Action at a Distance = Fiction

[klypp]

Think of this: Matter creates itself - No physical evidence to suggest this. Matter has always existed from eternity past - Not a provable supposition. The vacuum energy spontaneously creates matter - Pure fiction when it comes to solid support. Matter and energy were intelligently created -- is this belief really more far fetched than the others? These are all human questions, worthy of consideration on that board. All require a faith base, which once affirmed, leads logically to its peculiar conclusion, given all the same evidences.

Seems to me you´re trying to say that all theories are equal and thus your theory is just as valid as any other theory. Last resort...?

Sorry web, this is not how science works. In science we put contradicting theories up against each other in order to decide which one is correct, based on facts and logic.
The word "faith" has no place here. Check a dictionary. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language has this definition: "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence".

No logical proof, no material evidence. Could you possibly get further away from science?

[sjw40364]

I tend to agree with Webo on one aspect. We assume that since objects we can visibly see interact by touching, that all must be this way. Yet an electron does not touch the nucleus and most scientists would say an aether is not a reality. Also it is quite idiotic to assign properties to space as if it were a medium, and then call it a vacuum. Sort of like saying geometry controls the path of objects, as if geometric lines were a reality. The theorists live in a world of mathematical symbols where anything is possible within the bounds of the equations. And sometimes outside those bounds when they need to divide by zero. The real world does not work this way. Every single theory that exists requires faith that certain non proven assumptions are true. All current theories presume action at a distance or action caused by nothing at all, yet frown upon that very phrase. I say all theories are incorrect and all theories are correct, and the answer lies in a blending of different disparate theories. It is separating the facts from the fantasy where the problem arises.
I expect that like fish, we remain unaware of the sea we move in. But even an ocean is mostly empty space, even though it may feel solid like to you and me. So even in water there remains action at a distance as the molecules are bound by forces that do not require those molecules to touch. You may have faith that something physical binds them, but it must remain faith as no evidence exists that confirms this. You may believe that all force is transferred by contact, but no evidence exists that confirms this, as all observations that this is so breaks down at the micro scale. You may choose to believe as I that our technology is insufficient to the task, but that is still faith in a non proven assumption. You may have faith that a designer exists, which in an EU universe I would not be so unwise as to argue against such as thought is energy along pathways and the universe is connected by pathways of energy.

So regardless of which theory you follow, they all require faith.

[webolife]

Klypp,
What do YOU believe about the universe? Is this belief in any way proven by material evidence? Do you believe that all reality is within the purview of the scientific method? Do you believe that your own thoughts are simply collisions of chemicals in a system that is merely appears to be organized, and that design is just a figment of the imagination? Are you perhaps a material determinist, believing that the random vectors of particles predetermine all outcomes, including your reading of this typed sentence? Is it possible that while scientific thinking and protocols can only deal with the material aspects of reality, that other aspects beyond the jurisdiction of the scientific method are involved in and interacting with the material reality to which science is limited in its examination? As SJW affirmed in the previous post, are you aware that your own presuppositions directly or indirectly lead to the conclusions of your logical or scientific methodology? Or do you believe that because science is limited to natural realms, there is no supernatural realm beyond or within the real universe? Or since this is a science-based forum, do you believe that it is inappropriate to consider causes and actions that are beyond its purview? If so, are you determined that the one limited aspect is in fact the only aspect of reality worth consideration? What if all "nature" is "supernatural" and that is why we are all still seeking to understand how it works? What if the real meaning of science is to understand through nature the meaning of the supernatural?

AAAD is what we see. Everything else is theories based on faith in something. Does that make all theories equal?
Not at all, but it does put every theorist equally on guard against the claim of ultimate truth. If describing what we see [yes, the observations, facts, evidences] in terms of things that are invisible, undetectable, imponderable, or immeasurable is outside the realm of science, then no model is appropriate on this or any forum. On the other hand, seeing that we all begin with a peculiar perspective based on presupposition, then we can by sharing our idiosyncratic observations help each other see more than our own limited viewpoint.

[klypp]

Facts and logic is fundamental to science. Simple as that. You cannot prove a theory by ignoring facts. Neither can you prove it by replacing logic with nonsense.
This should be self-evident. Ah, but not to some...

Like webolife says, "What if the real meaning of science is to understand ... the meaning of the supernatural?"

Sorry web, you´re on the wrong arena. The supernatural is called supernatural because it is not part of the natural world, the real world. Physics cannot deal with anything supernatural. Try mythology or something...

[sjw40364]

Klypp,

How does your brain work? Are you saying that since thought is nothing more than electrical actions along a pathway, then scientifically no being of pure thought could exist along the paths that connect the universe? Your brain is made up of the same molecules that make up the universe, the current that makes your thoughts possible the same as the currents that flow throughout the universe. There is no difference except a matter of scale, and the belief you may think it impossible. But that is still just belief. Not that I say there is, but I don't say there isn't either, the facts as you say include that possibility. Supernatural or just currently unexplainable by science, as gravity is unexplainable by current science? I know, we have lots of math to explain gravity, but what is it really? A fact based upon AAAD that in reality we know nothing about and could easily be called supernatural, since that is all supernatural is, something unexplainable by current knowledge and science. Lightning was once caused by the gods, today we have a scientific explanation. Life was once created by god, today we have a...ok, today we still don't have a scientific explanation. Supernatural by definition since we have never observed life from non-life. Big Bang or just always there, supernatural by definition. Ex nihilo or effect without cause, both violations of current science. By definition, supernatural.

