Theory of Relativity and The Law of Noncontradiction
Simultaneity Relativity
[Quote=Wikipedia (Simultaneity Relativity)]In physics, the relativity ofsimultaneity is the concept that distant simultaneity – whether two spatially separated events occur at the same time – is not absolute, but depends on the observer's reference frame.[/quote]
Law of Noncontradiction
[Quote=Wikipedia(Law of Noncontradiction)]It states that contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time, e.g. the two propositions "A is B " and "A is not B " are mutually exclusive.[/quote]
A) According to Theory of Relativity (ToR) there is no such thing as simultaneity because:
1. Everything is in motion relative to something else and thus spatially separated moment to moment.
2. If everything is spatially separated then simultaneity isn't absolute (for everything).
B) The law of noncontradiction requires a proposition and its negation to occur at the same time (simultaneity).
But from A we can see that nothing can occur at the same time (simultaneity).
So, there is no such thing as a contradiction (at least with propositions about the physical world).
Your thoughts...
[Quote=Wikipedia (Simultaneity Relativity)]In physics, the relativity ofsimultaneity is the concept that distant simultaneity – whether two spatially separated events occur at the same time – is not absolute, but depends on the observer's reference frame.[/quote]
Law of Noncontradiction
[Quote=Wikipedia(Law of Noncontradiction)]It states that contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time, e.g. the two propositions "A is B " and "A is not B " are mutually exclusive.[/quote]
A) According to Theory of Relativity (ToR) there is no such thing as simultaneity because:
1. Everything is in motion relative to something else and thus spatially separated moment to moment.
2. If everything is spatially separated then simultaneity isn't absolute (for everything).
B) The law of noncontradiction requires a proposition and its negation to occur at the same time (simultaneity).
But from A we can see that nothing can occur at the same time (simultaneity).
So, there is no such thing as a contradiction (at least with propositions about the physical world).
Your thoughts...
Comments (243)
Well, first off, as you indicate, the law of non-contradiction applies to propositions, not the world outside our heads. Not knowing the difference between those two is one of the primary mental, or at least intellectual, disorders displayed on this forum.
But, if we decide to play the game you have set up, I'd say this - Although AE's theory of special relativity is more comprehensive, IN's laws of motion still apply with almost perfect accuracy at human scale. Therefore, unless one of the propositions is travelling near the speed of light, simultaneity occurs.
This is a stretch but thoughts, propositions included, are, so far as we know, matter-based. Is it too much, then, to say that the ToR applies to propositions that aren't about our physical world?
I mean, in the time when I think x = 2 AND x = 3 (contradictory non-physical propositions), my brain moves through space and this simple fact obviates any possibility of simultaneity. This makes contradictions, which require simultaneity, impossible.
Quoting T Clark
The ToR is applicable at all speeds. It's just unnoticeable at our scale. Time differences at our scale may be (guessing) 0.00000001 seconds. Simultaneity, which requires a time difference of zero, is impossible. So, contradictions of physical propositions are impossible.
Quoting litewave
First, the phrase ''at the same time is important for the law of noncontradiction. Take two propositions: ''it's raining'' and ''it's not raining''. If I say both at exactly 2:00 PM then we have a contradiction but if I say one at 2:00 PM and the other at 4:00 AM then there's no contradiction.
The problem is no point of reference is more correct than the other. There is no absolute time - no universal temporal reference. We could say, very loosely, that time is subjective and so simultaneity for one person is not for another. This means that the contradictions are either impossible or are illusions.
I have to drive to New Haven tomorrow morning. I'll meet you at 9:15 at the McDonalds at the rest stop on I90 west right before the I84 exit. Ok? 2013 Toyota Corolla. Goldish color. Small dent in rear bumper on passenger side. Do you think we can do simultaneity?
Well, IF we're in the same frame of reference, we can achieve simultaneity. However, from another frame of reference you may arrive at 9:15 and I at another time. No frame of refernce being more correct than the other, it follows that what we perceive as simultaneity is, to say the least, only a local phenomena.
If you can be there, I'll PM my cell phone number and we can talk about it. I think we can achieve the required level of simultaneity.
Well, by ''required level of simultaneity'' I assume you mean an approximation. That's fine.
So, will you be there?
It's like asking why you can't score touchdowns in basketball, or put hotels on Boardwalk and Park Place in chess.
Well, ToR applies to Earth and Logic is an earthly thing. I can see the overlap of the two worlds.
In one context, yes. In another, slightly late or early.
I would say logic is an abstraction. There's no evidence that classical Aristotelian logic is part of nature. And much evidence that it's not. Relativity for one thing!!
The best you can say is that logic is an aspect of the human mind. So is illogic.
But logic, as an aspect of the human mind, is an abstraction. Like numbers. Like justice, or law, or religion. These are abstractions of the mind that become part of the real world only through common agreement. Social truths, as in Searle's idea of the Construction of Social Reality.
I can barely think of anything in the real world that follows classical Aristotelian logic. Not anything that matters.
Of course there is such a thing as simultaneity. It's that silly word "absolute" that causes the problem.
Suppose that for Angie, events A and B occur at the same time; But for Beth, A occurs before B. The transformation formulas in special relativity allow both Angie and Beth to agree with these two statements:
From Angie's frame of reference, events A and B occur at the same time.
From Beth's frame of reference, A occurs before B.
That is, both Angie and Beth, and anyone else that cares to do the calculations, will agree that for Angie, events A and B are simultaneous.
~(p ^ ~p)
It's a rule of grammar; if you find that you have broken it, then you have written something down wrong. It's not confined to Aristotelian logic - or you are using some other grammar, perhaps three-valued logic or Dialetheism.
The Knot falls out.
Er, unless those propositions are about the world "outside our heads".
As if language did not apply to the various things that make up our world.
That's a good point. One might take "...at the same time" as a colloquial simplification of "...in the same frame of reference"
Quoting Banno
Well done Banno...
(Y)
Time may be one of the components of the sense of a statement/proposition. But what is time? According to theory of relativity time is relative, at least in our world. So if you are making statements involving simultaneity you must define the frame of reference. Otherwise the sense of your statements is not sufficiently defined and you cannot judge the consistency of insufficiently defined statements.
Quoting TheMadFool
The law of non-contradiction states that contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense. So if you completely define the sense of your statements, including the temporal component if relevant, and they are contradictory in the same sense, then they cannot both be true.
It is easy to make contradictions also in the context of the theory of relativity. For example, statements (1) "Peter is watching TV and simultaneously Paul is sleeping according to reference frame X" and (2) "Peter is watching TV and simultaneously Paul is not sleeping according to reference frame X" are contradictory. However, statements (3) "Peter is watching TV and simultaneously Paul is sleeping" and (4) "Peter is watching TV and simultaneously Paul is not sleeping" are insufficiently defined and so it cannot be judged whether they are contradictory.
Not all propositions are about things or events in spacetime.
When they aren't, when they're timeless propositions, then nonsimultaneaty doesn't apply.
Besides, even in spacetime, nonsimultaneaty is only about separate objects with mutually-relative speed. You could still a coin has heads up and also has tails up, and that would be a contradiction.
Besides, if an object is a cube, vs a sphere, the difference in those shapes remains even when they're changed by relativistic flattening, and you can still speak of something's shape as round vs angular regardless of its motion relative to you. if it's round, and stays round, nonsimultaneity wouldn't prevent you from making contradictory statements that it's round, spherical or elliptical and has corners and flat sides.
Michael Ossipoff
You're playing language games. You haven't untied any knots at all. There never were any.
The axiomitization of physics is still an open problem. This supports my point.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert%27s_sixth_problem
In particular:
However, physics as a whole has not [been axiomitized, and in fact the Standard Model is not even logically consistent with general relativity, indicating the need for a still unknown theory of quantum gravity. The solution of Hilbert's sixth problem thus remains open.
You could not, in other words, use classical sentential logic to describe the current state of modern physics
There are unprovable, yet true statements in any sufficiently interesting axiomatic system. Physics is surely sufficiently interesting to include such.
Nor are axioms so important in logic as they were in Hilbert's time. Natural deduction systems abound.
Nor is sentential logic the whole of logic.
And finally, it is now a philosophical commonplace that one man's axiom is another's deduction.
Why bother axiomatising physics at all?
This claim is unreferenced in the article. What is this purported inconsistency?
You're the one claiming physics is based on sentential logic from 2000 years ago. Today we have paraconsistent logic, denial of the law of the excluded middle, and a resurgence of interest in intuitionistic logic. You should Google around. Your understanding of logic is a couple of thousand years out of date.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraconsistent_logic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intuitionistic_logic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brouwer%E2%80%93Heyting%E2%80%93Kolmogorov_interpretation
Well, no, I'm not. I just pointed out that logic is the basic grammar we use in conversation. Indeed, I was at pains to point out that if one sort of logic does not work, it is open to choose or even develop another:
Quoting Banno
I admit to not reading the entire thread in detail. OP noted that there's a disconnect between classical sentential logic and the mysterious "here but not here" logic of quantum physics. I'm pointing out that Aristotle's logic is not sufficient to explain the world, especially in view of modern developments in logic. I'd think such an assertion would be noncontroversial. Perhaps you're right that I have no idea what you're trying to say. What are you trying to say? OP said that P ^ not-P is a contradiction in classical logic, yet seems to describe certain aspects of modern physics. I pointed out that modern physics doesn't seem to be well described by classical logic. I'm happy to stand by that statement.
