Thanx…
I don’t know if your implying irony or not…
And That is why you are a moderator.
James,
We are debating the part of Rational Metaphysics (RM) that is talking about a collection of infinite points InfA, the definitions of 1 tic and 1 toe, and the alleged maximum rate of change.
I wrote:
You replied:
You are not leaving math out of this - you are trying to use an analogy of calculus to support the RM definitions.
I majored in mathematics in my degree, and believe me your argument does not hold water. Neither the definition of 1 toe or 1 tic is meaningful. A “Standard Infinitesimal” does not assist RM (or maths) in any meaningful way. There is no substance to the claim that maximum rate change as 1 toe/tic. The units toe and tic and the rate are so undefined that they could mean anything required.
That may be why RM uses them useful, though. Unless there is something more to the argument that there is a maximum rate of change, I will mark this area as the biggest assumption of RM so far.
Eugene Morrow
I HAD BEEN leaving it out, because you are obviously not qualified in that arena. On this issue, I decided to try and see what happens. You have proven that I was right.
You “majored in math”? Well okay, a simple question…
A one inch line has an infinite number of points in it, right?
So how many points are in a two inch line? (mathematically speaking)
You were going to do that anyway merely to be adversarial.
James,
The arguments given by Rational Metaphysics (RM) do not support the idea that 1 toe/tic is the maximum rate of change.
How many points are then in one inch and two inches? As many as you want. Everyone knows that. How many points are then in InfA? As many as you want. That’s the problem for RM.
RM declares that 1 toe/tic is the maximum rate of change. Why isn’t that value the minimum? Why isn’t that value the average? Why is there a maximum rate?
RM cannot answer these question with the logic given so far. Simply declaring definitions for 1 tic and 1 toe (that are meaningless) has not achieved anything.
Eugene Morrow
That has been a problem for mathematics and Science, but it isn’t a problem for RM because RM addresses and fixes that problem.
What does “God” mean? “Whatever you want it to mean.”
Why does the universe exist? “Whatever reason you want.”
What do you call the things that atoms are made of? “Whatever you want to call them.”
What is an elemental wave? “Whatever you want it to be.”
That is how you keep a society ignorant and backwards. Establishing a standard is critical for making progress.
How many points are in a 1 inch line? “As many you want.”
Well, that part is true. You are free to set the number of points that you “want” to deal with… once. But of course, if you are using logic, you are not free to then change that number as you go. Since a 2 inch line is already defined by being twice as long as a 1 inch line, you are no longer free to just choose as many points as you want. Otherwise logic and math become useless and anything else you say after that point is truly meaningless.
So if you say that there are going to be 1 million points in a 1 inch line, then you are stuck with having 2 million in a 2 inch line, else why bother even talking about it.
But now if you declare that there are an infinite number of points in a 1 inch line, then in keeping with logic and math, there must be 2 times that many in a 2 inch line, “2 * inf”. And that is where current mathematics leaves the room, because current mathematics doesn’t define what “2 * inf” mean other than to say that it is “still infinite/boundless”. Thus in math, 2 * inf = inf, which of course, using math, “(2 *inf) / inf = 1” which violates the rules of math. You can’t use current mathematics with an infinite number of points and make any headway.
Thus in RM, you are to set a standard of interest perhaps saying that a 1 inch line has an infinite number of points, thus establishing an “infinitesimal”. And that standard is to be named “infA”. Now you can know that a 2 inch line has 2 * infA points and “(2 *infA) / infA = 2”. Thus both logic and math are still useful… because you set a standard.
How long is one second? “As long as you want”? Well, that doesn’t help anyone and forbids reasoning. Thus a standard is set. “How do you know that they got it right? Maybe what they set isn’t really how long a second is.” It is whatever they set it to be, end of story.
This issue comes into play when dealing with the concern of propagation which is a measure using both time and distance. Both time and distance must have a standard set so as to allow reasoning and progress. And when it comes to the infinitesimal issues of both time and distance, a standard must be set for each, as neither are directly related to the other (yet).
So without a formal standard already being set, one is free to choose a standard and then stick to it, for time and also distance. I am free to say that 1 second has infA points of time in it. And I am still free to pick any standard for the number of points in a 1 inch line. As explained before, no matter what standard I choose for the distance infinitesimal, I will have immediately affixed a ratio between time and distance infinitesimal measurements.
So in RM, I chose that they be the same standard so that the ratio will be simply 1, “infAt / infAd = 1”, by definition.