[webolife]

Hey Klypp,
For a second there I thought we agree... ie. your objection starting with "You cannot prove a theory by..."
That's just it... no theory can be proven, because not all pertinent facts are known, or perhaps even knowable.
Perhaps in that way also there is equity among theories. AAAD is an undeniable observation. Every other explanation presupposes certain imponderable unobservable elementary conditions, then proceeds through logical examination of the available evidence to a conclusion which either affirms [or negates] the original assumptions. I assume that we are all "equal" in our pursuit of parsimony as well. So my framework, the Centropic Pressure Field, presumes that AAAD is actually happening, not just apparent, and proceeds from there. Along the way, observations of FTL [ie. faster than c] or instantaneous phenomena are predictions of the CPFT, rather than surprises or observations to be explained away. And, meanwhile, indications of light speed latency are matters I have to give serious consideration to. Eg. it took me nearly 10 years from first learning of this pressure field concept to be able to visualize how instantaneity of light action could be happening. Another 20 years have passed, and I'm still in the game. I majored in science and minored in math, and have been teaching now for 35 years. I understand not only the difference between science and philosophy, but also the inevitable fusion of the two. Do you? I say and ask this, not because I feel somehow I have superior expertise, but simply because I have discovered that all scientists work from a position, a bias, that not only limits their ability to see on the one hand, but on the other provides them the opportunity to uniquely contribute to the universal search for truth. Hence my signature line.

[klypp]

sjw40364,
facts and logic! Is it really so hard for your brain to get this?
The alternative is fiction and nonsense.

Which is precisely what you are introducing here:
"Are you saying that since thought is nothing more than electrical actions along a pathway, then scientifically no being of pure thought could exist along the paths that connect the universe?"
Fiction. And no, I am not saying that. You are! I try to avoid this kind of fiction.
Thoughts are immaterial. They are not made of matter, and also they are not electricity. It doesn't matter how the brain works. I don't consider power plants to be smarter than myself.

"Supernatural or just currently unexplainable by science"
Nonsense. If it can be explained by science in the future, it is not supernatural.

"A fact based upon AAAD that in reality we know nothing about".
Nonsense. A fact that we know nothing about, can hardly be called a fact.

"that is all supernatural is, something unexplainable by current knowledge and science"
Nonsense. Check the definition of the word.

"Supernatural by definition since we have never observed life from non-life"
Nonsense. Living beings exists. That is a fact. You and I are both living proofs. Never having observed life from non-life does not make any of us supernatural. You assume life evolved from non-life. That is precisely what you never observed.

"Big Bang or just always there, supernatural by definition."
Nonsense. "Always there" is a possibility that doesn't violate neiher reality nor logic. Big Bang is another cup of tea. Again, check what the word supernatural means.


Science cannot deal with anything but reality. Period.

[klypp]

AAAD is an undeniable observation.

Kant said that science has to build on causality. He was right. The alternative is mysticism.
Causality says that every effect has causes. For this to take place there must be some kind of interaction between an effect and its causes.
I take it that you by AAAD means an effect that takes place where there is no link to its cause.

If this is an "undeniable observation", you have two options:
1. Accept this "undeniable" fact.
2. Say "Wow!" This is interesting. Maybe we have discovered something new here. Let's investigate further. Let's see if we can find out how this work."

I would call the first option "Jumping to a conclusion that leads nowhere". Mystics make these kind of discoveries all the time.
I would call the second option the scientific approach.
And I must say this second approach has had tremendous success lately. Causality is looking good and doing real well.

And, btw, you can't disprove causality no matter how hard you try. You would need causality to do that...

[upriver]

Action at a distance for me always implied that we are talking about negating the theory of relativity.
That communications were happening faster than light, not time travel. I.e. that the event was preceding the cause.

So in tunneling and quantum entanglement, it has been observed that there is zero time between events, or the time that has passed is so small as to be immeasurable by our instruments...

Action at a distance as it has been defined does exist....

If you are talking about time travel, thats a little harder to prove...