I enjoyed Searle's book.
The argument here, however, as no doubt FishFry will agree, is missing an assumption needed to make it valid: that all abstractions become part of the real world only through common agreement.
That might be an interesting side topic.
That's of course not the same as saying that modern physics is illogical, which seems to be the implication of the OP.
The series of posts I made on the first page show that the apparent contradiction in the OP dissipates on examination. @creativesoul put the guts of the argument together for us - thanks!
I think it clear enough.
So take it up with the OP. It's certainly not something I said.
Agreed. There is nothing wrong with the logic of modern physics as far as I can see. Once you accept their assumptions of, for instance, non-locality, you can argue quite logically for a conclusion that supports it.
It would be too simple to limit the discussion of modern physics to a simple formalism. Just like classic physics, it makes use of all aspects of human thinking.
I really do not care what you think. I am not supporting you. I have very little respect for you.
And no, non-locality is not an observation. The fact that you can say that without hesitation proves to me once more how little you understand about science. Even if you think you know a lot.
Out of respect for the thread, I will not try and fight our differences here. In fact I do not see, as little as you do, why we should continue the fight anyway.
If you believe that, as I do, then you cannot believe in non-locality.
What is inconsistent about non-locality?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraconsistent_logic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_excluded_middle#Criticisms
People seem to think "logic" means Aristotle's logic from 2400 years ago. Nothing could be further from the truth. Today logicians are perfectly comfortable embracing and formalizing contradictions.
what is consistent about non-locality?
I wrote that almost one year and a half ago. I haven't thought about this issue since, but I think I can still stand behind what I said.
https://philpapers.org/post/15494
Well, non-locality means there are some instantaneous correlations across space. On the surface this may seem inconsistent with the speed limit according to theory of relativity but in fact there is no motion of a signal between the correlated events, so the speed limit is not violated.
I'm at a loss to understand why you would ask me that question based on anything I wrote in this thread. Care to explain?
The validity of the law of identity is a subject worthy of its own thread. But I said nothing about it here.
I thought you disagreed with my statement that there can be no contradiction in reality. Violation of the law of identity would be a contradiction.
Banno's been responding to me but I don't remember what you are referring to. Can you help me understand why you think I'm denying the law of identity as it pertains to reality, based on anything I wrote here? Apparently my pointing out that classical sentential calculus is a poor tool for modeling modern physics has triggered a lot of people. I thought it was rather self-evident.
I claim that reality can contain no contradiction in the classical logic sense, so I don't accept a logic that allows reality to contain a classical contradiction.
You took the words right out of my mouth. I don't need to sleep on it.
Well there's no way to know. We do know that contemporary theories of physics can not be incorporated into a single noncontradictory framework. Past that, we really have no way to say anything.
Out of curiosity, what's your evidence for your claim? Or even a plausibility argument?
How does your claim differ from a theological argument that God created it all in six days and watched pro football games on the seventh? You have a claim but you haven't supplied evidence.
The question is not addressed to me, still, I will give my own opinion on this matter.
I think your question in itself would be considered biased by the proponents of Quantum Theory because you make it sound as though it is based on a metaphysical decision.
I think QT is a metaphysical theory, but one embedded in science and which makes use of scientific methods.
I would also be the last one to put a stamp of non-scientificity on all its findings because of these metaphysical bases.
QT is a scientific theory and must be treated as such.
To reject its metaphysical assumptions, as Einstein did, is I think not sufficient. His efforts can also be considered historically as failed attempts.
The discussion must not get stuck in metaphysical assertions to and fro but must ultimately be fought on the empirical field.
It looks like QT has the home advantage and that many of its predictions have been confirmed empirically.
I do not think that it the case. I am convinced, and I will present no proof for this conviction, that most confirmations in fact assume that which has to be proven.
The link I have given is just one example of how the epistemological analysis of QT arguments could look like.
I have also to admit to the limit of my endeavors. Like I said, the fight will have to be fought on the empirical field, and not at the metaphysical or philosophical level.
That means that ultimately the fight will have to be fought by physicists, and not by philosophers. The latter can only show that it is possible to build a metaphysical alternative to QT.
Can't find a single theory that unifies quantum physics and gravity. Isn't this the most famous problem in physics? From Einstein to Witten and beyond, nobody's cracked it yet.
I didn't say there are "inconsistencies in physics." I wish you'd quote what I actually said, which was:
Quoting fishfry
This is an objectively true statement. It could be falsified tomorrow morning, but as of this writing, it's factually correct.
Didn't I specifically quote this paragraph in this thread earlier?
At the present time, there are two foundational theories in physics: the Standard Model of particle physics and general relativity. Many parts of these theories have been put on an axiomatic basis. However, physics as a whole has not, and in fact the Standard Model is not even logically consistent with general relativity, indicating the need for a still unknown theory of quantum gravity. The solution of Hilbert's sixth problem thus remains open.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert%27s_sixth_problem#Status
When I were lad, if two theories were not logically consistent, then one contradicted the other.
But if that is not what you intended to say, then forgive me my misunderstanding.
As I said, if reality contained a contradiction it would mean that something is not identical to itself - and that would be nonsense.
Moreover, if you abandon the law of non-contradiction all your arguments automatically refute themselves.
You are playing with words. The world either is rational, in the sense that our logic is applicable to it, or it is not.
Rationality is a condition for survival. Just look at a rat in a lab maze, and how it tries to decipher the psychologist's intentions!
If it is nonsensical to apply the law of noncontradiction to nature then what is nature? And is there any nature at all? Because if there is, then there isn't.
But this is the wrong question. It's a question of grammar and sense, not 'being' (what 'is'...?). It makes perfect sense to say that proposition X and proposition ¬X contradict: from this, one can draw conclusions, make inferences, etc. This is just what is means to make sense, to be sensical. No such way of proceeding presents itself when saying that some determinate thing or action or whathaveyou 'contradicts' itself or another thing. One cannot make sense of such a statement, cannot place it in the logical space of giving and asking for reasons. As Raymond Geuss points out, what we mistakenly think of as 'contradictions' in actions (for example) are generally just conflicts:
"The very idea of “contradiction,” taken strictly as a logical term, has no direct application to actions. This is not a point about logic, but about human action. Two actions can, of course, conflict in any number of ways. To use Kant’s example, two brothers, Lord X and Lord Y, may both be good Christians in that each wants what his brother wants: Milan. They can both “want Milan” (i.e., want to possess and control the city), and they can fight, either diplomatically or militarily, for control over it, but an action does not in itself become even a candidate for standing in a relation of contradiction or noncontradiction with another action until both actions are artificially “prepared” by being described in a canonical way. It is not the physical shock of Lord X’s and Lord Y’s cavalry in the Po Valley which constitutes a “contradiction” but the description of that shock in a very particular way.
It is no contradiction to say that Lord X’s cavalry were trying to move from point A to point B, and encountered Lord Y’s cavalry, who were trying to move from point B to point A. To speak of a “contradiction” one would at least need to describe what was happening in a statement like “Lord X is trying to make it the case that he (reflexive, i.e., Latin: se) controls Milan and that Lord Y does not control Milan” and “Lord Y is trying to make it the case that he (se) controls Milan and that Lord X does not control Milan.” Note how complicated and convoluted this formulation is, but note also that even this complex interpretative process has not visibly generated anything that one could call a contradiction. Lord X has a completely coherent project and so equally does Lord Y. To generate a contradiction one would have to move out of the real world altogether, in which Lord X and Lord Y are two distinct persons, and attribute the conjunction of projects of Lord X and Lord Y to the same person, say Z. About the hypothetical Z then one might say that what he wants is a contradiction: that Lord X control Milan and not control Milan, and that Lord Y control Milan and not control Milan. What status does this hypothetical Z have?" (Geuss, Moralism and Realpolitik).
To Geuss's understanding of action, one simply needs to add the category of 'events'. 'Contradiction' is a largely trivial and anaemic notion that is of limited use in approaching things. The presence of a contradiction invariably indicates a failure of thought and sense-making, not a property of the world; a failure of language and grammar, which the OP is a marvellous example of.
You are again playing with words. It is true that actions cannot contradict each other, only ideas and propositions.
But actions are guided by ideas and logic. And that is what we are talking about.
To take the example of the lab rat, it can decide than springing when the bell sounds might be the right action to perform to avoid an electric shock. If successful, the next time the bell sounds the logical "thing" to do is to jump. The action inherits its logical status from the previous reasoning.
But what happens if the next time the rat still gets an electric shock?
The answer is obvious: utter confusion.
With a sadist psychologist the lab rat has no chance of winning. The only hope for the rat is that the scientist himself is a rational being.