Once that is chosen, it is no longer, “as long as you want”. And the relation between time and distance measurements are no longer, “whatever you want”. Then by merely choosing a name for each unit to represent that standard we have;
1 tic / 1 toe = 1, by definition.
And as explained before that ratio could have been chosen as anything. But as long as it is chosen and defined, there will always be a fixed ratio between time and distance. That fixed ratio is what allows for propagation to have meaningful, “rational” measure.
Of course you are right in that if you allow anything to just mean “anything you want”, then there is no point in discussing anything or attempting to reason. But then that would apply to your TEW and QM as well. QM set many standards so as to make the progress it made, as did all of Science.
Now, since we are dealing with infinitesimal steps in both time and distance, we know the ratio of those infinitesimals.
If the smallest distance is achieved in the shortest time, it occurred at a rate of 1 toe/tic.
The reason that it is the maximum and not the minimum is because it refers to the ratio of the smallest and shortest possible for each unit. If 1 toe distance is achieved, by definition it took infA steps to do it. And in infA steps, by definition 1 tic would have been achieved. If you achieved N toes in distance, by definition it took N*infA steps in both time and distance.
Thus you cannot get a ratio greater than 1. But if you are slowed for some reason, you might not achieve 1 toe in distance during 1 tic, and thus the achieved propagation could be less than 1, but never greater.
Unless you want to use an ontology wherein the laws of physics are arbitrary and change from one point in space to another, the ratio between your units of measure must remain affixed throughout all space. What would be the point in trying to measure something if the next time you measure it, perhaps in a different location, it is going to be arbitrarily different? There would be no point in having an ontology or Science. You are free to set such ratios once, but then throughout all future calculations, that ratio must remain the same.
James,
I think I can restate your reasoning in a clearer form.
We all agree that the universe has a speed limit of some sort. So a change has a maximum speed of, say, M (I won’t assume that M equals “c”, the speed of light in a vacuum).
Rational Metaphysics (RM) seems to define 1 toe/tic as M (where toe is a unit of distance and tic is a unit of time). There are two problems with this.
The first problem is that M does not define 1 toe and 1 tic - only the ratio. One toe could get longer and 1 tic shorter and the ratio is still M. The fact that “infA” applies to both units has no bearing on this uncertainty. Perhaps RM will define them better later, but for now 1 toe and 1 tic are too arbitrary to mean anything.
The second problem is that RM seems to be saying that because that speed limit applies to change, then there is a maximum rate of change in the universe. Yet a simple example shows this up. If one unit of change travels from A to B at speed M, then 1 unit of change has been delivered However, if 1,000 units of change travel at the same speed limit from A to B, then 1,000 times the rate of change has occurred. So the speed limit has nothing to do with there being a maximum rate of change in the universe.
So far, RM has not presented logic about why there is a maximum rate of change in the universe, and has not clearly defined 1 toe and 1 tic. The “infA” idea has not helped with either problem.
Eugene Morrow
You “assume” that the universe has a limit. RM doesn’t assume it.
Not really, but you will always say it is so before knowing one way or another.
Not hardly.
I was wondering when and if you were ever going to get around to that issue. You stated your case wrong, but let me fix that for you. First a “1000 units of change” means a “1000 units of time”. Time is the measure of relative change; 1 dt = 1 dPa. So 1000 units of change cannot travel in less than 1000 units of time. And then distance is measured by how far any 1 unit of change can travel per tic.
The real issue is that if only 1 infinitesimal distance can be traveled in 1 infinitesimal time (propagation) such as to make 1 infinitesimal change, dPa, at a point then a change traveling from point A to point B is time limited (realize that a change in potential is what time is). But point B is surrounded by points. If each point surrounding B has a propagating change coming toward B, then they must add at point B. And how many points would that be - an infinite number of them, of course. Thus we would not be able to calculate or know anything more than we did before.
And that is where our infA comes into play. Since an infinitesimal has been defined for distance, we know that surrounding point B at a distance of 1 infinitesimal (1/infA) there is a sphere of points with a radius of 1/infA. Any point that is going to affect point B must be on that sphere. And just like we could calculate the number of points in that 2 inch line, we can now calculate the number of points on that sphere.
What is the surface area of a sphere? 4πr^2
And for a radius of 1; 4π.
Thus the maximum amount of change that can get to point B, is 1 dPa (infinitesimal change, ie. “time”) per point on the sphere = 4πdPa.
