Does Truth exist for Muslims & Hindus?

So the accuracy of the measuring apparatus is always suited to the purpose it is designed for, and it is judged by its usefulness not for truth or falsity. — Metaphysician Undercover

Precisely. And the purpose of the 10 million different measuring apparatuses (apparati?) is to measure velocity. So QED we are measuring velocity. And so the statement is true per CToT. We are not dealing with your metaphysical notions of truth or falsity here. And of course it is not 10 million. Duh.

Now let's move over to our acceleration issue.

I agree that for many practical purposes the use of averages is completely acceptable. — Metaphysician Undercover

First of all it is clear that you are OK that we can measure average velocity.

But the acceleration itself, which is the cause of the body's motion has already occurred by the time the body is moving. — Metaphysician Undercover

Acceleration does not cause anything. No wonder you are confused. Acceleration is a change in the velocity of an object. An object can undergo acceleration by being acted on by a force (F = ma) or by being affected by the curvature of spacetime.

We drop our bowling ball. After one second we determine that the velocity is ~9.8 meters per second (m/s). (I'm using the "~" here to mean average). After two seconds our velocity is ~19.6 m/s. After 3 seconds the velocity of our bowling ball is ~29.4 m/s.

Hmm something is going on here. Let's look more closely - let's chop up time a bit more finely - 10 times per second. After 0.1 seconds our ball is going ~0.98 m/s. After 0.2 seconds it's going ~1.96 m/s, etc. And lo and behold, after one second the velocity is ~9.8 m/s.

No matter how finely we chop up time - or how many different ways we chop up time - we get the same results. So this is a true statement:
The velocity of our object is increasing by 9.8 m/s every second within the limits of accuracy of our measuring devices.
Again, we are using CToT, not your metaphysical notions of truth.

Fascinating stuff - I don't have the time/energy to fully delve into it.

BTW, here's the link: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14659/page/p1

[edit]. I also recommend the latest Scientific American special issue "Mind Bending Physics". Good article on Bell (among other things).

Sure, if that's what's there on the screen, then I agree, that's a true representation. The issue is one of interpretation though. Your claim was that this readout means that according to the speedometer the car is going 60mph. But that is not what that readout actually means, it's a faulty interpretation of what the readout means. — Metaphysician Undercover

Agree that my speedometer could be broken and be a faulty representation. But now my car has 10 million speedometers (it's a very large car) and they all show 60 mph. Is it possible that all 10 million are broken? Well you can't rule it out, but it is reasonable to say that all 10 million can't be broken in exactly the same way.

So is it possible that there is a design flaw in the speedometers and the value is wrong? Well duh, of course it's possible. However I can look out the window of my large car (my car has windows) and I can verify using my eyes that indeed the car is moving. And I open a window and use my handheld velocity checker to verify the 60 mph. I can stick my hand outside the window and feel the wind. I can temporarily unbuckle my seat belt, stick my head out the window and see the tires moving.

So it is clear that the car is moving. Or is it? Uh-oh, maybe I missed something . . .

Is it possible that the car is standing still and somehow we have arranged it so that it appears that the scenery and the road are moving while the car is standing still? Sitting inside my car I can't rule it out - it's theoretically possible. But there are 10 million people outside the car observing the car move and they are verifying (all using different mechanisms to measure velocity) that my car is going 60 mph.

Is it possible that the outside observers are in fact moving and the car is standing still? They stick their fingers in the air and they feel no movement in the air.

Is it theoretically possible that somehow you have arranged this experiment so that the observers are moving at 60 mph but they do not feel any air moving? Possible, but then when they entered the experimental apparatus they would have felt some acceleration through their inner ears when they started moving (our inner ears can detect acceleration). OK - maybe when the observers entered our experimental apparatus the were standing still and we accelerated up to 60 mph very slowly so the acceleration did not register in their inner ears. Or maybe we secretly drugged them before they entered the experimental apparatus and disabled their inner ears.

