Aether and Modern Physics
Scientists are still searching for an explanation of nonlocality. Why are the spin states of electrons for instance always correlated in "spooky action at a distance" within certain experimental setups, and why does this process appear to transcend the speed of light that relativity theory asserts all conventional mass must fail to reach? But if we extract ourselves from the relativistic frame of reference and look for hidden variables of nonlocality, a whole new framework seems possible. This is where the ancient notion of aether comes into the picture.
What if a basic substrate of substance exists that is thus far invisible to our instruments, which conventional matter as we know it imprints paths and shapes into like a memory foam, and this substance reciprocally influences the motions and magnetic properties of conventional matter such that particles fit like a ball on a mattress or while rolling down a grooved surface? In the case of entanglement for example, this might stabilize the orientation of an electron to its trajectory such that a correlation, of "opposite spin" for example, is always sustained to at least some probabilistic degree while the particle travels towards its destination, as a function of the medium rather than information encoded in the particle itself.
On a more macroscopic scale, the aether might reciprocally affect mass in a way modelable as spacetime "curvatures" that are a physical property of the aether in some form, not merely a computational device.
Could aether be the factor that integrates phenomena of quantum mechanics and general relativity, the observation of which would finally provide us with a realist interpretation akin to the one Einstein sought? Can experimental designs and instrumentation ever become advanced enough to register such a medium, and what does current physics suggest about the chances of this substrate existing?
What if a basic substrate of substance exists that is thus far invisible to our instruments, which conventional matter as we know it imprints paths and shapes into like a memory foam, and this substance reciprocally influences the motions and magnetic properties of conventional matter such that particles fit like a ball on a mattress or while rolling down a grooved surface? In the case of entanglement for example, this might stabilize the orientation of an electron to its trajectory such that a correlation, of "opposite spin" for example, is always sustained to at least some probabilistic degree while the particle travels towards its destination, as a function of the medium rather than information encoded in the particle itself.
On a more macroscopic scale, the aether might reciprocally affect mass in a way modelable as spacetime "curvatures" that are a physical property of the aether in some form, not merely a computational device.
Could aether be the factor that integrates phenomena of quantum mechanics and general relativity, the observation of which would finally provide us with a realist interpretation akin to the one Einstein sought? Can experimental designs and instrumentation ever become advanced enough to register such a medium, and what does current physics suggest about the chances of this substrate existing?
Comments (62)
This is all pseudo-scientific speculation. It's not even really speculation, because the things you suggest don't really mean anything. You just use scientific buzz-words; e.g. entanglement, aether, nonlocality, spacetime, relativistic frame; sort of jumbled together and stacked on top of each other to sound profound, but it's not, it's nonsense. If the forum were true to it's standards, this type of post would not be allowed.
Apparently you've never read a book or taken a course on quantum mechanics or relativity theory. Probably haven't even talked about the subject much either. Are you just trying to get a rise out of me by insulting my post based on nothing? You shouldn't troll with contentless posts indicating you don't know anything about the subject being discussed, but at least someone troubled to get the ball rolling, though not in the most productive way. And what in the world is your definition of pseudoscience? You brandish the term a lot but don't really specify its meaning. Is philosophy of science all pseudoscience in your estimation? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you've got something of substance to say after all.
It looks as if all you have is yet another hidden variable theory, waving the word "aether" around.
Show how your proposal is compatible with Bell's inequality.
@T Clark and @Banno are wrong lol anyways, someone who cares about physics want to comment?
You deleted the post, but that's funny. I'll admit I'm not a Ph.d, though I've been learning from some of the best books on the subject and I presume they were written for a reason besides deluding me lol
Quoting Banno
Essentially, the statistical results of Bell's experiment rule out local hidden variables, a property of the particles themselves determining probabilistic outcome, verifying nonlocality in quantum mechanics. The delayed choice experiment which developed out of Einstein's EPR paradox paper seems to contradict nonlocal hidden variables of a kind consistent with relativity unless viewing the detectors as separate reference frames, and this doesn't explain anything beyond correcting some calculative imprecision between clocks etc., basically not a realist account. The aether proposal explains why quantum entanglement can appear to transcend the speed of light while general relativity and nonlocal quantum mechanics still hold, and does not entail the controversial issues of observer and measurement dependence that I think are a metaphysical illusion of logic and woo chasing its tail. So any prospect of proving it empirically?
