Jump to content

Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q66: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From LithoGraphica
← Older editNewer edit →
Reversedragon (talk | contribs)
Bureaucrats, Conference pass, Interface administrators, Arts-aligned editors, Crimson-aligned editors, Violet-aligned editors, Administrators
15,839 edits
Time must explain politics / Scientists cannot un-break glass / Trotskyism is a wormhole
Reversedragon (talk | contribs)
Bureaucrats, Conference pass, Interface administrators, Arts-aligned editors, Crimson-aligned editors, Violet-aligned editors, Administrators
15,839 edits
applied Materialism / conflict between empirical materialism and dialectical materialism
Line 33: Line 33:
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/>
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.
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|I=S2/GR/MX|Q=618}}Relativity is inherently Communist / Relativity is inherently Marxist / Because Einstein's [[E:scientific model|theories]] of special and general relativity more or less forbid [[E:absolute determinism|absolute determinism]] and in practice only allow for [[E:lambda-calculus determinism|limited]] or [[E:relativistic determinism|relativistic]] determinism, relativity inherently promotes the use of naïve dialectical materialism to model the process by which causality leads from past states to future states; this is to {{em|imply}} that relativity promotes large-scale, [[E:dialectical materialism (Marxism)|specific-sense dialectical materialism]] as in Marx but only to outright state that it promotes multivariable functions as opposed to single-variable functions, and [[E:wavemachine logic (meta-Marxism)|wave-machine logic]]


</li></ol>
</li></ol>
Line 52: Line 54:


{{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|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>
== Materialisms must unify to remain accurate ==
<ol class="hue clean  field_relativity">
{{li|start=y|I=S1/STM|tradition=|Q=618}}applied Materialism / empirical Materialism (field of study which records verifiable empirically-observed statements about material reality) / field of science (generic)  ->  the motif of a series of statements about material reality which was recorded by a field of applied science or some similar discipline. within this motif, "biology", "physics", "paleontology", "archeology", and "population dynamics" would be considered 'applied Materialisms' as opposed to 'instances of science'. "psychology" would also be considered an applied Materialism, although it might or might not be considered an [[E:eclectic materialism|eclectic Materialism]]. "mathematics" would not itself be considered an applied Materialism because it is simply a set of rules and does not operate empirically. by this definition mathematics would lie within metaphysics or something like that, but it would be considered the most precise form of metaphysics ever invented which is possible to collapse into physics into some situations where it accurately models reality.
{{li|I=S1/MX|tradition=|Q=618}}conflict between empirical materialism and dialectical materialism  ->  I had so much trouble putting this into words. here it is. the reason that you have to correct dialectical materialism for accuracy to historical events no matter how strange the events are is this. it's not about some abstract Ideal of "historical accuracy" or "inclusivity" or "kindness", all of which can turn subjective and in the process become a vector for bigotry. nor even an abstract Ideal of "the proletariat" or "seeing from below". it's about the simple fact that dialectical materialism and applied Materialisms including applied sciences and observed history should match. it's really that simple. dialectical materialism is an attempt to elaborate on all applied or empirical materialisms, vaguely similar to the way that quantum physics elaborates on Newtonian physics. the models must line up. if the models do not line up, dialectical materialism becomes potentially invalid and there must be {{em|a new materialism}} proposed to unify all the other empirical Materialisms. the worst case scenario is dialectical materialism getting thrown out like string theory but something else appearing. the worst case scenario will basically never be the replacement being an Idealism.<br/>
this is the reason I'm confident in meta-Marxism and I really doubt there's any going back to something that isn't either violet Marxism, crimson Marxism, or orange Marxism. there is a particular thing about all future political theories that must be true: they must unify all applied or empirical Materialisms. anarchism cannot do that.


</li></ol>
</li></ol>

Revision as of 02:14, 12 June 2026

Main entry

  1. special relativity

    / relativity (Einstein's special theory of; generic) -> subset of: general relativity

  2. 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

Current models

Questions

  1. Dualism is separating noumenon and phenomenon / physicalism and prediction (generic) / (9k) -> ... 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.

