Post by dsmith on Feb 6, 2013 1:16:53 GMT -5
If you'll excuse the catchy headline, I find there is one remaining a piece of imprecision in the Rational Science (RS) approach: it still uses language more conducive to relativistic or reductionistic expression.
This is not any kind of fringe issue; it cuts right to the core. In RS we say, "An object exists if it has location," but location is defined as "the set of distances from the object to all other objects in the universe." This definition is relative because it consists of relations with other objects.
There is nothing "wrong" with this, per se, but it ends up being needlessly confusing unless we also have a non-relative mode of expression to use when needed for greater clarity, for there are times when it is critical to maintain a non-relative "whole-universe" perspective in order to see past some newbie errors.
For example, what is rotation? If the universe consists of only one object, then even in RS we would say that no rotation is possible. This is because a single lone object cannot be conceptualized or visualized to rotate except by tacitly introducing the edges of the picture frame (the edges of one's visual field) as objects for it to rotate against, contradicting the premise that we are just imagining a lone object rotating.
With two objects in the universe, though, we can imagine one of them rotating or moving *with respect to* (relative to) the other one.
In similar fashion, all of the following terms in RS are strictly relative:
-location
-motion (because two or more locations of an object)
-rotation
-existence (because based on location)
I contend we need non-relative language to cover these, for reasons I hope will become apparent below.
However, RS already has a few non-relative terms covering some of this:
-universal movie (UM)
-frame of the universal movie (FOTUM)
What I think we need is terminology that maintains this whole-universe perspective at all times, without forcing us to refer to motion, etc. in a reductionist or relative way. I will proceed from some new definitions:
Configuration- an arrangement of (all) the objects in the universe
Motion- two or more configurations
Well that was easy! Now we have a non-relativistic way to refer to motion. Motion continues to be impossible in a universe consisting of a lone object, and in all other ways this is compatible with RS terms. It simply adds a non-relativistic language mode that can be useful when precision is required in that aspect.
This is ultimately far cleaner and less confusing when discussing things like an apple falling to the ground. We no longer have to walk newbies through the confusion of claims that it is impossible to conceive of the apple falling down versus the Earth falling up. The mental hygiene practice that is necessary for the newb to see the light is already baked into the terminology. The newb will be thinking in terms of configurations from the start, and will therefore be less prone to the error of including the edges of the movie frame in the visualization.
There are further benefits along the same lines, and if these are not clear right now, they may become clear after reviewing some of the newbie-confusion-spawned debates on the RS facebook group with an eye toward how the debate may have been circumvented by using this whole-universe mode of expression.
This is not any kind of fringe issue; it cuts right to the core. In RS we say, "An object exists if it has location," but location is defined as "the set of distances from the object to all other objects in the universe." This definition is relative because it consists of relations with other objects.
There is nothing "wrong" with this, per se, but it ends up being needlessly confusing unless we also have a non-relative mode of expression to use when needed for greater clarity, for there are times when it is critical to maintain a non-relative "whole-universe" perspective in order to see past some newbie errors.
For example, what is rotation? If the universe consists of only one object, then even in RS we would say that no rotation is possible. This is because a single lone object cannot be conceptualized or visualized to rotate except by tacitly introducing the edges of the picture frame (the edges of one's visual field) as objects for it to rotate against, contradicting the premise that we are just imagining a lone object rotating.
With two objects in the universe, though, we can imagine one of them rotating or moving *with respect to* (relative to) the other one.
In similar fashion, all of the following terms in RS are strictly relative:
-location
-motion (because two or more locations of an object)
-rotation
-existence (because based on location)
I contend we need non-relative language to cover these, for reasons I hope will become apparent below.
However, RS already has a few non-relative terms covering some of this:
-universal movie (UM)
-frame of the universal movie (FOTUM)
What I think we need is terminology that maintains this whole-universe perspective at all times, without forcing us to refer to motion, etc. in a reductionist or relative way. I will proceed from some new definitions:
Configuration- an arrangement of (all) the objects in the universe
Motion- two or more configurations
Well that was easy! Now we have a non-relativistic way to refer to motion. Motion continues to be impossible in a universe consisting of a lone object, and in all other ways this is compatible with RS terms. It simply adds a non-relativistic language mode that can be useful when precision is required in that aspect.
This is ultimately far cleaner and less confusing when discussing things like an apple falling to the ground. We no longer have to walk newbies through the confusion of claims that it is impossible to conceive of the apple falling down versus the Earth falling up. The mental hygiene practice that is necessary for the newb to see the light is already baked into the terminology. The newb will be thinking in terms of configurations from the start, and will therefore be less prone to the error of including the edges of the movie frame in the visualization.
There are further benefits along the same lines, and if these are not clear right now, they may become clear after reviewing some of the newbie-confusion-spawned debates on the RS facebook group with an eye toward how the debate may have been circumvented by using this whole-universe mode of expression.