[webolife]

Klypp,
I accept what my eyes see. There is much that cannot be seen of course, and these things we infer by the interactions we see among the things that are visible/detectable to us. It has been rightly said that the things which are visible are made of that which is invisible, and that the visible things hide the invisble from us.
If you look at my many previous posts on the subject, at no point have I inferred effect without cause. An electron configuration collapses at a source/center under the influence of universal [unified] centropic pressure. Causality. This produces a voltage drop in the field that does not propagate through the field as if it were an object, but rather changes the characteristic "energy" of the field. Causality. We are also in that field, and with our resonant photosensory neurons we detect that that voltage drop in the direction of the source/center [as a sink]. Causality.
The previous causal series describes us looking at a distant star, or at our computer screen. I walk out of my door on a sunny winter morning, the air so crisp that my nose begins to freeze, but then I stroll out of the shadow of my porch -- the air is still bitter cold, but I squint and my face is immediately warmed by the radiant light of the sun. AAAD. Causality. "Wow!" I say, and begin to try to understand why this is happening... science. Causality. But hey, I also agree with you that thought is immaterial, so in order to do my science I am going to interact the material world with the immaterial; something I can hardly understand, because as a fish in water, I live immersed [baptized] in a universe of thought which so pervades my existence that there cannot be imagined a reality without it. Perhaps you have "broken through" the thought barrier and are able to imagine a universe where only the material exists? Well then you must no longer be thinking, by your own admission.

[Morphix]

My first post here. I am perhaps motivated to comment as my degree and lifelong interest is in philosophy. Two related points:

1. It is scientifically impossible to determine/know that any particular set of phenomena exhibit AAAD. This is because we can only say that we do not know how an apparent causal relationship occurs, as we would need omniscience to know that some kind of mediation is not involved in an an apparently linked set of events. It may simply be a type of action/causality we are not yet familiar with.

2. The above epistemological conditions and logic apply to assigning the status of "supernatural" to some phenomena. You would need to be omniscient to fully and unequivocally know that such-and-such is categorically outside nature and outside the reach of natural science. The problem with concepts like "supernatural" is that they have no real context or application, unless of course you are a supernatural being with the supernatural power of omniscience, as any lesser mental scope is by definition inadequate to the task of knowing that something is categorically outside the reach of science, human or otherwise.

[klypp]

If you look at my many previous posts on the subject, at no point have I inferred effect without cause.

I did not say you did. I said that AAAD occurs when the effect has no connection to its cause. Cause and effect, but no link between the two.

I walk out of my door on a sunny winter morning, the air so crisp that my nose begins to freeze, but then I stroll out of the shadow of my porch -- the air is still bitter cold, but I squint and my face is immediately warmed by the radiant light of the sun. AAAD.

Nice! This underscores my point. This is only AAAD if you start out with the wrong theory. In wave theory of light there is no AAAD here.

Same thing goes for tunneling and quantum entanglement, mentioned by upriver. It comes from the photon
idea. It doesn´t matter whether you think a photon is a particle or a "wave quant".
A wave is continuous. Chopping it into photons makes no sense. The AAAD tends to disappear as soon as this is realized.

And, to upriver:
The event cannot precede the cause. Communications happening faster than light is the relativists desperate and confused attempt to save their holy postulate: Light cannot move faster than c.
Well, it can. And it is easily demonstrated these days. Again, no AAAD.

[upriver]

I never said anything about light being the one to go faster than light....

Obviously there is a different communication method being used(Aether, longitudinal waves, whatever) between photons or electrons that allows FTL information to exist... This is a s simple as a standing wave in some cases. If you push on the end of a standing wave it will transmit information FTL to the other end.....

Experiments indicate FTL information exchanges, tunneling(zero time in the barrier) and entanglement(zero time to collapse spin), look it up......

Cause and effect... just because you dont see the link doesnt mean it doesnt exist....

Cause precedes effect but it can happen FTL, or what we would consider instantaneously.

Our science just doesnt account for some of the deeper features of the universe that we cant measure......

[upriver]

What is a Photon???
http://www.aetherometry.com/publication ... -09-01.pdf

[sjw40364]

Here we go with virtual particles again, as if a particle could actually exist that didn't have 1) mass, 2) an electric field and 3) a magnetic field. We do not live in a computer program, so as far as I am concerned if it requires a particle to be virtual to work then the theory isn't worth the paper it's written on. Any more than mass without volume or point masses is valid. E=mc2 requires that a photon, if it exists, have mass as it has energy. So either 1) they don't exist or 2) they have all the above qualities, our technology is lacking in resolution capability.

Now some have reported measurements of electric and magnetic fields for photons, just not at the same time. But this does not mean it is a particle itself as if light is an EMF wave traversing through a medium, it would contain all the above qualities, all depending upon the mass and density of the medium it traverses through. Since we have supposedly measured light to travel at c in our solar system (far from being a vacuum itself - remember the math uses 0 density for a vacuum) then there is no basis to claim light would not travel faster in a true vacuum.

Webo, I get what you say, I just feel the force of gravity is transferred from polarization, the aether needs merely align axis for energy to transfer, it does not require particle transfer over distances. What we see and measure is merely artifacts of motion transferred through the aether at an angle to the axis caused by its alignment. This is why the direction of light rays does not match the direction of the gravitational force. Contact waves transfer at the velocity of the medium through which it traverses. When through vacuum (read aether) faster than when other particles are present, such as oxygen molecules, as well as the aether (read vacuum).