relativity — Benj96

Perhaps we need to make an appropriate distinction here, a distinction that would sort things out for us. Time simply can't be relative??? :chin:

. Time simply can't be relative??? :chin: — Agent Smith

Are you suggesting Einstein was wrong?
Time for us can be considered constant for the purpose of daily life, observations and newtoninan physics, because we all move at the same relative rate in space, we are all on earth travelling 200km a second around our galaxies center along with the rest of the solar system.

But acceleration has a limit (C). If an object were to continue accelerating their clock would appear to slow down relative to that of a person on earth's (time dilation) - as in from the perspective of someone on earth.

Meanwhile for the person accelerating towards the speed of light from their perspective their clock will run normally, a second will still seem like the same length - second while if they were to be able to somehow observe earth they would observe time contraction (everyone and all processes would speed up).

This only makes sense if we consider that somehow they can observe eachother at the same time which they cannot because of the vastly increasing distance (speed) between them. Information realistically would not be able to catch up and would take longer and longer to reach one another in order to observe.

However if the person were to return to earth after having travelled close to the speed of light their clock would be late, if they compared with a clock that was running simultaneously but stayed in earth.

This has been proven already using two atomic clocks (very very precise) one of which was put into orbit (hurtling along around the earth in just 90 minutes, while the other stayed on earth.

Another case is someone observing another falling into a black hole. To the person on the ship the person falling woukd appear to slow down to a standstill for thousands of years and never seem to reach the event horizon.
To the person falling into the blackhole on the other hand everything would have happened very quickly indeed as they accelerate down the gravity slope (falling).

Its worth noting though that objects cannot actually get close to the speed of light as their mass would have to be converted completely into light to get there. The theory is merely to demonstrate that time is definitely relative to motion.

There are some good videos explaining Einsteins famous equation E=mc2 in this respect.

Are you suggesting Einstein was wrong? — Benj96

Maybe although I've made a fool of myself to last a coupla lifetimes.

This has been proven already using two atomic clocks — Benj96

Yep, I'm aware of that. Danke for the gentle reminder.

It just doesn't feel right to me. This of course is the reason why the theory of relativity is like quantum physics - if you understand it, you don't understand it (re Richard Feynman) - for folks like me. Anyway, I don't see a long queue of scientists outside my humble abode just because "it doesn't feel right" to me.

Yep, I'm aware of that. Danke for the gentle reminder.

It just doesn't feel right to me. This of course is the reason why the theory of relativity is like quantum physics - if you understand it, you don't understand it (re Richard Feynman) - for folks like me. Anyway, I don't see a long queue of scientists outside my humble abode just because "it doesn't feel right" to me. — Agent Smith

Haha I get you. Yes it is full of stumbling blocks and diversions and twists and turns. Hard for the mind to wrap itself around, but not impossible.
I myself have been grappling with einsteins theories, relativity, time, energy etc for years now. Ever since I started thinking about it as a teen.

And even now I often forget again. It's only in moments of clarity that I return to a better understanding of it.

Ok!

Sure, that's another way to put it. Buddhists believe that we all have inherent wisdom (prana) which becomes obscured by the kleshas (defilements) brought about by attachment to ideas of substance.

So, the original prana wisdom would be the understanding of annatta or the non-selfness of all things. If there is no abiding identity in self or world, then there is no one to be attached and no-thing to be attached to.

Unlearning our attachment is infinitely easier said than done. — Janus

Very interesting indeed. I agree. Attachment seems almost spontaneous and effortless when we are not thinking, we tend to drift back towards these kleshas unbeknownst to ourselves when distracted and re-enter that conflict between desire and the lack of the objects of desire that we attached to, and thus I suppose - the Samsara cycle.

I guess this is why so many faiths and Buddhism emphasise a great deal of focus on contemplation (meditation, prayer etc).

Well for me "causality" must (as all things must) be put in context.
Causality is temporal is it not? It relies on the passage of time: A becomes B becomes C. That is causality. — Benj96

But if causality needs a context, so does time.

But what about in the case where time doesn't exist? For example in a case where "change" is impossible?

For me the only instance in which change is not possible is offered by physics - the speed of light.

At the speed of light, no energy can interact with/change itself/impart information. Because to do so would demand that somehow that information travel faster than the cosmic speed limit "C". (the speed of light).

If two photons are hurtling along at the speed of light side by side, how does change occur between them when the information on both photons cannot reach eachother without exceeding the speed their currently travelling at?

Photons travelling at that maximum speed therefore cannot influence one another, time for a photon is dilated so much that all moments are instantaneous (past, present and future). In essence time does not pass (no change) at the speed of light nor distance.

It is only us (as objects) experiencing time (rate, because we are not travelling at C) that can observe the distance and time (speed) travelled by light.

That's relativity.