So is it possible that those observers are unaware that they are the ones who are moving 60 mph and the car is standing still? We can't logically rule it out (we can always add another absurd hypothetical into the mix).

However, per the CToT there is a true statement here:

"Within the accuracy of our measuring apparatus the car is moving 60 mph relative to it's outside environment".

Except criminal lawyers, whose job is to represent the client's version of reality. — unenlightened

I can't speak for other countries, but here in the USA that is most definitely NOT the job of a criminal lawyer. The job of a criminal lawyer in the US is to demonstrate to the jury (or judge if the defendant so chooses) that - based on the evidence presented in the trial by both sides -that the prosecution has not proven beyond all reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime. If the lawyer thinks the prosecution has not presented sufficient evidence, then the lawyer does not have to do a thing except convince the judge or jury (in summation) that there is insufficient evidence.

This says nothing about the problem we're discussing. — Metaphysician Undercover

One step at a time. Do you acknowledge that "The readout on my speedometer shows 60 mph" is a true statement per the CToT?

OK I'll modify the statement to meet your exacting standards. Instead of this:.

"The car is going 60 mph according to the speedometer" — EricH

we'll say this

"The digital readout on the speedometer shows 60 mph"

No, that's what Ive been arguing, we really do not know the true physical properties of objects. I — Metaphysician Undercover

This is not the Correspondence Theory of Truth - you have introduced the metaphysical concept of truth into the mix. If you and I are traveling in a car together and the digital display shows that the car is going 60 mph and I utter the statement "The car is going 60 mph according to the speedometer". then that is a true statement. And if you are in the back seat looking over my shoulder and say "The speedometer shows that the car is going 60 mph". then we have a mutual shared understanding and agree.

Whether the speedometer is accurate or not is irrelevant to whether the statement is true or false.

Can you give an example of a statement involving the mathematical measurement of some physical property of an object that you would consider to be a true statement - per the correspondence theory of truth?

To represent reality in the way of correspondence (truth), requires necessarily that one has some understanding of the reality being represented. Therefore "truth" in the sense of correspondence, implies understanding. — Metaphysician Undercover

Here is the plain language definition per wikipedia
"In metaphysics and philosophy of language, the correspondence theory of truth states that the truth or falsity of a statement is determined only by how it relates to the world and whether it accurately describes (i.e., corresponds with) that world."

Now you are introducing the notion of understanding into the mix - and it's not clear to me what you mean here. If by the word "understanding" you mean that a statement is grammatically and syntactically correct and expresses a thought/notion that could potentially be real? Then that is trivially correct.

"My friend John is 5 feet 11 inches tall (within the limits of accuracy of my measuring apparatus)" is a true statement.

"My friend John is 5000 feet 11 inches tall (within the limits of accuracy of my measuring apparatus)" is a false statement.

But if by "understanding" you mean something more than our shared understanding of the plain language meaning of words, then this raises all sorts of questions - what do you mean by "understanding"? Can we ever fully understand anything at all? Warning! Warning! Infinite regress ahead!

That said, perhaps you are using a variation of the standard definition/usage of correspondence theory? That's fine - there is nothing wrong with this. If you go to Stanford the theory of correspondence comes in a bewildering variety of flavors - and maybe you are using one of these variations?

Regardless of all this, I refer you to flannel's last comment:

You don't need to understand acceleration to agree with some basic observable facts about how bowling balls fall. — flannel jesus

2² = 4 — flannel jesus

I don't know how to do that on my keyboard, but now that you've shown the way I can cut & paste from your example. :clap:

BTW that was paper from Einstein about his thoughts on aether was very cool - thanks for that.

And now we wait to see what mu will come up with next.

You came in later. I had to use punch cards - but graduated to paper tape.

Hah - I'm showing my age. We used that in Fortran programming. It's somewhat obsolete now but can still see it used occasionally. E.g. here you'll have to scroll down a bit to see this:

"Exponents are given with a double asterisk, such as "3**2" (three to the second power). "

Note to self: use ^ in the future to represent exponentiation. :roll:

Tim, Flannel, and Wonderer beat me to the punch here. Any statement in the form "such-and-such a person observed X at such-and-such place & time" is either true (corresponds to reality) or false (does not correspond to reality).
Remember the verb here is "observed".

