Warp Drive for the Millions or Einstein's Ghost revisited

Use this forum to discuss the philosophy of science. Philosophy of science deals with the assumptions, foundations, and implications of science.
User avatar
UniversalAlien
Posts: 1577
Joined: March 20th, 2012, 9:37 pm
Contact:

Warp Drive for the Millions or Einstein's Ghost revisited

Post by UniversalAlien »

1. There is no absolute reality - Reality is always relative; Relative to time, space, space-time and observation.

2. The speed of light appears constant and has limits set by Human observation - There is little reason to believe that Human
observation is in anyway an absolute and may be shown to be faulty by a different standard or point of observation.

3. Deep space travel will require means other than current methods of propulsion.

4. The concept of warping space, begun by sci-fi writers is being seriously considered, but is it possible :?:

Let's take a look:

Alcubierre Drive: Warp Speed - Star Trek fantasy or plausible?

See it here:

https://youtu.be/Imi8-rCicaQ

Alcubierre warp drive - faster than light travel? Is Warp speed possible? Enterprise from Star Trek can go 9000 times the speed of light. By comparison, the fastest manmade object, the Juno probe goes 0.0002 times the speed of light. At this rate, it would take 20,000 years to reach the nearest alien planet, which with the Enterprise, would take only 4.5 hours.

But isn’t faster than light travel forbidden by Einstein’s special theory of relativity? There is a loophole. Mexican physicist, and Star Trek fan, Miguel Alcubierre published a paper on “The warp drive”. He manipulated Einstein’s equations of general relativity to make a warp field emerge - regardless of whether other laws of physics would allow it. But his equations are mathematically consistent solutions to Einstein’s equations.

And this is how Alcubierre’s warp drive would work: Take a space ship and put a bubble of space around it. If you can compress space in front of the bubble, and expand space behind the bubble, then you can make the bubble of space along with the space ship, move. This would be like riding a wave on a surfboard. This is where the loophole is in Einstein’s speed limit, that nothing can move faster than the speed of light. This speed limit only applies to objects traveling within space, not the movement of space itself. Space can move at any speed.

So that bubble of space in Alcubierre’s geometric solution can move at any arbitrary speed, theoretically, even 9000 times the speed of light. But Can space really move at faster than light speed? Yes.

Space is being expanded in the back of our spaceship, and being contracted in front of it. Can space expand and contract like this? Yes, Space is allowed to do both. Space is contracting around you and earth right now. That’s what gravity is. Similarly, Space can expand too. It is expanding right now on a cosmological scale.

Alcubeirre’s warp drive, creates a bubble around the ship, which is like the surfboard. The ship sits within this bubble. Your ship does not move within the bubble itself, so Einstein’s laws are not violated. To make space warp locally around a spaceship like this requires a lot of mass or it’s Energy equivalent via E=MC^2. And this is not just regular mass or regular energy. This is negative mass and negative energy.

How do you get anti-gravity? You need negative matter – or exotic matter. This is something that would have negative gravity. The problem is Negative matter is not known to exist. Note that negative matter is not anti-matter. Antimatter does not have negative gravity. It has positive gravity. You could substitute the energy equivalent of negative matter, and that is negative Energy. But again, what the heck is negative energy? This is not the same as an absence of energy. It is energy with a value less than 0 that would allow you to expand space-time. But Antigravity has never been seen in a lab.

However, anti gravity, negative mass, and negative energy are not forbidden in Einstein’s equations. Could this mean that if we are clever enough, could we create it? Let’s presume that we could. There is group at NASA called the Advanced Propulsion Team, also known as Eagleworks, who is working with this assumption. Harold White’s calculations show that a 10 meter diameter ship could go at 10 times the speed of light.

White’s team has even tested the feasibility of warping space by doing a very small scale table top test. They have attempted to slightly warp the trajectory of a photon, changing the distance it travels over a fixed length. The first test was done in 2013 and was inconclusive.

Is negative energy even realistic? What about the Casimir effect displaying negative energy? This is a quantum mechanical phenomenon that occurs when two conducting plates are brought very close together. When this is done, a certain proportion of the virtual particle frequencies between the plates are excluded, because not all frequencies will fit between the 10 nm space.

Frequencies with wavelengths higher than 10 nanometers will be excluded, whereas, all frequencies will fit outside the plates. The pressure outside the plates is greater than the pressure inside the plates. This creates is a real mechanical energy that can be measured.

