A question for scientists: Primary and Secondary qualities

[slimshady2357]

Ian, I’ve been talking about the same thing all along, your thought experiment. So if you honestly don’t know what I’ve been talking about it’s you that is lost.

You remember the one, with two rooms only in the universe, exactly alike. One has an original Ian, one an Ian duplicated. You claimed that if the duplicate had an identical but separate consciousness, this would prove Materialism wrong.

It’s been mentioned many times that indeed, this is exactly what Materialism would predict actually.

You claim that Materialism should actually claim that one consciousness should see out of four eyes. But by your own definition of Materialistic identity, you should say that the Materialist will say there is only ONE pair of eyes!!!! Right??

This is based on your misconception that spatial relations between objects are not physical facts. Since the start of your little experiment I have asked you no less than three times to comment on why you have no trouble saying there are two rooms and two brains. You see, to stay consistent you would also have to say that a Materialist would claim that there is only one room. The rooms are indistinguishable except for location. So are you now willing to make the claim that a Materialist would say there is only one room in that universe. You must be. And you must be claiming that a Materialist would say there is only one Ian in that universe. If not, explain why your rule for Materialistic identity does not hold suddenly!

If you can’t see the problem by now, you never will.

But I’ll re-state it once again, just in case Loki hasn’t said it enough times already.

Space-time location is a relevant physical fact if there is more than one object in the universe. You’re getting a universe where there is only one object confused with a universe where there is more than one object. In a single object universe, the object’s physical location is meaningless. But if there is more than one object, each object’s location in regards to the other is a relevant physical fact. It becomes the ONLY relevant physical fact in determining an object’s identity when there is another physically identical object located somewhere else in the same universe.

This should be so abundantly clear by now.

Adam

 

[Interesting Ian]

Ian, I’ve been talking about the same thing all along, your thought experiment. So if you honestly don’t know what I’ve been talking about it’s you that is lost.

You remember the one, with two rooms only in the universe, exactly alike. One has an original Ian, one an Ian duplicated. You claimed that if the duplicate had an identical but separate consciousness, this would prove Materialism wrong.

Well it would certainly prove my idealism is wrong! My point was that it was an impossible situation. But if I'm wrong about this and it did happen I would see it more of a vindication of materialism rather than a refutation!

It’s been mentioned many times that indeed, this is exactly what Materialism would predict actually.

As I say, I don't think it is an intelligible scenario.

You claim that Materialism should actually claim that one consciousness should see out of four eyes. But by your own definition of Materialistic identity, you should say that the Materialist will say there is only ONE pair of eyes!!!! Right??

Now you've lost me again. Where is this definition of mine?

This is based on your misconception that spatial relations between objects are not physical facts.

The locality of a brain is irrelevant providing it experiences a identical environment. Location only has relevance in so much as ones environment changes. Location per se is irrelevant. This must be so if physical laws apply indiscriminately throughout the Universe.

Since the start of your little experiment I have asked you no less than three times to comment on why you have no trouble saying there are two rooms and two brains.

What do you mean?

You see, to stay consistent you would also have to say that a Materialist would claim that there is only one room. The rooms are indistinguishable except for location.

Ah! I see. No, there is no problem with 2 identical rooms existing at 2 locations. So you see no problem therefore with 2 streams of consciousnesses? Is this the problem you're having?

So are you now willing to make the claim that a Materialist would say there is only one room in that universe. You must be.

No not at all.

But I’ll re-state it once again, just in case Loki hasn’t said it enough times already.

Space-time location is a relevant physical fact if there is more than one object in the universe.

Not per se it isn't. It only is in as much as ones environment would change.

You’re getting a universe where there is only one object confused with a universe where there is more than one object. In a single object universe, the object’s physical location is meaningless. But if there is more than one object, each object’s location in regards to the other is a relevant physical fact. It becomes the ONLY relevant physical fact in determining an object’s identity when there is another physically identical object located somewhere else in the same universe.

Yes that's right. Not sure what relevance it has to do with my whole argument though.

I don't think there is any further purpose in pursuing this. You just don't get it.

 

[Interesting Ian]

II
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although I know very little about physics and next to nothing about relativity, I'm just wondering if Stimp is correct here. Consider, if it has nothing to do with absolute acceleration then one might as well suppose that it is the whole earth (with the twin) accelerating away from the spaceship twin. The earth reaches very close to the speed of light, slows down and then stops relative to the spaceship twin. Then it reverses direction eventually reaching the spaceship twin. But by this reckoning the spaceship twin would have aged much more than the earth twin! This then suggests that it must be the acceleration and deceleration of the spaceship itself which slows down spaceship time relative to earth time.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Stimp
In that case, the spaceship twin would have aged more than the Earth twin, because the spaceship twin would have remained in the same inertial frame for the duration of the experiment. There is no paradox, though, because the scenario you just outlined is not symmetric to the original scenario.

