The whole theory of relativity is based on the premise that there is an upper limit ‘c’ to the speed of light. At this limit the relativity of space and time becomes quite evident. The Newtonian model of absolute space and absolute time no longer works as this speed is approached.
The question that has been there in my mind for some time is ‘What makes the upper limit of the speed of light such an absolute quantity?’ The answer seems to be ‘the physicality of this universe.’
What is ‘physicality’? How does one define it? Physicality would be defined by perception through our physical senses. All physical perceptions are consistent with each other. They are consistent with the measurements made through the use of physical instruments, such as, those used to measure the speed of light.
What is not physicality? The abstraction that we perceive through the mind would be a departure from physicality. This mental perception is different from the physical perception through eye, ear, nose, tongue, and body. Mind is first and foremost a sense organ. It perceives mental objects and the interactions among them. The mental objects are the abstractions that underlie physical objects. For example, three cups, three plates and three spoons are physical objects. But the underlying pattern of three is a mental object.
Such abstraction may go deeper in the form of patterns underlying patterns. We see that in mathematics. The whole subject of mathematics is abstract. There are numbers, but underlying those numbers is the number theory. Thus, we may say that there is a basic dimension of abstraction. The deeper one goes in this dimension, the more abstract things are.
The upper limit of the dimension of abstraction is the perception through the physical sense organs of eye, ear, nose, tongue, and body. This is the physicality defined by space-time of Einstein. Space-time has four components: three of space and one of time. The concrete forms are conjectured to be derived from space-time as follows
(1) Energy is a ripple that travels through the fabric of space.
(2) Matter is the condensation of energy.
This physicality is simply the upper limit of abstraction. Underlying this physicality are layers of subtle to subtler forms generating the dimension of abstraction. This dimension of abstraction has been there all this time. We know that the physical perception soon converts into experience, and then to information, hypothesis, theory, principles, axioms, etc. These subtler layers are then perceived by the mind.
The progress of mankind is measured in this dimension of abstraction. It has long been recognized as such in the eastern philosophy of the Vedas. Now it is time to look at this fundamental dimension scientifically.
Science recognizes the physicality consisting of three components of SPACE, and the one component of TIME. SPACE can be felt as concrete as well as abstract. TIME can be felt as concrete as well as abstract. This makes the dimension of abstraction as the most basic dimension that underlies even space-time.
Science has not delved into the abstraction of space-time even when these subtler forms exist.
Science should recognize and investigate ABSTRACTION as a fundamental dimension underlying even space and time.
Physicality of space-time is just a surface phenomenon. There is a whole ocean of abstraction that underlies it. It seems that there are general laws yet to be discovered that connect physicality to underlying abstraction.
.
Comments
Psychedelic experiences move into this dimension in an uncontrolled manner.
The scientific method explores this dimension in a controlled manner.
Science has, so far, limited its application of scientific method to physicality. It is time to use the scientific method to explore the dimension of abstraction.
.
You’ve managed to figure time as a 4th dimension, yet you can’t “see” it. Your ability to “see” stops at 3 dimensions. But you are in agreement with a 4th as time.
Calling the 5th dimension “abstraction” would be as incorrect as calling the 4th dimension, time, an “abstraction.”
Consider if you were physically disabled in a manner that left you with no sensory perceptions to judge space or even gravity. You would not know the normal space dimensions existed but you might still be aware a self, of your own consciousness. It would depend a lot on whether you had experienced normal senses prior to losing them and whether you’d gone mad from sensory deprivation.
That is the whole problem with this sort of speculation in ending up saying something is an abstraction because we can’t sense it. Perhaps something else could sense a 5th dimension and it would be as real to that something as 3 or 4 are to us.
I think it is more productive to simply look at the dimensions above 3 from the mathematical approach originated by David Hilbert, of “Hilbert space” fame. The simplicity is that things resolve consistently when you apply that approach. This approach implies that there are additional dimensions “at right angles” to our existing, visible, 3 dimensions.
Consider, for instance, if our universe was bounded and had a cubic shape. Like a child’s toy block. If you lived within that block you would have perceptions of space defined by (relative to) that block. But that block is defined by a boundary and something else outside that boundary could pick up that block and move it around in another set of 3 spaces. And that set of 3 spaces could be manipulated by forces or vectors from yet another external frame of reference.
All those external frames of reference could be operating on their own set of laws that individually or collectively could add something to each inner defined “block”. The residents of that inner “block” would not see, or possibly even be able measure the external hand that was moving their block, but they might nevertheless “expect” there were external “dimensions” because of other things they can measure and see to be influenced.
We can definitely sense abstraction otherwise we won’t be talking about it. Physical sense should not be used as the criterion for sensing as you are doing. Mental sense is itself a sense, but of a different kind altogether. I do understand that people are not used to looking the mind’s function as a sense organ. It may take some getting used to.