Some scientists have proposed harnessing this negative energy of the vacuum on a large scale. But this is flawed, because the energy between the plates is not negative. No energy be harnessed to make a warp drive using the Casimir effect?

There is one observational phenomenon that should give us hope that negative energy or anti gravity may exist. 70% of our universe is made of this. It is expanding space. It is possible that sometime in the future, if we can develop a better understanding of dark energy, we can learn to harness it, and use it to power the warp engine.

#AlcubierreDrive
User avatar
Halc
Posts: 405
Joined: March 17th, 2018, 9:47 pm

Re: Warp Drive for the Millions or Einstein's Ghost revisited

Post by Halc »

UniversalAlien wrote: August 19th, 2022, 7:49 pm 1. There is no absolute reality - Reality is always relative; Relative to time, space, space-time and observation.
While I tend to agree with this more than the typical person, you say this like it is fact and not mere opinion.
2. The speed of light appears constant and has limits set by Human observation
Human observation seems to have nothing to do with it. c is c, observed by humans or not. Speed of light is only constant in certain situations, namely relative to a local inertial frame. The speed varies in any other situation/coordinate system.

None of these things seem to have much to do with speculations of warp drive.

About the Alcubierre Drive quote:
the fastest manmade object, the Juno probe goes 0.0002 times the speed of light.
Speed is relative, something this article seems not to know. Since the sun moves around the galaxy at about thrice that speed (relative to the galaxy), any man-made object moves at least that speed.
Relative to say the solar system, the Parker probe 'goes' about 2.6 times the speed of the Juno probe, so they didn't even get that part right.
it would take 20,000 years to reach the nearest alien planet, which with the Enterprise, would take only 4.5 hours.
Given a fast conventional ship, I can get there in 2 hours (my time). There's no limit to rapidity. The star trek physics uses absolute time, which makes no sense given the geometry of spacetime.
He manipulated Einstein’s equations of general relativity to make a warp field emerge - regardless of whether other laws of physics would allow it. But his equations are mathematically consistent solutions to Einstein’s equations.
Yes, they work. They same manipulations also allow time travel, but then so does star trek. There's a big difference between mathematical solutions and workable physics. Nobody has found an object with negative mass yet, despite such a thing violating no equation. There is negative energy at least.
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7091
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Warp Drive for the Millions or Einstein's Ghost revisited

Post by Sculptor1 »

UniversalAlien wrote: August 19th, 2022, 7:49 pm 1. There is no absolute reality - Reality is always relative; Relative to time, space, space-time and observation.
Maybe. But that would depend on what you mean by reality.
2. The speed of light appears constant and has limits set by Human observation - There is little reason to believe that Human
observation is in anyway an absolute and may be shown to be faulty by a different standard or point of observation.
Are you implying that because human observation cannot be absolute and is faulty this means that we cannot trust what we know about the speed of light? If so you are implying that there must be a reality which is indeed absolute but not observable or interpretable by humans. This is a contradiction.

3. Deep space travel will require means other than current methods of propulsion.
Unless you want to spend thousands of years waiting. Yes.

4. The concept of warping space, begun by sci-fi writers is being seriously considered, but is it possible :?:

Let's take a look:

Alcubierre Drive: Warp Speed - Star Trek fantasy or plausible?

See it here:

https://youtu.be/Imi8-rCicaQ

Alcubierre warp drive - faster than light travel? Is Warp speed possible? Enterprise from Star Trek can go 9000 times the speed of light. By comparison, the fastest manmade object, the Juno probe goes 0.0002 times the speed of light. At this rate, it would take 20,000 years to reach the nearest alien planet, which with the Enterprise, would take only 4.5 hours.

But isn’t faster than light travel forbidden by Einstein’s special theory of relativity? There is a loophole. Mexican physicist, and Star Trek fan, Miguel Alcubierre published a paper on “The warp drive”. He manipulated Einstein’s equations of general relativity to make a warp field emerge - regardless of whether other laws of physics would allow it. But his equations are mathematically consistent solutions to Einstein’s equations.

And this is how Alcubierre’s warp drive would work: Take a space ship and put a bubble of space around it. If you can compress space in front of the bubble, and expand space behind the bubble, then you can make the bubble of space along with the space ship, move. This would be like riding a wave on a surfboard. This is where the loophole is in Einstein’s speed limit, that nothing can move faster than the speed of light. This speed limit only applies to objects traveling within space, not the movement of space itself. Space can move at any speed.