That is what we expect the universe to be: rational. That is the only way for us to find out when we have to jump.
Your example has nothing to do with the universe being rational. The rat has just made either a correct or an incorrect assumption that he won't get shocked if he jumps. But if he does get shocked even if he jumps then he learns that him jumping has nothing to do with whether or not he gets shocked.
How is this relevant?
how is it not?
How indeed.
If you mean by that that our assumptions, however rational, can be wrong and infirmed empirically, then I can only agree with you.
But the infirming itself is rational in the sense that it does not throw logic overboard.
Something QT is very proud of doing under the pretext that at a certain level other rules apply.
That is a metaphysical assumption that has never been empirically sustained. It seems very often to be confirmed, but only if you accept the original assumption.
If you say that nature is, rather than saying that nature is and simultaneously isn't, or if you say that nature has such and such properties, rather than saying that nature has such and such properties and simultaneously doesn't have these properties, then you are applying the law of noncontradiction to nature.
Quoting StreetlightX
That's because it would be absurd if a thing or an action contradicted itself. It would mean that the thing or the action is not what it is. That's why I say that there can be no contradiction in reality. There can be contradictions in our descriptions of reality but such descriptions are necessarily false - they cannot correspond to reality because there are no contradictions in reality.
Quoting StreetlightX
I definitely don't confuse contradictions (in the logical sense) with conflicts or clashes of opposite forces or interests. Such conflicts can be perfectly logically consistent. There are conflicts in reality but there are no contradictions.
Quoting StreetlightX
Right. But it would be a contradiction to say that Lord X’s cavalry were trying to move from point A to point B and simultaneously Lord X’s cavalry were not trying to move from point A to point B. But since there are no contradictions in reality, such a contradictory action cannot happen.
What does this even mean? Is this a state of affairs that can obtain in reality? No, but then, that's because it's your description that is absurd. It's an artificial knot you tied with language, nothing more.
Quoting litewave
Another knot, linguistically derived: create an absurdity, declare it's impossibility, than say that such a thing cannot be. A closed circle of triviality, finding what it put there in the first place, bewitchment of language. One wants to invert and extend Wittgenstein on this score...
""A thing is identical with itself."—There is no finer example of a useless proposition, which yet is connected with a certain play of the imagination. It is as if in imagination we put a thing into its own shape and saw that it fitted." (Wittgenstein, PI §216);
"A thing is and is not identical with itself" - The second best example of a useless proposition...
But if such a state of affairs obtained in reality then reality would be absurd too. But I can't imagine that reality would be absurd in this way. Reality can correspond only to logically consistent statements, never to logically inconsistent ones. In this sense, reality itself is logically consistent.
Quoting StreetlightX
Yeah, it's pretty trivial that reality is logically consistent.
Would you say that reality is true or would you say that only true statements describe reality? If the latter, then perhaps it's more correct to say that only logically consistent statements describe reality than to say that reality is logically consistent.
I do not agree with this implicit shift from rationality to formal consistency. Physics is not a set of syllogisms or formal logical argumentations as can be found in text books.
Rationality is more than being able to be put in a logical form. It is the ability of the human mind to construct an explanation of the world that makes sense to him
A logicist approach is a sterile approach.
For what philosophers seem to be implicitly referring to here is an observer-independent transcendental interpretation of the theory of relativity that they are imagining in line with what their common-sense intuition about what science ought to tell us about a gods-eye perspective of nature.
Special relativity in being an empirical theory is, like with any scientific theory, only designed to account for empirical observations obtainable in the first-person. The theory shows that if our common-sense notion of causation is to be consistent without contradictory implications, then nothing can travel faster than the speed of light; SR says that for any two events that cannot physically influence one-another without interacting via faster than light signals, then it is impossible to say in an observer-independent sense which event occurs first or second, let alone whether they occur simultaneously. They have as it were, a "space-like" relation without a specific temporal ordering, a opposed to a "time-like" temporal ordering.
Hence if one interpreted SR transcendentally in the sense of trying to imagine its implications from a "gods-eye" perspective of the universe as whole, it does indeed imply contradictory states of affairs relative to our notion of causality.
Of course, this is a nonsensical interpretation of SR and forgets the fact that SR is a theory that is only supposed to be meaningful *relative* to a given frame of reference and to describe a frame of reference's relation to "nearby" frames of reference for which the ordering of causation remains unchanged.
But then what of General Relativity? Does it improve matters by giving us a god's eye perspective? i think not. For it allows different frames of references for which events are either seen as time-like or space-like. For example:
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/339235/causality-in-general-relativity
I'd like a more astute philosopher of science to chime in here, but I understand that general relativity only avoids 'transcendental contradiction' in the scientifically unimportant sense when it is interpreted either
1) anti-metaphysically, instrumentally and solipsistically as a computational device for describing only a particular individual observer's experiences and hypothetical observers within his conceivable future.
or
2) as a global metaphysics without any interpretation in terms of first-person experience..
I imagine idealists to accept 1, and realists to accept 2.
This is exactly what RT is not. If there has ever been a god-like perspective then it is that of RT. How else could you explain time dilation and space contraction? Observers in their own frame of reference do not experience it.
Well, you can say that reality is true. After all, we also say that facts (the ways reality is) are truths, although truth is also often meant specifically as a property of statements. Being consistent can be understood as having an identity, being identical to oneself, and so it is a property of things in general, not just of statements.
I am afraid your approach leads to a philosophical dead end. Speaking of things as they are without an observer or a mind is a very difficult metaphysical position to take.
As i said, my understanding of SR is that it inter-translates local frames of reference that are causally connected within the speed of light of each other. But that doesn't make it a consistent theory of ALL conceivable frames of reference that lie outside of one another's light cones. Indeed SR has nothing to say about causal implications for space-like events.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity#Causality_and_prohibition_of_motion_faster_than_light
Acceleration is also beyond the realm of SR and belongs to General Relativity.
Do you think there was no moon before any mind observed it?
I'm afraid I don't see that at all. As an example, suppose that our current physical theories turn out to be "true" about reality. In that case, quantum physics is inconsistent with relativity, but the law of identity still holds. A thing is still identical to itself. I just don't follow your logical argument here.
Also it's worth noting that any talk about "reality" is not about physics, it's about metaphysics. The laws of physics are the historically contingent activity of humans, from Aristotle to Galileo to Newton to Einstein to the contemporary theorists. Physical law is always approximate and subject to change.
On the other hand "reality" might be created by God, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or the Big Computer in the Sky as some people think. These are questions of metaphysics. You are not in a position to argue that "reality" is one way or the other. You have no evidence and you can never have evidence. If the Pope tells me that God created the universe, I respect the Pope's belief, but I'm not going to spend my time arguing with him. His beliefs are a matter of faith, not science.
Quoting litewave
This I also don't understand. If you mean that if I don't believe in Aristotelian logic that I can't have a rational conversation, that's clearly false. We can have rational conversations about irrationality. I've already posted links to articles on paraconsistent logic and intuitionist logic. Many contemporary theories of logic deny the law of the excluded middle. This is essentially a consequence of computer science applied to logic, since a set and its complement may both be noncomputable.
In short, I don't understand or agree with either of your assertions. And any claims you make about "reality" are equivalent to the Pope telling me about the Blood of the Lamb. It's a question of faith, not reason.
It preceded my last one. I think it went something like this.
RT tries to explain what happens in each individual frame of reference. But to do that it must know which frame of reference is moving relative to the other. The only way it can do that is to measure time dilation and space contraction.
That in turn presupposes a neutral frame of reference from which these measurements can be done.
End of relativity, and welcome to Newton who could could get back in via the window.
Of course not. The problem is talking about the moon without in someway being there to see it.
Can you formulate the inconsistency between relativity and quantum physics? I just heard that they give infinite results in some situations, which does not correspond to observed reality, but infinities per se don't seem inconsistent.
Quoting fishfry
I mean that if you abandon the law of non-contradiction then you indeed can't have any meaningful conversation because there is no difference between what you say and the negation of what you say.
But even if no one sees the moon or talks about it, the moon is still there and so it has its identity.
Yes. What more can you tell me about the moon?
how do you know that?
This is a well-known topic. I'll refer you to Wikipidia, for example this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_field_theory
[i]In physics, a unified field theory (UFT) is a type of field theory that allows all that is usually thought of as fundamental forces and elementary particles to be written in terms of a single field.
There is currently no accepted unified field theory, and thus it remains an open line of research.[/i]
Quoting litewave
Your knowledge is simply out of date. Here is the Wiki article on paraconsistent logic. From that article:
[i]A paraconsistent logic is a logical system that attempts to deal with contradictions in a discriminating way. Alternatively, paraconsistent logic is the subfield of logic that is concerned with studying and developing paraconsistent (or "inconsistency-tolerant") systems of logic.
Inconsistency-tolerant logics have been discussed since at least 1910 (and arguably much earlier, for example in the writings of Aristotle);however, the term paraconsistent ("beside the consistent") was not coined until 1976, by the Peruvian philosopher Francisco Miró Quesada.[/i]
In other words it is perfectly sensible to have rational discussions of the subject of how to handle logical inconsistency.