That something is "accelerating" requires a multitude of measurements of velocity, and each measurement of velocity requires multiple determinations of spatial-temporal location. — Metaphysician Undercover

Assume all of that is done to your satisfaction beyond all reasonable doubt.

" **2 " means raised to the second power (i.e. squared). So " **3 " means raised to the third power, etc. This is standard scientific notation.

N.B. - I believe there is a way to do superscripts in the forum interface but I don't know how to do that.

Yes, that's what I said, truth means corresponding with reality, therefore I'm using "truth" in the sense of correspondence theory. — Metaphysician Undercover

I'm still not clear on your usage of the word truth - because I went back and am seeing this:

"Truth" implies an understanding of what is going on, which takes us beyond the ability to predict. — Metaphysician Undercover

E.g., if I say that I observed an object in a vacuum chamber accelerating towards the center of the earth at 9.8 m/sec**2, I think you would agree that that is a true statement (it corresponds with reality). But there is no understanding in that statement - it's just an observation.

Also, is there a distinction when you put the word in quotes?

AFAICT we're basically in agreement here.

[edit] But I'm curious what MU has to say.

I would say metaphysics seeks truth, and truth means corresponding with reality. — Metaphysician Undercover

We're going way off topic here, but when you use the word "truth" are referring to the Correspondence Theory of Truth?

I was arguing that the conclusion, that some people draw, that Michelson-Morley type experiments have proven that there is no medium for light waves, is pseudoscience. — Metaphysician Undercover

So just to be clear, you sincerely believe that Einstein (along with the entire scientific community) misinterpreted the results of M-M and are engaging in some form of pseudoscience?

So, if light exists as a wave, which much evidence indicates — Metaphysician Undercover

The behavior of particles at the atomic & sub-atomic levels does not correspond to anything in the macro world (AKA classical physics) - and analogies to the behavior of matter at the macro level (what we can see/fell) fall apart if taken literally.

Light does not "exist as a wave". Light "exists" (and I put exists in quotes) as photons. Photons exhibit the behavior of particles when we measure their "particle" behavior. While photons have no rest mass (since they travel at the speed of light) they have momentum which can be measured and under some situations actually used (think of outer space light sails).

Photons also exhibit properties of a wave - but only when we try to measure their wave properties (wavelength, etc).

We cannot simultaneously measure both the particle & wave behavior of photons at the same time.

So the best analogy I can come up with is that photons are particles which also exhibit wave-like behavior. And particles do not need a medium in which to move.

[edit] Just to emphasize - that is an analogy. The math describes reality.

I hope this helps.

You said that, to your ears, a few statements sounded like threats, and even quoted these threats. — NOS4A2

I'll try one more time. You feel that there is an important distinction between pressure vs threat so I'm conceding the point. So again - T was merely pressuring R, NOT threatening him.

At any rate, I’ve repeatedly said Trump was pressuring him to look at the fraud and to share the data with his team. — NOS4A2

And once again, why would R NOT do these things?

I have already given my answer and shared why I made such a speculation. — NOS4A2

And here is what you said:

Public and political pressure, maybe. — NOS4A2

Who was putting pressure on R at the time of these events to NOT do things that T was asking for? These things could have potentially given the GA electoral votes to Trump? If you want to convince me that you're right you will need far more then speculation.

R has challenged T to publicly debate this issue at a venue of T's choice. What's that all about?

Clearly Trump pressured him — NOS4A2

I'm glad we agree on that.

And if you wouldn’t mind sharing your definition of threat — NOS4A2

You're really hung up on this - so for purposes of this particular discussion I'll go with your distinction. So Trump "pressured" him but did not "threaten" him.

but it’s what act Trump pressured him to do that is the question. — NOS4A2

The exact details of the acts Trump pressured him to do are irrelevant. The relevant question is why Raffensperger - a lifelong Republican and a Trump supporter - did not do any of the things that Trump pressured him to do.