So that bubble of space in Alcubierre’s geometric solution can move at any arbitrary speed, theoretically, even 9000 times the speed of light. But Can space really move at faster than light speed? Yes.

Space is being expanded in the back of our spaceship, and being contracted in front of it. Can space expand and contract like this? Yes, Space is allowed to do both. Space is contracting around you and earth right now. That’s what gravity is. Similarly, Space can expand too. It is expanding right now on a cosmological scale.

Alcubeirre’s warp drive, creates a bubble around the ship, which is like the surfboard. The ship sits within this bubble. Your ship does not move within the bubble itself, so Einstein’s laws are not violated. To make space warp locally around a spaceship like this requires a lot of mass or it’s Energy equivalent via E=MC^2. And this is not just regular mass or regular energy. This is negative mass and negative energy.

How do you get anti-gravity? You need negative matter – or exotic matter. This is something that would have negative gravity. The problem is Negative matter is not known to exist. Note that negative matter is not anti-matter. Antimatter does not have negative gravity. It has positive gravity. You could substitute the energy equivalent of negative matter, and that is negative Energy. But again, what the heck is negative energy? This is not the same as an absence of energy. It is energy with a value less than 0 that would allow you to expand space-time. But Antigravity has never been seen in a lab.

However, anti gravity, negative mass, and negative energy are not forbidden in Einstein’s equations. Could this mean that if we are clever enough, could we create it? Let’s presume that we could. There is group at NASA called the Advanced Propulsion Team, also known as Eagleworks, who is working with this assumption. Harold White’s calculations show that a 10 meter diameter ship could go at 10 times the speed of light.

White’s team has even tested the feasibility of warping space by doing a very small scale table top test. They have attempted to slightly warp the trajectory of a photon, changing the distance it travels over a fixed length. The first test was done in 2013 and was inconclusive.

Is negative energy even realistic? What about the Casimir effect displaying negative energy? This is a quantum mechanical phenomenon that occurs when two conducting plates are brought very close together. When this is done, a certain proportion of the virtual particle frequencies between the plates are excluded, because not all frequencies will fit between the 10 nm space.

Frequencies with wavelengths higher than 10 nanometers will be excluded, whereas, all frequencies will fit outside the plates. The pressure outside the plates is greater than the pressure inside the plates. This creates is a real mechanical energy that can be measured.

Some scientists have proposed harnessing this negative energy of the vacuum on a large scale. But this is flawed, because the energy between the plates is not negative. No energy be harnessed to make a warp drive using the Casimir effect?

There is one observational phenomenon that should give us hope that negative energy or anti gravity may exist. 70% of our universe is made of this. It is expanding space. It is possible that sometime in the future, if we can develop a better understanding of dark energy, we can learn to harness it, and use it to power the warp engine.

#AlcubierreDrive
A bunch of grant chasers living off fantasy. Their (ahem!) "results" used for cheap Youtube vids and corporate-tossers conferences where the execs get to masturbate over STOS re-runs.
I think the money would be better spent trying to solve the problem of what to do with de-salination brine. Or how to switch to hydrogen buses, from solar Electrolysis.
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8268
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Warp Drive for the Millions or Einstein's Ghost revisited

Post by Pattern-chaser »

UniversalAlien wrote: August 19th, 2022, 7:49 pm 1. There is no absolute reality - Reality is always relative; Relative to time, space, space-time, and observation.
That which is not reality is unreal; it doesn't exist. So reality is not relative, it can't be. There is nothing else for it to be relative to.
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8268
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Warp Drive for the Millions or Einstein's Ghost revisited

Post by Pattern-chaser »

Sculptor1 wrote: August 20th, 2022, 4:31 am Are you implying that because human observation cannot be absolute and is faulty this means that we cannot trust what we know about the speed of light? If so you are implying that there must be a reality which is indeed absolute but not observable or interpretable by humans. This is a contradiction.
If I understand correctly what you are saying, I must disagree. I would assert that there is a reality which is absolute but not accessible to — "observable or interpretable by" — humans. Mostly, this follows from the fact that we exist within reality, and cannot travel outside of it to look back in. That 'God's-eye view' is inaccessible to us.
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7091
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Warp Drive for the Millions or Einstein's Ghost revisited