From what I've read, De Broglie wave theory is an intriguing model of what goes on inside the atom, but doesn't account for spooky action at a distance entanglement. Bohr's Copenhagen interpretation claims that all we can know of a quantum system is what can be measured, in his day restricted to the initial conditions and final probabilities of an experiment along with some rudimentary geometrical representations derived from the interaction of atoms with radiation. This paradigm is consistent within its constraints, but nonlocality on the macroscopic scale is still a mystery. I'll have to give those resources a look and maybe get some further ideas. Or someone could inform me in a post and save me the trouble.
There's a subject called 'the De Broglie-Bohm theory':
[quote=Wiki;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie%E2%80%93Bohm_theory]The de Broglie–Bohm theory, also known as the pilot wave theory, Bohmian mechanics, Bohm's interpretation, and the causal interpretation, is an interpretation of quantum mechanics. In addition to the wavefunction, it also postulates an actual configuration of particles exists even when unobserved. The evolution over time of the configuration of all particles is defined by a guiding equation. The evolution of the wave function over time is given by the Schrödinger equation. The theory is named after Louis de Broglie (1892–1987) and David Bohm (1917–1992).
The theory is deterministic[1] and explicitly nonlocal: the velocity of any one particle depends on the value of the guiding equation, which depends on the configuration of all the particles under consideration.
Measurements are a particular case of quantum processes described by the theory and yields the standard quantum predictions generally associated with the Copenhagen interpretation. The theory does not have a "measurement problem", due to the fact that the particles have a definite configuration at all times. The Born rule in Broglie–Bohm theory is not a basic law. Rather, in this theory, the link between the probability density and the wave function has the status of a hypothesis, called the "quantum equilibrium hypothesis", which is additional to the basic principles governing the wave function.
The theory was historically developed in the 1920s by de Broglie, who, in 1927, was persuaded to abandon it in favour of the then-mainstream Copenhagen interpretation. David Bohm, dissatisfied with the prevailing orthodoxy, rediscovered de Broglie's pilot-wave theory in 1952. Bohm's suggestions were not then widely received, partly due to reasons unrelated to their content, such as Bohm's youthful communist affiliations.[2] The de Broglie–Bohm theory was widely deemed unacceptable by mainstream theorists, mostly because of its explicit non-locality. Bell's theorem (1964) was inspired by Bell's discovery of Bohm's work; he wondered whether the theory's obvious nonlocality could be eliminated. Since the 1990s, there has been renewed interest in formulating extensions to de Broglie–Bohm theory, attempting to reconcile it with special relativity and quantum field theory, besides other features such as spin or curved spatial geometries.[3][/quote]
But you will notice that even that article contains equations in mathematical physics which I don't understand, which is a barrier to further discussion, so I'll bid adieu.
I'm curious if Bohmian mechanics can explain the full range of observed correlations between entangled particles on some scale at least. Supposedly it can't yet be synthesized with relativity as your post highlights, but it is interesting. Pilot waves might propagate as an aether substance that also has emergent mass/medium correlation properties in line with the spacetime curvature model, ripples in something like a body of water that also bends and perturbs as a weird vortex effect when in close proximity to relatively hefty objects that rotate, revolve, flux.
I have a civil engineer's understanding of physics - mostly classical and Newtonian, although my physics classes did cover relativity and quantum mechanics. I have also read fairly extensively, including books significantly beyond popular science. I certainly am not an expert on relativity or quantum mechanics, there are quite a few here on the forum who know more, but I know enough to see that what you have written doesn't have anything to do with either.
Quoting Enrique
As I've written in some of your past discussions, I have no desire to insult you. You seem like a nice person. On the other hand, I feel as if someone should speak up when you post your baseless theories. I've had my say and I don't plan to say any more in this thread.
Quoting Enrique
Here are some definitions from the web:
[i]
- A theory, methodology, or practice that is considered to be without scientific foundation.
- False or pretended science; a pretended science.
- Any body of knowledge purported to be scientific or supported by science but which fails to comply with the scientific method.
- An activity resembling science but based on fallacious assumptions
[/i]Good post, but if you think what I wrote has nothing to do with quantum mechanics or relativity, we obviously didn't read the same books and some prominent physicists might disagree with you!
