Infinte Regress Timeline...

[Kharakov]

Since that we may actually be in this continuum, one cannot say for sure if our days are infinitesimal to infinity many days in a finite subinterval of a larger interval.

Definition of infinitesimal requires that it shall be less than any value. Thus something with a value (as finite size) can never be infinitesimal, not in any context.

Not necessarily. A finite segment of an infinite line is an infinitesimal portion of the line. Although I don't recall what stance you take on the hyperreals?

 

[ryan]

If we assume that we live in a space-time continuum, then we are in the same four dimensions that calculus uses.

No we are not.

The 4 dimensions used in calculus are an abstraction.

They are not abstractions if space-time is curved, and they are not abstractions if quantum field theory is true.

And I am not saying they are true, but you have to prove they're not true.

They are a way to use math to arrive at useable answers.

Just because an answer is useable does not mean it conforms exactly with reality. It only means it conforms enough to be useable.

I agree. I said to assume that the continuum is true because we don't know it's not true. You have to prove it's not true, and you have to prove that quantum field theory is not true either.

Please read from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/quantum-field-theory/#Field ,

"While there are close analogies between quantization in QM and in QFT there are also important differences. Whereas the commutation relations in QM refer to a quantum object with three degrees of freedom, so that one has a set of 15 equations, the commutation relations in QFT do in fact comprise an infinite number of equations, namely for each of the infinitely many space-time 4-tuples (x,t) there is a new set of commutation relations. This infinite number of degrees of freedom embodies the field character of QFT." .

 

[skepticalbip]

No shit!

That is what I said.

If you understand the language of physics then you know what the terms mean.

If you understand French then you know what the French terms mean.

Those who don't have a clue what either are talking about but want to understand have a lot of work to do before they master the language.

No what you said was the equations speak for themselves.

They do if you understand the language.

Maybe the problem is that you don't understand the meaning of language or what "understand a language" means.

 

[George S]

Calculus is a method to deal with change.

But the change and calculus are not the same thing.

If we assume that we live in a space-time continuum, then we are in the same four dimensions that calculus uses.

Yes, and nature is often best explained by 1st and 2nd order partial derivatives. All taken over time. As with all models the model is not the thing. The map is not the territory.

Physics is a damned good map. It predicts odd things (like C60 buckeyballs do the 2-slit trick). This is beyond my believability. And yet (do you know how big they are? Huge. Each C has 6 each of protons, neutrons, and electrons. You do the math.) there is this guiding wave (in my favored interpretation) that knows the future shape of space and guides the 2-slit participant down certain paths. It knows a lot before it gets there. How many ways it could have gone and which will be preferred and whether it will be "detected" (have an interaction) and where.

The map is strange, but following it -- even when it seems impossible, especially then -- is proven to work. The map ends at time 1 (that pesky division by zero puts an impenetrable wall in the map). We see the map is right right back to shortly after the Big Bang. We cannot see farther.

ETA: we can see to about a 100,000 year old universe. When the universe was as old as the human race. Access to those 100,000 years is all model.

 

[untermensche]

No what you said was the equations speak for themselves.

They do if you understand the language.

Maybe the problem is that you don't understand the meaning of language or what "understand a language" means.

Understanding the language first is not part of the model. It is external to the model.

The model does not and could not speak for itself.

 

[ryan]

Since that we may actually be in this continuum, one cannot say for sure if our days are infinitesimal to infinity many days in a finite subinterval of a larger interval.

Definition of infinitesimal requires that it shall be less than any value. Thus something with a value (as finite size) can never be infinitesimal, not in any context.

If there are an infinite number (aleph null) of days, there may also be an infinite number (aleph null) of those sets/intervals. This would make our day an infinitesimal when comparing it to the infinite number (aleph null) of sets/intervals of infinite (aleph null) days.

 

[skepticalbip]

They do if you understand the language.

Maybe the problem is that you don't understand the meaning of language or what "understand a language" means.

Understanding the language first is not part of the model. It is external to the model.

The model does not and could not speak for itself.

You are back to playing word games.

Then letters and words are external to the language of French. A single letter or word taken from a French novel does not speak to the novel in itself.

But models are written for people who understand the language just as French novels are written for people who understand French.

 

[untermensche]

No we are not.

The 4 dimensions used in calculus are an abstraction.

They are not abstractions if space-time is curved, and they are not abstractions if quantum field theory is true.

They are still abstractions.

That is why we can depict light-years on a piece of paper with our coordinate systems. We can shrink distances down or expand them. We are not trying to depict reality. We are abstracting it so we can deal with it.

And I promise you I cannot prove anything about quantum theory.

Just because we may come up with quantum explanations of time that does not mean our experience of time is an illusion. Time is that which we experience. We know that. It most certainly has deeper explanations than that, but no deeper explanation can show that what we experience as time is not time. That's like saying knowing about quarks means a spoon isn't a spoon.

- - - Updated - - -

Understanding the language first is not part of the model. It is external to the model.

The model does not and could not speak for itself.

You are back to playing word games.

Then letters and words are external to the language of French. A single letter or word taken from a French novel does not speak to the novel in itself.

But models are written for people who understand the language just as French novels are written for people who understand French.

Yes. Letters and words on their own are not any language.

Equations on their own mean absolutely nothing.

 

[George S]

They do if you understand the language.

Maybe the problem is that you don't understand the meaning of language or what "understand a language" means.

