View source for Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q66

{{NextNineThousand|PPPA=relativity|User=RD|E=Q66|NoContents=y}}
== Main entry ==
{{HueCSS}}<ol class="hue clean field_relativity">

{{li|start=y|I=Z2/GR|Q=66|Q2=66|h4= special relativity }} / relativity (Einstein's special theory of; generic)  ->  subset of: general relativity

{{li|I=S2/GR|Q=67|Q2=67|h4 = general relativity }} / relativity (Einstein's general theory of; generic) / Einsteinian relativity  ->  I originally had these arranged 67, 66. I have decided that special relativity will get 66 because I tend to refer to it more

</li></ol>

== Current models ==
<!--
<ol class="hue clean field_relativity">
</li></ol> -->

== Questions ==
<ol class="hue clean field_relativity">

{{li|start=y|I=S2/STM|Q=618|Q2=618}}Dualism is separating noumenon and phenomenon / physicalism and prediction (generic) / ({{9k|RD/Q14,80}})  ->  ... the only real confusion on how to use Materialism to understand every meaningful process in material reality comes up around relativity and how to fully apply relativity to everything in the universe including time and causality. that can get confusing because events have to actually happen from the collision of two processes at some point, they can't be infinitely separate and relative and never converge, and we know they converge, physicists are just very confused how they do or at what scale. if they knew the answer to that, they'd have unified quantum mechanics and smallest-scale relativity and gravity.

</li></ol>

== Relativity and violet Marxism ==
<ol class="hue clean field_relativity">

{{li|start=y|I=S2/HAS|tradition=HAS, IK, EC, STM|Q=618|Q2=618|h4 = Painting is not pipe }} (physics) / Dualism is separating noumenon and phenomenon / The separation between noumenon (physical object, "beable", "[[E:hidden variable theories (quantum mechanics)|hidden variable]]") and phenomenon (measurement result, impression, "observables") is a kind of dualism / ({{9k|RD/Q14,80}})  -><br/>
I saw this brought up by a Christian bible college trying to separate "mental and physical" in order to prove god. but despite that, there are valid reasons to do this. if you don't separate the act of thinking from the physical, but you instead separate {{em|the hypothetical}} from the observably and empirically physical, you have a division between what is mental and what is physical, but it is not actually a division between body and mind nor body and "spirit", it is effectively a division between physical reality and math. mathematics, logic, and language are actually only so different from each other; they are all models of reality based on vaguely mathematical structures. but all of these models have the potential to be wrong, because if you take things hyper-literally, none of the models are the physical object being modeled; the parabolic equation is not the flying ball just as the painting is not the pipe. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Treachery_of_Images]<br/>
there might be some interesting questions to be asked about how, if hypotheticals are a different "substance" from what is real — however subjectively that statement holds true — in which ways real and hypothetical things each ontologically "exist". but as far as the natural sciences are concerned that is not terribly relevant.<br/>
the more interesting question to ask is, how does anyone distinguish between what is hypothetical and what is real? and it's arguable one of the answers to that, as much as it takes a while to explain how, is "relativity".

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618|Q2=618|h4= Dualism means two apples exist }} / Dualism is caused by the presence of more than one object in the universe / {{a|E=apple plus apple dualism}} / ({{9k|RD/Q14,80}})  -><br/>
this is the claim that noumenon and phenomenon are made into dual substances in daily life by processes that ultimately trace back to relativity. special relativity says that time progresses on top of events rather than events progressing inside time; given two points that physically exist, an event involves an interaction leaping across the gap between objects such as a photon moving from one object to be absorbed at another, and the event will be successfully {{em|exchanged}} between two points in space but each point in space may see the event happen at a different sequence of times which will not only be different numbers of elapsed seconds but will even show as different clock times in unusual enough circumstances.<br/>
what this practically means is that any object in the universe which is capable of perceiving or at least storing images necessarily exists in a universe where vast reaches of the universe are only hypothetical — every camera sitting on a tripod can take pictures within a particular radius but the rest of the universe is unknown until signals from other points in the universe cross over to it in time to finally reach its point in space. the crossing of a photon from one object to another is the moment that the hypothetical is confirmed to be the actual, or disproven. thus, relativity is the root of noumenon-phenomenon dualism. the boundary of a particular countable object, whether it is a person, camera, or apple, is the boundary between the "dual substances". [[E:relativistic gap|relativistic gaps]] between objects which {{a|separate what might be one object into two objects capable of interacting or not interacting|E=process of Being (Heidegger)}} are the exact boundary between phenomena in the form of recorded measurements, photographs, logical statements, or linguistic descriptions, and noumena in the form of real physical objects such as a second person or apple. the two substances are distinct in that physical apples contain the physical atoms and interactions of apples while any model of an apple is generally simpler than the actual apple. at the same time, any two people, cameras, or apples have their own boundaries of signals reaching them versus their own physicality. it is just as valid to point out that the real is separated from the hypothetical as it is to point out that this separation is almost the same thing as the separation between two apples or two star systems. thus, it is technically valid to say that dualism is when two apples exist. noumenon-phenomenon dualism is nearly the same thing as the dualism of two countably separate objects producing separate "parallel timelines" as two lamps both emit light beams on different paths that could hit an object at different speeds through space, passing through each other and "changing history" through wave interference, or two apples roll into each other and change each other's paths irrevocably because up to that point each apple was proceeding on a separate local timeline of expected events until suddenly the apples exchanged kinetic energy and changed each other's futures.<br/>
in one sense, relativity almost {{em|is}} physics. it's easy to take for granted that events happen, chemical or quantum interactions take place, and comparatively large objects such as apples or golf balls collide, but we should actually find it really remarkable that any of these physical events are happening given that every single physical event that happens {{em|disrupts and changes time}}. the Newtonian physics equations typically taught in grade school hardly ever take this into account, presenting every individual event as if [[E:absolute determinism|the whole universe were a scripted television show]], or a ball rolling off a counter simply "decided" to happen. in the real world, it would appear that relativity is more or less leading to every physical event through the constant collision and interaction of countable objects and semi-countable localized arrangements of objects or contained energy. it is not in fact circular {{em|logic}} to say that time caused itself. in the current universe, time is a circular process that builds on itself [[E:Time happens multiple times at a time per time|multiple times at a time per time]] and that is exactly what time does.

