tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20425712.post4618295318259340275..comments2017-01-19T22:54:03.093+01:00Comments on Constantly Changing: Relativity of simultaneityAttila Szegedihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11586966395114113526noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20425712.post-75022833716740189312009-05-04T20:09:00.000+02:002009-05-04T20:09:00.000+02:00There's just one problem. New work in the history...There's just one problem. New work in the history of set theory has allowed us to see where Einstein, a constructivist mathematician (he called it "practical geometry" and wrote a famous essay on it called "Geometry and Experience"), actually USED practical geometry in formulating the relativity of simultaneity.<br /><br />What is the problem with this? Well, if you know anything about Einstein's mathematical orientation, you know that he did not believe arguments could have logical content, that all arguments ended in paradox unless some arbitrary insertion was made in them.<br /><br />Until now, physicists just thought that was all fluff, because it was unclear where Einstein actually made this insertion in the relativity of simultaneity. The many critiques of the relativity of simultaneity have been very off point, but it is clear now that they were pointing toward the precise logical problem, without ever being able to pinpoint it.<br /><br />But now we know. If you look at the train experiment, which is the clearer of the two relativity of simultaneity experiments (the other is the clock experiment--but it is simply the train experiment in another form), you will see that Einstein says point M and M' "naturally" coincide. And this "naturally" is the problem.<br /><br />It is nowhere defined, and yet it cannot be removed from the argument--the classic problem with an argument with a logical flaw. You will immediately see that the relativity of simultaneity cannot be said to have logical content if this "natural" coincidence is retained, nor can it be said to have logical content if this "natural" coincidence is removed. This ends the relativity of simultaneity as an argument with logical content, which, again, many physicists felt it did possess since they could see nothing wrong with it. <br /><br />However, it fulfills the constructivist program very well--it does everything Einstein says a constructivist argument should do.<br /><br />So there it is, you cannot use the relativity of simultaneity if you demand an argument which has logical content. The relativity of simultanetiy has no logical content.<br /><br />And that's not an objection to Einstein's program, because, again, Einstein did not believe in logical content. It's just that most people are not constructivist mathematicians--they demand logical content in an argument, or they refuse to deal further with the argument.<br /><br />Since physicists couldn't see where Einstein had used "practical geometry," they felt the relativity of simultaneity had logical content, because they had examined it closely and couldn't find any problem with it.<br /><br />You'll see a more extended discussion of the train experiment at the end of the paper linked below.<br /><br />The history of all this is, first, the pervasive influence of constructivist mathematics since Aristostle, who was worried about Zeno's "paradox" (which is not a paradox).<br /><br />Constructivism got a huge boost from such propagandists as Russell and Poincare, when, around the turn of the 20th century, Cantorian set theory seemed to generate new paradoxes. And so Poincare made a strong pitch for constructivism in Science and Hypothesis, which, if you know your Einstein, you know had a tremendous influence on Einstein.<br /><br />If you're interested in how the "natural" coincidence flaw in the relativity of simultaneity was identified, do the background reading, above all A. Garciadiego's myth-debunking Bertrand Russell and the Origins of the Set-Theoretic 'Paradoxes.' You should also read Grattan-Guinness, The Search for Mathematical Roots, for his scathing indictment of Poincare's understanding of set theory issues.<br /><br />Poincare was really a journalist, not a mathematician. How Einstein could have taken him seriously, how he could not have taken the time to investigate whether Poincare understood what he was talking about, is beyond me.<br /><br />In any event, you can't use the relativity of simultaneity anymore, because it's over as a logical argument. The main thing is that now we can't logically get to the Standard Model.<br /><br />Probably the most important implication is for the Pythagorean theorem. That does not obtain under general relativity, as is well known, but if we can't get to general relativity because of "natural" coincidence, then the PT is at issue again. My own feeling is that there is a constructivist intervention in the Pythagorean theorem. But where? Various writers, such as Schopenhauer and Hegal, suggested there were logical problems with it, but they never even approached a precise critique.<br /><br />Search ResultsSSRN-Paradox, Natural Mathematics, Relativity and Twentieth ... Ryskamp, John Henry,Paradox, Natural Mathematics, Relativity and Twentieth-Century Ideas(June 17, 2008). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=897085 ...<br />papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=897085 - Similar pages -<br />by J RyskampJohn Ryskamphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06154989992538796409noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20425712.post-7286904854132183882009-03-20T16:00:00.000+01:002009-03-20T16:00:00.000+01:00Yeah i apologize for using the term DSL so loosely...Yeah i apologize for using the term DSL so loosely, I was just trying to group the languages like Closure, Erlang, and I think Scala (guess I was trying to consider concurrency a domain :/). I'm unfamiliar with any of these languages but after reading through the Closure pdf presentation, the concepts used, seem invaluable when thinking about concurrent programming.Martin Dale Lynesshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05628680052070184312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20425712.post-27008289324898420602009-03-20T08:55:00.000+01:002009-03-20T08:55:00.000+01:00@Thoughts: thank you - these look interesting, wil...@Thoughts: thank you - these look interesting, will try to read them as soon as I have time<BR/><BR/>@Martin: what other DSLs do you have in mind? Clojure is not a DSL, it's a general purpose language, and I'm "drawn" to it mostly by virtue of listening to Rich Hickey's excellent presentations of it at various conferences. I also got to know Rich personally, and I find him to be a person of tremendous intellectual capabilities who seems to be finding the right answers to hard questions. I derive my trust in Clojure from my trust in Rich.Attila Szegedihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08179252447170860637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20425712.post-23604560562970608402009-03-20T08:49:00.000+01:002009-03-20T08:49:00.000+01:00@martin dale lyness clojure is a lisp dialect, not...@martin dale lyness <BR/>clojure is a lisp dialect, not really a dsl.Jimothy Quallisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20425712.post-45162563627109334052009-03-19T22:01:00.000+01:002009-03-19T22:01:00.000+01:00Just curious what drew you into Closure versus the...Just curious what drew you into Closure versus the other DSLs designed to solve the same problem of relativity.Martin Dale Lynesshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05628680052070184312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20425712.post-46247422823206132542009-03-19T10:52:00.000+01:002009-03-19T10:52:00.000+01:00You might be interested in Time and conscious expe...You might be interested in <A HREF="http://newempiricism.blogspot.com/2009/02/time-and-conscious-experience.html" REL="nofollow">Time and conscious experience</A>. This is based on <A HREF="http://newempiricism.blogspot.com/2009/02/alex-greens-original-paper.html" REL="nofollow">Alex Green's original insight</A>Thoughtshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17866896441731516034noreply@blogger.com