There is a gradient of abstraction. Space and time vary on this gradient. There is physical space and there is mental space. There is physical time and then there is mental time. Now that the dimension of abstraction has been identified, many things have to be worked out.
.
Time can be seen as motion. This has been extant for hundreds of years, at least.
I am trying to see time as an apect of spacetime and not just as itself.
As an aspect of spacetime it seems to appear as a sequence of states of space. It is something like the code.of a program.
.
2ndxmr: “That is the whole problem with this sort of speculation in ending up saying something is an abstraction because we can’t sense it.”
The above is not true. Any abstraction can be sensed by the mind.
.
Vinaire: “The above is not true. Any abstraction can be sensed by the mind.”
Chris: I like this concept a lot and it seems to be the way Hawking operates without his body.
2ndxmr: “This approach implies that there are additional dimensions “at right angles” to our existing, visible, 3 dimensions.”
“At right angles” is a limited interpretation of concrete space geometry variety. The accurate mathematical interpretation would be that no basic dimension would have a component along another basic dimension. This won’t be limited to a geometric interpretation.
.
2ndxmr: “Consider, for instance, if our universe was bounded and had a cubic shape. Like a child’s toy block. If you lived within that block you would have perceptions of space defined by (relative to) that block. But that block is defined by a boundary and something else outside that boundary could pick up that block and move it around in another set of 3 spaces. And that set of 3 spaces could be manipulated by forces or vectors from yet another external frame of reference.”
These are speculations of mathematical variety. Assumptions can exist in mathematics also. Such assumption would lead to unreality. Such is the case with String Theory, which has not been shown to be consistent with reality.
Any abstraction that is not consistent with reality would have the character of assumption, or unproven conjecture at best.
Yes. This is good.
The parameter which seems to trace a path in the fifth dimension is that of CONSISTENCY. No matter the degree to which abstraction is carried out, but if the mental perception is consistent with physical perception it is considered to be reality.
There seems to be an inherent sense of consistency in us. Extraordinary examples of consistency are honored by such things as the Nobel Prize.
.
Abstraction is real when consistent with physical reality.
.
I look at ‘spooky action at a distance’ as follows:
1. An observation is made in the layer of physicality.
2. A conjecture is created in the layer of abstraction.
3. That conjecture is operated on with mathematics in the layer of abstraction.
4. Mathematics helps make certain consistent associations from that conjecture, which may lead to conclusion that certain phenomenon might exist in the layer of physicality.
5. We look for that phenonenon in the layer of physicality and find it to be there.
6. Thus, we have a path from some observation in physicality to an apparently disrelated phenomenon in physicality through a path of consistency that travels through a layer of mathematical abstraction.
7. Wouldn’t this be a form of ‘spooky action at a distance’? This is a spooky description of Einstein’s theory of relativity.
.
I’ve saved this for days re-reading when I want busy to get the meaning. But I don’t understand the points you’re making.
An example would be
(1) Starting with the observation that speed of light is ‘c’
(2) Concluding that light would bend near massive heavenly bodies.
There is no connection between these two observations, except through abstraction.
I fancied that as ‘spooky sction at a distance’ if the abstract connection is not known. 🙂
.
I would characterize the “whole” theory of relativity differently. Rather than saying it sets an upper limit for the speed of light, I would emphasize that relativity sets a constant for EMR light-speed.
This is a wonderful clue that sounds like a clock ticking to me.
(1) The actual observation provides the upper limit to the speed of light in the vaccum of space (no medium) because the speed of light is lower in any other medium.
(2) The special theory of relativity assumes this to be the ultimate constant that cannot be exceeded.
I don’t understand how you see it otherwise.
.
maybe a better way to express my fascination with the constant speed of light is to say I’m fascinated with its constancy. It doesn’t vary. It’s speed is constant and if it slows when padding through glass, then it speeds back up after passing through the glass. You don’t seem to understand what I am emphasizing about this phenomena. It isn’t is rate of travel which is the salient point. It’s its constancy. This is the earmark of an iteration driven by a clock.
The constancy comes from the constancy of the medium, as I see it. There is no mystery in that regard.
For ripples in water that constancy comes from the constancy of the surface tension.of the medium. I do not have good understanding of the ‘surface tension’ of space.
.
Heat (long wave EMR) is said to be transmitted by 1. Conduction, 2. Convection, or 3. Radiation. To me this is a sloppy look at what is going as each seems poorly defined with respect to the other two. Even discussions of the forms of “energy” seem muddy. I learned these forms in the 8th grade and they have served my understanding very well so long as I stayed in the box of work a day living and mechanics. But take a closer look and these six or so “forms of energy” blur. This is not a criticism of the definers of these forms and transmissions but I’m just saying that when I look closely at these they sometimes read back to me like a poorly written history book.
Conduction occurs in solids. Convection occurs in fluids. Radiation occurs in space. This seems fine to me.
.