So because we have a maximum propagation rate of 1 Pa per toe of distance and there is no way to affect point B except to go through that sphere, the maximum change rate per point, is 4πdPa * infA = 4πPa / iT.
So yes, the propagation limit does directly relate to the change limit in 3D space = 4πPa / iT.
Back in Newton’s day, they didn’t have any concept of how to calculate using standard infinitesimals, so they couldn’t do it that way. Instead, they did that same thing in reverse so as to calculate the charge field surrounding any single charged particle. They declared that 1 electron is to have 1 eV of charge. Then by calculating the distribution of that charge over the surface area of a sphere surrounding that point, they knew how much charge would be at each point in space extending around that charge. The difference is that they declared what the charge was inside the sphere as a particle, whereas I am declaring how quickly a charge can get into the sphere such as to make the charged particle.
And that is how they got this equation;
What they didn’t know at the time was that their ε is actually a variable dependent upon the affectance field density that they had assumed to be a constant. It is due to that assumption that they had to later invent the mythical “strong force” that doesn’t actually exist. When particles are extremely close, that ε is very different from normal space such as to cause the strong force effect, without any additional forces involved.
Up until now, we haven’t been concerned with what value that change rate is. We were only going through the logic concerning the fact of there being one. Now we know just what that rate is in RM units that can later be translated to physics units. And extending further, we can calculate just how dense the affectance field (or mass field) must be in order to cause a particle to form. From that point, an entire science of mega-dense devices and weapons springs up.
James,
We are getting closer to our differences on your theory Rational Metaphysics (RM). You have made clear a lot more of RM and I think we can focus on the important part where we disagree.
I gave the example of 1 change unit going from A to B at a certain speed. I claimed that 1000 change units also go from A to B at the same speed, so the speed did not affect the rate of change at B.
The critical words in your last post are:
This is saying that the speed of a certain change is proportional to the amount of change. I disagree strongly that this is logical.
I go back to my example of photons. A photon can go from A to B. All photons travel at the speed of light in a vacuum. Clearly, a large amount of change (gamma ray) travels at the same speed as a lower amount of change (infrared photon).
This reality contradicts the RM claim. I do not see a logical reason why different amounts of change MUST LOGICALLY travel at proportionally different speeds.
Eugene Morrow
I am willingly introducing a less clear issue. So no, I am not “making RM more clear” to you. But I do admit that much of the confusion is merely coming from my effort to choose the right way to explain it for you.
Then you are just referring to the pile-up issue (and ignoring the definitions).
No. I said that there is a limit and you overreached that limit. I said nothing about being proportional.
No. As I said before, what you believe about photons is irrelevant and not applicable here anyway.
You mean that your presumptions contradicts RM claims.
Well, if I had ever said that, I would be willing to defend that, but seeing how I didn’t say that, I will not bother defending it.
This is the time to stick to the logic. Trying to reference what you believe to be examples of “reality”, is not going to get anywhere. Look at the defined concepts and find any logical error. Logic is actually pretty easy. It is just “what something is defined to be cannot also be what it isn’t defined to be”.
What we are talking about is the use of a standard infinitesimal. You saw no reason to associate time and distance measurements. Physics has confirmed experimentally that they do seem to be related, so there is no use in trying to use them as a contrary reference. I have explained why they are related, but with merely one attempt at such an explanation to you. You need to address that explanation. I understand that it isn’t trivial (which is why I didn’t introduce it long ago, plus the fact that we don’t actually have to know why there is a propagation limits, merely that there is one).
Do you agree/disagree with these thoughts;
A) I am free to designate a “standard infinity” to use as a reference against other measures of infinity (the 1" vs 2" line).
B) I am free to choose such a standard for both time and distance (degree of relative change in potential and location).
C) No matter what I choose for each of those, I will inherently create a fixed ratio.
D) Due to there being a fixed ratio, propagation (the rate of relative change travel) will also be fixed.
Now that much you have actually agreed to recently, but I have learned that such doesn’t mean that you will continue to agree. So let me try to explain further.
You agreed quite some time ago, and several times since, that reality has continuity. It does not happen in discrete steps. QM claims that change does occur in discrete steps based on “Plank’s constant”. Of course Plank’s constant is so small that they could never directly measure anything such as to support their claim. But I am in that boat too. The difference is that I am not claiming discrete steps or more precisely, I am claiming that any discrete step is in the form of an infinitely small change, “infinitesimal”. So;
E) Changes in potential and also distance must occur in infinitesimal steps, not discrete steps?
