TIME II - fuzzy simultaneity!: Philosophy Forums

Page: 1 2

TIME II - fuzzy simultaneity!

nousPLOTINU
The Flux

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 07, 2008
Location: Montreal

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 150

Posted 11/18/08 - 08:20 AM: Subject: TIME II - fuzzy simultaneity!	#1
Albert Einstein showed without a doubt that simultaneity is not a fundamental quality of our world. However, when Jane looks at Bob, they covey a message to each other that they are both doing the same thing at the same time - gazing into each other' eyes. Some may say that because of the foundational lack of simultaneity, Jane and Bob are living a delightful illusion as their lips move closer together to touch, they have a feeling they are responding chemically to each other in real time. SO, is your position that Alice and Bob are living an illusion of kissing each other simultaneously, or is it that Alice and Bob are enjoying fuzzy simultaneity, charachertzed by some delta-T, which if looked at from space-time, is seen as the width across two world lines. Secondly, how would you develop fuzzy simultaneity, if indeed you actually would do so, in order that epistemological continuity is guarenteed? p.s. cheek - I need the infrastructure
It is not that I think I know, it is that I know when I think.

Kwalish Kid
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 26, 2004

Total Topics: 33
Total Posts: 3844

Posted 11/18/08 - 09:05 AM:	#2
One can define "now" to be the spacetime region encompassed by the distance a beam of light could go out and bounce back during the time it takes to say "now".
"Scientific truth is always paradox, if judged by everyday experience, which catches only the delusive nature of things." - KM, V, P and P Can you pass Religion 101?

rhinogrey
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 11, 2008

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 35

Posted 11/18/08 - 09:51 AM:	#3
Don't two people kissing occupy similar enough space as to negate the relativity of simultaneity?

nousPLOTINU
The Flux

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 07, 2008
Location: Montreal

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 150

Posted 11/19/08 - 04:33 PM:	#4
rhinogrey wrote: Don't two people kissing occupy similar enough space as to negate the relativity of simultaneity? and leave what - the illusion?
It is not that I think I know, it is that I know when I think.

nousPLOTINU
The Flux

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 07, 2008
Location: Montreal

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 150

Posted 11/19/08 - 04:37 PM:	#5
Kwalish Kid wrote: One can define "now" to be the spacetime region encompassed by the distance a beam of light could go out and bounce back during the time it takes to say "now". say now and so we meet again? OK, kk, I understand, how do we set ip up? I have a sort of inkling on moving foward.
It is not that I think I know, it is that I know when I think.

ronjanec
Graduate

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Sep 04, 2008
Location: Chicago area

Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 239

Posted 11/19/08 - 04:48 PM:	#6
nousPLOTINU wrote: ronjanec wrote: And you know nothing about ontology. A "good one"? You are too modest. "I am sure" man will be quoting the great Kwalish Kid's "definition" of now for many years to come! at least it is something we can practically chew on, rather than being given an axe job. What is your definition of now oh "wise" one?

Kwalish Kid
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 26, 2004

Total Topics: 33
Total Posts: 3844

Posted 11/19/08 - 05:04 PM:	#7
nousPLOTINU wrote: say now and so we meet again? OK, kk, I understand, how do we set ip up? I have a sort of inkling on moving foward. I wish I could remember the actual paper where this definition of now was offered (It might have been one of Howard Stein's or perhaps John Earman). Basically, we identify a practical region in which we can identify things as happening at the same time. In the time it takes to say "now", light can get to the Earth and back. We just say that anything that happens in this time and space (measured from the speaker of the word "now") happens at the same time. This isn't precise enough for all scientific applications, but it is more than adequate for most applications. The region covered by the light should encompass the entire Earth and the Moon.
"Scientific truth is always paradox, if judged by everyday experience, which catches only the delusive nature of things." - KM, V, P and P Can you pass Religion 101?

nousPLOTINU
The Flux

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 07, 2008
Location: Montreal

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 150

Posted 11/20/08 - 03:39 PM:	#8
Kwalish Kid wrote: I wish I could remember the actual paper where this definition of now was offered (It might have been one of Howard Stein's or perhaps John Earman). Basically, we identify a practical region in which we can identify things as happening at the same time. In the time it takes to say "now", light can get to the Earth and back. We just say that anything that happens in this time and space (measured from the speaker of the word "now") happens at the same time. This isn't precise enough for all scientific applications, but it is more than adequate for most applications. The region covered by the light should encompass the entire Earth and the Moon. Hmm, I was hoping for something more along the lines of unitary differences, but then you do not seem to think that is the case, as you have not written it. I think perhaps your vocalization of the word now may be inhibited by a drawl., that is if they are speaking. If not spoke, how do you propose to recognize such a potential fact. Or can you? p.s. I have rarely seen the matter approached along the lines of unitary differences... or do you know more on this matter?
It is not that I think I know, it is that I know when I think.

Kwalish Kid
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 26, 2004

Total Topics: 33
Total Posts: 3844

Posted 11/20/08 - 04:28 PM:	#9
What do you mean by "unitary differences"? The definition of now was from Howard Stein: Stein, H. 1968. "On Einstein-Minkowski Space-Time," The Journal of Philosophy 65: 5-23. Stein, H. 1991. "On Relativity Theory and Openness of the Future," Philosophy of Science 58: 147-167. (Similar issues discussed @ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spacetime-bebecome/ )
"Scientific truth is always paradox, if judged by everyday experience, which catches only the delusive nature of things." - KM, V, P and P Can you pass Religion 101?

nousPLOTINU
The Flux

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 07, 2008
Location: Montreal

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 150

Posted 11/21/08 - 08:30 AM:	#10
I will get to the unitary differences in a bit. I have an inkling of what now may be, but instead of me looking up the definition you may be offering, can you seriously lay it out in three to four lines. The now window encompasses all that is in the process of phenomenological activity, such that the impending effect can be cultivated, and it has not as yet moved into the past. However each cause has itz own now window size, which can be related to unitary properties.
It is not that I think I know, it is that I know when I think.

Page: 1 2

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.