It seems to be a common misconception that the Theory of Relativity sets the upper limit of speed of light. The truth is that the speed of light is determined by experiments to have a certain value in the vacuum of space, and this value is found to be a universal constant.
“It is a basic postulate of the theory of relativity that the speed of light is constant.” per this excellent article. Is The Speed of Light Constant?. So the conclusions of the theory of Relativity are arrived at from the postulate that the speed of light is constant.
Light slows when passing through a transparent medium, such as glass, because it is absorbed and reemitted by the atoms of the medium.
.
That is not my misconception. That is the way you wrote it yourself. I have no such idea about the “speed” of light. My most poignant question is why the speed of light should measure constant for all frames of reference. So far, you have not addressed this but have likened it to water and sound waves. For me, this is likened to comparing electricity through a wire to water through a hose. It works at the most elementary simile of understanding but breaks down rapidly as we push for deeper understanding.
What did I write that you are referring to?
.
Vin: What did I write that you are referring to?
Chris: “It seems to be a common misconception that the Theory of Relativity sets the upper limit of speed of light.”
I have not observed that to be a common misconception. On the other hand, and for real, that the “speed of light is constant for all frames of reference” is so counterintuitive that I rarely run into anyone even wondering about it.
Vin: Light slows when passing through a transparent medium, such as glass, because it is absorbed and reemitted by the atoms of the medium.
Chris: Yes, so we have to go back to the models of waves vs particles and are stuck once more. If light is “particles” then they must surely have mass and if so their mass must increase geometrically as they accelerate toward the speed of light. On the other hand, if EM radiation is a disturbance in the “substance” of space, then that substance is different from the substances we are used to at the macro level. But light photons are said to have little or no mass, so what are they? Answer: Our current physics model is embryonic with a long way to develop before we worry about “spooky” effects. These will be understood in time was more rudimentary and extant questions are resolved.
From what I have studied,
(1) The conclusion that speed of light is constant is arrived at by experimental results. It is also the product of two constants used in Maxwell’s equations. All these constants seem to relate to the properties of vacuum.
(2) The theory of relativity uses the fact of speed of light being constant as its premise.
(3) My conjecture is that the speed of light is not relative to any parts of the universe. But it is relative to the universe as a whole.
This is just for the record.
It is not just constant. It is constant for all frames of reference. If this datum will not break the back of our confounded fixed ideas about rate, acceleration, mass, and energy, what will it take?
The early thinkers on this subject pretty much covered the ground we’re covering. We have to look deeper. It will probably not turn out to be like we thought.
This ‘spooky action at a distance’ was really an abstract joke.
.
One does thought experiements using the process of mindfulness. This is what Einstein did to come up with the theory of relativity. But mindfulness is fully understood in the context of the dimension of abstraction.
Without the consideration of the abstract dimension, mindfulness reduces to the scientific method limited to the layer of physicality.
.
In a thought experiment it is the inherent sense of consistency, which is pursued. No past learning is sacrosanct.
All ideas, beliefs, assumptions, viewpoints, and feelings, associated with an observed inconsistency, are subject to critical examination for what they are.
.
Locality = no instantaneous (“spooky”) action at a distance
Realism = the moon is there even when not being observed
Local realism (local hidden variable) = distant events are assumed to have no instantaneous (or at least faster-than-light) effect on local ones
Quantum entanglement = distant events may under some circumstances have instantaneous correlations with local ones
Bell’s theorem = No physical theory of local hidden variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics.
.
It seems that what we normally perceive is an ‘averaged’ phenomenon. We have to go to extreme limits of speed, size or differentiation to find ‘individual’ phenomenon, which is different from ‘averaged’ phenomenon.
I don’t think non-locality would ever be observed in abstraction.
.
According to Bell’s Theorem locality in itself does not account for all of the predictions of quantum mechanics. Some degree of non-locality (action at a distance) must occur.
If space is some kind of a matrix in which a disturbance may travel, then
(1) This disturbance is manifested in terms of electromagnetic fields.
(2) This disturbance travels at a constant speed of ‘c’.
(3) Undisturbed space does not exhibit any field that we can perceive.
(4) Action at a distance would require that this matrix acts as a rigid structure in some aspect.
.
Vin: (4) Action at a distance would require that this matrix acts as a rigid structure.
Chris: Do you mean space must be rigid for the phenomena of entanglement?
Not space but some aspect of space.
.
I have to study up more to understand the phenomenon of entanglement.
.
Understanding of space will lead to the ability to move objects without acceleration as supposedly observed in the behavior of UFOs.
.
Speed of light is different in different media. It is constant for any particular medium. The symbol ‘c’ is used for speed of light in vacuum of the outer space. This is the upper limit for the speed of light as I understand.
The speed of light depends on the characteristics of the medium in some way because it is constant for each medium. What is then surprising is that it is constant for space too, where we seem to think that there is no medium. The idea of ether in space was considered and then rejected. So the alternative possibility is that space itself is the medium. That is counter-intuitive for most people.