Let me give an easy to visualize example of how something like this might work. Suppose that tomorrow morning professor so-and-so in Latvia proves that there is an inconsistency in set theory, but that the inconsistency requires more than 100,000 symbols to write down [in some fixed formal language].
Therefore the following two things are true:
* Set theory as a whole is inconsistent, but
* Any theorem I can prove in less than 100,000 symbols is still valid.
Inconsistency is no barrier at all to rational discourse. We can and do reason rationally about inconsistent logical systems.
Because we observe it. And the physical laws that enable us to make successful predictions and technology also say that the moon moved around the earth long before we observed it.
I still don't see the inconsistency. If the combination of relativity and quantum theory says something like the electron is here and simultaneously the electron is not here then it inconsistently defines a property of the electron and thus the electron's identity. I don't see how such a theory can correspond to reality.
Quoting fishfry
Only to the extent to which you stick to logical consistency and manage to prevent the inconsistent stuff from spreading via the principle of explosion to other parts of your system. Which is what I believe paraconsistent logic tries to do.
So you agree with my point that we can (under certain circumstances) speak rationally about inconsistency. Which falsifies your claim that there can be no rational discussion if some aspect of the universe is inconsistent.
As far as the rest of it, I'm not equipped to explain modern physics. Quantum theory and relativity have been known to be inconsistent with each other since the days of Einstein and the inconsistency persists to the present day. You can use Google just as well as I can so I can only suggest that you click around to find understanding.
For example here is a popularized article, but I found it exactly the same way you could: By Googling around.
An inconsistent aspect of the universe is nonsense. We can only speak rationally if we don't insist that such an aspect of the universe exists and we rather try to find out what is wrong with our information or speak about something else. And if we abandon the law of non-contradiction completely, we cannot speak rationally about anything.
Unprovable and evidence-free metaphysical claim.
Quoting litewave
Already falsified, with your agreement.
Quoting litewave
False as noted, reputable links supplied, and your agreement secured.
Well, if a ball that is not a ball makes sense to you, I have nothing else to say.
What? Where?
Ah! You mean it is incompatible.
Again you are claiming that a single inconsistent aspect of the universe [an entirely metaphysical notion] implies denial of the law of identity. I have stated that I do not follow your logic and do not agree with the claim.
Yes I can see that might have been a better word. But "X is incompatible with Y" and "X is inconsistent with Y" seem to be a distinction without a difference, especially in the context quantum theory and relativity.
Identity of a thing is determined by its properties. If you say that something has and simultaneously does not have the same property you deny the identity of the thing.
Ah, identity of indiscernibles. But "properties" are imposed by sentient observers. A thing would still be a thing even if there were no people around to enumerate its properties. You're confusing physics with metaphysics again.
Well I can't argue with you about this anymore. I don't think you've made your case. And you keep making claims about "reality." As I've noted, those are statements of metaphysical beliefs. I can't argue with you about your articles of faith any more than I could argue with the Pope about matters of theology.
So, what you had previously said meant for me that there was some aspect of quantum mechanics that was directly contradicted by general relativity; that is, some proposition P such that, P is implied by QM, but ~P was implied by SR.
I don't think I am the only one who had read you as making this claim.
But perhaps that is cleared up now.
Quoting Banno
There is. I've given references. IMO this discussion is far past the point of diminishing returns. I have nothing to add.
Dialetheism is not true; there are no propositions that are both true and false.
So, what is it that is implied by QM, and yet its contradiction is implied by Relativity?
Set it out, man.
Quoting fishfry
I have no problem agreeing with you on this point, but then you have also to admit the following proposition:
An inconsistent universe is a metaphysical claim.
You have the same access to Google that I do. If QM and relativity are consistent with each other then why have physicists been trying to hammer out a unified theory for over 100 years?
Please. I'm done here. I made a very simple point to start with and really have nothing more to add.
It's non-locality, isn't it. Relativity implies that nothing can travel faster than light; QM says it can.
Physicists do not conclude from this that there is an actual contradiction in the universe. Rather, they look for a way to overcome the apparent contradiction. That is, they look for descriptions of what is going on that overcome or bypass the apparent contradiction.
Contradictions occur between statements. a contradiction is an indication that one of the statements is wrong.
I showed how to dissolve the issue in the OP by providing an analysis in which the contradiction did not occur.
There is a way of dissolving the apparent contradiction between locality and non-locality. That's what physicists are looking for.
Or, alternately, it is not possible for us to construct a coherent account of reality. But that would not be a problem for reality, only for our ability to describe it; a problem of the insufficiency of language.
A ^ ~A ? B
Accepting a contradiction renders our accounts limitless; and hence useless.
But I don't understand why I'm in this conversation. I originally said something that I thought was very innocuous. I'd sooner retract whatever it was I said than have to defend something I thought everyone already knew.
Quoting Banno
I don't know enough physics. However I do not believe that QM lets anything go faster than light. Perhaps you have a link or some context.
Quoting Banno
This is actually something I believe.
There are two different things. One is the laws of physics, which are historically contingent works of man. Aristotle, Newton, Einstein, etc. The collected body of physics papers. The stories we tell the freshmen, the stories we tell the grad students, the stories physicists tell each other.
The other thing is "reality." It may or may not have laws at all. If it does, they may or may not be knowable to us. And even the very question of whether "reality" exists as some external thing to be studied is arguably a meaningless question.
That's why when @litewave tells me what "reality" is like, I simply say that's a metaphysical belief without evidence. We can go to the university library and read the latest edition of a physics journal. We can NOT know "reality."
Quoting Banno
There are no "statements" in physics because we do not have an axiomitization of physics. That's Hilbert's sixth problem, which I linked earlier.
You are thinking there are a set of propositions in a bag called QM, and another set in a bag called Relativity, and we will find P in one bag and not-P in another.
I don't think it exactly works that way. Perhaps that's the point you're trying to make. That there is an incompatability, but not necessarily a direct contradiction. I don't think that's right. I think there are direct contradictions. But I'm perfectly willing to admit that I'm way out of my depth here.
I'm standing by for supporting evidence that QM lets things go faster than light. I know about quantum tunneling, in which a photon inside of a black hole can suddenly appear on the outside. I believe it's called Hawking radiation. Black holes give off huge amounts of energy via this magic process. I'm not sure if that's faster than light travel or not.
But check this out. Article titled: The Inconsistencies Between Relativity and Quantum Therory [typo in original. Maybe that's a bad sign].
http://www.quantumtemporaldynamics.com/background-physics/the-inconsistencies-between-relativity-and-quantum-therory/
Relativity tells us that if we were to capture a cube of matter exactly one Planck length to a side, the matter inside that cube will the as dense as any heart of any black hole. Quantum theory tells us that the same cube can only contain a single quanta of energy. Each statement is inconsistent with the other.
I also found:
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2015/nov/04/relativity-quantum-mechanics-universe-physicists
http://nautil.us/issue/29/scaling/will-quantum-mechanics-swallow-relativity
https://www.quora.com/Why-are-Quantum-Mechanics-and-General-Relativity-incompatible
https://io9.gizmodo.com/why-cant-einstein-and-quantum-mechanics-get-along-799561829
http://www.askamathematician.com/2009/12/q-howwhy-are-quantum-mechanics-and-relativity-incompatible/
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/387/a-list-of-inconveniences-between-quantum-mechanics-and-general-relativity
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1704.02587.pdf
I hope this is helpful. I haven't read any of the links except the one I quoted.
But why do some of these stories give correct predictions and others don't?
In other words, contradiction is not something that could even in principle apply - or not - to things in the world; you 'can't imagine that reality would be absurd' because absurdity is a function of your imagination, not of the world. The failure of your imagination here simply marks the indifference of the world to the things that can be said of your imagination. The mistake is in projecting that failure of thought into the world as if your failure was a positive feature of the world itself.
But they don't!
They give approximately correct predictions, to the limits of our experimental apparatus.
Newton wasn't correct, nor is Einstein. They get closer and closer to something that may or may not be there.
Back in the day we looked up at the stars and said, "Oh, there's Orion the hunter with his mighty bow." And they took those stories every bit as seriously as we do our stories.
There is no question that science and rational inquiry have been very handy, creating bridges and cellphones and all this wonderful stuff we have around us. The question of why science is so useful is the proper inquiry of the philosophy of science. That's a good question, to which nobody has a conclusive answer.
Another point is that the laws of physics that we've been able to come up with so far are due to the very limited perspective of where we are in time and space. If we lived a long time ago. or farther out in the universe we might find new laws. The uniformity of physical law throughout the universe is an assumption, not a proven fact.
If you think there may be balls that are not balls, fine. I will stick with thinking that there are only balls that are balls; for some reason it seems to be a much better strategy in life too.
And why do some stories give more correct predictions than others?
Quoting fishfry
Well, it better be there. Not sure how they could get closer and closer to something that is not there.