I hope you wouldn’t mind sharing your answer to this specific question. If not, then I suppose I can again chalk it up to propaganda and I’ll quit bothering you about it.

I am speculating in metaphysics and not at all pretending to be doing physics. — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't speculate in metaphysics so I can't help you with this. I suggest you take your speculations to a physics forum - they will help you understand this much better than I.

I don’t see anything in here about pressuring Raffensperger to “overturn the GA election results”. Given this, perhaps you can provide evidence that Trump was pressuring the Secretary of State to “overturn the GA election results”. Also, if you wouldn’t mind sharing your definition of threat, since you’re so sure Trump threatened him, it would be helpful since am still unable to see it. — NOS4A2

Raffensperger himself has stated that Trump pressured him. I can't speak for Raffensperger so f you disagree you'll have to take it up with him.

Meanwhile, still you have not explained why Raffensperger - a lifelong Republican and a Trump supporter - would NOT have found those 11 thousand votes that Trump was asking for -assuming there was any legal way to do that.

Raffensperger has challenged Trump to publicly debate about the results of the GA election.

Ha - you beat me to it!

I think you can read this on Wikipedia, — Metaphysician Undercover

I did and it refutes what you are saying.
Per Wikipedia:

"Physics theories of the 19th century assumed that just as surface water waves must have a supporting substance, i.e., a "medium", to move across (in this case water), and audible sound requires a medium to transmit its wave motions (such as air or water), so light must also require a medium, the "luminiferous aether", to transmit its wave motions. Because light can travel through a vacuum, it was assumed that even a vacuum must be filled with aether."

The experiment compared the speed of light in perpendicular directions in an attempt to detect the relative motion of matter through the luminiferous aether ("aether wind"). The result was negative, in that Michelson and Morley found no significant difference between the speed of light in the direction of movement through the presumed aether, and the speed at right angles. This result is generally considered to be the first strong evidenceagainst some aether theories, as well as initiating a line of research that eventually led to special relativity, which rules out motion against an aether.

These results have been repeatedly confirmed.

Yet we know from observation, rainbows, and other refractions, that light must consist of waves, therefore there must be a substance there which is waving. — Metaphysician Undercover

M-M explicitly disproved that notion. If there was a substance, then M-M would have detected it. That's what eventually led to relativity. If I'm misunderstanding it then please explain.

Public and political pressure, maybe. — NOS4A2

Maybe? You're gonna need a lot more than that. Please provide evidence that in January 2021 Raffensperger was being pressured to NOT overturn the GA election results. Who was doing this pressuring?

In fact, Raffensperger has stated repeatedly that it was Trump who was pressuring him.

[edit]
Raffensperger has challenged Trump to a debate about the results of the election

Yet we know from observation, rainbows, and other refractions, that light must consist of waves, therefore there must be a substance there which is waving. — Metaphysician Undercover

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but the Michelson–Morley experiment disproved that idea.

Regarding "spin", here's a good explanation from Scientific American: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/quantum-particles-arent-spinning-so-where-does-their-spin-come-from/

Only if there was a threat. — NOS4A2

This is Trump talking to Raffensperger
"And you are going to find that they are — which is totally illegal — it is more illegal for you than it is for them because, you know, what they did and you’re not reporting it. That’s a criminal, that’s a criminal offense. And you can’t let that happen."

and here:
"But I mean all of this stuff is very dangerous stuff. When you talk about no criminality, I think it’s very dangerous for you to say that."

Maybe you have different criteria for a threat, but to my ears it sounds like one. Trump is saying that if Raffensperger does not do his bidding then he would be committing a criminal offense.

But even beyond that I'll repeat my previous question again. Raffensperger was/is a life long republican and at the time this happened he was a Trump supporter. If there was a legal way that he could have flipped GA to go for Trump - for what possible reason would he have NOT done that?