Unless you can say what your aether is, that's at the cost of being little better than hand-waiving. You're just saying 'something that is invisible influences conventional mater, and I'll call that something "aether"'.So all you have is that "Something explains why quantum entanglement can appear to transcend the speed of light, and I call that something aether" That's not an explanation.
Not really. Fundamentally speaking, the experiments you're describing are those for which QM predicts outcomes that violate Bell inequalities. They rule out precisely the types of theories that suggest Bell inequalities should hold; that is, classical realist local theories. But that does not suffice to verify nonlocality.
Quoting Enrique
Tossing this in:
Quoting Enrique
I'm not sure I understand how it does this. Bob has a clock. Alice has a clock. Alice takes a very long trip; once she is a light year away, she sets up a station. Bob generates two electrons whose spin are entangled; they spin in opposite directions. He sends one to Alice. By Bob's clock, he measures the spin of his electron at t=0. By Alice's clock, she measures the spin of her electron at t=0. Tell me the rest of the story.
The modern trend in metaphysics is to simple deny the reality of the ether. But since the ether is logically required, this trend is just bad (illogical) metaphysics, which many people like to pretend is science.
The key is the memory foam idea, that aether substance stabilizes the objects in their trajectories by some sort of imprint effect, but I think Bohmian mechanics is a much better model at the quantum scale. Whether aether imprinting can be salvaged I'm not sure. Like I was saying, my idea might explain certain properties of gravitating celestial objects, induced by large-scale motion through an aether, and also entanglement via pilot waves that occurs on a smaller scale within the quantum reference frame, but that's total speculation.
Quoting InPitzotl
True, Bell's experiments rule out classical locality, so nonlocality still appears to obtain. My aether idea and Bohmian mechanics in a much more developed way suggest nonclassical locality to explain observations of nonlocality. Apparent nonlocality is basically a given that has to be accounted for with a nonclassical model, but I think some kind of unintuitive locality must be found to obtain beneath it all.
Quoting InPitzotl
I'm not familiar with how the electronics work, but supposedly clocks run slightly faster at higher altitude so that the difference between reference frames is corrected for purposes such as satellite positioning.
The delayed choice experiment simply puts one detector of an entangled particle farther away from the source than a detector of the other particle, a discrepancy so slight that information cannot travel between the two particles at light speed once the first has been detected. It has been proven that entanglement still holds, so whatever goes on is beyond what relativity can model. I'm claiming relativity theory is its own reference frame, making the assumption that matter cannot interact faster than light speed, and the aether hypothesis is one way of subverting those assumptions. But some variation of Bohmian mechanics is probably the best way to account for entanglement regardless of whether or not these waves are considered "aether".
Can the concept of aether substance as a universal medium synthesize gravity with wave mechanics, these being different forms of interaction within the same substrate, one applicable to chemistry and one to celestial objects?
Maybe quantum entanglement is proof of nonphysicalism (no physical signal can travel that fast, instantaneously). Einstein is safe and secure and nonphysicalism gets the break (it deserves?).
It would be more accurate to simply say that they demonstrate Bell's Theorem to be true, and to interpret that to mean that there are no classical HVT's.
Quoting Enrique
I cannot comment on that; I asked about this in the prior post, but didn't get a response. What is your aether idea exactly? How does it explain entanglement? I started a story about Alice and Bob and entangled electrons for you... can you use your aether to finish it?
Quoting Enrique
I can't comment on your aether theory; you didn't explain how it worked. Bohmian mechanics as I understand is not local.
Quoting Enrique
Why do you surmise that entanglement holding implies something is going on beyond what relativity can model?
Quoting Enrique
How does the aether resolve this? What does your aether do to resolve it?
The idea is that particles of conventional matter are embedded in aether, and apparently nonlocal interactions are mediated by emergent, integrated patterns in the aether that materialize as particles move. Aether reciprocally constrains the behavior of particles such that certain states are more or less probable given the beginning state, such as opposite spin in initially entangled electrons that are then more or less likely to interact with the detector in certain ways depending on detector orientation. These emergent patterns in the aether can be very complex, accommodating any quantity of particles by some unknown mechanism that might have at least remote complementarity with the pilot wave model.