In RM, it is defined that they do, so this isn’t really a matter for Science to decide. But what I am presenting is the reasoning as to why RM has defined it that way. That reason involves the fact that one can always divide any step down further (hence “1/infinity” = “infinitesimal”) and then also the issue of relative infinitesimals (common calculus).
In RM, any change must occur in continuous steps from no change up to any other change. The only “steps” must be infinitesimal. That includes changes in potential, time, and distance. So in RM, you are not free to say that 1000 units of change suddenly stepped into location B. If 1000 units of change in potential are going to get into location B, they have to get there in infinitesimal steps, from zero up to 1000. Each of those “infinitesimal steps” will require an infinitesimal amount of time. The issue is merely “how much time”.
RM has defined time, distance, and potential in such a way as to declare that only one infinitesimal change in potential can occur at an infinitesimal distance “per infinitesimal step of time”. And also that the units are defined such that 1 infinitesimal step in time is equal to 1 infinitesimal step in distance. As I said, that could have been any ratio, I just chose them to be equal for simplicity.
So look at the logic very carefully.
The scenario;
An infinitesimal change occurs at location B. That takes one infinitesimal unit of time.
In the next infinitesimal unit of time, another infinitesimal change in potential occurs at location B.
By the time a change of 1000 units of potential change has occurred at location B, 1000 steps in time will also occur.
Thus there is a progression in infinitesimal time as the infinitesimal changes occur at location B. That is “contiguous propagation” as opposed to QM’s “quantum of action” requiring discrete Plank steps in reality.
Thus in RM you cannot have instantaneous steps of potential change any more than you can have instantaneous location changes. And because there must always be a fixed ratio between the infinitesimals for time and distance, there will always be a fixed propagation rate (assuming to be free of other disturbances, “free space”).
James,
The point where we disagree the most on your theory of Rational Metaphysics (RM) is getting clearer in this passage:
As soon as RM defines time, distance, and potential in the above way, then RM has assumed a relationship between potential and time. This is clearly shown by the words:
There is no logical justification for claiming this. The RM claim is implying a fixed relationship between change and time. This does not allow for acceleration and deceleration. I see no logical reason why the speed of change going from A to B is always 1 unit of change per 1 unit of time.
Dividing change into infinitesimal steps does not help to define a relationship between change and time. You cannot assume that each infinitesimal piece of change is traveling like carriages on a train traveling at a fixed speed.
I claim the RM is trying to “define” a proportional relationship here. RM claims that if 1 unit of change takes 1 unit of time to go from A to B, then 1000 units of change takes 1000 units of time. That is a proportional relationship, and I see no logical reason why it must exist.
Reality being continuous does not help either. Change can be continuous while there are accelerations and decelerations.
RM cannot claim that the relationship of change to time is simply a matter of units. That is a relationship between different concepts and the logical choices of that relationship cannot be restricted.
Eugene Morrow
First, RM is not a “theory”. RM is a method that produces an ontology. That ontology was a theory until I found it to be indisputably reflective of the observations from Science, although to you it is still a theory.
But once again, you are ignoring definitions. But now ignoring them so as to claim that they are irrelevant. Is that an improvement?
Time ≡ the measure of relative change.
RM doesn’t have to “assume” some relationship between change in potential and time. On this most fundamental level, there are only two things that change; potential and location. A change in location is called “motion”, “speed”, or “velocity”. A change in potential is called “affect” since the potentials are merely “the potential to affect”. And time, as stated above, is the measure of how much one change is occurring relative to another. In this ontology, there is an absolute zero change value, thus every change is a measure of relative change between that zero change and the changing potential ≡ time.
If a potential has changed one infinitesimal, then it has changed relative to its former value. So merely by the definition of what time is, there would automatically be an infinitesimal of time. All RM has done is give them specific ratios of infinitesimals so that calculation can be made. And again, the concern is merely that there is a fixed ratio, not really what the ratio is. Changing the chosen ratio merely changes the number values used later, but not the logical end result, not in the prime concern that there is a maximum change rate. Of course we knew that anyway simply because no value can actually be infinite.
I had ask a question. It is poor form to ignore directly relevant questions when debating a topic;
Do you agree/disagree with these thoughts;
A) I am free to designate a “standard infinity” to use as a reference against other measures of infinity (the 1" vs 2" line).
