Mistakes Concerning Infinity

Greetings.

Mr. Firehammer: For example, "Time, in order to have any meaning as an abstract measurement tool, must be uniform." Only things need to be uniform.

Mr. Stolyarov: A scale is not a "thing." But do you not agree that it must be uniform if it is to have any meaning? Time must be a uniform scale.

Mr. Firehammer: If the universe were static everything in that universe could be described in terms of its "shape" and relationship to other things.

Mr. Stolyarov: How do you respond to my claim that we would still need a time scale in the event that something came to move in that static universe? Would there not be a difference between saying, "For 15 billion years, everything was static, until Atom A moved" and "For 15 million years, everything was static, until Atom A moved"?

So time does not depend on motion per se, but rather the potentiality of motion. If it is conceivable that a single entity can move, then a time scale is a necessity, no matter what the entity's present state. If all entities were suddenly to freeze, a time scale would continue to be necessary, because it will matter, in terms of objective observation, how long ago the entities froze, and how much time will have passed before any hypothetical moment in which those entities would un-freeze.

Mr. Firehammer: But just as positions are measured in relationship to other positions, motions can be measured in relationship to other motions. The metrics by which the relationship between motions is measured are time and velocity.

Mr. Stolyarov: But, if three-dimensional space alone is not sufficient to describe the relationship of these motions, why not claim that time is a fourth dimension in which this description is possible? How does this nullify the essence of your argument?

Mr. Firehammer: The mistake I think you are making is in assuming the word "relative" means non-determined. The relationships defined by the metrics, direction, distance, time, and velocity are absolute, and what they are whether we measure them or are even aware of them. But time is only the measurement of a relationship between the motion of existents, not a thing in itself.

Mr. Stolyarov: Yes, these are absolute relationships in that they exist regardless of our perception. But the creation of a time scale must be based on some arbitrarily selected time interval whose passing will be compared to the motion of other entities. Some of these intervals are more convenient to deal with than others, but there is no absolute law that instructs us which interval to choose. This is what I mean by "relative." The relationships are determined, but man determines the units by which these relationships are measured.

Mr. Firehammer: I think you have been overly influenced by Mr. Einstein.

Mr. Stolyarov: Oddly enough, some have told me that my arguments are in opposition to just about everything that Einstein had ever contended! (Not that I mind, of course!)

I am
G. Stolyarov II

The Prologue: http://www.geocities.com/rationalargumentator/eac_prologue.html

Chapter I: Protector's Summons: http://www.geocities.com/rational_argumentator/eac_chapter1.html

Order Eden against the Colossus at http://www.lulu.com/content/63699.

Post 21

Wednesday, July 28, 2004 - 11:49am

Greetings.

On Longevity:

