Take Back Our Country

[carpedm9587]

Relativity and relative motion was something understood for centuries before Einstein.

The idea of relativity had been studied almost three centuries earlier by Galileo, when he stated the principle of relativity in 1632 (that the fundamental laws of physics are the same for all bodies in uniform motion). Later in the 17th Century, Sir Isaac Newton also took the principle of relativity for granted, asserting that if his famous laws of motion held in one inertial frame, then they also held in a reference frame moving at a constant velocity relative to the first frame.
https://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com...elativity.html

Einstein upped it with such things as the Speed of Light being constant for all observers (thus an OBJECTIVE speed limit) and time and space being changeable. Space can expand and contract, as can time. Thus if you were moving at the speed of light toward Alpha Centauri, 4 light years away, and you measured your clock at the start and finish, you would have measured zero time, which would make the trip from your point of view instantaneous, but anyone else seeing you would have measured your speed as the speed of light and your trip having taken 4 years. For you space would have contracted to zero distance. Everyone else would see you being frozen in time for 4 years.

Special Relativity basically says speed and time can change depending on the observer, except for the speed of light. It is absolute and not relative at all. Anything moving at the speed of light will be seen to move at the speed of light for all observers no matter their speed.

General Relativity basically adds gravity as a curvature of space and links space and time into the same "material" space-time.

All of this is correct, and I incorrectly cited Einstein as the "originator" of relativity. He was the one that brought it into prominence, and his name is most commonly associated with it because he was (AFAIK) the only one to underscore that absolute position and speed are nonsensical concepts. But it may be that he was not the first to conceive of that idea - merely the first one to push it into prominence.

It's not clear to me why any of this changes anything that's been said...?

The question is, are your preferences meaningful to someone else?

They may or may not be. It depends on whether or not the other person is already aligned, or whether or not they are open to discussion and argumentation. If they are not either, that does not make the preferences meaningless; it makes them meaningless to them.

They could be if they impact them directly, but not if they don't. Like I said somewhere else. If you think murder is fine and you want to murder me, then your opinion on murder will mean something to me. But if you think it is immoral for poodles to have sex with dachshunds, well that is your preference and it doesn't mean a thing to me, other than you are weird.

Agreed.

But if there was an objective speed limit, say the speed of light, you would be unable to move faster even if you decided that moving at twice the speed of light was your preference. You claiming that moving faster than light is the best speed would be provably wrong.

Yes. A physical limitation is physically binding. It is not function of a sentient mind - it is simply "how things work." Not sure why this has any relevance.

[Sparko]

All of this is correct, and I incorrectly cited Einstein as the "originator" of relativity. He was the one that brought it into prominence, and his name is most commonly associated with it because he was (AFAIK) the only one to underscore that absolute position and speed are nonsensical concepts. But it may be that he was not the first to conceive of that idea - merely the first one to push it into prominence.

It's not clear to me why any of this changes anything that's been said...?

because if you can't even get that right, what makes you think your analogy is right?

They may or may not be. It depends on whether or not the other person is already aligned, or whether or not they are open to discussion and argumentation. If they are not either, that does not make the preferences meaningless; it makes them meaningless to them.

exactly what Seer has been saying, meaningless to THEM. Or him.

I think you just conceded his point.

Agreed.

Yes. A physical limitation is physically binding. It is not function of a sentient mind - it is simply "how things work." Not sure why this has any relevance.

This thread is done. Stick a fork in it.

[carpedm9587]

because if you can't even get that right, what makes you think your analogy is right?

Cute - but a logical fallacy...

exactly what Seer has been saying, meaningless to THEM. Or him.

Actually, no. I do not recall seeing anywhere that Seer (or you) qualified your statements as "to me." The statements have been more sweeping, like "relative morality makes morality meaningless."

I think you just conceded his point.

I have never argued against the observation that one person's moral framework may be completely meaningless to another person. Assuming Hitler's moral framework aligned with his actions, I suspect most of us would not have found any value in his framework, and considered it badly flawed and "meaningless" (except for your observation that it comes meaningful when it impacts us). The fact that morality is relative doesn't alter that someone has to be open to discussion/argumentation if they are going to be open to examining their own moral framework critically.

You keep being surprised by these...

This thread is done. Stick a fork in it.

Perhaps...

[seer]

Actually, no. I do not recall seeing anywhere that Seer (or you) qualified your statements as "to me." The statements have been more sweeping, like "relative morality makes morality meaningless."

That is silly Carp, I know relative morality is meaningful to you. And haven't I been perfectly clear that I believe that you are free to make up your own meaning? And I do believe that relative ethics (as a metaethical theory) is ultimately meaningless, but that is not solely based on the relative part.

[carpedm9587]

That is silly Carp, I know relative morality is meaningful to you. And haven't I been perfectly clear that I believe that you are free to make up your own meaning?

You have made that statement several times. The fact is, we all make up our own meanings, individually and collectively.

And I do believe that relative ethics (as a metaethical theory) is ultimately meaningless, but that is not solely based on the relative part.

And you just validated my point...

[seer]

You have made that statement several times. The fact is, we all make up our own meanings, individually and collectively.

Right, so I have no problem with you putting meaning on relative ethics, just don't expect me to.

And you just validated my point...

No I haven't - read what I said, it is not only based on the relative part. That is actually the least of it. Heck, I'm a clothes snob (Bills Khakis, Gitman Shirt, Filson, Alden) - those are relative choices/preferences that I find very meaningful - so something being relative is not the determining factor for me.