In Newtonian mechanics ‘c’ was considered to be infinite. That consideration allowed space and time to have magnitude independent of each other. That was ok for practical purposes because ‘c’ is so large. The problem occurs only when we encounter speeds closer to ‘c’ as in atomic phenomenon. This is where the inconsistency with classical mechanics was first noticed.
.
The speeds closer to ‘c’ are observed in atomic phenomena. There are elctromagnetic field (disturbance in space) present.
.
Mass is basically inertia, which is resistance to change. It is an abstract concept. It is different from concrete matter. The idea of mass approaching infinity as the partcle approches ‘c’ is a conclusion from a theory that assumes an absolute upper limit for ‘c’.
So, an upper limit for ‘c’ is derived expreimentally and assumed to be absolute to arrive at the theory of relativity. One cannot use the theory of relativity to explain the upper limit of ‘c’. That would be like proving the assumption that one started out with. It would be circular reasoning.
I suspect that the reason for an upper limit for ‘c’ in the structure of space itself.
.
Vin: I suspect that the reason for an upper limit for ‘c’ in the structure of space itself.
Chris: This is what I have been writing. And we may need very wide open minds to embrace what that structure is. This is a good article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime
I read that article. It is a good one. It seems that ‘perception’ needs to be defined for this space-time model.
Perception and abstraction seems to be related somehow. Instruments ‘perceive’ physicality. The mind seems to perceive more than physicality.
.
That’s good. Perception and abstraction . . . ideally maybe perception is what we should see there and abstraction is whatever we do see there. Ideally, as we became more enlightened, these two would converge together.
Just as physical perception can be in error, mental (abstract) perception can be in error too.
Mindfulness is seeing things as they are.whether physical or abstract. A major uncertainty seems to lie in the area of judging abstraction for what it is. This is the area of mathematics and logic. What associations are valid and which are not?
It boils down to defining consistency.
How do we define the consistency of physical perception?
.
All fundamental mathematics seem to relate to measurements in space-time. And any measurement has the element of ‘perception’ within it.
Maybe there is further explanation of what ‘perception’ is. It seems to be part of mathematics.
.
Measurements seem to be our best stab at a consensus reality. What we should see if we are seeing correctly what is there.
Dimensions are independent components of a coordinate grid needed to locate a point in a certain defined “space”.
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime
.
Mass is inertia. It is resistance to change in speed. It seems that objects simply do not want to be accerated or decelerated. But, on the other hand, such acceleration seem to be built into them as gravity. This is like a spinning gyroscope that wants to maintain its orientation. There seems to be a universal phenomenon here like the speed of light. It is then possible that space is anchored with large spinning masses.
Increase in mass would mean that the resistance to change in speed is increasing. I do not understand why this resistance would become infinite when the speed of an object is near ‘c’. But I can understand that the greater is the sudden acceleration, the greater would be the resistance, and mass.
Thus, mass may depend on the rate of change of acceleration, or force, and not on the rate of change of speed. Please note that this is just wild thinking that needs to be put in a mathematical framework for a test of consistency.
.
Vin: It is then possible that space is anchored with large spinning masses.
Chris: Spinning masses is probably a good direction.
Vin: Mass is inertia. It is resistance to change in speed. It seems that objects simply do not want to be accerated or decelerated. But, on the other hand, such acceleration seem to be built into them as gravity.
Chris: This does fit with my idea of space as elastic. In my model, gravity is this elasticity. “Solid” objects represent the entropy of this elasticity, and black holes? Well, they are there in this model somewhere! haha
Vin: Thus, mass may depend on the rate of change of acceleration, or force, and not on the rate of change of speed. Please note that this is just wild thinking that needs to be put in a mathematical framework for a test of consistency.
Chris: Understood. Also, we must keep in mind these two models: One of massless disturbances, and Two of objects moving through space are different concepts.
Vin: I do not understand why this resistance would become infinite when the speed of an object is near ‘c’. But I can understand that the greater is the sudden acceleration, the greater would be the resistance, and mass.
Chris: If there were a “clock speed” underpinning the universe in some way or some fashion, then the universe would be existing discretely as the energy states of electrons exist. Possibly there is a tremendous effort required to “increase velocity” which is another way of writing “increase rate of iteration.”
When one throws a stone in a pond, the speed of a ripple that moves outward from the point of impact is determined by the properties of water. Similarly, sound is a three-dimensional ripple in the air. The speed of sound is determined by conditions of the air, or the medium it is traveling through.
I believe that light is no different. It is a 3-D ripple in the fabric of space. It is subject to Doppler Effect just like the sound is. Only thing that science doesn’t know is the nature of space.
When we look at space and time themselves, we find that their very nature is relative. A location in space is relative to another location in space. A duration in time is relative to another duration in time. There is nothing constant or absolute.
