Many theists believe there is an objective morality to be discovered. However, since you can't uncover such a morality in the same way you can lift a stone and find a pill bug, empirical systems are not use for this process. Instead, many rely on various works that they give implicit trust to, except when the advice of such books goes against their innate beliefs. Hence, we see homosexuals barred from military service, but don't see single women non-virgins barred in such a fashion, much less executed for being a single non-virgin.
Some attempt a seemingly more sophisticated approach of creating a morality based upon a few accepted notions and creating a formal system to reflect it. That's when you see people like the Maverick Philosopher examining the details on what their basic positions entail when examined in detail. Below the fold, I'll go into why I think this helps to pinpoint the inherent lack of objectivity in this construction of a moral system.
I'm not really concerned with the particular argument that Dr. Vallicella is making in his post, rather, I want to highlight what happens when he finds his argument is inadequate. In particular, he doesn't like the breadth of the conclusion of the argument, so he proposes a new starting point. That is, in creating this supposedly objective moral position, he changed his starting point to get the conclusion that he felt was the right one.
Now, I have no objections to this activity per se. In fact, this is one of the better advantages of operating strictly within a formal system. If the starting positions lead you to a situation you can't use, changing the starting positions is to be expected. If you are tracking the movements of ships on the surface of the earth, you don't pretend that the surface of the earth matches Euclid's parallel postulate; instead you assume that no lines (aka great circles) are parallel and use a Riemannian geometry. It will have the tools you need to look at ship movements around a globe.
However, the process of choosing these starting positions is strictly based on the conclusions you want to derive. That makes the starting positions arbitrary, and those positions will be carefully chosen so the results conform to the desired outcome. So, far from getting some objective morality that can be applied to all, you get a tailored morality designed to support a specific set of positions. Some of these systems, like natural law, were debated for hundreds of years before they were codified, and even then still generate disagreements around the edges.
When people come up with another method of knowing things that can exhibit certainty, reality, and demonstrability, that method of know may indeed lead to an objective morality. Until that time, there will be no such creature. All the construction within formal systems will not be able alter the shaky foundation upon which they rest.
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2,208 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 2201 – 2208 of 2208If you wanted to make projections and calculate ratios based on an instant when I am blowing down interstate 40 at 100 mph, you could certainly do so. That said, your projections and ratios would be quite different if you chose an instant where I am stopped at a filling station getting gas.
In this case, the amount of light delay for the last image Jill sees (10 seconds on Jack's clock) is exactly zero. Not quite the same amount of delay as was involved in the -6 image she saw, eh?
I said: "As an example, the image of 9 will not be transmitted until Jill has traveled 9/10th's of the total distance."
You responded: "Agreed, from Jack's frame of reference."
In either frame. You seem to fail to generalize when generalization is appropriate, and generalize when it is inappropriate. At the time clock 2 is "generating" the image of 9, Jill's clock will read 7.2 seconds and she will have calculate that she has travelled a distance of 4.32 light seconds since she left clock 1.
aintnuthin said...
One Brow asked: "Agreed. Now, at what point does the rate change, and in what fashion? Can you do the math to show it, or are you just making claims?"
The rate is constantly changing.
You are a marvel of arrogance and ignornace. These coupld of posts of yours on Doppler shifting have made me chuckle three times now.
You have taken shifts caused by an indirect approach and tranformed them into shifts causesd by proximity. Doppler shifts are caused by the deviation of he object from taking a straght line into the observer. If the object is heading directly for the observer, on a collision course, there is no Doppler shifting.
The short, easy response is to remove them from the scenario entirely. For example, have Jill pass by clock1/clock2 so closely that the shifting is not detectable, say, a couple of micrometers.
This link shows a graph involving satellite tracking
A satellite thousands of miles above the eath will have easily measurable doppler shifting, for those on earth.
Per wiki: "If the source approaches the observer at an angle (but still with a constant velocity),
Notice even in your quote the importance of approach at an angle is important to the effect. The effects diappears on a direct approach.
There is a gradual, ever-changing, frequency shift, on both approach and recession. It is not one constant rate.
There is not such shift on direct approaches, of approaches close to to direct that they are within measurement error of direct.
I've already pointed this out.
Yes, and with the ignorance of the subject you continue to display.
You said you had learned your lesson. Fraid not.
Sorry, but your lesson was based on a misunderstanding of the physics. That's a lessobn you never seem to learn.
August 19, 2011 10:36 PM
aintnuthin said...
In this case, the amount of light delay for the last image Jill sees (10 seconds on Jack's clock) is exactly zero. Not quite the same amount of delay as was involved in the -6 image she saw, eh?
Agreed and accounted for in everything I have been saying for the last few pages of comments.
I said: "As an example, the image of 9 will not be transmitted until Jill has traveled 9/10th's of the total distance."
You responded: "Agreed, from Jack's frame of reference."
In either frame.
Wrong. In Jill's frame, the image of 9 is transmitted when Jill has traveled 27/32nds [ (6.4-1)/6.4 = 27/32 ].
You seem to fail to generalize when generalization is appropriate, and generalize when it is inappropriate.
It seems this way to you because you still don't seem to understand relativity, not even LR. Properly, one never generalizes the results from one indertial state into another inertial state, unless those results are Lorentz-invariant (such as spacetime intervals). However, you make this generalization all the time, including in this last example. Properly, one makes generalizations based on the differences between inertial states. However, you routinely reject such generalizations.
At the time clock 2 is "generating" the image of 9, Jill's clock will read 7.2 seconds and she will have calculate that she has travelled a distance of 4.32 light seconds since she left clock 1.