Mr. Firehammer: The proper comparison would be two skyscrapers, one of a simple design and one of a complex design.
Mr. Stolyarov: A skyscraper, in order to be habitable, requires various functions to be included, such as air-conditioning, waste disposal, and sanitation, without which the skyscraper is not only uncomfortable to live in, but impossible to maintain (How does one get rid of the waste accumulating on the higher floors?). These functions characterize a more complex skyscraper than one that lacks them, and require additional amounts and types of resource expenditures to facilitate them. Yet, a skyscraper without them will lapse into disrepair far sooner than a skyscraper with them, that can be regularly maintained.
Thus, I have defended my point with what you had conceded to be a �proper comparison.�
Mr. Firehammer: As for living organisms, the simpler organisms are always less vulnerable; it is why they survive.
Mr. Stolyarov: This is contradicted by the facts of reality. During wintertime, for example, almost all individual insects, who are immensely simpler than the higher animals, perish from the cold, whereas more complex organisms are capable of surviving and even prospering in direct proportion to their complexity! The more complex animals craft shelter for themselves, and, because they are capable of consuming a greater variety of resources, can find something to sustain themselves, even if something else that they normally consume is not available.
Greater resource variability also implies greater resource utility, as there are more combinations in which a greater variety of resources can be used than a lesser one. Man, having the greatest resource variability, will outsurvive almost any animal in almost any environment (yes, exceptions can be found, but technology has the tendency of putting an end to them, as well). A deer will freeze in front of an approaching truck, and get run over. Man, utilizing his rational faculty, will cross the street to safety.
Mr. Firehammer: Go to the desert and see how many omnivores are able to survive.
Mr. Stolyarov: One type of omnivore is able to survive: Man.
Mr. Firehammer: Now you have mixed individuals, "An individual in an ever-progressing environment will constantly get more ..." and species, "prospects of man�s life will only increase as his surroundings and needs become more complex."
Mr. Stolyarov: I have done no such mixing. Here is an example: a scientist has invented a means to create levitating buildings in the air. He is an affluent scientist who has the material means to build himself a floating mansion. Prior to his invention, he had no perceived need of a floating mansion, but, after carefully analyzing the implications of his accomplishment, he decides that getting such a mansion is his next goal in life. New individual needs are created by increasing complexity (this man�s life has now obtained another facet to it, with a new commodity that is demanded, after certain old demands have been met), and new individual prosperity is possible. Of course, others will also benefit from this technology, and, thus, my statements are not in contradiction. Something can be beneficial both to oneself and others, in various ways, some of which are the same. Usually, when one acts selfishly, others will indirectly profit as well.
Mr. Firehammer: I am not suggesting an advanced industrial society is not preferable or that it does not make possible both a longer and more enjoyable life for individuals. I am saying that the vulnerabilities increase as well. Certainly the life of an individual working in a skyscraper is preferable to one toiling from dawn to dusk in the dirt just to feed himself. But consider 300,000 such poor individuals. It wold be almost impossible for a single event to kill them all, but put them in a skyscraper and two hijacked planes will do it.
Mr. Stolyarov: Try cholera, tuberculosis, the Black Death, or a barbarian raid (in comparison to which even the most savage terrorist acts would seem humane). These perils could easily wipe hundreds of thousands of people in mere days. Tamerlane was said to have killed millions of men after his sieges and piled their ears in a giant mound. We today are not nearly as vulnerable as any pre-industrial peoples, and the variety of perils plaguing us has been diminished greatly. It is true that new problems have arisen, but the rate at which old ones are eliminated has increasingly come to exceed the rate at which new ones are found. Cancer, though catastrofic, has increased in prevalence because it is primarily a �disease of old age,� and, in past eras, people have most often died before even reaching middle age!
Mr. Firehammer: In pre-industrial ages, puberty was greatly delayed. Humans would have become extinct if they only lived to 15 years, because they never would have reproduced.
Mr. Stolyarov: I am referring to the pre-agricultural age (circa 10000 BC), when it was quite common for parents to die in the first years of their children�s lives. Moreover, infant mortality was significantly above 50%, and average life expectancy factors in the lifespans of these infants as well.
Just about every pre-technological culture has had traditions of extremely early reproduction. Indian rural families often married their children at 13, and, in the Medieval era, it was common for a girl of 15 to be considered eligible for marriage. Certain Amerindian tribes have had rituals wherein the chiefs and warriors would ceremonially rape the youngest maidens as soon as they were deemed �of age�, for older women were not as likely to survive in the brutal environment faced by the Native Americans before Westernization.
By contrast, reproduction age has increased in proportion to technological progress. Today, it is not uncommon for people to have children at age 40, though, even 100 years ago, a 22-year-old unmarried woman would have been seen as an �old maid.� (In Soviet Russia, perhaps because of the dismally low life expectancy, this perception extended into the mid-1970s).
Mr. Firehammer: In every period of known history, there have been societies in which most men lived to the sixties.

Mr. Stolyarov: Some men, notably of the nobility or the intellectual elite, did have fairly high life expectancies throughout history, but this is a small minority of which there happens to exist the greatest quantity of records. In the lives of Medieval peasants, Egyptian laborers, or Oriental rice-farmers, sixty years might be time enough for a man to be born at the beginning of the span, and his grandson to die at what would be thought �old age� at the end.
Even if you check the records of European royalty, most did not live past 55. It is also instructive to note that, in just about every pre-Industrial era, the life expectancy of elites has exceeded that of the common people by 20-25 years due to higher living standards.
Mr. Firehammer: Longevity is not the purpose of life. The purpose of life pertains only to individual organisms. The purpose of one's life is to enjoy it, not to make it last as long as possible.
Mr. Stolyarov: And my purpose is to live indefinitely, as an individual organism! In my consideration, any value gained by living is superior to non-values that result from not living! There is no dichotomy, for the same entity, between living long and living happily. As I have stated on the �Affirming Life� thread, longer life is always more desirable than shorter life, in the context of the existence of the same individual.
Mr. Firehammer: �please, do not expect rational people to be convinced by blather such as, "I think�
Mr. Stolyarov: So, a man is now a �crackpot� because he says �I think�??! What other tool does a man have to judge reality than his own mind? How is it �quackery� to adhere to the conclusions of one�s own mind? Would you rather than he invoked some supernatural force �above himself� instead?
Mr. Firehammer: ��We currently have no idea what sort of treatments we'll need to keep us going when we're 200, but that's okay, because we won't need those treatments for over another 100 years."