The speed of light is probably constant with respect to some relationship between space and time.
.
You are not addressing the salient point of the ramifications of c equal for “all frames of reference.” This is the reason our analogies break down. The speed of a ripple in a puddle is not the same for all frames of reference.
Physicality seems to lie on a path (or region) in space-time where maximum ratio of space-time is maintained at ‘c’.
There can be other paths (or regions) in space-time where this ratio can exceed ‘c’.
Maybe those are the regions of abstraction.
.
If c is constant for all frames of reference, then nothing about EMR light equates to other wave propagations. At least not in the sense that the previous moment pushes the following moment and the next.
There is something else going on. Whether illusion, delusion, abstraction, or unseen mechanic, something else is at work to spur on the energy at every point anew across its wavefront. It’s like a field of mousetraps with coiled springs at every point waiting to be triggered to release its individual energy-point upon activation. My analogy is weak but the wavelength of light is dependant upon frame of reference; however, the speed is not.
I would say that speed of sound would also be constant for all frames of references, because it is the based on the property of the medium it is traveling in, and not on the frame of reference.
The speed is the product of frequency and wavelength. The frquency and wavelength would change as in the Doppler Effect, but speed would remain the same as long as medium is the same,
.
No, we’re not on the same page here. This is why there is a “sound barrier” which can be broken. Or if a supersonic bullet is fired at a target, the bullet hits the target before the sound the bullet reaches the target. OR else I do not understand one thing about what I am reading about relativity beginning with “frame of reference.”
Does the speed of sound change with the frame of reference. In other words, does the speed of sound change when you observe it while moving compared to when you observe it at rest?
.
Mindfulness is seeing things as they are whether physical or abstract. Instruments ‘perceive’ physicality. The mind seems to perceive more than just physicality.
We seem to trust physical perceptions more than the mental, or abstract, perceptions. But just as abstract perception can be in error, physical perception can be in error too.
A major uncertainty seems to lie in the area of seeing abstraction for what it is. It seems to be reletively difficult to decide which abstract associations are valid and which are not? This is the area of mathematics and logic.
It boils down to defining consistency in what we observe.
How do we define the consistency of physical perception? Knowing that, maybe, we can simplify mathematics and logic for the masses.
.
We seem to trust physical perceptions more than the mental, or abstract, perceptions.
This is because there is a consensus between us about the consistency of physics. Sitting alone in our houses and thinking thoughts, it doesn’t matter so much if our perceptions match consensus reality. In fact, sometimes it is better to ignore consensus, not when we are driving in traffic, but if say we are writing a book like HARRY POTTER or LORD OF THE RINGS, then its better to disregard consensus. And yet, these stories need consistency as well. What do you make of this?
Chris: “This is because there is a consensus between us about the consistency of physics.”
Is that so? Or, is it becauise of the immediate unpleasant consequences when physical laws are violated?
There are no immediate unpleasant consequences when people fail to perceive abstractions correctly. It leads to unpleasnt conditions but people fail to see the connection.
The task here is to get people to see things as they are without justifications. This is more important for abstract perceptions. This is the solution to mystery.
This is mindfulness.
.
Vin: Is that so? Or, is it becauise of the immediate unpleasant consequences when physical laws are violated?
Chris: You are so preaching to the choir on this. What I wrote is in agreement with what you just wrote. Unpleasant consequences are not inconsistencies?
The idea of “consensus among us” comes from Scientology. I do not think that consensus is necessary. There can be reality for a single person with nobody else around to agree with him.
It is only perception that matters.
.
You are drifting away from our topic. We were discussing measurements of physical objects and of mental objects. Measuring physical objects requires consensus, this is not Scientology. Mental objects cannot easily be measured — mental processes seem to make waves on an EKG. This is consensus but . . . of course a personal reality is possible. I don’t understand or see which inconsistency you are challenging.
Meanwhile I am trying to clear up my misunderstandings about what a frame of reference means in physics so that I can understand what :constant for all frames of reference means.”
I have thought that two trains, heading toward one another, with their headlights on, — the light from each headlight is measured to travel at 300,000 km per sec no matter which observational point in this mix one chooses. Speeds of the trains relative to each other, the tracks, the ground, sky, and departing depots all be damned. Yes there is the Doppler Effect, but this is not related to the speed of the light but to the length of the wave length.
DO I HAVE THIS WRONG?
Measurement of physical objects requires comparison and not concensus. One can arbitraity decide a unit of measure, such as, the span of a hand, and measure the length of a table using it.
I think that measuring of mental objects may require a comparison too.
.
Mincing.
Oscilloscopes do not measure mental objects. They measure brain waves.
How does one measure ideas? One measure is the effect an idea creates on human lives. Look at the ideas behind inventions or expressions that have won Nobel prize.