Consider this. Twin B takes off in a spaceship to Alpha Centaury, 4 light-years away, at 80% the speed of light (we will assume that acceleration time is negligible, to simplify the math), and returns. At 80% the speed of light, the factor by which time is dilated, and length is contracted, is about a factor of 2.

So let's look at the situation from both points of view, and see where the symmetry is broken.

Earth perspective. From the reference frame of the Earth, the total trip takes 10 years (8 light-years / 0.8 light-years/year). Clearly the twin on Earth must age 10 years. In addition, he will notice that while his twin's ship is moving relative to him at 0.8c, the ship appears to be only half of its normal length.

Spaceship perspective. To the twin on the spaceship, the reference frame of both the Earth and Alpha Centauri is moving past him at 0.8c. He therefore sees, as his twin did, a length contraction of everything in that frame, of a factor of 2. This creates the somewhat bizarre effect that, as soon as the motion starts, Alpha Centauri will only appear to be 2 light-years away, instead of 4. This means that the whole trip will, from his point of view, take 5 years (4 light-years / 0.8 light-years/year).

Thus the symmetry is broken. There is no paradox. Each twin ages exactly the amount that he thinks he should age, given his perspective of the situation. And as I pointed out before, the difference which leads to the broken symmetry, is that the experiment starts and ends in the reference frame of the Earth. More to the point, the distance travelled is marked by objects which are in the reference frame of the Earth.

First thing to say is that I do not know what the phrase "inertial frame" means. But anyway . . .

Let's make the thought experiment a bit more simpler. Suppose we have an entirely empty Universe apart from 2 spaceships "A" and "B" with twins "A" and "B" occupying each respective spaceship. Both spaceships are next to each other and facing away from each other. Now if we imagine that spaceship A suddenly accelerates away and reaches a velocity close to that of light, then slows down and reverses its direction, eventually ending back where spaceship "B" is, then twin "A" will have aged less than twin B. Likewise if spaceship B were to perform the same action, twin B would age less than twin A.

But the situation appears to be identical because when A accelerates from B we might as well consider that A is stationary and in fact that it's B accelerating from A! But this of course creates the paradox in that both should therefore age less than the other! So it must be the movement of spaceship A per se which breaks the symmetry; right? And it can't just be the velocity of A because there is no such thing as absolute velocity. So it has to be the acceleration of A in addition to the fact that B remains stationary. Alternatively there could be a third object in the Universe and spaceships A and B are moving away from this third object at velocity x. Then A accelerates from B, reaches close to the speed of light, then returns to B. This is exactly the same situation except that when A returns to B it will not be the same locality since B has been moving. But crucially B hasn't accelerated so the situation is equivalent to the first one.

In short it must be the fact that one spaceship accelerates and the other spaceship doesn't which breaks the symmetry. If I'm wrong I'm completely baffled!

 

[Diamond]

Once again, "Interesting" finds another way to get attention, and everybody falls straight into the trap.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Once again, "Interesting" finds another way to get attention, and everybody falls straight into the trap.

Yes my manipulative powers are awesome!

 

[Loki]

Ian,

So you see no problem therefore with 2 streams of consciousnesses?

Nope, no problem. The question is, do you think materialism has a problem with declaring two consciousnesses?

My point was that it was an impossible situation.

Why impossible under materialism?

But if I'm wrong about this and it did happen I would see it more of a vindication of materialism rather than a refutation!

Yep. So why, under materialism, is it impossible?

The locality of a brain is irrelevant providing it experiences a identical environment.

Agreed, if what you mean is that two identical brains exposed to two identical environments would produce two identical consciousnesses. The (physical) fact that brain #1 has a different location to brain #2 would have no effect on the 'contents' (attributes/memories/etc) of consciousness #1or #2 so long as locations were identical.

Location only has relevance in so much as ones environment changes. Location per se is irrelevant.

Still wrong, I'm afraid. The relevance of location is that it is a unique physical attribute of each consciousness, enabling them to be individually identified even though every other physical fact is the same.

In this imaginary "two rooms" universe :

Location has no effect on the contents of the consciousness in each room.

Location is the physical fact that enables identification of each separate consciousness as a unique separate consciousness.

I don't think there is any further purpose in pursuing this. You just don't get it.

Nice attempt to (once again) back away. I'm sure you *do* get it - so why not just admit your error and be done with it?

 

[BillyJoe]

To (oops, I can't remember who)

As a matter of interest (or not) my dad has Deep Purple and Black Sabbath in his record collection. And my mum has a record player she uses to cut records onto CDs. I listened to a couple on her record player and hell it's not bad.
No Metallica there though.