The notion that Trump is pressuring Reffensperger to “find” votes is just another hoax. — NOS4A2

Trump literally said "So look. All I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have. Because we won the state.” Perhaps I'm not following you. Are you using the word "find" (which you put in quotes) differently than when Trump used the same word.

But even beyond that. Raffensperger is a life long Republican and was (at the time) a Trump supporter. Are you seriously suggesting that there was some legal way that Raffensperger could have somehow changed the results of the GA election and that he didn't - because?

Anyone who does not show complete and blind "loyalty" is no longer his own people. Their "disloyalty" is evidence that they cannot be trusted. — Fooloso4

This is too funny. NOS gave that exact reply.

Not everyone is so enamoured [sic] with party as you guys. Trump especially. He’s been thrown under the bus by republicans and Trump supporters at every single turn. — NOS4A2

It makes no difference whether he meant find votes that can be discarded as illegal. There was not and is not evidence they exist. He was repeatedly told by the Justice Department and Georgia officials that they did not exist.

It is one thing to question results, but quite another to reject the evidence. — Fooloso4

Why would someone trust the DOJ and Georgia officials? — NOS4A2

At the time of these events the DOJ was being run by Trump's own people. At the time of these events the "Georgia officials" were all Republicans and Trump supporters.

Are you saying that people who are life long Republicans and Trump supporters could not be trusted to help Trump?

I wasn't even thinking about the equilibrium temp - but yes - I'm glad you finally got it. It takes an exceptionally honest person to admit they were wrong, so kudos to you both. :cheer:

Hey Agree: I hope that you will now review Mitloehner's article from U Cal that you referenced and reconsider your opposition to reducing biogenic methane emissions. Again - it's your source - and Mitloehner makes a pretty convincing case that (apart from anything else) reducing methane emissions from livestock farming is a relatively simple & cost effective way to slow down the rate of global warming.

Of course eliminating all livestock farming would be much better - but that's a separate discussion.

I must be a glutton for punishment to continue this, but I'll try one more time.

Does it refer to "14% of the AMOUNT of global warming" — Agree to Disagree

Jeez! How many times do I have to say this? Yes.

I'll try a slightly different approach. Maybe this time it will sink in.

In pre-industrial times CH4 was at roughly 722 parts per billion (ppb). CH4 is currently at roughly 1900 ppb. This increase is due to human activity. 1900 - 722 = 1178 ppb. I'll round up to 1200 to make numbers simpler. Biogenic CH4 is responsible roughly 1/2 of this = 600 ppb.

Once again, the assumption behind this thought experiment is that biogenic methane stays the same, so the concentration stays at 600 ppb. This 600 ppb is currently causing global temps to increase by 0.0224° F per decade. Divide by 10 and it is causing global temps to increase by 0.00224° F per year. Divide that by 365 to get the daily increase (I'll let you do the math on this one).

Now every day a certain amount of these CH4 molecules decay to CO2 - likely the ones that have been around the longest. Hello plants! Here's some nice CO2 for you. Yummm. No contribution to global warming by those CO2 molecules.

Meanwhile, back in the atmosphere, those CH4 molecules that decay to CO2 are replaced by an equal number of brand new CH4 molecules. How do we know it's equal? That's the assumption behind this thought experiment - the total biogenic methane stays constant. So each day, new CH4 molecules are created courtesy of the cattle industry (among others). And at the end of each 24 hours we still have CH4 at 600 ppb. And each day those nasty CH4 molecules are doing their very best to trap heat and make the earth a little bit warmer.

So after 10 years you add up the daily contributions and - once again assuming that the biogenic methane in the atmosphere stays at 600 ppb - the earth will be 0.0224° F warmer.

Your calculation of 0.0224° F ( 0.012° C) per decade is NOT based on constant emissions of biogenic methane. — Agree to Disagree

It's based on the amount of biogenic CH4 in the atmosphere staying the same, so any CH4 which converts to CO2 is replaced by an equal amount of newly created CH4. That is the plain language meaning of the phrase "biogenic methane stays constant".