The Alice and Bob situation would probably be impossible because the electrons are so distant that aether is unable to sustain their entanglement, unless space travel with the box doesn't at all disrupt a fixed or expanding aether pattern, with the electron's spin orientation maintained in a sort of suspended animation. It depends on exactly how the aether works, and observation along with experiments will have to be possible before anything can be verified. Perhaps studying the fine structure of an entangled system could yield some kind of mathematical model that starts to prove aether's existence and mechanisms of action by indirect observation. Whether this will amount to a pilot wave sort of dynamic or something else is unknown. I surmise that all of this resides beyond traditional relativity theory.
By the way, I think pilot waves are deterministic and thus local in concept, but they mediate particle relationships remotely such that the particles relate to each other as if nonlocal forces obtain between them, from the particle perspective.
The gaps have to be something, whether or not you say woo! Gaps are the most interesting part lol
Well of course, a wave function is a mathematical description. And what the mathematics describes, is waves. That's what I said "'wave function' describes waves". I didn't think anyone reading this would be so uninformed as to require the qualification "using mathematics". That the description is made with mathematics is self-evident. I'm not being facetious, you are just being unbelievably ignorant.
Are you familiar with the Fourier transform which is central to the mathematics of a wave function? It describes wave frequencies.
[quote=Wikipedia: Fourier Transform] History
Main articles: Fourier analysis § History, and Fourier series § History
In 1822, Joseph Fourier showed that some functions could be written as an infinite sum of harmonics.[10]
Introduction
See also: Fourier analysis
One motivation for the Fourier transform comes from the study of Fourier series. In the study of Fourier series, complicated but periodic functions are written as the sum of simple waves mathematically represented by sines and cosines. The Fourier transform is an extension of the Fourier series that results when the period of the represented function is lengthened and allowed to approach infinity.[/quote]
The infamous "uncertainty principle" is a feature of the principle referred to here as "allowed to approach infinity". We really know that neither the actual time value nor the actual frequency of a real wave could be "infinite", so this assumption introduces a degree of uncertainty (falsity) into the mathematical description.
Your explanation in my mind is defaulting on the promises. The huge distance versus the time scale involved is simply an example of non-locality. You promised to explain non-local effects predicted by QM, and even explicitly paid heed to delayed choice as an example of non-local effects happening. If your aether blows itself apart for experiments with second scales over distances of a light year, how can it explain experiments on the nanosecond scale with distances of 10 feet?
A light year is a LOT longer distance to maintain underlying entanglement structure. You think a pilot wave can conjoin only a couple electrons at the scale of light years? Kind of farfetched. And anyways, I chatted up the aether and that's just how aether rolls! (Perhaps someone will figure it out someday)
What sort of waves are described is the problem, isn't it? Until the aether is identified that question cannot be answered. Right? We know that waves are described, because that's what the Fourier transform (which is central to a wave function) does, describes waves. Therefore the name "wave" function. We just don't know the medium of those waves. But we know that the waves are real because the transmit energy.
Why?
Quoting Enrique
I'm not committed to a QM interpretation, but there's no rule I know of that says that entangled particles can't be separated by a light year. There's no upper limit for classical entanglement; why would there be one for quantum entanglement?
Quoting Enrique
I think the distance just "sounds large" to you... that's part of the point. This drags the distances from something too small to imagine (in terms of the duration used for "light x") to something on human scales specifically so you can imagine it. I could give you an example story of, say, how a local interpretation of QM works with this Bob and Alice story.
Quoting Enrique
That's fine, but I don't think you can have a theory explaining non-locality until you have your theory explain non-locality. It sounds to me like it's just a name so far, and some fuzzy ideas of what it might be like.
Wave functions produce probabilities, they do not describe probabilities. The mathematics employed is a description of waves, and what is produced through the application of the math is probabilities.
Consider that one can record statistics endlessly, and the statistics are useless for prediction unless they are employed. If a person desires to make a prediction, one must employ some principles which describe an activity enabling a prediction. We cannot jump from statistics to prediction without such a principle. Imagine you that you assign a successive number each time the sun comes up, 1,2,3... until you get to 6348. You want to predict the next one, 6349. But that number is useless and doesn't qualify as a prediction without a description, "the sun will come up". In the case of a wave function, the principles employed describe a wave activity, and the application of these principles produces probabilities, enabling prediction.
Michelson and Morley showed either the earth doesn't move or the ether was not at a degree they thought it was. In GR the earth accelerates in all directions while space itself contracts. The ether question is about whether anything is absolute in the physical world instead of relative.
Bell Inequalities are constraints on probabilities that you would expect given classical probability theory.