Tommy
(I haven't been able to read all the arguments here so I will not comment on them yet )

 

[Interesting Ian]

[quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So you see no problem therefore with 2 streams of consciousnesses?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Nope, no problem. The question is, do you think materialism has a problem with declaring two consciousnesses?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My point was that it was an impossible situation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why impossible under materialism?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But if I'm wrong about this and it did happen I would see it more of a vindication of materialism rather than a refutation!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Yep. So why, under materialism, is it impossible?

Because the totality of physical facts must determine the unique self. Yet you and others claim that the matter duplication machine would create exact copies of people with their own unique streams of consciousnesses. Therefore we have a logical inconsistancy. I have already explained this. How do you negate this difficulty?

 

[Mercutio]

Because the totality of physical facts must determine the unique self. Yet you and others claim that the matter duplication machine would create exact copies of people with their own unique streams of consciousnesses. Therefore we have a logical inconsistancy. I have already explained this. How do you negate this difficulty?

The bodies are identical (except for location), but unique in that they are in different physical locations. The streams of consciousness are identical, but unique in that they are dependent on the different (in location) brains. No logical inconsistency.

 

[Interesting Ian]

The bodies are identical (except for location), but unique in that they are in different physical locations. The streams of consciousness are identical, but unique in that they are dependent on the different (in location) brains. No logical inconsistency.

How many times must I repeat myself???? This is totally utterly completely irrelevant!!

I do not intend going through the same arguments again. If you and others are unable to understand, then so be it. There's nothing I can do about it.

 

[slimshady2357]

The bodies are identical (except for location), but unique in that they are in different physical locations. The streams of consciousness are identical, but unique in that they are dependent on the different (in location) brains. No logical inconsistency.

You can say that as many times as you want Mercutio, Ian just won't admit he's wrong.

The only conclusion left is that he is being purposefully obtuse because his frail ego cannot accept that he is wrong. It's becoming quite sad the way he avoids all points he cannot answer

I'm going to give it one more try, but it's unlikely he'll suddenly become man enough to admit he's wrong.

Adam

 

[slimshady2357]

How many times must I repeat myself???? This is totally utterly completely irrelevant!!

I do not intend going through the same arguments again. If you and others are unable to understand, then so be it. There's nothing I can do about it.

Well, when you can't answer the tough questions back out. That'll save you from having to admit you're wrong

Adam

 

[slimshady2357]

Because the totality of physical facts must determine the unique self. Yet you and others claim that the matter duplication machine would create exact copies of people with their own unique streams of consciousnesses. Therefore we have a logical inconsistancy. I have already explained this. How do you negate this difficulty?

The totality of physical facts DOES determine the unique self.

Answer these two questions, which you have conviently avoided every single time.

1. In your thought experiment, you say location does not matter and therefore the two consciousness' they have the same totality of physical facts.

What about the brains? They have the same totality of physical facts as each other except for loaction, so you are saying that Materialism must also there is only one brain.

If you do not say that in your thought expriment Materialism must say there is only one brain (like you HAVE said that Materialism must say there is only ONE consciousness) then explain why the brains are different and they suddenly are not determined by the totality of physical facts (disregarding location).

2. Explain why, when there are at least two objects in the univese the physical fact of their relation to each other in space-time is somehow not a 'physical fact' in the 'totality of physical facts'.

Can you answer either of these questions?

 

[slimshady2357]

Now you've lost me again. Where is this definition of mine?

It's the one you're using for consiousness under Materialism, namely that the identity of something is determined by the totality of physical facts MINUS LOCATION IN SPACETIME.

So I ask again, in your thought experiment, with your same definition of Materialistic identity, how many brains would a materialist say are in th universe?

The locality of a brain is irrelevant providing it experiences a identical environment. Location only has relevance in so much as ones environment changes. Location per se is irrelevant. This must be so if physical laws apply indiscriminately throughout the Universe.

Location is irrelevant as to how the physical laws work, it is NOT irrelevant to identity!!!!! Think for a second

Ah! I see. No, there is no problem with 2 identical rooms existing at 2 locations. So you see no problem therefore with 2 streams of consciousnesses? Is this the problem you're having?

It's the problem YOU have yes

Please explain why you have no problem equivocating on materialistic identity

I don't think there is any further purpose in pursuing this. You just don't get it.

I think you're partly right. There isn't much point in continuing with someone being purposely obtuse, avoiding questions and in general either deliberately evasive or incredibly thick.

And I don't get it, I don't get why you can't admit you're wrong. I don't get why you won't back down, like some cornered animal, even when totally beaten. No I don't get that at all.

Adam

 

[slimshady2357]

Slim said:
But if there is more than one object, each object’s location in regards to the other is a relevant physical fact.It becomes the ONLY relevant physical fact in determining an object’s identity when there is another physically identical object located somewhere else in the same universe.