Understanding the language first is not part of the model. It is external to the model.

The model does not and could not speak for itself.

Models certainly do speak. They predict the future.

 

[untermensche]

Understanding the language first is not part of the model. It is external to the model.

The model does not and could not speak for itself.

Models certainly do speak. They predict the future.

How do they do that on their own?

 

[George S]

And models predict what we will find if we investigate the past, and the past is all we have access to.

 

[ryan]

They are not abstractions if space-time is curved, and they are not abstractions if quantum field theory is true.

They are still abstractions.

Just because it is an abstraction does not mean that they can't be equivalent in every meaningful way.

In other words, calculus in 4 dimensions may be exactly all there is to reality. So it just may be that what is true in reality is true in calculus, and what is true in calculus is true in reality.

I am not saying it is true, but I am saying that you have to prove it's not true. And then we can only begin to look at your logic again.

That is why we can depict light-years on a piece of paper with our coordinate systems. We can shrink distances down or expand them. We are not trying to depict reality. We are abstracting it so we can deal with it.

And I promise you I cannot prove anything about quantum theory.

Just because we may come up with quantum explanations of time that does not mean our experience of time is an illusion. Time is that which we experience. We know that. It most certainly has deeper explanations than that, but no deeper explanation can show that what we experience as time is not time. That's like saying knowing about quarks means a spoon isn't a spoon.

What I am saying does not mean that time has to be an illusion.

 

[untermensche]

And predict what we will find if we investigate the past,

I agree we use the models to make predictions.

But I don't think this is the same as saying the equations themselves make predictions.

A lot is involved besides only the equations before any predictions occur.

Hand somebody who hasn't been educated to know what the equations mean and you don't get any predictions.

 

[untermensche]

They are still abstractions.

Just because it is an abstraction does not mean that they can't be equivalent in every meaningful way.

Abstraction means it is different.

If it were equivalent then it would be a depiction, not an abstraction.

Are you saying that because we can extend the x,y,z coordinates to infinity in our models that means that space must be infinite?

What I am saying does not mean that time has to be an illusion.

If time is not an illusion then we don't have to go any deeper than our experience of it to talk about it.

We know what the experience of the passage of time is. Infinite time would be the extension of that experience without end.

 

[George S]

Models certainly do speak. They predict the future.

How do they do that on their own?

I was speaking metaphorically, of course.
We are getting into linguistics now. There are propositions in languages. Propositions are to be judged true, false, or indeterminate.

Models in physics are propositions about nature. They are judged false if they do not match nature. False can mean of limited scope. Newton's laws. False can mean in need of refinement. Or in need of replacement.

 

[untermensche]

How do they do that on their own?

I was speaking metaphorically, of course.
We are getting into linguistics now. There are propositions in languages. Propositions are to be judged true, false, or indeterminate.

Models in physics are propositions about nature. They are judged false if they do not match nature. False can mean of limited scope. Newton's laws. False can mean in need of refinement. Or in need of replacement.

I don't want to denigrate the models. They are incredible achievements.

But to make sense of any model requires having knowledge beyond the equations.

 

[ryan]

Just because it is an abstraction does not mean that they can't be equivalent in every meaningful way.

Abstraction means it is different.

If it were equivalent then it would be a depiction, not an abstraction.

Well, anything that can be said about something is an abstraction, so any other logic is an abstraction of reality too. It all comes down to how we perceive reality; we never know for sure what it really is.

Anyways, I can pull out my graph paper, and the logic used on this piece of paper just may be the logic that the space that the actual paper takes up. You have to prove this is not true.

Are you saying that because we can extend the x,y,z coordinates to infinity in our models that means that space must be infinite?

No, I have been saying that if certain models are true, then space is infinite.

What I am saying does not mean that time has to be an illusion.

If time is not an illusion then we don't have to go any deeper than our experience of it to talk about it.

We know what the experience of the passage of time is. Infinite time would be the extension of that experience without end.

It's so much more complicated than this. When we talk about cognitive science and neuroscience, I don't even know where to begin to speculate if anything holds.

 

[George S]

And predict what we will find if we investigate the past,

I agree we use the models to make predictions.

But I don't think this is the same as saying the equations themselves make predictions.

A lot is involved besides only the equations before any predictions occur.

Hand somebody who hasn't been educated to know what the equations mean and you don't get any predictions.

A truth I uttered to a deaf person would still be correct regardless of his understanding.

Long after the last written copy is gone it will still model reality. Even in a language no one understands it still is. A proposition.

 

[ryan]

If time is not an illusion then we don't have to go any deeper than our experience of it to talk about it.

We know what the experience of the passage of time is. Infinite time would be the extension of that experience without end.

You know how people say that chemistry rises from physics, and biology rises from chemistry. Well, physics, philosophy and math rises from psychology (our minds).

Like I said before, we could have a perfect and complete mathematical and physical description of the universe, but we will never know if Descartes' evil demon is tricking us.

 

[George S]

I was speaking metaphorically, of course.
We are getting into linguistics now. There are propositions in languages. Propositions are to be judged true, false, or indeterminate.

Models in physics are propositions about nature. They are judged false if they do not match nature. False can mean of limited scope. Newton's laws. False can mean in need of refinement. Or in need of replacement.

I don't want to denigrate the models. They are incredible achievements.

But to make sense of any model requires having knowledge beyond the equations.

But first knowledge of the equations.

They do describe in one line a truly deep meaning. How reality changes over time.