Granting that one can make any sense of the murky and loaded idea of 'correspondence', you've just made a claim about 'statements' - about what we can say of the world. And this is just where contradiction is applicable. And your 'because' does not have a minor premise attached to it: it is an incomplete chain of reasoning. As it stands, it does not qualify as a coherent argument at the level of sheer form, let alone content.
Correspondence means that if we agree to call some kind of object a square then we will call it a square and not a circle. It is also known as correct naming and correct description.
Quoting StreetlightX
If you agree that only non-contradictory statements correspond to reality then that's all that matters. But among such correct statements is that every thing is what it is and is not what it is not, and so the thing does not contradict itself or any other thing. In other words, every thing - and therefore reality - is non-contradictory.
Your 'in other words' does not follow. Again, a lack of argument, and a missing minor premise.
Note also just how strict the criteria are to meet the standard of contradiction: X and its opposite must be 'true' in order for contradiction to hold: a proposition must say that X AND ¬X is true. But of course there is no theory that claims any such thing. As it stands, the operator between the apparently 'contradictory' statements between QM and relativity is - I think assumed to be - a XOR operator (exclusive or): X ? ¬X , not X ? ¬X. There is no 'contradiction' here, in the logical, intra-systemic sense. Things might be confusing because science writers are not logicians, and they are apt to use terms in ways that are not the technical terms of logic. This is to be expected, but it is also to be watched out for when trying to draw conclusions.
Actually, it was a simple equivalence. "Thing does not contradict itself or any other thing" = "thing is non-contradictory".
You are still sticking to a formalistic approach which, while, again formally, correct, is rather sterile.
@litewave has a more concrete approach in mind, and your discussion will I am afraid go nowhere.
It would be a mistake to distinguish between "true" and "untrue" or "false" theories. Theories that permit correct predictions are not necessarily true. They can be said to be consistent with reality, but that is really all we can say about them, however long they remain the sole alternative.
In the time of the Ancient Greeks, angels were thought to push the planets around, and Ptolemy had no trouble incorporating this belief in his theory... which by the way allowed astronomers to make many correct predictions.
The correctness of the predictions of the Ptolemaic geocentric theory followed from the correspondence between the mathematical properties of the theory and the mathematical structure of the universe, not from the assumption of angels. The assumption of angels was not necessary. The correctness of the predictions of Kepler's heliocentric theory, too, followed from the correspondence between the mathematical properties of the theory and the mathematical structure of the universe, but its virtue was that it was much more parsimonious than the geocentric theory - it identified larger regularities in the motion of planets and thus simplified the description.
So two different theories can be correct, within certain limits, but one can be simpler than the other. And then there are theories that are not correct even within those limits.
This is a very modern reading of Ptolemy that does not do justice to the (metaphysical) beliefs that held all theories together. Correct calculations were of course a prerequisite for any astronomical theory. But these calculations had to be embedded in a view of the universe that cost Giordano Bruno his life at the staple, and compelled Galileo to recant.
Nowadays Physics is still embedded in a view of the universe, and we are still trying to figure out the correct view. There are still people who think that God does not play dice, while others vote for a more probabilistic/random approach.
It would be therefore a mistake to approach Physics as a clinical endeavor whose propositions are only dictated by logic and observable facts.
In fact, at a certain level, "facts" are almost entirely theoretical constructs.
Still, contemporary theories are much more parsimonious than Ptolemy's and they can predict much more than Ptolemy could even imagine. They correctly describe a much larger portion of reality than Ptolemy's theory did.
I have no problem with that. Except that you should be careful about the second part.
Quoting litewave
Correct is always a judgment carried by a scientific community at a certain period. We have no idea what the science community will say over 1000 years or more.
By correct I mean that the theory fits with observation.
There is an implicit caveat. Observations are theory guided for a large part. And that is in fact one of the reasons why scientific ideas and convictions change with time. A theory can therefore never be said to be absolutely correct on the basis of observations. It does mean that it should be considered superior to theories which have no apparent empirical basis.
The temptation is great in thinking that these kind of theories somehow should be considered as "true".
I would like to point out that the difference between theories which can be put in practice and those that allow passive observations and predictions only is more a difference of level than nature.
It might be hard to see, but practical implementations are no more a proof of "truth" than mere observations. They are certainly a very serious indication of the usefulness of the theory.
So Angie believes that A and B are simultaneous. Beth believes that A and B are not simultaneous. The transformation formulas allow that what Angie believes is true, and what Beth believes is true. How is this not a violation of the law of non-contradiction, when what Beth believes is clearly contradictory to what Angie believes?
Wait, that's not right. X believes P, and Y believes not-P. That's not a contradiction.
A contradiction would be, X believes P and X believes not-P. Actually I'm not sure that's a contradiction. A contradiction would be, X believes P and X does NOT believe P. It's possible that X may have no beliefs about P at all one way or the other.
The issue is not one of contradiction since, indeed, two different persons from two different frames of reference have two different beliefs.
As I see it the issue is: how come we know that? Where is the knowing subject standing? What is his own frame of reference?
It looks very much like a god-like perspective to me.
Point well taken. I'm aware of what inconsistency means in the context of the study of formal systems, ie axiomatics. Of course you and @Banno are correct that I'm using the word inconsistency when I should be saying incompatibility.
There's no axiomatic basis for physics in the first place, so we can't be meaning inconsistency in the technical sense. But I can see that I've been confused myself on this point. The right word is incompatibility.
The nature of the incompatibility between QM and Relativity is in their predictions. There are situations where in a given situation, they predict different outcomes. If we wanted to express this formally it would be "Theory X predicts P and theory Y predicts not-P". Does this relate to modal logic?
Quoting StreetlightX
Picky picky, you mean provable, not true. An axiomatic system is inconsistent if it allows a formal proof of both X and ¬X for some proposition X. It's purely syntactic. The idea of truth belongs to semantics, where we put an interpretation on the symbols.
Quoting StreetlightX
I'm trying to understand this. In the first place, neither QM nor R are axiomatic theories. They're not formal systems at all. They're a collection of heuristics and differential equations. In other words when a QM or R theorist wants to calculate the expected output of an experiment, they don't apply axioms or theorems. Rather, they plug their numbers into models, which are essentially differential equations [I'm way over my depth here physics-wise]. In other words there are no "propositions" in the sense of logic.
That's my understanding, anyway. That the conclusions of both QM and R are not deductions, they're approximations to some theory that's not axiomatized. So the entire field of logic doesn't really apply the way we're trying to apply it.
Ok now I see your point. There's some experiment for which QM and R predict different results. So it's an XOR. Yes I see that!! Ok got it. Yes, good point.
Quoting StreetlightX
Yes I think you're right.
Yes, that itself is not a contradiction. But as Banno stated, the transformation equations make what X believes, and what Y believes both true, so that's where the contradiction enters, in saying that these, P and not-P, are both true. That is, unless you allow that we can say P is true, and not-P is true, without contradiction. You can do this by contriving your definition of "true", such that truth is relative to the observer, or in the case of SR, relative to the frame of reference.
That's not how sentential logic works. A proposition P is true or false. There are no observers.
I am not aware of any effort within physics to rewrite the rules of logic to account for this.
For this reason I don't quite understand what you're saying here.
Quoting fishfry
Going back to the start, I had taken this to be along the lines of Gould's non-overlapping magisteria. I see now that your view is more nuanced than that.
@Fishfry is right in that your introduction of belief radically changes the argument. It's what it true that counts.
Contemplate this:
From Angie's frame of reference, events A and B occur at the same time.
From Beth's frame of reference, A occurs before B.
These two statements are both true for both Angie and Beth.
There is no contradiction.
For Angie, the soup spoon is on the right.
For Beth, the soup spoon is on the left.
Apparently for @Metaphysician Undercover, this involves a contradiction.
It occurs to me that it might be clearer to re-arange the scope of the statement;
It is true both that:
events A and B occur at the same time from Angie's frame of reference, and
A occurs before B from Beth's frame of reference.
Except that our theories and statements about reality include such intuitions, which are propositions itself. The law of non-contradiction also holds true in relativity theory provided they are statements made with regard to a single reference frame. A plane cannot move both forward and backward from me at the same time when it's travelling in a straight line from my point of view for instance.
Classical logic can be understood as an approximation of reality. Just as Newton's physics is an approximation of Theory of Relativity.
I see no problem. In fact the world at our scale (size, speed, etc.) seems to obey classical logic rules such as the law of noncontradiction.
Quoting fishfry
But, you'll agree, the ''common agreement'' is based on reality. Abstraction is based off off reality, don't you think?
Anyway, my main point is that no particular frame of reference is more ''valid'' than another. That makes simultaneity just an artifact of a particular frame of reference. If this is so, the law of noncontradiction, which depends on the notion of simultaneity, isn't a truth, in an absolute sense.
Quoting Banno
You're right. The term ''absolute'' is key to the issue. The law of noncontradiction is aboslute, isn't it? It's supposed to be true in all possible worlds, otherwise classical logic, as it stands, breaks down to mush.
