 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > General Chat > Splitting Time from Space—New Quantum Theory Topples Einstein's Spacetime | Forum Quick Jump
|
 | 
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 11/29/2009 12:57 PM (GMT -6) |   | Einsteinian relativity has always been inconsistent with QT. A few years ago relativists and quantum theorists got together to try to theoretically resolve the inconsistency. After a while, they realized they weren't even defining space in the same way, just as this article admits. It seems that QT and Einsteinian relativity were even more inconsistent than they realized at the time. Unless we're willing to dump the LNC, there is no way both Einsteinian relativity and QT can be true as currently conceived. Indeed, there is no way to disprove Lorentzian relativity in the first place. Some theorists have conceived of possibilities where Lorentzian relativity is consistent with all the classical conceptions of physics, involving no counter-categorical ideas. They can't be proved or disproved anymore than Einsteinian relativity or QT can, because the difference is in the metaphysics.
What physicists do is come up with math equations that can allow us to predict phenomena. They then try to imagine what kind of real properties the non-temporal/non-spatial variables/constants in the equations correspond to. But there's no way to know one is right on that interpretive piece. For all we know, all fundamental physical particles are animated by their own spirits which act in a law-like fashion. Such interpretations are just untestable hypotheses. IOW, that interpretive piece of the theory is a form of metaphysical speculation. And as this article shows, different theorists can generate different interpretations that are consistent with the basic mathematical predictive approach. For example, there is no way to prove that space rather than ultra small particles functioning according to Lorentzian relativity is the real explanation of the relativistic math. Math is one thing. Metaphysical interpretations of mathematical equations is something else altogether.
When scientists tell you that the best explanation is that which is the consensus opinion, just remember they're doing metaphysics just like those philosophers whose work they think is so futile. The real value of physics is the ability to predict phenomena whether or not any particular metaphysical explanation of that predictability is correct. Scientists ASSUME, e.g., that all animal behavior is explicable in terms of matter. They have no more demonstrated it than a man in the moon. Scientists are metaphysicians just like the rest of us, however much they confusedly deny it.
Post Edited (Similtude) : 11/29/2009 12:18:34 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 11/29/2009 1:35 PM (GMT -6) | | From what little I read, he doesn't seem to be embracing Lorentzian relativity. Which just shows how many things people can conjure up when they're waxing metaphysical. But it's precisely because of this ability to do so, that I don't give up on what seems to me to be categories. Categories seem to me to be the God-given grounds of intelligible thought. Without them, I couldn't even see the rationality of open theism. Zach is right that my view of categories may be wrong. But until someone shows me the error of my views, they're all I have to work with. Thus, I don't worry about contemporary claims that my views are wrong when their alternative is to suppose that foundationalism is false (which is what mainstream science does). As I understand reason, foundationalism is unavoidable. And if we really must choose our categories and criteria of plausibility, then epistemological relativism is simply the case. And if that's the case, God can't possibly expect us to be of "one mind" in any conceivable sense. For where nothing is given, nothing is required.
Post Edited (Similtude) : 11/29/2009 1:23:55 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 6:31 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|