He has absolutely no idea what treatments we'll need, but he's absolutely certain we'll have them. Sure.
Mr. Stolyarov: 100 years ago, people had no idea how to accomplish space flight. If you had lived then, would you have claimed that it can never be done because we did not have the present knowledge of it then?
Some people said the same of powered flight itself, mere months before the Wright Brothers proved them wrong.
Dr. de Grey is stating that, presently, we should focus on extending lifespan to 100-120 years; we shall have time enough to extend it even further later. What is necessary is for the pace of technological advances in the field to be greater than the pace of aging. I do not see how this amounts to �quackery,� �impossibility,� or anything else that you claim to be.
Mr. Firehammer: It is unhealthy for some people to not smoke. No one is a statistic. Everyone is different.
Mr. Stolyarov: This may be, but it also may be that lifespans in your family would have been around 110 instead of 90, if your relatives had not smoked. Science ought to investigate fenomena such as this, and see whether smoking has a beneficial or deleterious effect w.r.t. them. I cannot, in the capacity of a filosofer, put forth any definite statements on this matter, but personally, I shall never smoke a single cigarette.
In any situation, it seems that we will both be around for quite some time still. Does this not imply that we would have a compelling stake in future life-extending technologies that exist, and that we, as filosofers, should launch an effort to render indefinite life extension morally acceptable in the eyes of the public?
The greatest harm to man comes from other men with misguided ideologies. The greatest barrier to life extension is not technological, but attitudinal, and, if we would like to live longer than our present life expectancies, we need to hack away at this barrier for our own sakes.
Mr. Firehammer: There are always more diseases than there are cures, (else no one would be sick), because new diseases form for which there are not cures yet.
Mr. Stolyarov: Who says this will continue, as technology progresses at an accelerating rate? Evolution can only furnish mutations so fast; let us presume that new diseases form following a linear relationship (for simplicity�s sake). Then, let us presume that new cures emerge following an exponential relationship. At some point, the two curves will cross, and the rate of emergence of new cures will overcome the rate of emergence of new diseases. Moreover, the latter rate will be slowed by man�s increasing control over the genomes of all organisms. Eventually, the rate of new disease emergence will be eliminated altogether, and man will be free of disease.
I am not giving a timeframe here; I am only saying that the proposition of this happening in the future is quite sensible and conceivable.
Mr. Firehammer: There is still not a vaccine against SARS�
Mr. Stolyarov: There is effective treatment against SARS, and a vaccine was developed about two months ago, from what I had heard. I will share more information on this as soon as I get a hold of it.
As for the flu epidemic, there are other techniques to fight such diseases than vaccines. Some include directly injecting antibodies into the pathogen-infested organism, as had been initially proposed to treat SARS. This can get rid of a current case of a disease, though it would not trigger an organism to manufacture antibodies of its own or have secondary immunity against the disease�s re-emergence.
If another flu epidemic came about, I am certain that the First World would be better prepared than it had been in 1918. Fatalities would likely still occur, but not on nearly so massive a scale. Even SARS, about which even less information was available at the time of its first emergence, claimed no more than several thousand lives. Comparing this to 1.5 million exposes a wide gulf that emfasizes our technologically fortuitous time.

I am
G. Stolyarov II

Post 22

Wednesday, July 28, 2004 - 3:58pm

Mr. Stolyarov,

I think we have both made most of our points, and understand each others position, so I will just comment on a couple of things.

We do not know this [that a substance that could destroy the tower is possible], and the tower could have an indefinite existence.

But the tower is only hypothetical. If cannot know a hypothetical substance that can destroy the tower is possible, we cannot know the hypothetical tower is possible either.

However, I do not know whether there could have ever been a time when the first entity came to be. What caused it to be? ... Is this question a valid one, and can a finite quantity ever address it?

I am going to say these things without explanation. Some will be self-evident I think.

There cannot be only one existent. I put this in the present tense because it is always true. Things exist by virtue of their differences from other things. If (hypothetically) everything were identical in all their qualities, there would be nothing. If there are two things, they must be different in some way. If there were only one thing, it would be everything there is, but would have no qualities. It could not exist. Conceptually, all physical qualities are relationships, the relationships are absolute; that is, the kinds of relationships there are and the kind of relationships physical existents can have is determined by their nature absolutely. One thing cannot have any relationships or any physical qualities, and therefore, cannot exist. This is one of the problems with the concept of a singularity like the "big bang."

My conclusion is, there has always been existence (consisting of existents) that may have been different in some aspects of their nature, but not totally. You already know I extend this to life as well. I think there has always been life. I also think consciousness and volition have, at least in some potential sense, always existed as well.

Regi

Post 23

Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 2:36am

Regi said:

Regarding Dr. Aubrey de Grey of Cambridge University

The world is full of quacks and crackpots and they come in all flavors, from college professors to social reformers. All of them, without exception, are extremely convincing fellows, else you would never have heard of them. I have no interest in people's opinions, especially if they are, "experts." I am convinced by clear explanations which I can understand. If you or anyone else believes human life is going to be extended to any great degree in the near future, explain exactly how it is going to be done;

Here is an exact explanation of how to greatly extend human life in the near future (from the Aubrey de Grey interview):

ADG: The way to cure aging is to rejuvenate tissues, not to try to slow down their deterioration. It seems that the technically hardest aspects of rejuvenating tissues are things that would also be necessary to slow down their deterioration, so the intuition that reversing aging must be so much harder than retarding it that there's no point even thinking about reversal yet is wrong.

The main specific things we need to do are:

1. Cell therapy to restore the number of cells in tissues that lose cells with age (like the heart and some areas of the brain).

2. Targeted (homologous recombination-based) gene therapy plus cell therapy, to delete our telomere elongation genes (hence stopping us ever dying of cancer) and to maintain the rapidly-renewing tissues that need telomere elongation (such as blood, skin, gut).

3. Normal (insertional) gene therapy to introduce into the nuclear DNA modified versions of our 13 protein-coding mitochondrial genes, so that mutations in the mitochondrial DNA would have no effect.

4. Normal (insertional) gene therapy to introduce bacterial or fungal genes that can break down things which we can't, such as oxidized cholesterol (the stuff that causes atherosclerosis), A2E (the stuff that causes macular degeneration), various damaged proteins in the brain (which cause neurodegeneration), etc.