Mindfulness is an idea with immense value. It has been around for thousands of years. So mental objects, such as, ideas, have been measured by their value.
.
Oscilloscopes do not measure mental objects. They measure brain waves.
Mincing and not helping – but the rest of your statement is good looking.
Yes, this is good, yet we abstract mental objects by drawing them on paper, etc., such as architecture, engineering, and art. The scale used is consensus or are we not meeting yet?
The Salk vaccine was synthesised after abstraction from intuition and research and a consensus reached with the virus.
I wanted to change around the inside and outside of my house. I visualized walls removed until I landed on pleasing abstraction. Then I took out walls, added lighting, built a garage, etc.,. You tell me the language you want to use about abstracting this process and I will use it so we can continue.
A consensus on a unit is not necessary for measurement. It may be necessary for communication. Scaling down or up of objects as in engineering drawings or in photography is not mental abstraction that I am talking about. It is just a symbolic representation.
You are using a different definition of abstraction than what I am using.
ab·strac·tion noun
1. an abstract or general idea or term.
2. the act of considering something as a general quality or characteristic, apart from concrete realities, specific objects, or actual instances.
3. an impractical idea; something visionary and unrealistic.
4. the act of taking away or separating; withdrawal: The sensation of cold is due to the abstraction of heat from our bodies.
5. secret removal, especially theft.
I am using definition #2, while you are using definition #4.
.
You may find the definition of frame of reference here:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/frame+of+reference?s=t
1. a structure of concepts, values, customs, views, etc., by means of which an individual or group perceives or evaluates data, communicates ideas, and regulates behavior.
2. Also called reference frame. Physics. a framework that is used for the observation and mathematical description of physical phenomena and the formulation of physical laws, usually consisting of an observer, a coordinate system, and a clock or clocks assigning times at positions with respect to the coordinate system.
Maybe the ‘frame of refernce’ acts like a ‘mental unit’ to measure ‘mental objects’.
One compares a mental objects against one’s frame of reference to measure (judge) it.
The measurement in mental space is called ‘judgment’ or mental assessment. Being judgmental would mean the use of arbitrarily generated frame of reference, and not a frame of reference that actually exists.
Consensus can occur on an arbitrarily generated frame of reference, and not on a frame of reference that actually exists.
.
I really like this discussion of physical vs mental objects, it has traction for me. And maybe I should leave out the vs so as not to bias the discussion by creating an arbitrary dividing line.
Vin: The measurement in mental space is called ‘judgment’ or mental assessment. Being judgmental would mean the use of arbitrarily generated frame of reference, and not a frame of reference that actually exists.
Chris: This is an important one. I want to look very closely at this because of your predilection to use actually exists. I would like to understand that there is such a thing and not simply a curious and interesting model upon which we simply build another ideology. Can you see my concern?
I watch my kids play. Their imagination goes into full flight. They build mental objects, share them with one another, and invite one another to play. This is relevant to this discussion. What language do we use to show the relevance?
Vin: Consensus can occur on an arbitrarily generated frame of reference, and not on a frame of reference that actually exists.
Chris: We do this when we play children’s games. Then we bring more solidity to it by using a board game such as Monopoly or playing cards. So the frame of reference gradually becomes less arbitrary? Is this what you are saying?
When one is using the span of a hand to measure the length of a table, that hand actually exists. One doen’t need consensus on it. Another person can see that hand without requiring a consensus.
But when one is using a particular standardized “span” as a unit to communicate measurements that may be duplicated elsewhere, then one would require consensus.
.
It is essentially a matter of consistency. There can be consistency within onself, without requiring a consistency among a group through consensus.
I am opposed to the idea of a standalone individuality with a totally free will. There is no such thing in my view.
.
Consistency is relative. It can be there within a person. It can be within a group. It can be within the universe.
There is no absolute consistency of a standalone free will.
.
I think that pretty much all ego generated mental concepts of “what is real” or “how things are” have false major premises. I am beginning again beginning with what I thought when I was 18 years old which is that “everything I have been taught about spirituality is bullshit.” Not in an unhappy or negative way but simply in a cheerful neti-neti way.
I will happily build back my reality one bit at a time. My current model embraces that video you or someone put up about abstraction with the pinwheel spinning and then not spinning. “Disk, then no disk.” Abstraction.
That video was introduced by Rafael.
.
I’d like to find it again but cannot remember the name nor the thread we were on.
It is here:
Two Favorites
.
Yes, that’s it, thanks. Lots of meat with those potatoes.
Rafael??? Can you help?
Yes, I think we’ve long since passed that one and left it in the rear view mirror, haven’t we? We’ve moved on.
I’m loving this discussion but this morning I’ve got to move on for a few hours as I owe some work to the consensus reality… haha
I meant that you and I have move on from this one of individualitiy.
There is no absolute consistency of a standalone group either. The word ‘consensus’ seems to refer to such an absolute group consistency.
.