Post by Sculptor1 »

Pattern-chaser wrote: August 20th, 2022, 8:21 am
Sculptor1 wrote: August 20th, 2022, 4:31 am Are you implying that because human observation cannot be absolute and is faulty this means that we cannot trust what we know about the speed of light? If so you are implying that there must be a reality which is indeed absolute but not observable or interpretable by humans. This is a contradiction.
If I understand correctly what you are saying, I must disagree. I would assert that there is a reality which is absolute but not accessible to — "observable or interpretable by" — humans. Mostly, this follows from the fact that we exist within reality, and cannot travel outside of it to look back in. That 'God's-eye view' is inaccessible to us.
This is an example of dipping into another's conversation. You in fact do not understand correctly what I am saying, as I agree with what you are saying,
We so obviously cannot see everything. It would be remarkable indeed if evolution had managed to equip us with exactly the right set of sensory apparatus to be able to have a perfect view of reality as it is in itself.
My argument was about something else; that "universal Alien" is trying to say that absolute reality cannot exist.
User avatar
UniversalAlien
Posts: 1577
Joined: March 20th, 2012, 9:37 pm
Contact:

Re: Warp Drive for the Millions or Einstein's Ghost revisited

Post by UniversalAlien »

Sculptor1 wrote:
My argument was about something else; that "universal Alien" is trying to say that absolute reality cannot exist.
Absolute realty :?:

You can not even imagine "absolute :?: reality :?:" , let alone make any sort of claim for its existence.

I do not even have any idea about what, if anything, is absolute - Do you know of something, anything, that is absolute :?: :arrow:

Tell us about what is absolute - I'm always looking to learn :idea:

“We have no right to assume that any physical laws exist, or if they have existed up to now, that they will continue to exist in a similar manner in the future.”
― Max Planck, The Universe in the Light of Modern Physics
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14995
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Warp Drive for the Millions or Einstein's Ghost revisited

Post by Sy Borg »

Who knows? Maybe AI will develop a super-fast drive so they can explore our cosmic neighbourhood? Alas, animated bags of carbonated saltwater like human beings do not fare well in space. If we are lucky, AI will send us digital postcards from their explorations.

Image
User avatar
Halc
Posts: 405
Joined: March 17th, 2018, 9:47 pm

Re: Warp Drive for the Millions or Einstein's Ghost revisited

Post by Halc »

Pattern-chaser wrote: August 20th, 2022, 8:12 am That which is not reality is unreal; it doesn't exist.
Sort of tautological, but OK.
So reality is not relative, it can't be. There is nothing else for it to be relative to.
Non-sequitur. If existence/reality is a relation instead of a property, then it wouldn't be objective. My point is that there are other views, and such assertions that you make are, well, just assertions.
Pattern-chaser wrote: August 20th, 2022, 7:47 am
Halc wrote: August 19th, 2022, 7:55 am But maybe you should learn about [physics] to help learn about philosophy.
Yes, and yet the vast majority of philosophical 'stances' are not connected in any significant way to physics.
Your stance just above is connected to physics, and physics does not assert what you do. Quantum mechanics has all sorts of interesting things to say about how reality can be defined/interpreted.
Pattern-chaser wrote: August 20th, 2022, 8:21 amI would assert that there is a reality which is absolute but not accessible to — "observable or interpretable by" — humans.
There are valid interpretations of QM (RQM comes to mind) that say otherwise, so unless you can falsify them, your assertion is unsustainable. In a relational view, there is no 'God's-eye view'. That's a classical concept and physics (had you paid attention to it) has been shown to not be fundamentally classical.

In general, good knowledge of physics is a prerequisite to doing philosophy, which is also why I pay little mind to most of the great philosophers that published their works before say 1920, or even later depending on the subject matter being discussed. But it was around 1920 when all the classical axioms were so thoroughly put into doubt.