5. Immune therapy to destroy senescent cells (cells that have got into the state that cells in culture get into after dividing a lot). We don't accumulate very many such cells, and they're of cell types that renew easily, so just zapping the bad ones is all we need.

6. Immune or small-molecule therapy to disaggregate or engulf the junk (amyloid) that accumulates outside cells, especially in the brain in Alzheimer's disease and more slowly in everyone.

7. Small-molecule therapy to break the glucose-derived crosslinks that form randomly between long-lived molecules in the extracellular matrix (collagen, elastin, etc.).

All these projects are underway to some extent or other; see my Website (visit site) for more details.

Clicking on the link 'visit site' will take you to more detailed explanations, backed by scientific references in the world's top academic journals and references to the researchers actually working on these steps in the world's top research Institutes right this very minute.

(Edited by Marc Geddes on 7/29, 2:37am)

(Edited by Marc Geddes on 7/29, 2:39am)

Post 24

Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 11:57am

Greetings.

I am pleased to inform everyone that Aubrey de Grey has agreed to publish a series of articles on The Rational Argumentator. The first of these is already available:

http://www.geocities.com/rational_argumentator/questlife1.html
The Quest for Indefinite Life I: Engineered Negligible Senescence:
July 29, 2004:
Initiating a series of articles about real, scientific prospects for extending human life indefinitely, Dr. Aubrey D. N. J. de Grey explains the goal of "Engineered Negligible Senescence" and its desirability.

The second article will deal with the "seven deadly things" that, according to Dr. de Grey, would need to be eliminated in order for indefinite lifespan to occur.

There are definite strategies outlined here. This is not mere speculation!

I am
G. Stolyarov II

Post 25

Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 1:12pm

Mr. Stolyarov,

I prepared a rather long response last evening, but my connection had dropped, and when I went to post the response, of course, it went into limbo. (There really is a limbo, apparently.)

My responses will be short.

If mass is the "amount of matter in an entity," why can matter not be called a quality and a constituent at the same time?

Mass is only an attribute of material existents. You cannot make anything out of mass, because there is not such thing.

Regi

Post 26

Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 1:25pm

Hello again Mr. Stolyarov,

But do you not agree that it must be uniform if it is to have any meaning? Time must be a uniform scale.

So long as you view time only as a "scale," you can say it must be uniform, or consistent. I'm not sure a logarithmic scale is "uniform," but it is consistent.

How do you respond to my claim that we would still need a time scale in the event that something came to move in that static universe?

There cannot be a static universe, but the world, as it is, can be viewed hypothetically, statically. If there were only one thing that moved, there would be no time. It motion could be described entirely in terms of its starting position and ending position, or, if it were continuous motion, the direction it is moving in. Of course if there were only one thing that moved there would be no one to make such descriptions.

But, if three-dimensional space alone is not sufficient to describe the relationship of these motions, why not claim that time is a fourth dimension

First, there are not "three dimensions" in the static world. The "threeness" is a description of the method we use to identify positional relationships. There are actually only two kinds of "measurement" for positional (spatial) relationships--direction and distance.

A motion is a change in position. It is a new kind of phenomena, which positional relationships can not giver rise to, however arranged or configured. The new phenomena is change.

Motion, all by itself, does not require any new parameters to describe it. It can be described in terms of direction and distance; e.g. what direction was the change and how much "distance" was the change.

It is only when comparing motions to other motions that time and velocity have meaning.

I did not mean, by the way that you agreed with Einstein, but some times think of space and time as ontological, which is the heart of Einstein's theory.

Regi

Post 27

Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 1:44pm

Mr. Stolyarov,

I am not convinced by any of your arguments on longevity, but I can understand why someone might be. I think you have made good arguments, but not conclusive, and there other reasons I think it is very unlikely longevity will be increased very much very soon, and never very very much.

For one thing, I think a life to be thoroughly enjoyed has to be an integrated whole, not a open ended ....what?

You commented: So, a man is now a �crackpot� because he says �I think�??! What other tool does a man have to judge reality than his own mind?

When a man says (you did not include the whole quote, so I do not feel obliged to either):

"I think there will be ... We currently have no idea what sort of treatments we'll need..."<p>

When a person admits they are thinking with no ideas, it is safe to dismiss those thoughts. Medicine men, astrologers, and quacks all say, "I think."

Regi

Post 28

Friday, July 30, 2004 - 11:40am

Greetings.

Mr. Firehammer: If there were only one thing that moved, there would be no time. It motion could be described entirely in terms of its starting position and ending position, or, if it were continuous motion, the direction it is moving in.

Mr. Stolyarov: Would it not matter if it got to Position B from Position A faster rather than slower? I would say that, so long as the entity could have conceivably moved at a different pace, the keeping of a time scale is legitimate. So long as it is possible for an entity to move at different rates, it is possible to say that it moved faster than it could have moved, all of these designations, of course, requiring a time scale to exist.

I still hold that it is not motion per se that necessitates the keeping of a time scale, but the potentiality of motion; the variations that this potentiality can assume are vast in individual entities as well as among multiple entities.