Agreed. This is what I see as well. If you and I form a little cocoon of thought experiments, models, we seem to create a little recursive and self-similar frame of reference and for a time, we start seeing the similar things, but the longer we look, the more the iterations diverge and the inconsistencies emerge.
This is terrifically satisfying to me. It gives me a handle on why we almost see the same thing, now not the same thing, later the similar thing, then later not the same thing. It opens the door for me to compassion and tolerance and maybe a little bit of understanding.
This may be quite a leap but it feels like I understand my place in the scheme of life.
That’s wonderful. There is no rest for me because there is no absolute.
.
It is good to look. It will always be good to look. My own fixation with absolutes is ego driven. It is like burning ambition or other fixation. It is frustration with being on the squirrel cage instead of simply admiring the squirrel cage for its beauty, its perpetual design. It’s a thought and an attitude that I’ve gotten. It both drives me and quenches that drive — both. The fixation part is not so good – like running to catch a glimpse of the end of pi and not finding it, running faster. Not so good. But the raw curiosity over things not yet seen. Of more complexity made simple, this is good. A life in balance is good, fresh, and new with neither stagnation nor burning madness. I want to continue my education and yet if I don’t complete it, that’s ok. I want to LIVE but death holds no particular sadness for me, so I’m not trying to stave it off. There’s no particular ending anymore than there was a particular beginning. I see appearing and disappearing — like magic and it still intrigues me.
I find that even when I have the discipline to simply look, there are instances when I have to quietly confront stressful moments like a very angry person upset with me and shouting in my face at the top of his voice. Even though it is easy for me to simply observe and not react, and calmly respond to the person, the incident plays later again and again in my mind. The mind tries to figure out all different ways that the situation could have been addressed.
But I also know that this playing again and again of the incident is not useful. The situation was handled best by not reacting. Why is the mind then playing it over and over again?
It seems that some chemical gets created during the stressful moment. This playing again and again of the incident in the mind is simply the gradual dispersing of that chemical. It takes a day or two for this chemical to disperse fully. So one just have to put up with it.
The next level of spiritual advancement would be when the chemical does not get produced in a stressful situation in the first place.
.
Interesting!
I was just driving home from having dinner with my wife. We were both humming a tune we both don’t like which was playing in the restaurant. I told her, well when I get home I’m going to play that on my guitar and get rid of it. When I get a tune stuck in my mind, looping over and over, I accidentally found that by mimicking that tune, just playing single notes of the melody on my guitar for only a minute or two, something happens which breaks that loop and lets it go. I have no idea what is occurring with that.
Then are we together that Planck calculations are a standard and provide a consensus? Or else what?
Do you have an ideology based on Planck’s constant?
.
Do you have an ideology based on Planck’s constant
I guess so. It seems consistent if we are looking closely at physical objects and at mental objects, that we would parse them down as much as possible. Planck’s constant is parsed down as small as physics has gone and the math seems to work, that’s how we Skype, right? — because that math works.
Or what is the point where one’s construct of a model becomes an ideology. We make these lenses and peer through them to see how the focus looks . . . I’m not insisting on anything, just trying this out to see how it fits.
I always question what I come with, to look deeper still. I question the Planck’s constant just as I question the speed of light.
They both seem to depend on ‘physicality’, which I need to understand better in the context of the dimension of abstraction.
.
I thought of something today which I want to put out there. As I was considering the Doppler Effect and how it is similar for waves in all mediums and seemingly without(?really?) mediums and I question whether there is no medium in space (as we have been challenging and discussing) and it occurred to consider time as a medium. I don’t know what I am making of this but I wanted to mention it before it slips my mind.
“Start-Chage-Stop” defines the medium of time for any action.
.
Brushed off.
Explain yourself.
.
Examples of past such consensus are:
(a) The earch is flat
(b) Earch is the center of the universe
(c) There are seven planets. There cannot be an eighth planet because 7 is a perfect number.
Just having a consenus is not a measure of what is.
.
Neither is having no consensus.
The word consensus is not in my vocabulary. I don’t use it.
.
Maybe precise ‘mental units’ or ‘frames of refences’ needs to be defined.
The Golden Rule may be defined as a standard mental unit to measure mental ideas, such as, the biblical “an eye for an eye.”
.
Yes, this is a good one.
I’m so very intrigued by the two Voyagers which are at the egress point of this solar system. I am interested in the science – such very good data still coming back from these two remote viewing points now nearly 40 years later. And I am interested in the wild imaginings that these travels generate such as the wonderful story line in the first “Star Trek: The Motion Picture.”
These two types of objects seem relevant to this discussion.
Here is more data on frame of reference
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_of_reference
.
The velocity of sound in air is constant from all frames of references. The different frames of references only change the frequency and wavelength of sound (but not its speed). This is called the Doppler’s effect.
.
