Martin Striz (striz@ezwv.com)
Thu, 2 Jul 1998 07:10:48 +0100
>> i am not really qualified to speak as a physicist, but i have done some
>> reading in this field and it seems clear that the reason constants, or
>> absolutes are used in physics is because they HAVE to be used in order
>> to
>> get value out of equations...we apparently need them to make meaning out
>> of
>> universe. but the fact absolutes and constants are used does not mean
>> they
>> exist.
I would have to disagree here. The speed of light is 300,000,000
meters/second in a vaccuum. This is real and it is absolute. Light
goes at no other speed in a vaccuum, it can't go faster, and neither can
anything else (yet another absolute). The mass of an electron or proton
is also constant, and it's real. You will never find a 5 kg neutron
running around.
This idea of 'no absolutes' is a major point of contention with me. The
belief that 'there are no absolutes' is a contradiction since it is an
absolute statement. If we are to make it noncontradictory, we would
have to say 'There are no absolutes, except this one,' in which case we
would have to ask, 'How do you know?' And there is no answer. A
statement such as 'There are no absolutes...' requires omniscience
(because it is proposing a negative). However, a statement such as
'There are absolutes...' requires us to find only one thing that is
absolute in order to validate it. I've cited several above.
"But that's impossible, reality is supposed to be all **Dynamic**
Quality!
You can't have absolutes...stagnation....constants...they are
anti-quality!"
I struggled with this one for a while. If change is good because it
allows evolution to betterness, and stagnation is essentially death,
then why would there be absolutes? Then I realized an assumption I had
made, an assumption which almost everyone here makes. We have assumed
that change is intrinsic to the definition of 'better.' We've assumed
that in order to be Good, something must be versatile, diverse, open,
willing to advance But we've forgotten something that the sexual
revolutionists of the 1960's forgot too....we've forgotten our roots.
Things only last if they have stagnant aspects. A thing can only become
better if it has a stagnant base to grow on. Stagnantion, constants,
and absolutes ARE ALSO GOOD. We've assumed that only the dynamic aspect
is good, but the static one is also very very good.
What kind of universe would we live in if it didn't have absolutes?
What if the conversion from mass to energy (E=mc^2) changed all the
time? Imagine if it became E=mc^4 one day...the sun would eat us up.
Imagine that the speed of light changed constantly...one day its
velocity become zero...we wouldn't be able to see. In fact, time could
freeze. Or maybe the ABSOLUTE conservation of matter/energy just ceased
tomorrow and the universe randomly annihilated itself. Nothing would be
able to exist, there would be no foundation to build on.
There ARE absolutes and they are GOOD.
Cheers,
Martin
striz@ezwv.com
P.S. Recently I read a post on another mailing list about a new theory
that the fundamental unit of existence, below even quarks and quanta, is
INFORMATION! This would explain how two quanta separated by great
distances could 'know' what the other was doing. I'm trying to find the
book on this subject, will let you know later.
BTW, information sounds a lot like Pirsig's Values of experience to me.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:43:27 CEST