Now you are saying this is incorrect, but you have not offered an explanation. If this is wrong, then you need to provide the correct answer. If biogenic methane in the atmosphere stays the same (at 600 ppb) how much warmer will global temps be due to this?

I am working on a "flow diagram" which will show the difference between biogenic methane, fossil methane, biogenic CO2, and fossil CO2. I will post it on this discussion when it is finished. It will probably take me a day or two. — Agree to Disagree

Oh Lord, give me strength. Look, knock yourself out if it makes you happy, but it's irrelevant to this discussion. So one more time. If you cannot provide a coherent answer to this question then it will clear that you simply do not know what you're talking about.

If biogenic CH4 in the atmosphere stays the same, how much warmer will global temps be in 10 years due to this biogenic CH4?

I'm with Tom Storm here - I hope you're right.

I wish I could be that optimistic - and I hope you're right. As it is, the last two presidential elections were decided by about 100K voters in swing states - and this is likely to be the case in 2024..

If the total amount of methane in the atmosphere is constant then how can it be causing additional global warming? — Agree to Disagree

Sigh. I'll try one more time.

The assumption is that the amount of biogenic methane remains constant.

If biogenic methane stays constant over the next decade, then that by itself is going to increase global temp by 0.0224° F ( 0.012° C) per decade - because that's what it is doing today and it's going to continue to do that (the laws of physics are not changing).

I.e., If the current global temp is X and biogenic CH4 remains constant in the atmosphere, then in 10 years (ignoring everything else) the global temp is going to be X + 0.0224° F

Again this is based on the amount of biogenic CH4 being constant. Now if the emission rate were to go down then the contribution to global warming would go down (less than 0.0224° F per decade). And if CH4 emissions were to go up even more (as seems likely) then the contribution to global warming would be even higher than 0.0224° F per decade.

I can't think of a way to make this any simpler or more obvious.

[Edit]
In case it was not clear, the biogenic CO2 is NOT contributing to global warming in this simplified scenario because it is re-cycled by plants.
[Another edit]
Perhaps the confusion here is with the word "additional". Would you agree with this sentence:

If the total amount of biogenic methane in the atmosphere is constant then it will not cause any additional warming above & beyond what it is currently causing - 0.0224° F ( 0.012° C) per decade.

In pre-industrial times methane was at roughly 722 parts per billion (ppb). Methane is currently at 1900 ppb. This increase is due to human activity. This additional methane from human activity contributes 14% of global warming.

The rate of warming since 1981 is 0.32° F (0.18° C) per decade.

0.14 * 0.32° F = 0.0448° F ( 0.025° C)

So methane is currently causing roughly 0.0448 °F ( 0.025° C) increase in global temp per decade.

The energy sector (i.e. fossil methane) is responsible for around 40% of total methane emissions attributable to human activity, second only to agriculture. Biomass burning contributes a small amount. So to make the math easy let's say that biogenic methane is contributing 1/2 of that increase: 0.0224° F ( 0.012° C) per decade.

a constant emission of biogenic methane does not cause any ADDITIONAL global warming because when it breaks down the CO2 is absorbed by plants. — Agree to Disagree

Again to make the math simple, assuming that a constant emission of both biogenic and fossil methane is emitted over the next 12 years, what will the approximate methane concentration be in 2035?

A) less than 1900
B) 1900
C) greater than 1900

[EDIT]
Of course the answer is 1900 ppb. If you are emitting a constant amount of methane then that will replace the methane that is breaking down into CO2.

So a constant emission of biogenic methane between 2023 and 2035 will continue to contribute an ADDITIONAL 0.0224° F ( 0.012° C) (actually a bit more since this is a 12 years not 10). And if we have a constant emission of biogenic methane between 2035 and 2047 then the biogenic methane will contribute YET ANOTHER ADDITIONAL 0.0224° F ( 0.012° C). And so on.

Have I finally made myself clear?