Therefore, there being no absolute sense of simultaneity, the law of noncontradiction has lost its crucial footing and it simply fades away into meaninglessness.
One could argue that IF we're in the same frame of reference then simultaneity is possible. But, which two objects can ever claim such a sameness? We're all moving at different velocities relative to each other. Given that is the case, no two objects can ever be in the same frame of refernce.
Quoting litewave
What does physics say about time? To me, it's simply a frame of reference for the universe. It moves in one direction, ''forward''??
No two objects can ever have the same exact velocity - there are too many variables to manage. Given this, it's obvious that no two objects can ever be in the same frame of reference. Thus, no simultaneity and no law of noncontradiction. So, fixing a frame of reference doesn't solve the problem.
Quoting litewave
My point is without simultaneity, which I think you agree is impossible, there can't be a law of noncontradiction. You could say that ''simultaneity'' is meaningless and so, the law of noncontradiction is nonsense.
Quoting Michael Ossipoff
I agree that some propositions are ''timeless''. ''Timeless'' because nothing is really timeless is it? Even abstractions in the mind have to be thought of in a brain (matter). Also, let's leave this issue aside and focus on propositions about the physical world e.g the well known flashlight in a train thought experiment (you can google it). Propositions about the physical world are relative because the physical world is relative. The notion of simultaneity is meaningless in our relativistic world and without simultaneity the law of noncontradiction is nonsense.
I see no reason why two objects couldn't have the exact same velocity. Of course, velocity is relative too. Two objects can move at exactly the same velocity in relation to me, that is, in relation to the frame of reference in which I am at rest.
Quoting TheMadFool
Then you misunderstand what the law of non-contradiction is. It says that two contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense, not that two contradictory statements cannot both be true at the same absolute time.
I haven't participated in this thread since back at the beginning, so I don't know what else has been said, but I have been thinking about the issue. As I snottily noted in the part of my post you quoted, I think the issue of misunderstanding the difference between propositions and the world permeates the arguments on this forum. I've been trying to formulate why it bothers me so much, but haven't gotten it straight yet.
My second point in my previous post - even if relativity were relevant to the law of non-contradiction and vise versa, the proposition would have to be travelling at near the speed of light - say 1/2 c - before it made any significant difference. There's the absurdity - a proposition with velocity.
Third and new point - I think the case can be made that the law of non-contradiction is not true at any speed. That's for another thread.
Yes there is contradiction here. You are saying that from A's frame of reference X is the case, and from B's frame of reference not-X is the case. So you are saying that both X and not-X are the case, and this is contradictory. Introducing a "frame of reference" does not mitigate the contradiction, just like saying that from "my perspective" X is the case and from "your perspective" not-X is the case does not mitigate the contradiction implied by the two incompatible statements, "X is the case", and "not-X is the case".
To mitigate the contradiction, it is required to say that from A's frame of reference X "appears" to be the case, and from B's frame of reference not-X "appears" to be the case. This allows that the incompatible descriptions of what appears to be the case, may be resolved with what is "really" the case. But special relativity implies that it is really the case that both X and not-X are true. This is contradiction, plain and simple.
Right, "A and B occur at the same time" contradicts "A occurs before B". No matter how you qualify this with frames of reference, you do not negate the contradiction. The contradictory statements refer to the described object, while "frame of reference" refers to the point of observation. What is true or false of the object cannot be changed by changing the point of observation because this implies that mere changes to the point of observation can actually change the object. To avoid contradiction you would have to say that Angie and Beth are observing different things.
I don't think that you're applying an understanding of Einstein's paper Meta. ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES
No, in the context of special relativity it is meaningless to say that X or not-X is true unless you specify the reference frame in relation to which X or not-X applies. It is just as meaningless as saying that an object moves at speed 300 miles per hour without specifying the reference frame in relation to which the speed applies. There is no "real" speed that exists irrespective of a reference frame.
Some context ought help matters out here...
Let A be a gun being fired at night. Let B be the gunfire making a sound. Angie is within 5 feet of the gun wielder. Beth is more than 300 yards away with a clear view.
That doesn't quite make the point of SR(because both Angie and Beth are in the frame of the world), but it ought help one to grasp how simultaneity is relative to one's 'frame' of reference and thus that events A and B occur at the same time from Angie's frame of reference, and A occurs before B from Beth's frame of reference.
We're not talking about the speed of an object though. What we are talking about is simultaneity, whether or not it is meaningless to say "at the same time" without specifying a frame of reference. As the op points out, "at the same time" is a crucial part of the law of non-contradiction. If special relativity allows that the meaning of "at the same time" is dependent on the frame of reference, then it circumvents the law of non-contradiction by giving "frame of reference" a higher priority than "non-contradiction".
If the determination of "is", and "is not" is dependent on the frame of reference, then "frame of reference" is simply given priority over the law of non-contradiction, allowing that both "is" and "is not" are actually the case depending on the frame of reference. How is this any different, in principle, from giving priority to "subjective perspective", such that what "is" and "is not" is dependent on the subject's perspective?
No, the frame of reference is included in the "in the same sense" part of the law of non-contradiction.
"In the same sense" refers to the meaning of the words of the statement, not the frame of reference. If you take "in the same sense" to refer to the frame of reference, then you are still just circumventing the law of non-contradiction by saying that two statements must be taken within the same frame of reference to have the same meaning. This is like saying that statements could have a different meaning for me than for you, so "in the same sense" is rendered meaningless.
Two objects do not have to be travelling the same speed and direction in order to be in the same frame of reference.
Also, I'm pretty sure that no human has ever travelled fast enough in relation to another such that the difference in simultaneity between them is measurable with the most precise instruments.
So, are you saying that the word "simultaneous" means something different in frame of reference A from what it means in frame of reference B. If so, it doesn't, it means the same thing in both frames of reference. What varies is the determination of which events are simultaneous, not the sense of "simultaneous".
If you don't see the contradiction in stating that it is a fact that A and B are both simultaneous, and not simultaneous, then I can't help you.
That A and B are simultaneous for Angie, or that A and B are not simultaneous for Beth?
But the words have no meaning without the frame of reference, just as speed has no meaning without the frame of reference. Simultaneity and speed have no meaning without the frame of reference. So, it is not a contradiction to say that a car is moving at the speed of 70 miles per hour and simultaneously it is not moving at the speed of 70 miles per hour. It is just a statement without meaning. But it is a contradiction to say that a car is moving at the speed of 70 miles per hour in relation to the Statue of Liberty and simultaneously it is not moving at the speed of 70 miles per hour in relation to the Statue of Liberty. You can formulate genuine contradictions like this, even in the theory of relativity.
It is a statement without meaning, and meaningless statements are neither contradictory nor non-contradictory.
That's not the case though. Speed might have no meaning without a frame of reference, but words do not require a frame of reference to have meaning, you are just making that up. Words had meaning long before physicists started talking about frames of reference. Also, "simultaneous" has meaning without a frame of reference. Philosophers as far back as Aristotle, and beyond, spoke of simultaneity without a frame of reference. It's only relativity theory, which insists that simultaneity is meaningless without a frame of reference. When people believed in absolute time, the meaning of simultaneous was not dependent on a frame of reference.
Quoting litewave
It is only a meaningless statement if you allow that "simultaneous" is defined by special relativity. Otherwise it is contradictory. That's clear evidence of what I have argued, special relativity circumvents the law of non-contradiction by defining "simultaneous" in a particular way.
Either A and B are simultaneous, or they are not. As in other cases of objective truth, "for Angie", and "for Beth", are irrelevant to what is at issue, you are just throwing them in as red herrings.
In the theory of relativity, simultaneity has no meaning without a frame of reference, just as speed has no meaning without a frame of reference.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Yes, but whether we talk about simultaneity in the context of relativity theory or in the context of absolute space and time, is part of the meaning of simultaneity.
Clearly, that is not what was said.
Are you kidding?
Quoting Banno
My interpretation:
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Your interpretation is wrong.
Well, being contrary to the way things are is being wrong. One who doesn't acknowledge the relativity of simultaneity cannot account for how simultaneity works. Not much one can do to help another who refuses to acknowledge the inadequacy inherent to a framework they're using. It's akin to continuing to argue in favor of Zeno's account(paradox), even after being shown how Newton dissolved it with calculus.
If he does not get relativity, it's no wonder he has difficulty with Davidson.
Glad this is clear. I mention only in passing that I think this is a more general problem. I am not sure anything at all in the real world is subject to classical logic. What statement can be said to be either true or false? If I point to a red apple and say, "The apple is red," someone can argue that redness is a subjective experience, not something inherent in the apple. Maybe your red isn't my red. Inverted qualia, Mary's room, and so forth.
Formal logic is an abstract model for how we reason. But the world is much more complicated and nuanced and sometimes contradictory. We are not rational creatures. The world is not a rational place. Formal logic is a useful tool, but the world isn't a formal system.