Really? Because this is not how I am understanding light speed nor “constant for all frames of reference.” The supersonic bullet cannot detect its own compression cone of sound, is probably unaware of its existence as it recedes further behind it. Light speed is not like this.
Light speed seems to be irrelevant to frame of reference and this is peculiar to light and is what we need to look at for our clues to what is going on with spacetime.
EMR / light seems to use all of the “box” – all of the available “clock speed.” Can you see where I am going with this?
Just like the speed of light in vacuum is constant fo all frame of references, similarly the speed of sound in air is also constant for all frame of references. Check it out.
Even when you are riding on a supersonic jet and measure the speed of sound, it would still be the same as measuring from a slow moving car, or standing still.
The speed of sound does not depend on the motion of the frame of reference.
.
Science deals with perception at physical level. Law, Politics, Psychology, Medicine, Anthropology, etc. deal with perception at human level.
How is perception and reasoning at human level different from its counterpart at physical level?
.
Oh, and I like your golden James Bond girl art! haha! Very arty and sexy! Like our conversation? haha! Now it is 4:00 AM and I MUST get to work!
To meet her, you have to go into the fifth dimension.
.
LOL! I must be there then because I think I know her! hahaha (Never mention this conversation to my wife!)
A sound wave moving through air and a supersonic jet moving through air are two very different phenomena. The sound wave is dependent on the structure of the medium (air), but the supersonic jet is not.
Similarly, light moving through space, and an object moving through space are two very different phenomena. I believe that space has a structure and the light wave is dependent on it, whereas an object moving through space may not be. I have to understand the relationship of matter with the structure of space.
But I believe that the Theory of Relativity does not provide reason enough to claim that an object cannot move in space at a speed faster than light.
.
And I am beginning to wonder if light moves through space using the medium of time. There may be an explanation within this idea that satisfies “constant for all frames of reference.”
No action is possible without the “medium” (start-change-stop) of time. But one may say that this universe is one continuous action without beginning or end.
.
Vin: “But I believe that the Theory of Relativity does not provide reason enough to claim that an object cannot move in space at a speed faster than light.”
Chris: Do you see an inconsistency? Does the math not run the mass up to infinity as the speed approaches light speed?
Maybe we are not looking very well at the obvious spacetime right in front of us.
I do not understand that math. Here we seem to be getting from physicality into abstraction because mass is nothing but resistance to change.
I need to understand mass better.
.
Science represents physicality.
Mathematics represents the layer of abstraction just below physicality.
Logic is the layer below mathematics.
Philosophy is the layer underlying logic.
..
I see how you get that. Should we substitute abstracts for “represents physicality”?
and mathematics abstracts science?
and logic abstracts mathematics?
and philosophy abstracts logic?
This is good looking – nice progression of abstraction from the general to more specific abstraction of processes.
The glue that binds science, mathematics, logic, and philosophy together is CONSISTENCY.
Consistency has a much deeper characteristic.
.
One needn’t worry about absolute consistency. One more step towards greater consistency is enough at a time. Progress occurs in simple steps.
.
There is physical space.
Then there is mathematical space.
Then there is logical space.
And then there is philosophical space.
There is a thread of consistency common to all these spaces.
.
Time is built into space as the persistence of that space.
.
Vin: Time is built into space as the persistence of that space.
Chris: Which is pure unadulterated tautology . . . I am not pleased with that answer and have to look further.
LOL! I can picture space as an infinite elastic sheet solidifying and bulging at locations per the degree of persistence there.
.
So what about my misunderstanding about the “fabric” of space being drawn as a grid with massive objects making a dimple in that fabric, rather than the lines of space curving inward toward the dead-center of the massive object?
These are different models. Some appear more consistent than others. The models at this level are still evolving.
Sent from my iPhone
Well this model shows mass wedged in between layers of space as though the mass itself uses no space. This is inconsistent. I’m drawing the other model myself.
Mass seems to be a function of space and time somehow.
.
I get that you mean that. But I also get that you mean in an innate way. . . such as in a higher or more holy or profound importance, aside from the significance we give it as a tool.
I want to ask you about that twist of it. Do you feel that consistency is innately more profound than inconsistency? And is this a belief or wish or feeling about something in the way of Higher Power?
I don’t think that consistency and inconsistency are two different things that need to be compared to each other. Consistency seems to involve an aesthetic quality for me.
.
Mathematics allowed Ptolemy’s earth-centric description of the solar system, with the intolerable complexity of its cycles upon cycles, epicycles upon epicycles. It was fully competent to account for the observed motions of the planets. And more, with sufficient ingenuity the theory could be modified to accomodate certain new observations.
However, the ptolemaic system was swept into limbo by a much simpler heliocentric picture of the solar system, which disclosed itself to Copernicus.
It was the mathematical simplicity of the latter that was more appealing. Even the Church in Rome had to finally accept sun at the center of the solar system.
.
And what will the Universal Church need to accept when life is discovered on other planets?