Re: Beating a dead....

Reilly Jones (Reilly@compuserve.com)
Sun, 12 Apr 1998 23:58:47 -0400


Dan Fabulich wrote 4/11/98:

RJ: <This time difference is a function of the measuring mechanism itself.
You are not saying that the Planck moment has changed during the flight,
are you? Is the Planck moment constant or is it not?

DF: <While I can't answer the point about the Plank moment, I can answer
your
point about the time difference being "a function of the measuring
mechanism itself." While this may actually be the case, this is NOT what
is happening if you presume that light in a vacuum travels at the same
speed in all reference frames.>

What exactly do you mean by "a vacuum"? For instance, if the speed of
light travels at different speeds depending on the density of space being
traversed, how can we measure such differences since our measurements
partake of the same density in the region in question? Certainly, an
observer outside the event horizon of a black hole observing the speed of
light inside the event horizon would be hard put to not observe that the
light velocity inside was approximately squat. How does this change as the
observer approaches the event horizon at a tangent? If light is travelling
lengthwise between two incredibly long, incredibly dense parallel plates,
which screen out the bulk of the density of space, would not the speed of
light increase over that outside of this system? At the filamentary
borders in deep space equidistant between all regional galactic
superclusters, where the bulk of virtual particles are moving away from
each other, is the speed of light increased over that of more dense space
or are the photons dilated? Is not the speed of light also dependent on
the length of the Planck moment, which may be constant in our local region
of the universe, but may be different in other regions?

DF: <I got most of the information here from _Fundamentals of Physics, 5th
Edition_ by Halliday, Resnick and Walker. (Further reference upon
request.)>

Halliday & Resnick are fine by me, mine's sitting at arm's length.

<...it has also been observed that muons, which have an average lifetime of
2.200 microseconds, have an average lifetime of 63.5 microseconds when
moving at 0.9994c relating to the laboratory; precisely the value predicted
by special relativity.>

And in regions of the universe where the Planck moment is approximately the
constant it is in our region, when the muon achieves light speed, it lasts
an eternity while spreading itself atemporally through every possible
accessible place la Russell's/Feynman's sum-over-the-histories.

RJ: <I have not rejected QM, I have simply noted that QM and Relativity are
not reconciled, and they are not reconciled for a reason that science has
not discovered yet.>

DF: <Perhaps not, but the reason we accept both is because both theories
predict the behavior of the world around us to as close as we can measure.
One day we may find the true model, but until then we accept these models
because they work.>

We accept the models knowing they are flawed. Using models which work FAPP
(for all practical purposes) without knowing why they work, without knowing
the underlying reality that the mathematics correspond to, is fine for
technicians. Some horses prefer to move about without blinders on, though.
They want an explanation conjoined with description. QM and Relativity
require common explanations in order to reconcile them. Usefulness is not
knowledge, it is substantially lower down the scale.

As to contradictory evidence for the Big Bang dogma, review the scientific
literature over the past oh, three or four years, in particular much of the
Hubble data interpretation, but also other cosmic-wide observations. I
read about plenty of confusing and contradictory interpretations. The
dogma isn't overthrown yet, something more fashionable hasn't arrived, but
hopefully it will arrive, or if it doesn't, at least its adherents will not
treat it as science.

RJ: <Black holes are just like glaciers, if you want to free up the matter
in them, just raise the background temperature around them.>

DF: <This, however, is not true. Remember that absolute speed of light
constant, presumed above? Well, as Bertozzi showed, increasing the kinetic
energy STILL doesn't increase the speed faster than c; and since it
doesn't, you STILL can't extract matter from a black hole, no matter how
hot it gets.>

Even at background radiation levels, black holes are slowly melting at the
event horizon, unless replenished with accreted matter from external
sources. As the temperature surrounding a black hole increases, the event
horizon is made more permeable at the tangent to the horizon, the melting
rate increases until the event horizon restablizes at a smaller radius
until the surrounding temperature changes again. Black holes are
recyclable at a high enough technological level.

RJ: <biology makes no sense when it takes randomness (as in mutations) to
be some ontological aspect, rather than an epistemological aspect. If
there was one ounce of ontological randomness in the universe, the universe
would be entirely unintelligible.>

DF: <Now you've gone and challenged all of QM, which has more experimental
evidence behind it than I can shake a stick at. What's with that?>

I have not challenged QM, only some kooky interpretations of it, of which
there are many. Experimental evidence is epistemological in nature, OK?
The randomness in QM (or in evolutionary mutations) is epistemological in
nature, not ontological. Experiments and measurements are exercises in
epistemology. Generally, ontological presuppositions are made prior to
constructing an experiment or taking a measurement. Sometimes, these
ontological presuppositions are altered post-measurement or
post-experiment, but not very often. An intelligible universe cannot
contain ontological randomness, but it can contain bucketloads of
epistemological randomness.

DF: <Information is a signal which reduces uncertainty.>

Reduces uncertainty for whom?

DF: <Most, if not all people who support abortion do NOT think that the
fetus can be killed.>

Aside from the sheer erroneous nature of this claim, I would say, "how
convenient." I could just as easily claim, and with as much logic, that
most people who support slavery do NOT think that slaves have full status
with humans and can therefore be owned as property, like cattle or land, to
be dispensed with arbitrarily. Slavery and abortion are definitional
issues, the same issue, in fact, the definition of human.

DF: <I could just as easily say that a person cannot be killed until they
are born.>

Yes, you could. If might makes right, then all is up for grabs, and may
the best mafia don win.

DF: <To provide a logical argument, use COMMON definitions. If two parties
do not use definitions, you must use other common definitions to show why
the other definitions are wrong. But anyway you run it, we have to use
premises upon which everyone agrees in order to have a logical discussion.

I challenge you to prove, using definitions and premises upon which we both
agree, that abortion is immoral; if you can't or won't, then don't try to
have a logical argument with me.>

This is another form of the might makes right barbarian tyranny. If you
recall, the American Civil War was fought largely over defining what a
human was. No logical discussion between the North and the South was
possible because they did not agree on common definitions and premises. No
utopia is ever possible anywhere, any time, because there are such
conflicting ideals present in the world. The abortion, infanticide, &
euthanasia fight will go on and on and on, ending up in either the elite
accepting humane definitions of human, such as when Britain's elite
abolished slavery without a war, or the elite will attempt to achieve
consensus by neutralizing or eliminating opponents who hold conflicting
definitions. This is the tried and true method of tyranny.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reilly Jones | Philosophy of Technology:
Reilly@compuserve.com | The rational, moral and political relations
| between 'How we create' and 'Why we create'