: Well, in a simple relativistic view there's
: nothing--matter, energy, field fluctuations--that
: travels faster than light. So all the stuff which
: happened five seconds before an event and could affect
: it must be within five light-seconds of that event's
: spatial location. All the stuff 1 year before an event
: which could affect it must be within a light-year of
: its location. And so forth. Thus you get a past light
: cone of all the events in history which could ever
: have influenced the event at that cone's apex. Take
: any slice of this cone, look at it, and you have in
: theory enough information to predict exactly what will
: happen to that event in question.
Thanks for explaining it, though it still doesn't explain your point.
: But if information can travel at up to infinite
: speeds--or even beyond, moving back in time--then you
: can never look at enough of the universe to predict a
: single event. What if it happens to be
: quantum-entangled with some system in another galaxy?
: Every decay or interaction produces some amount of
: entanglement...
: When you make a prediction and there are factors you
: can't foresee, that's called "guessing." If
: you don't believe there are unforeseeable factors
: until your guess turns out to be wrong, that's called
: "foolhardy guessing." :-)
: And no theory is infinitely tested. They can't be.
: Conservation of energy remains a guess: I could walk
: outside right now and watch a brick suddenly contain
: 500 terajoules of energy, explode and vaporize me. I
: don't think it will happen, because I think the
: inductive principle is valid and any simple theory
: which has been right many times in the past will
: probably be true in the future. But that's a guess.
: It's a good guess, but it's still a guess.
What you said above is, perhaps, the most unscientific, blastphamous to all study and research statement I've ever seen. You are saying that science, every bit of it, is a guess. That is wrong; duh. If I have a ball in my hand, and I let it go, it will fall to the floor. That's knowledge. Naturally, I'm talking about my room, on Earth, no wind or any other factor to get in between the ball and the floor. It will fall and hit the floor.
If I take oil, a flamable type I know about, and put it over flame, it will ignite. That is proven and science. It isn't a guess. I know for an absolutely fact that if I do that, it will ignite.
: And could someone predict anything about the world from
: what you just said, right up until you mentioned the
: equations?
Yes. The equations can, in fact, be created via these concepts, which is precisely as Einstein did. He took knowledge from elsewhere in the world, then applied it, creating the equations. Equations do not express the world; the world expresses equations.
: "Gravity is an affectation of the
: fabric of spacetime which causes it to curve and
: bend." What does that mean ?
That gravity causes these things at certain values. The comination of these values equals the math you're talking about. Using math as a tool then allows a person to predict an event and use it as a science.
: What does that
: imply about the behavior of the world? Nuttin'.
Wrong; everything. The events happen. We can understand them through the tool of mathematics.
: It
: simply evokes a nice mental picture so we can optimize
: our inefficient human brains to deal with the math.
So you are saying this: nothing need exist except equations in the universe, that space isn't actually curved. Well, I thought you'd say that, actually. Spacetime IS curved by gravity. Why can't we see it, you seem to imply? Because light travels along these curves, bending and flowing with everything else that travels in space.
: Don't get me wrong; words and explanations are
: invaluable. But that's because humans just aren't that
: good at math, and we're not really prepared to start
: thinking in a new way until we have a story and a
: picture to help us.
Math doesn't come first. Not only are the images and descriptions first formed in the mind, but equations are not underlying the universe. The universe, a physical thing, is there, which we choose to explain and predict through math.
: Many people would argue with you over whether relativity
: is prettier than QM, or even simpler (when you
: consider their relative scopes.) The wave-particle
: unification of QM is just as slick as the time-space
: unification of relativity.
Quantum Mechanics is jotty, bumpy, irregular, strange, and utlimately warped as a mental patient's mind. QM evokes a LACK of clarity, whereas Relativity improves clarity, in all artistic and scientific ways; I hope I need not delineate here. To me, based on this information, I form the opinion that Relativity is far more beautiful, and tend to therefore agree with Einstein.
: They're both damn beautiful
: to me. And now we have relativistic QM, so you don't
: need to choose...
lol! That crock? Explain the basic principles. The fact is, QM is totally unusual and so utterly different from the real world, it can't fit into something regular and flowing, like Relativity, much less Newtonia.
: As for Ockham--we simply don't know if he's right.
Lol! I am saddened to a most sympathetic degree if you truly think all of what you've said here, including this. Ockham theorized that the simplest explanation would often be the correct one. Reality proves the simplest explanation will often be the correct one. He's right.
: How
: can you say that the simplest explanation will likely
: be correct?
Via probability, and the fact that the universe doesn't so radically change from moment to moment that such basic principles change; they, in fact, stay relatively constant.
: I can write down a very simple
: explanation--E = 0--which is definitely wrong.
That's because it's EXACTLY nothing, as you pointed out. Little letters and numbers on a page mean precisely nothing. All you did is put up a random equation which visually looks simpler than E=mc^2.
EQUATIONS DO NOT DOMINATE THE WORLD.
Equations are no more than very simple representations of something real. Relativity itself is very simple. It requires only four simple equations to describe it.
The fact that one equation is simpler than another means nothing. Your equation describes a world so complex, it doesn't exist. "E=0" means nothing, at all.
Let us assume that you imply by it "energy = nothing". How do you get this to work? After hours, weeks, eternity trying to come up with a directly comparable-to-relativity explanation, you fail. In that mean time, you set up an incredibly complex, however flawed, latus of theorem. E=0 is not simple at all, but extraordinarily to the contrary, and utterly entirely so that it can't even exist.
: I can
: write down a more complex equation--E = mc^2 except
: every 23,000 years, when E = mc^3 for 1 second--which
: may indeed be true, although we won't know for 23,000
: years. How do you go about assigning probabilities,
: aside from personal preference for the inductive
: principle? And don't tell me the inductive principle
: is proven. We all know about that. :-)
Obviously not. Explain why gathering knowledge and drawing a reasonable conclusion from it isn't proven.