Because we are under the influence of change while light (energy at C) has no rate/is not. What does that mean for causality?

It means that light is not under the influence of causality because it is the source of causality. Change/ability to do Work/energy exerts change on the system around it (matter) but doesn't exert change on itself. Because when it does it is matter (E=mc2). — Benj96

Of course, physics. But when a physicist talks about causality or time, their observations look to the observable world and calculate its behaviors. Even abstract ideas like the ones you present above issue from empirical paradigms originally. But then, as the cosmologist reviews the theory and the data, she does this in a temporal event herself. and this is not going to be discovered through observation, because this concept of time is part of the structure of the perceptual moment itself.

What is required is a critique of the structure of time that is presupposed by an theories of a physicist's time.

But if causality needs a context, so does time. — Constance

Times context is the medium between that which causes (energy - in a timeless state travelling at speed C) and that which is caused (objects that have duration - exist in the realm of time).

Change itself has a Duality in that when it is understood not to experience time - it is cause (energy). And when it endures the experience of time it is "that which is changed - (matter).

These are the two polarities of change - one pole being causer (matterless/timeless), the other being physical - effect (matter with duration in time).

A relativistic spectrum.

Times context is the medium between that which causes (energy - in a timeless state travelling at speed C) and that which is caused (objects that have duration - exist in the realm of time).

Change itself has a Duality in that when it is understood not to experience time - it is cause (energy). And when it endures the experience of time it is "that which is changed - (matter).

These are the two polarities of change - one pole being causer (matterless/timeless), the other being physical - effect (matter with duration in time).

A relativistic spectrum. — Benj96

But benj96, that is an answer a scientist would give. How about a philosophical approach?

But benj96, that is an answer a scientist would give. How about a philosophical approach? — Constance

Haha fair enough.

Kant, Augustin, Hume and Aristotle as far as I know believed time was an intuitive sense (perception only) and that an absolute/discrete/objective time did not exist outside of experience.

While Heidegger, Nietzsche believed time was dual - it has an internal sense and an external counterpart. (a view I propose also).

Plato was more reductionist on the matter considering time as explicitly independent of the observer.

However, I'm sure there are interpretations of what these philosophers believed that beg to differ as it seems there's a lot of conflicting analysis of what they all meant when they described their rational on time.

At this stage it is as much open to interpretation of their words as it is to actual know exactly what they believed.

This to me seems to purport the middle ground - Duality. As it encapsulates all opinions about time as being based on reference point.

Ironically, science too battles to grapple this seemingly inherent dualism, with the same conundrum as philosophy (newtonian standardising time as independent, Einsteinian purporting relative nature to an observer).

The argument is alive and well in both disciplines. As science one wound imagine the the direct attempt to establish definitive proof thought (philosophy).

I had some revelations today about Nothing. First we can consider objects as essence-less and having only order/structure. The core of the object and all objects would be the ground, prime matter. But prime matter is not anything, as even Aquinas says when he says God does not techniquely create prime matter. Next we have the structures that are formed by nothing from above, just as its ground was nothing. A cup without nothing in the middle is not a cup. Things can only be themselves by the imprint and ground of nothing. Therefore Nirvana can be seen as the whole, lacking being while still existing

The argument is alive and well in both disciplines. As science one wound imagine the the direct attempt to establish definitive proof thought (philosophy). — Benj96

Actually Benj96, the whole matter would rest with how willing you would be to go into this. Time, that is. Science and philosophy are completely different fields of inquiry. Science's "direct attempt to establish definitive proof of thought" is not what you think. After all, "direct" is arguably the most problematic term there is. But it opens up thought on the matter that is thematically unrelated to what science has to say.
The relation one has with the world in philosophy is about the presuppositions of science, not the usual assumptions, and these presuppositions are not in the usual sense, observable.

Science and philosophy are completely different fields of inquiry. — Constance

Are they? There's no overlap between the reasoning and ethics of philosophy in scientific pursuits then? If they are indeed completely different fields of inquiry.

The relation one has with the world in philosophy is about the presuppositions of science, not the usual assumptions, and these presuppositions are not in the usual sense, observable. — Constance

What are the usual assumptions?

I agree in the sense that science has to pre-assume certain constants: energy, time etc. to make observable standardised measurements.

Philosophy on the other had doesn't have to pre-assume anything. But if it chooses to redefine the suppositions of science it must contend with the predictive value of scientific endeavours.

Either that, or reintegrate with science by highlighting what agreements can be made between philosophy and science.

