An interesting post this one is!
Given a spacially closed universe we can observe (measure) its inertia says Julian Barbour in his lecture... (I would suspect "deduct from the model" is better here than "observe" but never mind). Moreover it seems (in the world of Julian) that we can "observe" the inertia while I note that he adds that one and only one inertia of the total universe is possible (in the spatially closed version) which transforms "the" inertia to an (one) inertia... (Namely zero... If we add the innertia of all its parts the sum is zero... Plausable! Zero needs no direction... and just try to intuit direction outside the universe...)
A very interesting comment by Julian is that "something must go in for something to come out". What goes in in his world are the angles... Then one in the audience asks about matter as one of the parameters in an equation Julian has on his slides... This is where it stumbles a bit... We are reminded about old Aristotle, form and matter...
Never mind finding weaknesses in Julians talk, he is covering very much in a short time.... Which brings us to the subject matter... TIME We can, it seems, mesure time only by logging shape differences... It (the measurement.. not time itself.. probably...ehhh) is not thus like we usually intuit it, a count of identical cycles of some physical thing. Now, in steps the idea of time being observable as change only internally (in the universe) . The God-eye sees no change (old metaphysics has it that God sees it all at once..). Well thanks for that! I conclude that I am IN the universe since I can observe change...
It gets even more interesting! Seemingly we can prove the internality of time with quantum physics by (1) observing one of two entangled particles and (2) observing "it" (or rather the "whole" wave) globaly from the outside... But didn't we just learn that the observation, global or not, entanngles the measurement with what is measured? Besides, the qunatum-people mostly forget to mention that lab-observations are of different particles.. you simply can't observe the "same" particle (unchanged, un-re-entangled) twice.You deduce the state it was in while changing it by observation... This doesn't add up in my little besserwisser world...
But the whole idea here is that time is change of which we are part... by consciousnes or "obeservation"... That's inspiring! To think is to be!
Greets again!
I apologise! It should be "...his or her old knoledge.."
I would also like to add that testing a verifiable and falsifiable hypothesis might just be equivalent to "arbitrarely looking around" at an interesting site considering the speculation needed for the formulation of testing methods..//Bliiixt
Greetings!
If scientist A, who has been at a site of interest, tells scientist B where to look for something interesting - should scientist B take a look at the suggested location or take an arbitrary look for the application of his old knoledge to synthesise som possible new knoledge of some news that by chance can occur or both?
How about combining science, politics, art, knowledge.. and speculation for producing philosophy.
The same goes for science as such, however the speculation would have a lesser scope..
And yes, induction and deduction rely on definition (choice, axiomatisation, decision)/Bliiixt
Slashdot Mirror
An interesting post this one is! Given a spacially closed universe we can observe (measure) its inertia says Julian Barbour in his lecture... (I would suspect "deduct from the model" is better here than "observe" but never mind). Moreover it seems (in the world of Julian) that we can "observe" the inertia while I note that he adds that one and only one inertia of the total universe is possible (in the spatially closed version) which transforms "the" inertia to an (one) inertia... (Namely zero... If we add the innertia of all its parts the sum is zero... Plausable! Zero needs no direction... and just try to intuit direction outside the universe...) A very interesting comment by Julian is that "something must go in for something to come out". What goes in in his world are the angles... Then one in the audience asks about matter as one of the parameters in an equation Julian has on his slides... This is where it stumbles a bit... We are reminded about old Aristotle, form and matter... Never mind finding weaknesses in Julians talk, he is covering very much in a short time.... Which brings us to the subject matter... TIME We can, it seems, mesure time only by logging shape differences... It (the measurement.. not time itself.. probably...ehhh) is not thus like we usually intuit it, a count of identical cycles of some physical thing. Now, in steps the idea of time being observable as change only internally (in the universe) . The God-eye sees no change (old metaphysics has it that God sees it all at once..). Well thanks for that! I conclude that I am IN the universe since I can observe change... It gets even more interesting! Seemingly we can prove the internality of time with quantum physics by (1) observing one of two entangled particles and (2) observing "it" (or rather the "whole" wave) globaly from the outside... But didn't we just learn that the observation, global or not, entanngles the measurement with what is measured? Besides, the qunatum-people mostly forget to mention that lab-observations are of different particles.. you simply can't observe the "same" particle (unchanged, un-re-entangled) twice.You deduce the state it was in while changing it by observation... This doesn't add up in my little besserwisser world... But the whole idea here is that time is change of which we are part... by consciousnes or "obeservation"... That's inspiring! To think is to be!
Greets again! I apologise! It should be "...his or her old knoledge.." I would also like to add that testing a verifiable and falsifiable hypothesis might just be equivalent to "arbitrarely looking around" at an interesting site considering the speculation needed for the formulation of testing methods.. //Bliiixt
Greetings! If scientist A, who has been at a site of interest, tells scientist B where to look for something interesting - should scientist B take a look at the suggested location or take an arbitrary look for the application of his old knoledge to synthesise som possible new knoledge of some news that by chance can occur or both? How about combining science, politics, art, knowledge.. and speculation for producing philosophy. The same goes for science as such, however the speculation would have a lesser scope.. And yes, induction and deduction rely on definition (choice, axiomatisation, decision) /Bliiixt