I gave an example in another thread of a card game, where I'm the dealer. There are black and red suited cards, but it's possible I'm dealing funny, so you can't go in and assume the probability of a B draw is 50%. Per the game I deal you three cards face down. You pick two and turn them over. You win if those two cards match colors; you lose otherwise. Given the constraints, the only possible combinations of cards is BBB, BBR, BRB, BRR, RBB, RBR, RRB, and RRR. In two of these combinations you'll win 100% of the time. In the other 6, assuming you pick randomly, you win 1/3 of the time. Given this, and the fact that you don't know the probabilities of these combinations, you still know that your probability of winning is greater-than-or-equal-to 1/3. That is a Bell Inequality.
In the book I'm currently reading, The Single Simple Question . . ., the author Peter Carter says, "Although scientists no longer use the term, it turns out that there's something like the ether after all. Only the name has been changed to fields". But the concept of "Fields" is just as spooky as the empty-space notion of invisible intangible essential "Aether". He quotes physicist Sean Carrol, "the fields themselves aren't made of anything --- they are what the world is made of".
That's what you might call "an insubstantial substance". But, in my Information-centric thesis, I call it "Potential", which is not a thing, but merely the power to Actualize things. Of course, that's not a scientific definition, merely a philosophical concept. It's analogous to the usual definition of "Energy" --- not as a physical substance, but as an Aristotelian "primary substance" --- the ability or capacity to do work. Which is merely the power to cause Change. We can't define it by what it is, but by what it does.
So, scientists have not been able to do away with the necessity for some kind of potent nothingness. Ironically, that's hardly an empirical "realist" concept, but more like a hypothetical "idealist" notion. We know the Aether must exist in some sense, but we just can't put our finger on it. So, we define it with as-if metaphors. :nerd:
In physics, aether theories (also known as ether theories) propose the existence of a medium, a space-filling substance or field as a transmission medium __Wiki
In Greek mythology, Aether was the personification of the upper sky, ... thought to be the substance that allowed light waves to travel through empty space.
Empty Space = Free Space = Aether :
Some claim that empty space has no physical properties, but if you eliminate the notions of permittivity and permeability from Maxwell or Einstein's equations, ratios on which the existence and behavior of all fields entirely depends, the theories will completely fall apart. Some believe in the reality of nothingness, that empty space as such is real, and accept that notion as an integral part of their physics, but can't even ascribe any physical properties to it.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/empty-space-free-aether-laurent-r-duchesne
Primary Substance :
"Aristotle’s metaphysics of potentiality/ actuality, substance/accidents, matter/ form, essence/ existence, and four causes/ causal powers is increasingly recognized as the framework underlying the physical and biological sciences, . . ."
https://askaphilosopher.org/2019/08/13/aristotles-substance-and-accident/
When physicists say that there is no preferred reference frame they are saying that nothing objectively moves in relation to something else. Things move relatively, which makes no sense. Physicist such a philosophy but much of what they do is just that
The problem here is that what you state as "generally accepted", is not a valid conclusion from Michelson-Morley experiments. These experiments demonstrated that the relationship between the aether and a massive object was not as proposed. The conclusion that there is no aether is simply invalid logic.
Quoting tim wood
Ok, now do you see that by your analogy, the Fourier transform is numbers applied to waves. The waves are real, just like the pears you say are real. The numbers you claim are not.
Quoting tim wood
I already answered this for you. Until we know the nature of the medium, within which the waves exist (commonly known as the aether), we will not know the nature of their reality.
I saw an interview where a geocentrist asked a physicist how the earth orbits the sun and the physicist said all motion is relative. So nothing objectively moves. It all depends on perspective. It's as if physicists don't believe in anything except the relativism of relativity
You might like this
Einstein showed that there is no fixed background, and QFT is also background free, a rare agreement between the tiny and the large theories.
The elementary particles are breakable and makable, and so they are secondary, not fundamental, and are called physical matter. They cannot be a substance that is new and different from what is primary, for then they would be primary, as fundamental. Besides all the elementaries of a type are identical in quantum energy level, size, spin, charge, and all; thus they are formed of the same primary cloth. Nothing spooky here: the elementary physical matter are the quanta directly; thus what is primary is physical. Furthermore, what is primary is always physically moving and has no halt—or naught would have happened. The constant happenings/causations/movements are basic 'time'.