Mr. Firehammer: Of course if there were only one thing that moved there would be no one to make such descriptions.

Mr. Stolyarov: Let us presume, for the sake of argument that either 1) this sole entity is sentient and capable of making observations about its own motion or 2) some passive observer has placed a protective shield that allows this entity to still roam vast distances, but prevents it from interacting with any other entities.

I realize that this is not any condition that describes the actual universe, but I claim that time would still be necessary under such circumstances.

Mr. Firehammer: First, there are not "three dimensions" in the static world. The "threeness" is a description of the method we use to identify positional relationships. There are actually only two kinds of "measurement" for positional (spatial) relationships--direction and distance.

Mr. Stolyarov: �Direction and distance� do not, in my estimation, adequately describe the nature of positional relationships, because the question inevitably arises: �which direction?� The answer is: �any direction that any three-dimensional object can pursue.� The objects possess qualities of length, width, and height, and it is possible to express any position by saying that A is X units (left/right) of B, Y units (above/below) B, and Z units (in front of/behind) B. A direction is the ultimate result of comparing the three-dimensional position of an object (or a potential object) at one location, and the three-dimensional position of an actual/potential object at another. Direction is not a single parameter: it is a vector sum involving change in up to three parameters. Distance is the magnitude of this change.

As I see it, my model goes a step further than just saying �direction exists.� It counters any attempts by modern irrationalists to claim that a �seven-dimensional direction� can also exist.

By the way, in the real world, each direction will always have three parameters of some magnitude involved. Every real object is three-dimensional, no matter how minute its measurements in a given dimension might be.

Mr. Firehammer: It is only when comparing motions to other motions that time and velocity have meaning.

Mr. Stolyarov: Why, in your opinion, would not mere potentiality of motion suffice?

Note that my argument for potentiality of motion necessitating a time scale automatically precludes motion from being described solely by direction and distance; there must also be a reference to other states of motion the particular entity is capable of undertaking (this is not limited solely to different rates of continuous motion, but also to intermittent motion as opposed to continuous motion, and all the possible variations of intermittent motion. As you can see, there are indefinite possibilities for the motion of any entity, thus keeping time is needed so long as one entity could possibly move.).

Mr. Firehammer: For one thing, I think a life to be thoroughly enjoyed has to be an integrated whole, not a open ended ....what?

Mr. Stolyarov: My response is a preview of my poem, �Monologue of Immortal Man,�
which shall be shortly submitted to SOLO.

They told me that �enjoying life� is key.

I now enjoy it; they but rot.

What true enjoyment counteracts longevity,

That freedom ever from becoming naught?

What pleasure had derived these sages,

From being eaten by the ages?

A writhing scream.

Mr. Firehammer: When a person admits they are thinking with no ideas, it is safe to dismiss those thoughts. Medicine men, astrologers, and quacks all say, "I think."

Mr. Stolyarov: Dr. de Grey is not yet aware of what will make men live 200 years, but he is quite aware of what will make men live 120+ years. The following article is a thorough scientific exposition of the �Seven Deadly Things� that must be eliminated before such leaps in longevity are to come about:

The Quest for Indefinite Life II: The Seven Deadly Things and Why There Are Only Seven:
July 30, 2004:
Dr. Aubrey D. N. J. de Grey explains in detail the seven obstacles to indefinite life and principal causes of senescence and death. Eliminating them could expand the human lifespan to 5000 years. (Eventually, that is).
http://www.geocities.com/rational_argumentator/questlife2.html

Dr. de Grey does have quite a few ideas. But he is exercising the caution of a scientist by waiting until he sees the direct consequences of the initial ideas before definitively saying anything about the exact consequences of the consequences.

There will be a third article in this series, published tomorrow. Please read this one, however, before venturing to further assert that Dr. de Grey has no ideas.

It would also be interesting for the two of you to debate the issue: Dr. de Grey has already issued multiple invitations for anyone who questions the feasibility or desirability of his approach to e-mail him with their comments (his e-mail address is accessible via the article). He is confident that he will dispel any doubts. Perhaps a public debate between two such notable figures would be an even superior forum for discussion of this issue. (I would be willing to provide a thread on my forum, as well as the publication of the debate's full transcript on TRA.)

I am
G. Stolyarov II

The Prologue: http://www.geocities.com/rationalargumentator/eac_prologue.html

Chapter I: Protector's Summons: http://www.geocities.com/rational_argumentator/eac_chapter1.html

Order Eden against the Colossus at http://www.lulu.com/content/63699.

(Edited by G. Stolyarov II on 8/02, 10:37pm)

Post 29

Friday, July 30, 2004 - 5:02pm

Mr. Stollyarov,

Would it not matter if it got to Position B from Position A faster rather than slower?

If it were the only thing that moved, what would "fast" mean?

Let us presume, for the sake of argument that either 1) this sole entity is sentient and capable of making observations about its own motion

You cannot assume that, even for the sake of argument. Sentience is a "process," possible only to living entities, which must move. The point I was making is there is not time if there is only one thing that moves. All of your arguments introduce another movement, inadvertently or intentionally.