Relativity and violet Marxism

  1. Painting is not pipe

    (physics) / Dualism is separating noumenon and phenomenon / The separation between noumenon (physical object, "beable", "hidden variable") and phenomenon (measurement result, impression, "observables") is a kind of dualism / (9k) ->

    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 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. [1]
    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.
    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".

  2. Dualism means two apples exist

    / Dualism is caused by the presence of more than one object in the universe / apple plus apple dualism / (9k) ->

    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 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.
    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". relativistic gaps between objects which separate what might be one object into two objects capable of interacting or not interacting 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.
    in one sense, relativity almost 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 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 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 logic to say that time caused itself. in the current universe, time is a circular process that builds on itself multiple times at a time per time and that is exactly what time does.

  3. Relativity is inherently Communist / Relativity is inherently Marxist / Because Einstein's theories of special and general relativity more or less forbid absolute determinism and in practice only allow for limited or relativistic determinism, relativity inherently promotes the use of naïve dialectical materialism to model the process by which causality leads from past states to future states; this is to imply that relativity promotes large-scale, specific-sense dialectical materialism as in Marx but only to outright state that it promotes multivariable functions as opposed to single-variable functions, and wave-machine logic

Time must explain politics

  1. 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 until you actually start using it.

    "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.
    "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 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?
    "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.
    (* cue thirty seconds of silence and then "Trotskyism proves the block universe!". okay. if the block universe is real then Trotskyism is a wormhole.)

  2. 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.

    (Item number in reference to the book 1632.)

  3. 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 new events made out of the same components as old events, not the actual old events themselves.

    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.

  4. 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 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

Materialisms must unify to remain accurate

  1. applied Materialism / empirical Materialism (field of study which records verifiable empirically-observed statements about material reality) / field of science (generic) -> the motif of a series of statements about material reality which was recorded by a field of applied science or some similar discipline. within this motif, "biology", "physics", "paleontology", "archeology", and "population dynamics" would be considered 'applied Materialisms' as opposed to 'instances of science'. "psychology" would also be considered an applied Materialism, although it might or might not be considered an eclectic Materialism. "mathematics" would not itself be considered an applied Materialism because it is simply a set of rules and does not operate empirically. by this definition mathematics would lie within metaphysics or something like that, but it would be considered the most precise form of metaphysics ever invented which is possible to collapse into physics into some situations where it accurately models reality.
  2. conflict between empirical materialism and dialectical materialism -> I had so much trouble putting this into words. here it is. the reason that you have to correct dialectical materialism for accuracy to historical events no matter how strange the events are is this. it's not about some abstract Ideal of "historical accuracy" or "inclusivity" or "kindness", all of which can turn subjective and in the process become a vector for bigotry. nor even an abstract Ideal of "the proletariat" or "seeing from below". it's about the simple fact that dialectical materialism and applied Materialisms including applied sciences and observed history should match. it's really that simple. dialectical materialism is an attempt to elaborate on all applied or empirical materialisms, vaguely similar to the way that quantum physics elaborates on Newtonian physics. the models must line up. if the models do not line up, dialectical materialism becomes potentially invalid and there must be a new materialism proposed to unify all the other empirical Materialisms. the worst case scenario is dialectical materialism getting thrown out like string theory but something else appearing. the worst case scenario will basically never be the replacement being an Idealism.
    this is the reason I'm confident in meta-Marxism and I really doubt there's any going back to something that isn't either violet Marxism, crimson Marxism, or orange Marxism. there is a particular thing about all future political theories that must be true: they must unify all applied or empirical Materialisms. anarchism cannot do that.

Related

  1. 1632 (Eric Flint) -> make 9k page later

Ideologies or fields

  1. pronounced Stem / natural sciences
  2. pronounced Stem / theoretical physics
  3. GR / special relativity
  4. GR / general relativity
  5. pronounced Hass / substance dualism
  6. pronounced I.K. / Kantianism
  7. pronounced meta- / time slice analysis

Full title for bookmarks (optional)

[9k] relativity - Q66,Q67 ; special relativity ; Einstein's/Einsteinian general theory of relativity
Retrieved from "https://research.moraleconomy.au/index.php?title=Ontology_talk:9k/RD/Q66&oldid=43970"