As for the OP, if the Alcubierre people actually knew their physics, they'd know that if you could have a warp drive that went 1.001c, then the same drive would also go as fast as you want, far greater than 9000c. So the 9000 claim (a claim admittedly from Hollywood) shows a lack of physics knowledge, which is of course typical for Hollywood. In fact, it would get you between events A and B (separated in a space-like manner) in zero (or less) time, which is greater than infinite speed. So the author of the quote could use a little physics education. Hopefully the people working on the grant-bait project know a little more at least.
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8268
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Warp Drive for the Millions or Einstein's Ghost revisited

Post by Pattern-chaser »

UniversalAlien wrote: August 20th, 2022, 8:56 pm You can not even imagine "absolute :?: reality :?:" , let alone make any sort of claim for its existence.
I think you have this backward. Its existence is obvious: reality must exist, because we exist, and we are part of reality. Its nature is quite easy to imagine, but any ideas we do come up with are just daydreams. They cannot be substantiated, as you imply.
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8268
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Warp Drive for the Millions or Einstein's Ghost revisited

Post by Pattern-chaser »

Pattern-chaser wrote: August 20th, 2022, 8:12 am That which is not reality is unreal; it doesn't exist.
Halc wrote: August 21st, 2022, 9:56 am Sort of tautological, but OK.
I prefer to think of it as stating the obvious. 😉


Pattern-chaser wrote: August 20th, 2022, 8:12 am So reality is not relative, it can't be. There is nothing else for it to be relative to.
Halc wrote: August 21st, 2022, 9:56 am Non-sequitur. If existence/reality is a relation instead of a property, then it wouldn't be objective. My point is that there are other views, and such assertions that you make are, well, just assertions.
You missed the start of this exchange, it seems. I was responding to this:
UniversalAlien wrote: August 19th, 2022, 7:49 pm 1. There is no absolute reality - Reality is always relative; Relative to time, space, space-time, and observation.
Pattern-chaser wrote: August 20th, 2022, 8:12 am That which is not reality is unreal; it doesn't exist. So reality is not relative, it can't be. There is nothing else for it to be relative to.
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
User avatar
Halc
Posts: 405
Joined: March 17th, 2018, 9:47 pm

Re: Warp Drive for the Millions or Einstein's Ghost revisited

Post by Halc »

Pattern-chaser wrote: August 20th, 2022, 8:12 am You missed the start of this exchange, it seems. I was responding to this:
UniversalAlien wrote: August 19th, 2022, 7:49 pm 1. There is no absolute reality - Reality is always relative; Relative to time, space, space-time, and observation.
Yes, you're both making the same mistake, asserting your opinion as the only possible truth despite lack of falsification of the opposing view.

The very first reply to U-A is me criticizing him for that very line, for the same reason I criticized you. It falls on deaf ears. Both of you continue in later posts:
UniversalAlien wrote: August 20th, 2022, 8:56 pm You can not even imagine "absolute reality" , let alone make any sort of claim for its existence.
Most of us have little trouble imagining it. You perhaps should explain yourself further if you think the view impossible. I also suspect reality to not be absolute, but I don't go so far as to deny the alternative without backing the claim.
Pattern-chaser wrote: August 21st, 2022, 10:13 am I think you have this backward. Its existence is obvious: reality must exist, because we exist, and we are part of reality.
Again, that would also be true in a relative definition of existence. So it being absolute does not follow from that statement. It being obvious is argument from incredulity. All sorts of fallacies.

Both of you: Back your assertions. What inconsistency would result (without begging your own view) if the opposing view were true?
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8268
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Warp Drive for the Millions or Einstein's Ghost revisited

Post by Pattern-chaser »

Pattern-chaser wrote: August 20th, 2022, 8:12 am You missed the start of this exchange, it seems. I was responding to this:
UniversalAlien wrote: August 19th, 2022, 7:49 pm 1. There is no absolute reality - Reality is always relative; Relative to time, space, space-time, and observation.
Halc wrote: August 21st, 2022, 10:40 am Yes, you're both making the same mistake, asserting your opinion as the only possible truth despite lack of falsification of the opposing view.

The very first reply to U-A is me criticizing him for that very line, for the same reason I criticized you. It falls on deaf ears.
I try very hard not to assert anything, although I do so on rare occasions. Here, I responded, as you say you did too, to the assertion/claim that 'reality' is "relative".

UniversalAlien wrote: August 20th, 2022, 8:56 pm You can not even imagine "absolute reality" , let alone make any sort of claim for its existence.
Pattern-chaser wrote: August 21st, 2022, 10:13 am I think you have this backward. Its existence is obvious: reality must exist, because we exist, and we are part of reality.
Halc wrote: August 21st, 2022, 10:40 am Again, that would also be true in a relative definition of existence. So it being absolute does not follow from that statement. It being obvious is argument from incredulity. All sorts of fallacies.