�Direction and distance� do not, in my estimation, adequately describe the nature of positional relationships

The presumed three dimension assume three directions at 90 degree angles to one another, then use the vector sum of the distances in each one of those directions. There are actually six things measured, three angles and three distances. We conveniently forget the three 90 degree angels, because they are assumed. If you don't think the angles are necessary, try describing the position of something using three dimensions (distances) but assume the angular difference is unknown or something other than 90 degeres.

But actually we do not need the six, we only need three, two angles (directions) and one distance.

I still think Dr. de Grey is a quack or crackpot, and I know someday you will think so too. It is an interesting idea to pursue, just don't set your heart on it, and don't waste too much of your life on it.

Regi

Post 30

Sunday, August 1, 2004 - 4:08pm

I only read a few posts before I came across something that made me wonder. Mr. Stolyarov, you say that it's impossible for an electron to have infinite age, correct? Yet, you acknowledge that mass cannot be either created or destroyed. You then imply that an electron is an existent, but mass is not. But, an electron is defined as a unit of mass that has charge. Are you saying that the difference between an electron and a unit of mass is the charge, which gives it its status as an existent? Or, is it simply the title that we give to a charged piece of mass, "electron," that makes it an existent? If you could clarify this for me, I'd be much obliged.

Post 31

Sunday, August 1, 2004 - 9:03pm

Greetings.

Nix-O-Matic: Mr. Stolyarov, you say that it's impossible for an electron to have infinite age, correct? Yet, you acknowledge that mass cannot be either created or destroyed. You then imply that an electron is an existent, but mass is not.

Mr. Stolyarov: I think we first need to establish the difference between an entity and an existent. If we can call a quality an existent, then mass is an existent (because mass is a real quality of real things). If, however, you mean to say "entity" when you use the word "existent," then mass is not an entity. Mass is a property that all entities have. The question: "When did a given quality first emerge?" is not always proper. Ask yourself: When did color first come to be? When did light first come to be? Or, to take the matter to an extreme: When did slipperiness first come to be? These questions are not logically sensible because only entities can have a chronological origin; a quality is not an entity in itself and manifests itself only through entities. Rather than asking ourselves about origins of qualities, we should ask ourselves about origins of entities that exhibit given qualities; such a question is more logically proper.

It is quite possible for an entity to have formed at Time A which did not exist before. The formation of this entity would have required a contribution of mass from other entities equivalent to this new entity's mass; we call this the conservation of mass. The reason why we must focus on calling it the conservation of mass (i.e. of a given quality) is that more than one entity may share the same mass. (For example, an atom in a person's body has mass X. But that individual also has mass X as part of his mass. It is the same mass, by the way! One entity, the atom, is part of the larger entity, the individual!) The conservation of mass is not merely an addition-subtraction principle; it is quite possible for an entity to keep its own mass and become part of a larger entity to which it contributes its mass. Mass does not become an entity on its own accord, though! (Do you see how it must always be exhibited by some entity?)

The conservation of mass principle says only this: "If, at any time, we measure all the quantities of the quality 'mass' and subtract all the instances in which the same measurement of mass is applied to more than one entity, we will have a resultant quantity of mass, which will be identical to the quantity present at any other time."

Nix-O-Matic: But, an electron is defined as a unit of mass that has charge.

Mr. Stolyarov: Where did you read of/encounter this definition? I judge it to be a poor one: electrons are not mass; they are entities with mass, and a particular mass (a measurement of the quality "mass," about A * 10^3 smaller than the mass of a nucleon [proton or electron]. A is some number. Forgive me for not having the exact figures immediately available.) An electron has a smaller measurement of mass than the entity, "proton," and a larger measurement of mass than the entity "quark." It is not, in itself, mass, just like a red ball is not, in itself, the color red.

I would define an electron as "an entity with a particular mass of (insert exact mass here) and a negative charge of magnitude (insert exact figure here)." As science progresses further, it may be possible to add to the definition other qualities that we observe about electrons, but these qualities can never become entities in and of themselves.

Charge, by the way, is also a quality, which can only be exhibited by entities and does not have an independent existence. Other such qualities include light, color, sound, beauty, freedom, etc.

Please feel free to ask further if you do not consider this clarification adequate; this is a fascinating topic for me, as Ayn Rand had left only extremely cursory guidance here. Establishing a real-world ontology that sets the foundation for the natural sciences is a must if Objectivism is to have any chance of refuting the contradictory hash proposed by modern cosmologists!

I am
G. Stolyarov II

Post 32

Monday, August 2, 2004 - 1:33am

Mr. Stolyarov, thanks for your response. It seems very interesting, and possibly even disproves my own proposition. However, I'm not going to challenge you further, as I've finally realized that it really is a bit absurd for me to be putting forward arguments in threads of this nature at the present time. I really do need to read much, much more Rand and science in general first, so I can actually articulate my perceptions better, and in turn understand other peoples responses better. Perhaps in a few years..........

-D

Post 33

Monday, August 2, 2004 - 8:22pm

Hi Gennady,

Your answers to Nix-O-Matic were excellent, I thought. But you already know we agree on these.

However, you raised a question interesting to me.

