Not necessarily, all that it would mean is that direct experience would not be sufficient to confirm what is illusory and what is not. For example, if I'm trying to build a satellite system that allows me to locate things around the globe, then I better take the effects of GR into account, even if they seem weird based on my everyday "direct" observations of life. For example, direct observation may indicate to me that the Earth is flat. So I need to do some measurements, make some predictions, etc. to gain access to the experience that the Earth isn't flat.This is why ignore GR and Einstein. Ontology becomes deeply derailed into an experienced of illusion. From this point, everything, including this thread becomes totally pointless. Anything and everything becomes an illusion. — Rich
Well I too am a practical person, but it depends on what the truth is. Knowledge of the truth is what can truly help you take practical steps.I take this approach for the same reason the Daoist did, it yields concrete, practical results that I can truly understand and believe in, because I actually experience it. — Rich
Not necessarily, all that it would mean is that direct experience would not be sufficient to confirm what is illusory and what is not. — Agustino
Yes, but on what do you base the idea that direct experience cannot be illusory? Clearly, for example, the experience that the Earth is flat is illusory, right? So an experience isn't sufficient to justify and ground what we believe, correct?Once an individual allows illusions to become explanations then magic becomes real. Anything and everything can be explained as an illusion. There are no limits and we can't pick and choose. — Rich
So when I am in an open field and I look to the horizon and it seems that the Earth is flat according to my direct experience, should I really conclude it's flat? Or how do I reason about it that it's not flat?It is my experience, it is not illusory. If someone says that it is illusory, then we need to inspect the differences in our experiences. Differences in experience is real, it is not illusory. — Rich
There's no reason to disagree with special relativity for the simple reason that we have never observed light traveling at a different speed anywhere in all our observations so far. It could be possible, but we've just never seen it happen. So there is no reason to doubt SR. A rational person just cannot doubt it. — Agustino
The essential feature of experienced time is simply change. — oysteroid
Consider how you can represent any quantity spatially, or with sound, or with color, or whatever else might come to mind. — oysteroid
Probably, what space actually is objectively isn't even captured by our experience of it. — oysteroid
It's not true, light speed is only constant in a vacuum, it varies in speed while moving through any medium. — Wosret
Unless the speed of light has been measured in every possible type of circumstance, then there really is no reason to believe in SR. — Metaphysician Undercover
Yes this is correct. I should have been more specific. Light always travels at a constant speed in a vacuum.It's not true, light speed is only constant in a vacuum, it varies in speed while moving through any medium. Scientific concepts tend to take place removed from most conditions in, a more or less theoretical void... So the opposite of that is actually true. — Wosret
Okay, but we've also observed a large portion of the Universe through our telescopes and other such instruments. It's true that it is logically possible that the speed of light in a vacuum would be different in other places of the Universe, but what reason do we have to suppose this is the case? The mere fact that it's possible is a sufficient reason - it's also logically possible that the sun will not rise tomorrow, yet we don't really entertain that supposition all too seriously. Why not?The problem with your position is that human beings live only in a very limited, and specific set of conditions, and therefore they have no capacity to measure the speed of light except under these very limited conditions. These conditions make up a very small proportion of possible conditions. So until human beings derive a way to measure the speed of light in all of these vastly differing possible conditions, there is very good reason to doubt the accuracy special relativity. — Metaphysician Undercover
The problem with your view is that you base it off direct experience of duration, without understanding that there is a need for all experience to be coherent with each other. When someone like Einstein says that time is illusory, they mean that according to their experience, time only seems real from our limited perceptions of it, which don't show the true reality of the Universe that we can grasp through the process of trying to understand our perception and experience. They make this statement in the same way that we make the statement that the Earth is round even though it appears flat, or that the Earth travels around the Sun, even though it appears like the Sun travels around the Earth from our perspective. And yet, you want to deny their position. But to do so, it's not sufficient to appeal to your experience, for that is precisely what is under the question, you have to rather show why your experience is valid, and their process of reasoning is not or cannot be.None, since it directly contradicts GR. It's a theory with no home. — Rich
"No reason"? — Srap Tasmaner
It's true that it is logically possible that the speed of light in a vacuum would be different in other places of the Universe, but what reason do we have to suppose this is the case? — Agustino
Yes. What about them suggests that the speed of light in a vacuum would be different in different parts of the Universe?Do you know about the Doppler effect, red shift, and theories which describe the universe as expanding? — Metaphysician Undercover
If one stares at space, maybe as an artist, space appears to take on a new experience. Artists, such as the impressionists, or maybe Da Vinci saw in space what most cannot, because the skills have not been developed.
But, is this appreciation really rare? — oysteroid
Yes. What about them suggests that the speed of light in a vacuum would be different in different parts of the Universe? — Agustino
You mean similar to how geocentrists first addressed errors that appeared in their model by introducing different fudge factors to account for the actual orbits of the planets?OK, you're familiar with the concept of spatial expansion, that's good. So observational information is taken and interpreted according to the precepts of relativity based theories. The interpretations show that distant objects, stars and galaxies are all moving away from us. Of course we cannot conclude that all the objects in the universe are moving away from us, because that would make us the centre of the universe, just like geocentrism. Also, we wouldn't want to admit that relativity theory is defective, because applying it makes it appear like we are the centre of the universe. Instead, cosmologists have produced the theory of spatial expansion.
Now we have the motions of objects which are subject to relativity theory, plus motions which are subject to expansion theories. Since relativity theory is supposed to apply to all motions of material objects, then the latter motions, those explained by expansion theories cannot be called motions. So we have "motions" those which are consistent with relativity theory, and "non-motions", those motions which require expansion theories to explain. Instead of recognizing that relativity theory is inadequate for interpreting all the motions in the universe, cosmologists prefer to accept contradiction. They allow that there are motions which are not real motions, because they are inconsistent with relativity. Then they are forced to produce new theories, spatial expansion, to account for these contradictory motions. — Metaphysician Undercover
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.