Theoretical Concepts and Empirical Equivalence: Will the Real Concept Please Stand Up

[Jim]

@T_aquaticus

It is considered. The inner workings of atomic clocks are well understood and they are designed to not be influenced by gravitational pull.

That may be the claim. But there’s still an apparent discrepancy which is why we’re having a discussion about it.

@T_aquaticus

We can objectively measure time itself. We do that with clocks.

Measuring time and observing time are not one and the same thing.

@T_aquaticus

My statements have only been met with flat denial with no real justification.

I would argue the same thing about your responses to what I’ve said. I’ve simply made the obvious statement that time itself has never been observed, nor is there any instrument available for doing so. You have not provided any contrary response to my objections that I’m aware of except to assert that clocks can observe time which is obviously not the case.

@faded_Glory

I doubt if many people would call time some kind of ‘substance’.

Right. Most of the general public wouldn’t. But that’s what it would seem to entail if time were capable of changing speed and had causal powers to affect clock rates.

@faded_Glory

More, it is a fundamental element of our reality. Just like gravity, which has also never been observed - only its effects.

I agree that time is a feature of reality. But I don’t see it as the same kind of feature as gravity. The issue of atomic clock rates changing that we’re discussing is the only causal effect that I’m aware of that is claimed to be attributable to time. If that’s the case, there’s a lot more evidence for gravity as a cause of physical effects than there is for time as a cause for physical effects.

@dga471

From a physics point of view (which is all I’m trying to argue in this thread), the second statement is a tautology. For time to “slow down” means nothing more than for clocks to slow down. To say that “time causes the clock to slow down” is not an informative statement; it is like saying “Donald Trump caused the President of the United States to have a press conference today.”

OK. But from a metaphysical point of view what is your position on the cause of clocks slowing down?

@dga471

It seems that your counterargument relies on a confusion of the meaning of the term “substance”:

All I’m doing is taking “time slowing down and causing clock rates to change” to what seems to be its logical conclusion. If time can slow down like physical objects can, and has causal powers over physical objects like clocks, it has to be some kind of substance, however you want to define it, does it not?

But I’m not sure how I’m supposed to go about discussing this particular issue with you until I find out what you view metaphysically as the cause of the change in clock rates.

@dga471

I don’t understand how this is a good counterargument, or even an intelligible one. You’re basically saying that “X is a weak claim because there’s only one good argument for it.” Well, if it’s a really good argument, that’s all we need.

I don’t see that as an accurate representation of what I’m saying. What I’m saying is simply that if there is only one good piece of evidence for an argument, that argument becomes suspect, especially if the argument is counterintuitive in nature. And unless that evidence is pretty weighty it seems much less likely for that argument to be true than an opposing argument with more than one piece of relatively substantial evidence.

@RonSewell

Within the frame the clocks do not slow down, therefore nothing is causing the clock rates to slow down, so it does address that issue. The question is what “causes” clocks in different frames to go out of synchronization.

As far as I can tell the question is, what causes two atomic clocks when synced to go out of sync when one is raised up to a higher altitude than the other. I don’t see how it has anything to do with equations on paper.

And even if it did, we know the clocks are not in sync. So how can they be in sync in any frame? How does putting them in frames on paper magically change the fact that they aren’t in sync?

[dga471 (Daniel)]

@Jim

OK. But from a metaphysical point of view what is your position on the cause of clocks slowing down?

I haven’t read enough on the metaphysics of time to articulate an informed, well-thought out position. But the basic, “mainstream” idea that distortions in the “fabric” of spacetime result in different clock rates at different spacetime coordinates makes sense to me.

@Jim

If time can slow down like physical objects can, and has causal powers over physical objects like clocks, it has to be some kind of substance, however you want to define it, does it not?

Let’s analyze this statement:

Time can slow down like physical objects can

This is a confusing and unintelligible statement to me. If we say time “slows down”, we mean that in a markedly different sense from regular objects slowing down in classical physics. If you know SR, then you should understand what I mean. It would be a category error to compare the two concepts.

[Time] has causal powers over physical objects like clocks

If time has any “causal powers”, they are certainly different from the causal power exerted by say, a wrecking ball on a building. The latter is an example of an efficient cause (in Aristotelian terms). If time has any causal power at all (and I’m not sure if it does), I think it would be something akin to a formal cause. Again, using the term “substance” here only creates ambiguity.

@Jim

@dga471

I don’t understand how this is a good counterargument, or even an intelligible one. You’re basically saying that “X is a weak claim because there’s only one good argument for it.” Well, if it’s a really good argument, that’s all we need.

I don’t see that as an accurate representation of what I’m saying. What I’m saying is simply that if there is only one good piece of evidence for an argument, that argument becomes suspect, especially if the argument is counterintuitive in nature.

The argument is only suspect if you’ve shown powerful arguments for an opposing position, such that we think the opposing position must be true, and thus we conclude there probably is something wrong with the argument for the standard position. And so far I’ve not seen you advance any good arguments for the opposing position; in fact I don’t think I’ve seen any coherent argument from you for that position, except maybe your “psychological” argument, which you said yourself is not a strong argument.