Charge, by the way, is also a quality, which can only be exhibited by entities and does not have an independent existence. Other such qualities include light, color, sound, beauty, freedom, etc.

I agree completely with this description of charge, but there is an interesting aspect of charge, as well as gravity and magnetism, which they all share, which the entity ontology does not directly address. I have come to my own conclusions, but would be interested in how you deal with the fact that these all have that interesting characteristic for which physics invented the concept of a "field."

For all three, "static charge," "magnetics" and "gravity" the intensity of the "field" (the effect the attribute of an entity has on other entities) decreases in direct proportion to the distance between entities with the particular property. (They all have gravitational attraction, of course.) (I know that nuclear strong forces do not work his way.)

So, what is a field? Is it a property or a thing? (I am asking the question in exactly this way to prevent my question from influencing your answer.)

Another question, related to the conservation of matter (which nowadays is called the conservation of matter/energy). How do you account for the relativistic increase in mass of an entity with the increase of relative velocity? (Did you know the relativistic increase in mass exactly equals the mass that would be required to be converted to energy to accelerate the mass exhibiting the relativistic increase?)

Regi

Post 34

Tuesday, August 3, 2004 - 4:22pm

Greetings.

Mr. Firehammer, as always, you ask a very interesting question. You describe your subject thus: �For all three, "static charge," "magnetics" and "gravity" the intensity of the "field" (the effect the attribute of an entity has on other entities) decreases in direct proportion to the distance between entities with the particular property.�

Then you proceed: �So, what is a field? Is it a property or a thing?�

Essentially, what is in fysics defined as a �field� is the �influence of one entity on another within a particular distance from the first entity.� This influence may cause other entities to be attracted to or repelled from the entity which exhibits the �field.� So, in essence, the field is a potentiality of action that one entity can exert on another within a given range of distance. It is analogous to the �grabbing potential� of a human hand. I can quite easily grab an object 20 cm. from me; to grab something 80 cm. from me, however, requires quite a stretch and might render my grab less swift, less coordinated, less firm, etc. (For all we know, there may well be a fathomable mathematical relationship between distance and �grabbing potential,� to be discovered as our knowledge of human biology increases.)

Essentially, the word �field� merely describes the ability of an entity to affect other entities in a certain way (and with a certain magnitude of force exerted upon the affected entities) in inverse proportion to the distance between the affecting and affected entities. If a �behavior� or an �action� can be described as a �quality� of an entity, then a field is a �potential quality� (which is actualized in one of many possible incarnations when a real entity is placed within the �field.�). (Because there are not affected entities at every distance from a given particular entity, though we know that the effect on an affected entity will have a certain magnitude at a certain distance between the affecting and affected entities.)

You ask further: �How do you account for the relativistic increase in mass of an entity with the increase of relative velocity? (Did you know the relativistic increase in mass exactly equals the mass that would be required to be converted to energy to accelerate the mass exhibiting the relativistic increase?)�

It may be possible for one quality to be convertible into another such that the sum of all of the existing (non-repeated) measurements of the two qualities will always remain constant. It could be (and is the province of natural science to demonstrate) that an entity exhibiting the quality �mass� could come to lose some of that quality and gain a proportional amount of the quality �energy.� The �convertibility� of some qualities into others is quite possible. Say, the entity �wooden bar� is sliced in two parts with each part having the half the height of the original bar. Then, the two parts are glued together along faces that were not cut. Thus, the quality �width� of the transformed entity �wooden bar� has been increased as a result of the decrease of the original entity�s height. (Note that this convertibility implies that the original entity has changed in some manner. In some cases, this change may imply its transformation into a quite different entity; in other cases, the change is only slight.)

I am
G. Stolyarov II

Editor-in-Chief, The Rational Argumentator

Proprietor, The Rational Argumentator Online Store

Author, Eden against the Colossus

Post 35

Wednesday, August 4, 2004 - 7:06pm

Hi Gennady,

This is certainly more interesting than, "who is insulting whom," which seems to be the dominant subject on SOLO these days.

You said, among other things, So, in essence, the field is a potentiality of action that one entity can exert on another within a given range of distance.

Please keep in mind, there is no limit on the, "range," of a "field." Magnetic, gravitational, and, electrostatic fields extend indefinitely. The "effect" is also more than merely one of attraction. A current will be induced in a conductor moving through a magnetic field." Your metaphor of a, "'grabbing potential' of a human hand," certainly does not fit that aspect of a field.

I think your original definition of a field is the better one; " 'field' is the 'influence of one entity on another within a particular distance from the first entity,'" but I do not think it correctly describes what the actual nature of the relationship between physical entities is. One existent does not "influence" another entity, in the sense that it "reaches out and grasps" it, as your own analogy suggests. Every existent has some relationship to every other existent, and that particular kind of relationship which "fields" were invented to describe, is merely how individual existents behave in relationship to other existents.

The behavior of existents relative to one another is determined by the specific nature of all the existents whose behavior is being considered. In one sense, this means every existent there is, and much of the mystery of the behavior of physical existents is the result of ignoring the fact no existent exists independently, but is influence by every existent there is in the entire universe.

It may be possible for one quality to be convertible into another such that the sum of all of the existing (non-repeated) measurements of the two qualities will always remain constant.

