't couple time to space for any applications! Space and time
are coupled, and "we" are powerless to do anything about it. The coupling of space and time as exhibited explicitly in the Lorentz transformations is a derived result of the 2 postulates of relativity, which are also features of our universe. And there is no analog between the coupling of time and space in SR and the unertainty principle in QM. Both are derived independently of the other, and the two do not have any formal similarity.
It really does not have anything to do with a taste in this case,
Of course it does. In this thread, all you have done is deny that time and space are coupled because it seems wrong to you. You don't have a single argument, or a single piece of experimental evidence to support your position. If there were ever a more clear cut instance of someone rejecting a scientific theory because it does not sit well with his philosophical taste, then I have not seen it.
remember that you see what you have been prepared to see; if your reasoning does not permit to see the chance to have a different way to cope reality, something very wrong is going with it, don't you think?
This is just another cheap cop-out. You have not presented a "different way to cope reality", so how could I be expected to comment on it?
In any case, I would say that the mathematical description of the universe is not subject to such a rash rewriting as you would have us do. You are simply wrong to think that both a statement and its negation can both be descriptive of our universe.
I'll note here that you have referred to complementarity, and I suspect that this is a veiled reference to quantum logic. If so, then note that that will not rescue your position against the excluded middle (if that is indeed your position) because multiple-valued logics (such as those that can accommodate complementarity) can still have an excluded middle.
Yes, I know he didn't and somewhere on this forum I said why it is relevant, if the arguments given above about the third does not seem to you so.
You never presented an argument. All you said was that it is a mistake not to use "the third". You did not say why, nor did you even say what "the third" is.
Humm, relativity was borne out by experiment?
Yes. Einstein
opened his 1905 paper by noting the experimental failure of Galilean relativity as applied to Maxwell's equations.
See
On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies.
I thought it was by the work Einstein did when putting the Lorentz transformation group in a philosophical context known as relativity.
You thought wrong. Einstein derived the LT from 2 postulates: one physical, one mathematical. There's no metaphysics involved here.
Are not the Lorentz transformation group as equations the ones that permit validation with the experimental evidence?
They are. But the postulates also permit such validation.
See
The Experimental Basis for Special Relativity.
To be or not to be decoupled is certainly not a matter of the Lorentz transformation group per ser, but it is:
- on the one side the result of the way we interpret reality for the sake of application,
Wrong. As previously noted, time and space are manifestly linked via the Lorentz transformation. This is the
definition of the concept of the coupling of time and space.
- and on the other a result of that reality "out there" with uncertainty included, so in this sense it is our symbolism the one that must be changed if it does not fit to it.
You simply have no idea of what you are talking about. The coupling of time and space as in the Lorentz transformation fits perfectly well with the uncertainty principle. I have repeatedly referred you to Klein-Gordon and to Dirac. But I'm convinced that you haven't investigated it, so this is hopeless.
I hope I have been suficiently clear, as I do not pretend to post anymore regarding this thread, for me it is closed.
You have made it sufficiently clear that you aren't interested in rigorous scientific or philosophical debate.
Thank you so much for this most interesting experience!
I wish I could say the same. You did exactly what I asked you not to do: present unsubstantiated opinions with no proof or evidence.
PD: Do you have on this forum a way of presenting my findinds about Euler relation and its relation to the fundamental equations of physics?, if yes, I gladly will present that framework.
You can attach a file to a post, or you can simply write it in a post.
).