And Ian replied:

Yes that's right. Not sure what relevance it has to do with my whole argument though.

LOL!!

So you admit that the difference in space-time location, which can be expressed in two objects spatial relation to each other, is a determining factor in an object's identity! Something you've been denying all along!

Therefore there are two consciousness' which are identical except for space-time location. qed.
Adam

 

[69dodge]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
None of this matters. As I say, the only way you can say there exists rotation is to equate the rotation of the objects with these very effects.

That's a reasonable statement. Of course, different definitions needn't cause any confusion, if everyone knows what definition others are using.

We've been through this. I've explained why it is a philosophical issue and general relativity doen't get a look in if it predicts absurd results.

I disagree with this, however. You claim, I believe, that, since the object isn't rotating (according to your definition), it can't exhibit any of those effects. Why does that follow? Why do you assume that only a rotating (your definition) object will exhibit those effects? How can you possibly determine what effects it will exhibit, merely by thinking philosophically about it? Whatever happens, happens.

 

[69dodge]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
In short it must be the fact that one spaceship accelerates and the other spaceship doesn't which breaks the symmetry. If I'm wrong I'm completely baffled!

No, you're entirely correct.

But, notice what this means. If you define acceleration simply as the rate of change of velocity, and velocity as the rate of change of position, with all three being measured relative to other objects, then there is no way to distinguish between the two spaceships. What distinguishes the two spaceships, and what enables us to say that one of them accelerated while the other didn't, is that one person was pressed against the rear of his ship while the other just floated around inside his. In other words, we're defining acceleration based on its local effects rather than relative to external objects. And the reason we can do this is that those effects do in fact exist, even though you claim to have proven philosophically that their existence is impossible.

Points of a rotating object accelerate toward the axis of rotation, so the same applies to rotation.

First thing to say is that I do not know what the phrase "inertial frame" means.

It means a reference frame that is not accelerating, using the above definition in terms of local effects.

 

[BillHoyt]

And the reason we can do this is that those effects do in fact exist, even though you claim to have proven philosophically that their existence is impossible.

How to build a basic accelerometer

Cheers,

 

[Interesting Ian]

We've been through this. I've explained why it is a philosophical issue and general relativity doen't get a look in if it predicts absurd results.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I disagree with this, however. You claim, I believe, that, since the object isn't rotating (according to your definition), it can't exhibit any of those effects.

I do not say this. Clearly there is nothing logically incoherent about having certain "effects", although I would not label them as effects. Take the case of a sphere being the only object in the Universe. If we apply normal physical laws then differences in gravity at the axis of rotation and at the spheres "equater" would just be the same as for a sphere in the Universe we inhabit now. In the Universe we inhabit now we would say that the particular variation in apparent gravitational force is due to the spheres rotating. In the case of the sphere which exists alone in the Universe we could not say it is rotating because we would need another perspective so we could see it rotating. Unless you say the rotating is identical to the effects. But you then would be using the word "rotating" in a non-standard sense. But the truth of the matter is that if this sphere were the only object in the Universe, and gravity varied across its surface in said manner, then we would simply take this as the way gravity is. We wouldn't make up this mystical thing called rotation.

 

[Interesting Ian]

No, you're entirely correct.

But, notice what this means. If you define acceleration simply as the rate of change of velocity, and velocity as the rate of change of position, with all three being measured relative to other objects, then there is no way to distinguish between the two spaceships.

Yes that's right. But absolute acceleration exists.

What distinguishes the two spaceships, and what enables us to say that one of them accelerated while the other didn't, is that one person was pressed against the rear of his ship while the other just floated around inside his.

Yes that's right.

In other words, we're defining acceleration based on its local effects rather than relative to external objects.

Indeed.

And the reason we can do this is that those effects do in fact exist, even though you claim to have proven philosophically that their existence is impossible.

Huh?? If we have a single object in the Universe, and even if we experienced gravitational force/"acceleration" force towards one surface of the spacecraft, we couldn't say it is accelerating because acceleration only has relative meaning even if absolute effects. Now would these effects exist anyway? I suspect not, but we simply do not know as we do not inhabit such a Universe!

Points of a rotating object accelerate toward the axis of rotation, so the same applies to rotation.

Yes, so in the case of a single sphere existing in an otherwise empty Universe it is possible the gravitation varies across its surface in a way consistent if it really were spinning (although it can't be literally spinning due to the fact we couldn't in principle observe it). I suspect it wouldn't, but as I said I can't prove that.

It means a reference frame that is not accelerating, using the above definition in terms of local effects.

So am I right or is Stimp right? Or is stimp just playing word games like he normally is so there isn't really any distinction between our 2 positions?