If I understand what you mean, this cannot be quite right. One quality cannot be "converted" into another. Mass is never "converted" into energy. (Did you know the relativistic increase in mass exactly equals the mass that would be required to be converted to energy to accelerate the mass exhibiting the relativistic increase? was meant as a hint.) This is one of, and maybe the biggest, mistakes of physics. (It is a conceptual mistake.) Energy does not exist except as a behavior of physical existents. There is no "pure energy." I'll not say more, but think about what energy is: it can only be expressed as, "the ability to do work," or as "the acceleration of mass," which ultimately are the same thing. (Think about the classical physics formulas for work and kinetic energy and how one can be converted into the other.)

Oh, just for the fun of it, I contend the physics concept of "force" is only a relationship. There is no such "thing" as force.

Regi

Post 36

Thursday, August 5, 2004 - 9:13pm

Greetings.

Mr. Firehammer: Please keep in mind, there is no limit on the, "range," of a "field." Magnetic, gravitational, and, electrostatic fields extend indefinitely. The "effect" is also more than merely one of attraction. A current will be induced in a conductor moving through a magnetic field." Your metaphor of a, "'grabbing potential' of a human hand," certainly does not fit that aspect of a field.

Mr. Stolyarov: Perhaps so. My metafor was included to describe a similarity to some of the aspects of a field; there may have been others that it has missed. Metafors and analogies are quite imperfect in general for describing the things they are compared to.

Mr. Firehammer: I think your original definition of a field is the better one; " 'field' is the 'influence of one entity on another within a particular distance from the first entity,'" but I do not think it correctly describes what the actual nature of the relationship between physical entities is. One existent does not "influence" another entity, in the sense that it "reaches out and grasps" it, as your own analogy suggests. Every existent has some relationship to every other existent, and that particular kind of relationship which "fields" were invented to describe, is merely how individual existents behave in relationship to other existents.

Mr. Stolyarov: Of course, the relationship in question does not involve fysical contact between the two entities. Thus, it is distinct from grabbing per se and may have a greater variety of possibilities to it than a mere �grabbing potential� would. But would you agree with me that I call a field �a potential quality,� in the sense that any actual relationship only exists when another entity �enters the field,� and depends on how close that entity is to the entity that �generates� the field?

Mr. Firehammer: This is one of, and maybe the biggest, mistakes of physics. (It is a conceptual mistake.) Energy does not exist except as a behavior of physical existents. There is no "pure energy." I'll not say more, but think about what energy is: it can only be expressed as, "the ability to do work," or as "the acceleration of mass," which ultimately are the same thing.

Mr. Stolyarov: Very well, I confess you have me caught there. I have overlooked the old formula: W=mad (Work=Mass*Acceleration*Distance). Acceleration*Distance equal Velocity-squared, etc.

Mr. Firehammer: Oh, just for the fun of it, I contend the physics concept of "force" is only a relationship. There is no such "thing" as force.

Mr. Stolyarov: Force=mass*acceleration, according to Newton�s Second Law. A force, then is an action undertaken to accelerate an entity of a certain mass. If it is an action, then some entity must be doing the acting. In short, force is not an independent entity, and we agree here.

Do you have any further ideas about what exactly a "field" is, that you had reached on your own, as you had previously mentioned? I am interested to learn of the entirety of your thinking on this matter.

I am
G. Stolyarov II

Editor-in-Chief, The Rational Argumentator

Proprietor, The Rational Argumentator Online Store

Author, Eden against the Colossus

Post 37

Monday, August 23, 2004 - 5:41pm

Now that I'm settled in at FSU, I'm going to be back on the forums.

Even though I may very well be in over my head, I'm going to attempt to tackle this idea of fields and bring back a question from my previous post.

First, for Mr. Firehammer:

From my limited knowledge of physics, I would describe a field similarly to your favored definition of Mr. Stolyarov. Keeping in mind that a field is infinite and the effects it produces rely on how close you are to the generator, my concept of a field is similar to that of voltage. Voltage is not current, but simply the potential for energy to be exchanged from one place to another. Similar to our ideas of potential and kinetic energy. A rock on top of a hill has potential energy. A field has "potential energy" that increases the closer you get to the generator. However, it's different than true potential energy because, as we said earlier, fields have infinite range so they are always acting on you, even if the effects are extremely minute. To speak purely theoretically, a field would do nothing unless another entity entered it.

I may be completely wrong on this, and I'm sure you'll let me know if I am. I am interested to hear your (and Mr. Stolyarov's) response because, as you said, I find this extremely fascinating.

On to Mr. Stolyarov:

I think I understand the fallacy of my argument. Mass is an existent, a quality of things, but it is not an entity in-and-of itself. For example, I have the quality of mass. It is an existent that is a quality of my entity. However, I am not a quality of mass, nor is charge a quality of mass, therefore mass is not an entity. Is that what you're saying, or have I completely missed the point?

Jeremy Nix

Post 38

Monday, August 23, 2004 - 9:07pm

My name is Jeremy!!! We have two Jeremys!! You bastards!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Post 39

Tuesday, August 24, 2004 - 6:42am