I don't think theyre are mutually exclusive, but rather compatible. The key then would be to establish why science and philosophy are not in opposition but actually referring to the same thing

And this is contradicted by their doctrine that we create our lives fully and should take responsibility for our own births. — Gregory

Excellent point, and you are well justified to question this (apparent) contradiction, which indeed seems huge: on the one hand, the Buddhist doctrine of "non-self" says that that there is no unchanging, permanent self or essence that can be manifested in any phenomenon. One should recognize everything as impermanent. On the other hand, it talks about ethics, karma, rebirth, etc. which can only refer to a person, an individual, separate unit. Yet, we meet the word "person" repeatedly in Buddhist texts. But I have never seen defining what that person is. There’s no even an independent soul or spirit in Buddhism. The only thing I remember having read is that it is the consciousness that is reborn. Well, who is the carrier of that consciousness?

Now, I used the word "apparent" in parentheses, which means it is seems a contradiction only to the uninitiated. Although I have read tones of books and other texts in Buddhism and listen to a lot of lectures --but in the long past, when I had not yet matured in philosophy-- I never questioned what you are questioning in this topic of yours. I had found a lot of useful things and ideas that were enough for me to keep me happy with my acquaintance of Buddhism! (BTW, I still respect Buddhism a lot today and consider it the best bug religion in the world.) Yet, I have not studied it officially and in depth so that I can explain this apparent contradiction. Which, evidently, does not actually exist, and I am certain that those who have studied Buddhism can certainly explain it. Otherwise, Buddhism would not stand in time. (Christianity stands too, despite all its actual contradictions, but then it is a dogmatic religion.)

This is contradicted by the idea that Nirvana is now, is here. — Gregory

Your second contradiction is also justifiable. But again, I believe that people who have "officially" studied Buddhism could easily deal with that too! :smile:

I agree Christiainty rests on contradiction. It is the opposite of what it claims to be. Such sure judgments I doubt we'll find with respect to Buddhism however

I don't think theyre are mutually exclusive, but rather compatible. The key then would be to establish why science and philosophy are not in opposition but actually referring to the same thing — Benj96

Compatible, but like knitting is compatible with geology; consistent, no contradictions arise, but simply because they are talking about different things. Heidegger does not oppose Einstein. His understanding of time in Being and Time just has nothing to do with him, not referring to the same thing. The one is grounded in quantitative measurements of compared observed phenomena, the other is an analysis of the structural features of the perceptual act.

Difficult to summarize something like this. One idea: From Husserl, Heidegger draws upon the insight that the act of cognition that apprehends something in the world is "pre-given" or predelineated, meaning what you see before you is a temporal whole, a unity that is always already conditioned by past and future, and so, the claim Heidegger makes is that the self and the world have to be viewed as a "unitary phenomenon". To me this phenomenological concept of time is just where thought needs to go, for it shows that when one meditates, or beholds the world in a thoughtless, accepting attitude, the disappearance of the past and the future in the perceptual moment is a reductive movement that liberates one from time itself; after all, time as singularity, asks, singularity of what? If the past and the future are just aspects of a unity, what unity could this be? Why, the original unity, out of which pragmatic abstractions like past, present and future issue. And this original unity is what has been called "nunc stans, or standing now, which is eternity. It is NOT that past, present and future simply disappear, but rather that they fail at the basic level of inquiry to hold up as foundational, as rock bottom certainties (axioms). Someone like Heidegger would say this analysis itself IS the rock bottomest that one can achieve. Buddhists and I, I argue, say the rock bottomest insight opens an intuition or revelation of a presentation of Being that is is that is a radically OTHER, considering that everything is absolutely other. My couch, e.g. But this goes on and on.

Now this gets complicated, and it always has to be said that I paraphrase others, I lift thinking from texts. I f you ask ME what I think, it is far less disciplined and far more interesting, because philosophy needs to be personal, and I am a just a middling, meddling philosopher, but I am good at synthesizing what I read into an interpretative "reading" of the world, which is NOT an academic, or shouldn't be, affair.

It does depend on what you read. If you read analytic philosophy, then this will not register as well as it really should. Analytic types want clarity over content, and so they dismiss whatever cannot be clearly stated (they desire respectability in an age of technological rigor). the trouble here is that the world at the level of basic questions is not clear at all like this. In fact, this imposing but unclear threshold position is hands down, THE most fascinating dimension of philosophical thinking.

Anyway, Kant through Derrida, then into the so called French theological turn; this is where the intriguing insights lie. One thing I try to emphasize: Philosophy actually has a single mission, I am happy to argue, and this is to replace popular, traditional religion. Alas, it will be a long time before this is accomplished; or maybe not. Things have a way of suddenly making themselves.

Compatible, but like knitting is compatible with geology; consistent, no contradictions arise, but simply because they are talking about different things. — Constance

Bet you I could describe knitting and geologys similarities. If you'll welcome an attempt just for fun.

There's always a link. Every discipline carry with it the same basic skills. They may not be addressing the same task for sure in an objective sense but the understandings gained from a knitter can be applied to geology and vice versa. If they know the similarities as well as the differences, or in other words, the mental processes/skills required in both, and those that are not as transferable.