As for fields not being made of any thing (Sean Carrol), they are not makable or breakable, being the continuous simplest. They can serve for what we used to call 'space', our 'space' being emergent, but time isn't.
What is actually needed, is a definitive separation between the two principal senses of "potential", being logically possible, and ontologically possible.
In relation to future events, there is ontological possibility, in the sense that I might stand up and walk to the right, or I might go straight ahead, to the left, or remain seated. As Aristotle pointed out, even though one of these will come true as time passes, it is incorrect to say that there is a truth or falsity to any of them, at the present time. That we say there is no truth or falsity with respect to such future events necessitates that we allow exception to the law of excluded middle to account for this as reality. If we would say that such statements were both true and false, this would necessitate that we allow exceptions to the law of non-contradiction.
In the other principal sense of "potential", logically possible, we can look at past events which we are unsure of and establish logical possibilities for what actually occurred. In this case there is a truth or falsity to what occurred, but we are unable to determine with certainty what is the case, so the possibilities are not ontological they are logical.
Now, the situation gets confusing when we realize that we can apply logical possibility toward future events in the act of predicting. When we do this there is no need to separate logical from ontological possibilities to produce an accurate prediction. All that is required is a universal law, like Newton's first law of motion, which extends the actuality of the past, into the future, through that designation of necessity provided by the law. So, for convenience, all future possibilities are treated as logical possibilities as provided for by the law.
Science is derived from observation which provides us with the true or false representation of what has occurred (the past). Through universal laws derived from induction, and the principles of causal determinism, we create models which extend the past through the present, into the future, with complete disregard for ontological possibilities which do not fit into these models. The models are deficient because they do not recognize the true nature of the present, as a divisor between what is ontologically possible, and what is ontologically actual, conflating those two senses of "potential".
Speaking for myself, haven't we gone past the stage where we thought space is nothing? Aether, space; space, aether?
Shooting in the dark, my favorite sport! That's what happens when you don't take education seriously. :grin:
Thanks. I saved it for future reading. :smile:
I was using the colloquial term "spooky" in the same sense as Einstein's "spooky action at a distance". He wasn't denying that something physical was going on, just noting that it was counter-intuitive. Likewise, a mathematical "Field" has the same physicality as an imaginary "Ghost". It's a concept in a mind, that is used to explain some mysterious features of Reality. Scientists have concluded that something invisible & intangible is affecting the propagation of light through "empty" space.
By giving a Latin or Greek name, they make it seem more scientific and less mysterious. And the Effect is definitely physical and measurable. But the presumed Cause remains a mental concept with no physical properties. Aristotle proposed four kinds of causes. And a mathematical Field of relationships may be imagined as a "Material" Cause, minus the matter. And physicists use that notion as-if it is an "Efficient" Cause, even though the Zero-Point Vacuum Energy is merely Virtual : i.e. Potential.
So, an invisible Field is a plausible cause of physical behavior, for those who view the world through the lens of a physical Paradigm. But a Ghost is also a plausible Cause of physical books falling off shelves, for those whose Paradigm includes the possibility of non-physical causation. Personally, I'm more likely to accept the physical explanation. But I have to admit that a Cause with no sensory evidence is "spooky". :cool:
Stuff? They are the only stuff that there is.
Quoting Goldyluck
Fields interact with other fields; it makes for a very complicated math to be worked on.
Whoever wants to know exactly where a particle is can go fish, and not know exactly where the fish are. No big deal.
The LEM dictates that P must be either true or false. You have said, P is neither true nor false, hence an exception to the law.
Quoting tim wood
In the case of yesterday there is a truth or falsity to "I turned left". Either it actually occurred or it did not. In the case of tomorrow there is neither truth nor falsity to "I will turn left" because I could do either. Look up Aristotle's famous example, "there will be a sea battle tomorrow". It must be the case that we believe it to be neither true nor false, or else we would not deliberate in decision making.
Quoting tim wood
If you understood the difference, you would see that it is not irrelevant. Newton's law of inertia for instance states that a force is required to change the motion of a thing. But imagine the difference, if it was required to apply a force at every moment of passing time, to maintain any constant motion. These are two very distinct ways of looking at inertia with completely different implications. But which one is correct? Since motion appears to us to be constant, we take constant motion for granted. Then we say a force is required to alter it. But what validates the notion that there is not a force (such as gravity) being applied to every massive object at every moment of passing time, which maintains its constant motion? If this is the case, then we need to understand what sustains this force, to be able to understand motion.