B) I am free to choose such a standard for both time and distance (degree of relative change in potential and location).
C) No matter what I choose for each of those, I will inherently create a fixed ratio.
D) Due to there being a fixed ratio, propagation (the rate of relative change travel) will also be fixed.
E) Changes in potential and also distance must occur in infinitesimal steps, not discrete steps?
And do you see anything wrong with this scenario;
An infinitesimal change occurs at location B. That takes one infinitesimal unit of time.
In the next infinitesimal unit of time, another infinitesimal change in potential occurs at location B.
By the time a change of 1000 units of potential change has occurred at location B, 1000 steps in time will also occur.
James,
We have found an area where we disagree about Rational Metaphysics (RM). You can call it an ontology if you like, and I will call it a theory because I am much less convinced than you.
Let’s take your questions it step by step.
Yes, RM can do this. I don’t believe it helps, but I’ll wait and see.
Here’s where RM is sneaking in huge implications in the idea of potential.
RM can define units for distance and time, no problems. The tricky bit is that there is “time and distance” followed by brackets with “degree of relative change in potential and location”. This clearly emphasizes that time is measured by relative change in potential.
I do not accept this. A change in potential to affect takes time, but I do not agree with measuring time by change in potential to affect.
For example, imagine we measured time by how fast a windmill is turning. Obviously time would appear to pass faster in a strong wind and time would appear to stand still on a calm day. To me, measuring time by a change in potential to affect is as invalid as this.
If this only covers time and distance, then the units would have a fixed ratio. I do not accept this covers change in potential.
I do not accept this for the same reason.
I can accept this, although I do not think it matters much.
Absolutely not accepted. How can we know how long 1000 units of change will take compared to 1 unit of change? The words above are a clear assumption in RM, and do not allow all the other logical possibilities.
Eugene Morrow
An ontology is merely a conceptual map intended to reflect reality. It does not imply accuracy, only the intent of being used.
My point was that “Rational Metaphysics” is not the name of the ontology. But never mind…
Time == the measure of relative change.
Accept that or not?
In this ontology, there are only two things to change; location and potential. The locations have been designated “A” and “B” and thus are affixed. So the only change going on at all is the changing of potential at each of those locations. There is no other existence. If the potentials didn’t change “time would stand still” = “no time” = “time would not exist”.
How much potential? An infinitesimal amount.
I can choose the degree (or cardinality) of that infinitesimal.
No matter what I choose, one infinitesimal potential change will take a fixed ratio of infinitesimal time.
I could say that an infinitesimal change in potential “takes” 2 infinitesimal changes in time. Would that make you feel better?
Because time is a measure of change, I can’t have a change that is not measured by time. And potential is the ONLY existence.
If you want to get into changing locations, you end up in Lorentz equations for dilation of distances, hyperspace, bent space, reverse time and no on. But that is a QM ontology involving relativity of space and distance. RM maintains locations as fixed entities, space doesn’t “bend” or end.
James,
We have found the biggest area where we disagree on Rational Metaphysics (RM).
You wrote (my underline):
What is the problem with there being zero change in potential for 1 infinitesimal period of time? Why would time care whether a potential stays the same? If change is always moving, then why couldn’t the same amount of potential arrive as leaves? If we measure time by change, does time speed up or slow down based on the amount of change in potential occurring?
RM seems to be measuring time by a figurative windmill. RM only considers location and change as the central concepts, and does not include time as an independent concept. This is an enormous assumption that has enormous implications that don’t seem to match the universe I live in. I am stunned that RM has even suggested this.
Eugene Morrow
James,
Time can be a measure of relative change, if there is change happening. Sometimes, there is no change. I still believe time keeps going whether there is change or not. Even when there is change, the change must be very consistent to measure time by the progress of that change.
I still like the windmill analogy. If the wind is consistent, then you can use the windmill to measure time. Other than that, a windmill does not make a good clock.
Eugene Morrow
I’m afraid you are going to have to explain that statement. Realize that you will be arguing with Einstein, Classic Physics, Modern Physics, Quantum Physics, Relativity, Most dictionaries in the world, as well as yours truly.
Take the example of the entirety of all existence absolutely stopped relative to anything within, no moving or changing even on the most extreme infinitesimal level. In such a state, what would “time” mean? If it were to stay that way for 10 minutes, what would “10 minutes” mean?