Againm, you are mixing measurments made in different inertial states. As Jack measures, Jill's clock will read 7.2 seconds when clock2 geneates the image of 9. As jill measures, Jill will have traveled 4.32 Light-seconds in that time.
However, as Jill measures, clock2 generates an image of 9 when her clock reads 6.75.
Most of what you say in your last few posts is wrong, but it's not worth responding to in detail.
One Brow said: "Wrong. In Jill's frame, the image of 9 is transmitted when Jill has traveled 27/32nds [ (6.4-1)/6.4 = 27/32 ]."
Heh, think again. Just one of hundreds of statements which display how easily you get confused and how often you confuse a false appearance with objective reality.
Eric, you seem to have zero conceptual understanding. Just in general: Doppler effects and light delays are mere matters of appearance and perspective; they do not effect clock rates in the least.
On the other hand, increased speed actually affects clock rates. This reality will, of course, also create the appearance of clocks slowing down, but the effect is also real and substantial.
Yet you think you have found a new way to "explain" and calculate relativistic time dilation by reference to mere appearances.
I see now that there was never the slightest hope that you could keep subjective appearances separate from actual effects.
Such an approach makes any claim possible, which is the way you want it.
What a waste of time this has all been.
aintnuthin said...
Most of what you say in your last few posts is wrong, but it's not worth responding to in detail.
Our decision to not respond is wise, because you were wrong , period, if you were thinking the Doppler shifts you discussed were caused by proximity instead of angle of approach. On the other hand, if you were referring to angle of approach, then you were wrong for thinking it was significant to the issue at hand.
One Brow said: "Wrong. In Jill's frame, the image of 9 is transmitted when Jill has traveled 27/32nds [ (6.4-1)/6.4 = 27/32 ]."
Heh, think again.
I just did. I also thought it through carefully before I posted. My statement stands.
Just one of hundreds of statements which display how easily you get confused and how often you confuse a false appearance with objective reality.
My post did not discuss appearance. If you go by appearances, the fraction is 15/16ths, not 27/32nds. making this just one of the hundreds of statements where you were wrong about me using a subjective appearence.
Eric, you seem to have zero conceptual understanding.
It would have been more helpful for you to post statements that you thought illustrated a lack of conceptual understanding.
Just in general: Doppler effects and light delays are mere matters of appearance and perspective; they do not effect clock rates in the least.
I agree.
On the other hand, increased speed actually affects clock rates.
I agree.
This reality will, of course, also create the appearance of clocks slowing down, but the effect is also real and substantial.
I agree.
In fact, I have agreed with all those astatements multiple times. If those statements were supposed to highlight my lack of conceptual understanding, did you mean to say that agreeing with you shows a lack of conceptual understadning on my part?
Yet you think you have found a new way to "explain" and calculate relativistic time dilation by reference to mere appearances.
Not at all. First, I doubt it is new. Second, I only claim that it measures the rate of a clock. It does not explain nor calculate relativistic time dilation, and I have repeated this more than once. It just shows how fast a clock is acutally ticking. You have not even tried to challenge the analysis on that basis. Instead, you attack the reasoning by attaching to it various claims that I do not make for it. I won't speculate on why you do this rather than look at the reasoning itself, but I am interested in any explanations you would provide.
I see now that there was never the slightest hope that you could keep subjective appearances separate from actual effects.
The real issue, from what I can tell, is that you have trouble distinguishing objective effects (which can be epistemological) from ontological effects.
Such an approach makes any claim possible, which is the way you want it.
Except, I don't want that, and have repeatedly pointed out that there is only one resolution available, particularly when you insisted there was a descending loop of distances. There is only one solution to the Jack/Jill scenario. Now, a solution considers what Jack measures and what Jill measures, because they are different. However, each set of measurements is objective and determined, with no other possible claims.
What a waste of time this has all been.
Well, not for me. I've learned quit a bit.
You seem to have shaken the dust off your sandals. Still, I'll close with a quote, and later add a final comment.
The quote:
As I always say, medicine and science are not about "truth." They are about testing hypotheses, designing models, and developing theories that make useful predictions about how nature behaves. "Truth" is not what scientists are about, but it is apparently what cranks are about. Perhaps that's why they favor such simplistic answers and cling to them with religious fervor.
From Respectful Insolence, and I think probably a major source of you inability to understand SR theory.
Aintnuthin,
Looking back on our conversation, I can see where you were trying to talk about ontological truths, and how Lorentzian Relativity could privide that where Special Relativity could not. Ultimately, that’s a moot point. Science is not an ontrological enterprise, it’s an epistemological one. Adding ontology, when done carefully, can be fihne for philowsophers and those with similar goals, but it’s not science. In particular, SR is an epistemological theory, even if LR aspires to be more.
Unfortunately, there is also a trap when you mix ontology into your science, and here you made the same mistake the Fesers of the world do. You came in with the correct understanding that, experiementally, SR and LR are indistinguishable. However, somewhere along the way you allowed your conviction that LR must be right to corrupt that understanding, and came to say that LR could produce different experiemental results than SR (as far as I could tell, this is what you were saying). While my position became more correct as the posts continued, yours became less correct. You allowed your philosophical determinations to override plain mathematical results, and seemed deterrmined to convince me that what I presented as simple mathematics was in fact some deeper, faulty explanation being glossed over.
I’m sure will disagree again some day. I wish you nothing but the best in the meantime. Enjoy!
Post a Comment