Yes! But, unlike material stuff, mathematical "stuff" is a conventional idea, that only mathematicians can fully appreciate. The rest of us just have to take their word for it, that such invisible stuff is out there in the abstraction we call "Aether". But, that's OK. In my personal worldview, mind-stuff is "the only stuff there is". What I'm referring to is "Information". Which, like Energy, is known as a Causal Force only by its Effects on tangible matter. Otherwise, like Aether, it's un-touchable and un-seeable. But, we can imagine it in terms of material metaphors such as the "fabric of space", or as-if it's a "grid of lines" drawn on the surface of a topological warped plane in space..
So, in my view, it's all-information-all-the-time-everywhere. But, like Energy, raw Information can be converted into "material "stuff" that our physical senses can detect. Those us educated in the conventional concepts of modern physics, take those invisible "things" for granted. But a person from the jungles of New Guinea, might think you are talking about ghosts : the invisible & intangible spirits of departed ancestors, who now live in a parallel world. Talk about "primitive" notions! :joke:
PS__Both the primitives and the moderns accept the wisdom of their experts (shaman or scientist) about such unseen "stuff".
Information :
Claude Shannon quantified Information not as useful ideas, but as a mathematical ratio between meaningful order (1) and meaningless disorder (0); between knowledge (1) and ignorance (0). So, that meaningful mind-stuff exists in the limbo-land of statistics, producing effects on reality while having no sensory physical properties. We know it exists ideally, only by detecting its effects in the real world.
[i]Aether is the spacious swarthiness of the skies
Of illusive hopes of finding the illumined providence
Riding on mythologies through the routeless night streams
Marooned man clutching godly stones of earthly dreams[/i] . . . .
https://www.poemhunter.com/poem/aether/
Yes that's what I was saying, we have an exception to the rule, the rule does not apply. Sorry if I didn't express myself clearly.
Quoting tim wood
As argued by scholars who have followed Aristotle, it is somewhat unclear what is meant by 'one must be true and the other false' in this context.
In this case it would have been clearer if he had said 'either one or the other must be true". It is important to understand the difference between these two ways of expressing this, because in the latter, truth or falsity is assigned to the relation between the propositions, which is expressed as "one or the other". So truth is a property of that proposition, "one or the other", and not the property of any one of the two propositions. We can say "one will happen", because this does not specify which one will happen, while implying that the other is excluded by the happening of the one. But we cannot unambiguously say "one must be true", because at that time neither is true. If you read the entire section this ought become clearer to you. And the ambiguity is evident in the years of debate which followed.
The best description in On Interpretation is found at 19a 7-23:
Of course Aristotle's best treatise on potentiality (that which may either be or not be) is found in his Metaphysics, a a large section of that text is devoted to this, and a thorough reading is required to understand what he is saying. Here he expounds on the principle established in his Physics, that the concept of "matter" serves to represent the real existence of potentiality in the field of physics.
Quoting tim wood
That's exactly the point, the nature of the presuppositions affects the efficacy of the model. These models are all effective in some situations and less so in others. That the model becomes ineffective when pushing its boundaries, or parameters, is evidence that it is deficient. Notice that the ineffectiveness is within the boundaries, when the model approaches its boundaries, not outside its boundaries (in which case it wouldn't even be applied), therefore the deficiency is within the model itself, attributable to faulty presuppositions.
My point remains, and is not at all obscure. The presuppositions employed by the models of modern physics fail to account for the difference between past and future, the future holding real possibility. These models are inertia based models based in the assumption (presupposition) that what has been in the past, will necessarily continue to be in the future, unless 'forced' to change.
This presupposition is directly contrary to what Aristotle demonstrated as the nature of "matter", holding the capacity to either be or not be, allowing for the reality of free will. What is clearly described by Aristotle is that there is no such necessity with regard to future events, as distinct from past events. So the necessity attributed to inertia is a false necessity, not a true property of "matter" as defined. It is posited for the sake of producing effective models, making it a pragmatic presupposition which is necessarily untrue because it contradicts the definition. Matter has no properties, properties are formal. So the models break down and fail near their limits, due to the reality that the necessity assumed (as inertia) is a false (contradictory) necessity.