</li></ol>

== Time must explain politics ==
<ol class="hue clean  field_relativity">

{{li|start=y|I=S2/MX|tradition=MX onto STM|Q=16,30|Q2=1630|h4= Time must explain politics }} / If a physics model makes reference to time, it is applicable to some situation in politics; if a physics model of this kind has no applicability to politics then it may be a bad model of time  ->  this sounds silly {{em|until}} you actually start using it.<br/>
"There is no free will" okay, then what determines the results of elections? if you can't explain that, you've got a deepity that explained nothing.<br/>
"All periods of time physically exist in space in a block universe" cool, but does anything that happened in the Russian Revolution physically affect today {{em|as if it was currently happening}}?* if there's a block universe, why can't someone go back in time and tell everyone the results of an election altering the linear flow of time and creating a bootstrap paradox?<br/>
"Quantum physics has obsoleted causality, and the thing about water glasses unbreaking is actually true" if an election can't happen in reverse with every single thing that happened that day going backward like a VCR tape then what are we even doing with this one.<br/>
(* cue thirty seconds of silence and then "Trotskyism proves the block universe!". okay. if the block universe is real then Trotskyism is a wormhole.)

{{li|I=M3/MX/IV|Q=76,32|Q2=7632|h4= Why no political retcons? }} / Why hasn't time travel ever played a part in politics?  ->  my best guess is: relativity explains it. there's nothing special about 'free will' or 'causality paradoxes', but there is something special about the fact no particular object can actually control or reset other objects to a previous state including inanimate objects.<br/>
(Item number in reference to the book {{book|1632}}.)

{{li|I=F2/MX/STM|Q=76,31|Q2=7631|h4= Trotskyism is a wormhole }} / Because Trotskyism is the result of the Russian Revolution never actually having disappeared, Trotskyism is a connection between the actual spacetime slices of the past and actual spacetime slices of the present, making it a wormhole  ->  an absolutely dumb but weirdly inevitable conclusion you come to if you try to justify the block universe. the strongest evidence for the block universe would be past events actually affecting the present, but every time you think of one of those on the time scale of earth it's always {{em|new}} events made out of the same components as old events, not the actual old events themselves.<br/>
the one exception is if you point to stars and relativity, but to be quite honest, I feel like everyone who advances the block universe just doesn't understand what relativity means, and is trying to go around relativity and propose an explanation of time with no relativity in it, while if they actually understood relativity the need for the block universe would disappear. like string theory is a bad explanation of quantum fields, the block universe is a bad explanation of relativity.

{{li|I=S2/MX/GR|Q=618|Q2=618|h4= Scientists cannot un-break glass }} / No scientist un-breaks glass / No human scientist can unbreak a glass of water or fly back to the earth of 100 years ago, because relativity in particular forbids any individual object resetting other countably separate objects to a previous point in time; because every object experiences the arrow of entropy {{em|separately}} from other countably separate objects, you cannot both go forward in time yourself (as all fictional time travelers do, considering that they experience thoughts and memories exactly as they would if they were going forward in time) and send another macroscopic object backward in time, because the nature of countably separate objects experiencing time separately is that the other object will always go forward in time before you can control it and send it backward; what relativity says about causality is that separations of causality onto different timelines prevent manipulating other timelines through processes that can only include causality — when you have no foothold on the cliff of time, the foothold actively runs away and resists getting closer

</li></ol>

== Related ==
<ol class="hue clean  field_relativity">

{{li|start=y|I=Z1/IV/Fy|Q=16,32|Q2=1632}}{{book|1632}} (Eric Flint)  ->  make 9k page later

</li></ol>

== Ideologies or fields ==
<ol class="hue clean terse  field_relativity">
{{li|start=y
    |I=Z1/STM|Q=618}}{{TTS|STM|Stem}} / natural sciences
{{li|I=S1/STM|Q=618}}{{TTS|STM|Stem}} / theoretical physics
{{li|I=Z1/GR |Q=618}}{{TTS|GR}} / special relativity
{{li|I=Z1/GR |Q=618}}{{TTS|GR}} / general relativity
{{li|I=S1/HAS|Q=618}}{{TTS|HAS|Hass}} / substance dualism
{{li|I=S1/IK |Q=618}}{{TTS|IK|I.K.}} / Kantianism
{{li|I=S1/MX |Q=618}}{{TTS|MX|meta-}} / time slice analysis
</li></ol>

<!--
== Subpages ==
-->
== Full title for bookmarks (optional) ==
<pre>[9k] relativity - Q66,Q67 ; special relativity ; Einstein's/Einsteinian general theory of relativity</pre>

[[Category:Next nine thousand (RD)]]  <!-- page ends here.  TTS-unfriendly numbers incoming
titles:   [[User:RD/9k/Q66]] [[Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q66]] [[EC:9k/RD/Q66 relativity]]
duplication hint:   copy markup from [[Special:PermanentLink/NNNN|Q66 relativity]]
created based on:   [[Special:PermanentLink/42767|Q66,23]] -->