To agree on contradiction does not make the contradiction go away, it just means that the agreeing parties have agreed to ignore the contradiction. The fact is that the events referred to are not properties of the subject, like personal preferences, they are properties of the objective world. To say that the properties of something completely independent of both Angie and Beth, properties of the objective world, are such and such for Angie, and not such and such for Beth, is complete nonsense because you imply that how the independent, objective world is, is dependent on the observer.
Quoting Banno
If circumventing the law of non-contradiction is error, then yes, that is what I believe, the last 110 years of physics is built on error. Contradiction is rampant in modern physics. But it has been demonstrated in the past, by the sophists in ancient Greece, that circumventing the law of non-contradiction can be very profitable. So to the extend that ignoring the fact that special relativity circumvents the law of non-contradiction has proven to be in some ways beneficial, you might not call this error. It's like lying and deception, from one perspective these things are beneficial, but from another perspective they are error. I look at it from the perspective of the philosopher, which is the desire to know the truth, so I say yes, modern physics is built on error. It employs a misconception of time.
You can't get rid of the relativity of simultaneity without crumbling the whole edifice of relativity, including the assertion that the speed of light is constant no matter what frame of reference you are in. Do you agree?
Agreed, that the speed of light is constant no matter what the frame of reference, is a very flimsy principle, not verified, nor verifiable from human beings' present technological condition, but quite likely not at all acceptable as a universally applicable law. It is an inductive principle induced without proper evidence.
Thanks. I just wanted to make sure I understood your position.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Isn't that true of all physical law? The universality of gravity is an assumption for which we have no evidence. When we say all swans are white it's only because black swans are so rare. All knowledge of the world is inductive and subject to refinement and outright refutation.
Curiously, the laws of electromagnetism- Maxwells Equations- predict a very particular velocity for electromagnetic waves.
It follows that the velocity of electromagnetic waves must be the same for any frame of reference.
In order for this to occurs consistently one must make use of certain transformations when discussing different frames of reference.
Hence relativity.
Why? Are you adverse to questioning the truth of theories accepted by the scientific community? Such theories are proven inaccurate quite frequently, that's how we advance our knowledge. Come on, this is the philosophy forum, where's you philosophical spirit? The inquiry proceeds in a direction which is contrary to your prejudice so you quit.
Right, that's why we should proceed to doubt and question all of these inductive principles. If we find one which produces a violation of the law of non-contradiction, doesn't that raise a red flag, suggesting that a deeper inspection is required?
Neither, but why would one need to be genius or psycoceramic to question the truth of a theory?
Really? How do we know the laws of the physics are valid everywhere? We have a very small sample of local observations.
And that's what makes them laws? That's really not a good argument. Are Newton's laws universally valid? Were they universally valid and "laws of the universe" in 1900 but not 1920? I hope you can put your claims into context because as it stands they're just wrong.
Are you not aware that the universality of physical law is an assumption? There's no way to know if it's true. There's no way to know if there are any physical laws in the first place. What we call physical law is the historically contingent output of humans.
ok
Astronomers assume that what happens locally also happens universally; SO the spectrum of Iron measured in a lab is assumed to be the same as that measured in a star.
After all, why not?
Scientific laws have the form of universal statements. See Popper et al.
"For every reaction there is an opposite and equal reaction"
"every force is equal to the product of mass and acceleration"
and so on. If not, they are not falsifiable, hence not scientific (by popper's account).
Quoting fishfry
Hereabouts, it's the white ones that are rare.
A Noncontradiction is the truth.
Quoting TheMadFool
There is such a thing called a false statement.
"The cat is on the mat" is not a contradiction. And it is not true.
Assume. Assume. Assume.
Assumptions make an ass of u and me. Ha, ha, ha, I'm funny aren't I?
While you are correct that there is a whole panoply of logics, some formalizing non-explosive inferences from contradictions, and even the truth of contradictions (dialetheism), you misunderstood the person. What they said was "contradictions in reality", not in a formal system (e.g. in a dialetheic paraconsistent logic). Logics and reality aren't the same thing and if the 2 are even properly related to each other is unclear (it's hard to even state how this would be so) I myself endorse a paraconsistent logic, it doesn't commit me to something in reality (I hold dialetheia to be purely semantic or linguistic in nature).
That's absurd. How on earth are propositions (an abstract object) "matter-based"? Show exactly where a proposition is in the physical world.
Relativity does not violate non-contradiction. Propositional truth values would be relativized to particular reference frames, so no contradiction ever actually arises.
"God exists" is a claim about our physical world isn't it? Why else would there be so much debate on it?
Quoting MindForged
Relativity destroys the notion of simultaneity while LNC requires simultaneity.
You're confused. That's an assertion *about* the world. The proposition the assertion expresses is not part of the physical world. It's an abstract object.
Time is not an actual component of the LNC at all. All the LNC says is that the proposition not be true and false in the same sense (i.e. the variable stand for the same thing). Propositional logics and quantified logics don't make use of time at all, it's not part of the formalism. You'd have to go to a temporal logic for that, and even then the LNC would be relativized to particular reference frames.
That can't be quite right.
If the train hits poor Freddy, Freddy is dead and there was a simultaneous event at a given location.
What may differ are the clock measurements and that is all Relativity is concerned with. It is the Sci Find writers that wish to elevate Special Relativity clock time to an ontology. Relativity is about converting measurements, nothing more but that doesn't stop science from building tales around it to sell books. General Relativity us a mathematics description about gravity. It had nothing to do with time. Einstein even had to invent a mathematics to make it work.
You're right. Propositions are ''about'' the world but doesn't that require that they concur with the actual goings on in the world? If I say ''God exists'' or ''I should do good'' etc. am I not making claims of this world. The facts of the world apply to propositions do they not?
Quoting MindForged
It has to be. If it weren't then everything would be a contradiction. I'm hungry at noon and not hungry in the afternoon. This isn't a contradiction because the two occur at different times.
Quoting Rich
Yes the accident happened but at different times to different observers. Observer A saw it happen at 6 o'clock and observer B at 7 o'clock. Time, being relative, can't have the property of simultaneity.
Real time is not relative. Freddy is dead. Measurement is relative because it depends upon the speed of light.. Unfortunately the myth persists that real time is relative because it makes good copy.
Of course not. Propositions can be false and so fail to describe something about the world (if it's a claim about the world anyway). However, the facts of the world do not apply to propositions, propositions are not a physical object. How would facts about the world apply to a proposition? Propositions (OK, this isn't quite right since these are sentences but for simplicity's sake) are true or false statements. Like if I say "Mars exists" that's either true or false. But the proposition itself isn't part of the world, the content of the proposition does contain references to a real object though.
Well you can say it is, but I can just look at a formalism of a logic and simply note that the system contains no concept of time in it. You are moving between "logic" (theories of what follows from what) to reality (the domain of physics). As I said, if you want to legitimately add time as part of the LNC you'd have to use a temporal logic, which makes the appropriate adjustments.
Relativity is understood in the standard mathematical lens (ZFC & CL), which most assuredly DOES have the Law of Non-Contradiction as an axiom.
Please read my OP. I've given the references. I don't see how there can be a contradiction when time isn't absolute.
The measurement of the simultaneity of events is not absolute, because it requires the sending of a signal. This is a measurement problem. Thanks to pop science text books, there is a pervasive confusion between the problems of measuring simultaneity (Relativity takes the stance that the speed of light is constant and uses this for transformation), and the actual time experienced in life. Whatever someone else may observe on another planet, when the train hits Freddy he is dead. The only disagreement may be in the clock time (simultaneity instrument) it happened.
Philosophers need to put Relativity in the small confines it belongs and not elevate it to an ontology. Science fiction writers can do as they wish.
??? I said there isn't a contradiction. Also, what @Rich said.
What I'm saying is that the concept of contradiction is meaningless when time is relative.
"2+2=4 & it's not the case that 2+2=4"
There is no concept of time imported here, it's just the conjunction of a proposition with its negation and regards a formal, time-independent matter. And yet, it's a contradiction. Ergo the concept of a contradiction does not require the concept of time to be assumed.
But consider the statements A=God exists and ~A=God does not exist.
If we don't have a temporal dimension to these statements then there is no contradiction. There's no contradiction in saying ''God existed'' and ''God does not exist''.
A & ~A is a contradiction precisely because they talk of the same universe and the same time.
A: God exists
~A: It's not the case that God exists
Even ignoring time, that's a contradiction if both are asserted.
Clearly: Relativity is contradictory and nothing more than pseudo-science.
(Ask me to back this up)
(A) In my, the torch holder's reference frame, the two lightbulbs go off at the same time.
(B) In the mad scientist's reference frame, the lightbulb he's heading towards turns off first.
Are (A) and (B) contradictory? Nah. What would make (A) and (B) contradictory?
If (A) was 'The two lightbulbs go off at the same time' and (B) was 'One lightbulb turns off before the other'. That's a contradiction. But is it what special relativity says? No. Special relativity emphasises that space and time - distances and durations of events - are indexed to a reference frame. Each consequence of special relativity (insofar as it relates to the relativity of simultaneity) has a set of indexicals - labels of reference frames - which dodge contradictions like this.