Both of you: Back your assertions. What inconsistency would result (without begging your own view) if the opposing view were true?
Can you offer an example of what a "relative" definition of 'existence' might be? Relative is a comparative term; it describes a comparison. What is 'existence' being compared to? What is there, outside of existence, that it could be compared to? I do not assert my own opinion here, despite your fondness for describing my words as such, I merely question the assertion originally made.

And finally, you seem to think that I am arguing in favour of "absolute" reality, but I'm not sure where that idea came from. There seems to be something that we label "reality", or sometimes "existence". If there was not, where could we exist? Or would we simply exist in isolation? Just us; no surrounding environment?
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
User avatar
UniversalAlien
Posts: 1577
Joined: March 20th, 2012, 9:37 pm
Contact:

Re: Warp Drive for the Millions or Einstein's Ghost revisited

Post by UniversalAlien »

Pattern-chaser wrote:
Can you offer an example of what a "relative" definition of 'existence' might be?
Better still:

Can you offer a definition of existence without relations :?: Can you describe a pure state of existence unrelated to anything :?:

Buddhists say all things return to the One - Isn't that unrelated existence :?:

Existence requires relations - It is relative :idea:
User avatar
Halc
Posts: 405
Joined: March 17th, 2018, 9:47 pm

Re: Warp Drive for the Millions or Einstein's Ghost revisited

Post by Halc »

Pattern-chaser wrote: August 21st, 2022, 12:32 pm Can you offer an example of what a "relative" definition of 'existence' might be?
First of all, one must discard absolute realism, or the principle of counterfactual definiteness (PoCD), which the classical principle that things exist even in the absence of measurement. The vast majority of quantum interpretations do not hold to this absolute reality principle, with the notable exception of Bohmian mechanics, plus a couple less known ones.

RQM defines existence in terms of measurement. If A and B are objects (strictly, systems in a certain state at a particular time, or ‘beables’) A exists relative to B if B has measured A, where measurement means that the state of B is causally a function of A.

This definition necessarily (assuming finite time for information propagation, or principle of locatity, PoL) puts A in the past of B, and thus A and B cannot exist relative to each other.

PoL and PoCD cannot both be true per Bell’s theorem, so no interpretation holds to both of them.
Relative is a comparative term; it describes a comparison.
This is not the usual definition. The relation here is that the existence of A relative to B depends on a measurement relation between the two. Perhaps B has measured A but C has not, in which case A exists only relative to B and not relative to C. That I suppose is a comparison of sorts.
What is 'existence' being compared to?
Non-existence, or lack of measurement by the thing in question. Unicorns don’t exist relative to you since you’ve not measured one. Napoleon exists relative to us, but we don’t exist relative to Napoleon, at least not relative to any living state of Napoleon.
And finally, you seem to think that I am arguing in favour of "absolute" reality, but I'm not sure where that idea came from.
Well, you asserted it, in italics no less. Of course you said it wasn’t accessible to humans. Maybe not all of it, but given objective (do you mean something other than ‘objective’ when you say ‘absolute’?) reality, we are part of it and have access to some of it. So maybe we’re just talking past each other by not defining our terms. I do notice that you tried to change/refine the definition of ;relative’, just as UA suddenly ponies up a different definition of ‘absolute’. If you have a funny definition, let us know right away, else the posts don’t make any sense.
UniversalAlien wrote: August 21st, 2022, 2:25 pm Can you offer a definition of existence without relations?
Ah, a new definition. An objective/absolute reality typically means that the thing’s existence is not dependent on the relations. It isn’t a stance denying any relations with other existing objects.
PC isn’t asserting that everything exists in isolation, as he put it in the tail of his last post.

An example I gave above of objective existence is any interpretation holding to the PoCD. So Bohmian mechanics would say that the electron in a double-slit experiment does in fact go through one slit or the other despite the lack of anything measuring it. The entire universe is in one specific state at a given time, despite the inability to measure it. There is a ‘god’s eye view’ in this case.
Alternatively you can have something like MWI where all possible states (valid solutions to the universal wave function) exist., again completely independent of relations and such. The moon exists, but the absence of moon also exists. It sort of dilutes the concept of existence into meaninglessness since the distinction between us and unicorns and such are lost.


Meanwhile, while we’re all seeming jumping on your utterly irrelevant point 1 in the OP, few of the posts seem to be on topic, which is supposedly about this warp drive fantasy.
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of Science”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021