[Sparko]

That is silly Carp, I know relative morality is meaningful to you. And haven't I been perfectly clear that I believe that you are free to make up your own meaning? And I do believe that relative ethics (as a metaethical theory) is ultimately meaningless, but that is not solely based on the relative part.

well apparently you just won the internet and this thread. Don't push it. Carp might realize that he just admitted your point and try to back out.

[oxmixmudd]

I brought it up to show that YOUR claim that "morality is meaningless if is it subjective/relative" is not a sustainable claim. I brought up the analogy to legal systems for the same reason.

Clearly, humanity is replete with subjective/relative constructs that are perfectly meaningful and useful. That does not "prove" relative/subjective morality is "meaningful." It refutes your claim that it's NOT solely because it's relative/subjective.

And special relativity is also a useful mechanism for understanding how relative/subjective morality actually functions. The two are analogous in multiple ways.

Special Relativity is a horrible example of how relative/subjective morality works. Special Relativity states that all the rules of physics are the SAME no matter what inertial frame of reference you observe them in. That is essentially the OPPOSITE of how relative/subjective morality functions. relative/subjective morality says that the [moral] rules are DIFFERENT depending on your [cultural] frame of reference.

And Sparko is right. You are mostly muddling around in Galilean Relativity with your examples.

Jim

[carpedm9587]

Right, so I have no problem with you putting meaning on relative ethics, just don't expect me to.

Oh I am under no illusion that you are ever likely to let go of the belief that your moral framework is aligned with some moral "absolute" or "objective" framework, Seer. I was never under that illusion.

No I haven't - read what I said, it is not only based on the relative part. That is actually the least of it. Heck, I'm a clothes snob (Bills Khakis, Gitman Shirt, Filson, Alden) - those are relative choices/preferences that I find very meaningful - so something being relative is not the determining factor for me.

My point exactly. Relative things and subjective things are perfectly meaningful. Indeed, all "meaning" is relative/subjective. It has to be. Meaning is assigned by a sentient mind. It's the very definition of the word.

[carpedm9587]

Special Relativity is a horrible example of how relative/subjective morality works. Special Relativity states that all the rules of physics are the SAME no matter what inertial frame of reference you observe them in. That is essentially the OPPOSITE of how relative/subjective morality functions. relative/subjective morality says that the [moral] rules are DIFFERENT depending on your [cultural] frame of reference.

And Sparko is right. You are mostly muddling around in Galilean Relativity with your examples.

Jim

I actually made no reference to special relativity, simply to the general notion that all motion/position is assessed relatively, and that "absolute position" and "absolute speed" are meaningless concepts in physics.

[Sparko]

Oh I am under no illusion that you are ever likely to let go of the belief that your moral framework is aligned with some moral "absolute" or "objective" framework, Seer. I was never under that illusion.



My point exactly. Relative things and subjective things are perfectly meaningful. Indeed, all "meaning" is relative/subjective. It has to be. Meaning is assigned by a sentient mind. It's the very definition of the word.

The initial point is that I have no reason to care what your morality is, or why you think it should be so. Unless you have the power to enforce it on me. Then I still probably won't agree and just fight back. This is where you claim technique #1.

You agree with us but fail to recognize the significance of it. So when we try to inform you of the significance you think we are just repeating the obvious and claim "technique #1" when we are only trying to get you to open your freaking eyes and see that the significance is that IF things are relative, and meaning itself is relative, then you have no business trying to call anyone a bigot or claim that your way is more correct than mine. Only in your own little world are you correct. Not in mine.

That is why we keep telling you that you are the one who has trivialized morality. Since morals and their meaning are completely relative to YOU, your morals are no more important to me than your choice of color.

[seer]

My point exactly. Relative things and subjective things are perfectly meaningful. Indeed, all "meaning" is relative/subjective. It has to be. Meaning is assigned by a sentient mind. It's the very definition of the word.

Right relative things can be meaningful, depending on the person. So if you believe this why have you been arguing for ten thousand pages because I find relative ethics meaningless?

[Sparko]

I actually made no reference to special relativity, simply to the general notion that all motion/position is assessed relatively, and that "absolute position" and "absolute speed" are meaningless concepts in physics.

wow.

You made it very clear you were speaking about Einstein and special relativity and not Galilean or Newtonian, which you seemed to not even know about till I told you. You even chided Seer as not knowing Einsteinian Physics as well as you.

Your memory is short. Or you think gaslighting is a good strategy.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post552740
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post552790
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post553243
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post553449

[carpedm9587]

wow.

You made it very clear you were speaking about Einstein and special relativity and not Galilean or Newtonian, which you seemed to not even know about till I told you. You even chided Seer as not knowing Einsteinian Physics as well as you.

Your memory is short. Or you think gaslighting is a good strategy.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post552740
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post552790
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post553243
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post553449

So I went through the first two posts...and don't have time to double check it all. The two I checked said NOTHING about special relativity. I did refer to Einstein and to relativity in general, and every post was in reference to their being no "absolute position" or "absolute speed." General and Special relativity were never referenced or discussed.

The definition of the "Theory of Relativity" is "a theory, formulated essentially by Albert Einstein, that all motion must be defined relative to a frame of reference and that space and time are relative, rather than absolute concepts: it consists of two principal parts." General and Special relativity are the two "principal parts" referred to in the definition. My discussion has been about the bolded part of the definition.

[oxmixmudd]

I actually made no reference to special relativity, simply to the general notion that all motion/position is assessed relatively, and that "absolute position" and "absolute speed" are meaningless concepts in physics.

look a little cloooseeeeerrrrrrr.......

And special relativity is also a useful mechanism for understanding how relative/subjective morality actually functions. The two are analogous in multiple ways.