Saying they're contradictory is equivalent to imagining two guys in suits, John and James, applying the predicate 'x,y are currently in a meeting together' to both, and noting that it's currently false when they aren't in a meeting, and true when they are in a meeting. Contradictory? No. Why? Indexicals and a binary predicate. There's no inference you could do to extract 'are currently in a meeting together' as a stand-alone thing, a single element in the domain of discourse, since it is a mapping from pairs of objects in the domain of discourse to true/false. Doing so is the same procedure as trying to bring out a 'time' from the domain of discourse regarding special relativity whose quantities are not derived from relations between reference frames (relation being Lorentz transform).
In exactly the same sense, you can't extract 'are happening in the same time' or 'are not happening at the same time' as unary predicates (simple properties) from the logic of special relativity, since 'are happening at the same time' and 'are not happening at the same time' are ternary (3-valued) predicates here. Specifically, there are events x and y and an indexical reference frame p, and 'x and y happen at the same time in reference frame p' can be predicate H(x,y,p). 'At the same time' now means 'a mapping from 3-tuples of (x,y,p) to true or false'. You don't get to form a binary predicate H'(x,y) which says for all x and ys whether they happen at the same time, since using special relativity means to assume that this relation is ternary rather than binary. IE, equality in time when considered in a specific reference frame vs equality in time for all.
Edit: is it surprising that nonsense and contradictions arise if H' is set equal to H? No. That's precisely the manoeuvre which allows you to derive a contradiction from (A) and (B).
You should get together with @Rich. He is our, one of our, resident scientific contrarians. For me, there are two tests of such a contrarian approach. 1) Do you know enough about the science that I should listen to your opinion and 2) Are you sincere in your beliefs or just being contrarian for the fun of it? Not that I have anything against recreational contrariness.
What I object to it's pseudo science where concepts are just fabricated to fit the materialist agenda of the bio and neuro science commercial industry. The overall pretence that life is an illusion and things like filling humans with plastic is perfectly healthy because they are nothing more than Moist Robots.
They are perfectly compatible. At least they are compatible in the absence of time travels. But since time paradoxes are IMO nonsense (it is not possible to change the past and so on), they are compatible.
The relative simultaneity at best say that descriptions of some phenomena of two different reference frames are different. But in "the big picture", i.e., tha mathematical framework of the theory they is no contradiction (in the same way that the measurement of velocity of a car measured in its rest frame and measured by a speed camera are not contradictory).
OK Jonathan, I'm asking, back this up.
Ah! So someone is actually reading. (Had to check first).
Here is my proof that gravity is instant:
http://www.flight-light-and-spin.com/proof/instant-gravity.htm
(my answer in short)
(ranked #1 at most search engines for 'instant gravity proof')
If you have more time, and want more detail:
http://www.flight-light-and-spin.com/proof/proof-against-relativity.htm
Also:
I am fairly close to completing an algorithm and article which demonstrate
how the principles of relativity would effect the bodies of the solar system
(if they indeed applied).
I am hoping to publish that about a week from today.
I'll place the link on this forum in the philosophy of science section.
By then you may have completed reading what I have written thus far
which I might add has taken me the better part of the last decade to author.
Well, I'm not a mathematician, so I do not fully understand the general theory of relativity, but isn't this why space-time is "curved", to account for the problems you've demonstrated?
The physics of instantaneous gravity seems flawed as well since it requires a simultaneity that is undefined without a frame. So OK, the frame of the mutual center of gravity is used, but that means that in different frames, the force on one object from another is different, which is contradictory. How can object X pull on me in different directions depending on reference frame? It could be measured, and the direction of force be used to determine an absolute reference frame.
Bottom line is I think your physics is off in the SOL example that spirals out, but I cannot yet put my finger on it. Such a simple proof must have been critiqued by the physics community.
How can it be? Relativity says that simultaneity is observer dependent and the law of noncontradiction depends on simultaneity.
Some have said that logic doesn't have a time dimension. Coming to think of it I believe that's true. Discourse, logical discourse, requires constancy in meaning of the terms we employ. Change of meaning will mean equivocation and failure of discourse. Time is change and so must be excluded from logical matters.
However consider the statements H = I'm happy and N = I'm not happy. Over the course of a day H and N will alternate in our experience depending on the circumstances - there is no contradiction. However, the moment we claim H and N together at the same time there's a contradicton. Viewed in this way it seems logic does have a time dimension.
What do you think?
H = I'm hungry and N = I'm not hungry
At noon H is true and N is false. In the afternoon N is true and H is false.
So, the truth value of H and N change over time. If anything affects truth value then it's relevant to the law of noncontradiction which is about an unacceptable truth value combination.
Hi,
there are IMO two things that we should be aware. One is the fact that the "flow" of time means that there is change. Change actually undermines our "preconceived" view that it is possible to "name" objects (I am thinking to Cratylus for example). With this in mind, it might be true that the application of logic on reality is impossible. In fact concepts and names are "fixed", stable (that's why Plato thought that if they existed they would be not in this world).
However in relativity particles are "fixed", i.e. do not change every moment. Therefore we can use "names" and "concepts".
Regarding being in the states H and N is not possible in relativity. The relativity of simultaneity simply asserts that two events that for us are simultaneous (say, I see an apple falling from a tree and at the same time my phone rings at the same time) are not simultaneous for other observers. Of course the two descritptions are different, but they are different because the observers are different (it is like seeing a lake from two different perspectives, the lake is the same but how we see it is different).
The reason of the impossibility of being in two opposite states is because in that case we (an observer) would observe a contradictory "event". So relativity at the level of a single perspective does not introduce contradictions. Contradictions arise when we think that our perspective is "absolute", so to speak.
I hope that I adressed your point ;)
If you have two truth functions T1(x) and T2(x) such that T2(x)=NOT(T1(x)), then [T1(x) AND T2(x)] is a contradiction. This says nothing about other values of x. It's possible to have T1(y)=T2(x), like 'not hungry' after lunch=y with 'hungry' before lunch=x.
With more detail, as you said, with 'hungry now' and 'not hungry now', these truth functions are negations of each other and functions of 'now'. However, you can still construct contradictions without reference to a variable - where you have constant symbols mapped to their truth values. Not everything can be considered as a function of an indexical like time, so contradictions don't 'evaporate' from the constant symbols.
If you're dealing with a set of truth functions which are propositional functions of an indexical, of course it only makes sense to think of the conjunction of two truth functions, [T1(x) AND T2(x)], as contrary if T2 is the negation of T1 at x. This is part of why contradiction is a rather sterile notion for dealing with events and other situational oppositions or other notions of contrariety.
Agreed. Relativity states there is no preferred frame of reference but there is!
Suppose two electric switches are thrown simultaneously and poor Ted becomes toast. That is real! Whatever another observer saw, the preferred frame of reference is the one where the event took place in real time (duration).
Relativity is nothing more than a way to transforms equations. It is not an ontology. Science created an ontology with no basis to do so. They made the equations real and experience an illusion. Creating an ontology around Relativity creates a mysterious universe of time travel, twins aging differently, and other strange contradictions.
Glad to see others challenging the orthodoxy of mindless education.
That proof has never been critiqued by the physics community - because the physics
community does not comprehend critique any further than if they speak out of turn
and out of pecking-order they'll get their funding cut.
You cannot put your finger on it because you are looking for sophistic solutions.
The simple answer took a much longer complex route to arrive at than is presented.
By not reading the full argument, you sentence me as a witch - the simple is wrong
because its simple and the complex is too complex for you to bother with.
To answer your first point, the objective frame of reference will always be the sum of gravitational fields.
As regards the binary - the barycenter is very close to it as more distance objects alter this by little.
Wrong.
Einstein claimed gravity propagates at lightspeed.
The entire point of LIGO was an attempt to try and prove this,
and even though they did not, Weiss was given the Nob prize for claiming just this.
Even a basic reading of the subject should clarify it.
Although it is a popular internet rumor that there is no propagation of gravity at lightspeed,
the formal articles all say there is.
Or do you reckon that the most widely read book in astrophysics reprinted more than
a million times, just plain 'got it wrong' and nobody ever noticed, hmmm?
You have a copy of Hawking's little book?
Checked that yourself have you?
I suggest you read my articles a little more closely old chap.
(After you flip through to p.94) - But that was a scan from the printed text, innit?
In terms of the mass of objects, we do not measure the mass directly. The mass or material is inferred from the energy signal; bending. Conceptually, two masses can synchronize at any distance, but since we observe them indirectly through their energy signals, human perception of the energy middleman will be the rate limiting step to observing simultaneity.
Say you traveled at the speed of light, but in a very tight 3-D spherical orbit, so you can see the entire universe at the same time. According to SR, the size of the universe will appear to contract to a point-instant. This means, the entire universe will appear synchronized at the speed of light since there is no time delay between overlapping points. Perception that there is no synchronization is an artifact of inertial reference using middle man energy signals to define the universe.
It is sort of a magic trick, where the audience is distracted by the middleman.