[faded_Glory]

@Jim

The issue of atomic clock rates changing that we’re discussing is the only causal effect that I’m aware of that is claimed to be attributable to time. If that’s the case, there’s a lot more evidence for gravity as a cause of physical effects than there is for time as a cause for physical effects.

No, it isn’t time that causes clocks to slow down, it is velocity and gravity that slow down time. Clocks simply measure the effect.

[RonSewell (RonS)]

@Jim

The issue of atomic clock rates changing that we’re discussing is the only causal effect that I’m aware of that is claimed to be attributable to time.

I thought we were in agreement that atomic clock rates were not the only causal effect. It is just that they are sensitive enough to register time dilation at velocities common to our everyday experience. Relativity is also a routine fixture of the study of cosmic rays and running of accelerators. Both special and general relativity must be corrected for you to navigate using your phone’s ever patient GPS. We seem to be stuck on home plate here - do you agree or not that essentially everything is a clock, and all that can be spoken of in terms of duration is subject to relativity?

[Jim]

OK. Before we go any further I want to explore the concept of time slowing down from a physics point of view of time slowing and clocks slowing as synonymous in meaning, which it seems wouldn’t represent actual reality. There are two different ways to conceptualize time slowing down. One is of time slowing down in a universal sense.

In that case all clock rates would slow down. Then time slowing down could be represented in a localized sense so that only particular clocks would slow down and other clocks would remain at the same speed. This seems to be how it would be conceptualized when representing clocks that were synced going out of sync at different altitudes. Any objections to that?

[faded_Glory]

I don’t think there is such a thing as time slowing down in a universal sense. How could you establish that? If all clocks slow down we have no reference against which to measure if time is slowing down or not. Since all clocks will remain synchronised it will appear to us that nothing is changing, time-wise.

[nwrickert (Neil Rickert)]

@Jim

Before we go any further I want to explore the concept of time slowing down from a physics point of view of time slowing and clocks slowing as synonymous in meaning, which it seems wouldn’t represent actual reality.

You seem to be thinking of time as a cosmos-wide property.

It isn’t that. It is a locally observed property. There might not be any cosmos-wide concept of time.

[Jim]

OK. So we’re talking about what’s conceivable. So it is conceivable that time can slow down in a universal sense. That seems to me how it would be viewed in a “classical” sense of time. But from a physics point of view, the relativistic concept that time slows down in a local sense is preferred for reasons of testability and accuracy. Any problems with that?

[T_aquaticus]

@Jim

That may be the claim. But there’s still an apparent discrepancy which is why we’re having a discussion about it.

You claimed that gravitational effects could alter the inner workings of a clock were not being considered. They have been considered. They have been ruled out.

@Jim

Measuring time and observing time are not one and the same thing.

Why not?

@Jim

I would argue the same thing about your responses to what I’ve said. I’ve simply made the obvious statement that time itself has never been observed, nor is there any instrument available for doing so.

That’s denial. We have clocks which allow us to observe time.

@Jim

You have not provided any contrary response to my objections that I’m aware of except to assert that clocks can observe time which is obviously not the case.

My response is only met with flat denial.

[Jim]

@T_aquaticus

You claimed that gravitational effects could alter the inner workings of a clock were not being considered. They have been considered. They have been ruled out.

My claim is that they are unknown and undetectable effects of gravitational fields. They cannot be ruled out if they are unknown and undetectable effects.

@T_aquaticus

Why not?

Measure: a particular amount of something.
Measurement: the size, length, or amount of something, as established by measuring.
Observe: watch (someone or something) carefully and attentively.
Observation: the action or process of observing something or someone carefully or in order to gain information.

Unless you want to redefine the conventional meanings I think it’s pretty obvious they are not one and the same thing.

@T_aquaticus

That’s denial. We have clocks which allow us to observe time

See previous response.

@T_aquaticus

My response is only met with flat denial.

Again I refer you to my previous response.

@dga471

For time to “slow down” means nothing more than for clocks to slow down.

In the case of a physics perspective, wouldn’t it have to be the other way around, that clocks slowing down would mean nothing more than time slowing down, since the relativistic concept is that time itself is literally slowing down?

[T_aquaticus]

@Jim

My claim is that they are unknown and undetectable effects of gravitational fields.

That’s just denial.

@Jim

Unless you want to redefine the conventional meanings I think it’s pretty obvious they are not one and the same thing.

In science, a measurement is an observation.

[Jim]

@T_aquaticus

That’s just denial.

Why? It’s not a contradiction so it’s not logically impossible. There’s evidence to suggest it is the case, so it seems to be plausible. How is that just denial? Seems more like a case of denial on your part.

@T_aquaticus

In science, a measurement is an observation.

By that definition a blind man could measure a table and could say he observed a table. But that doesn’t change the fact that he’s blind. What we’re discussion is reality, not how scientists can change definitions of words.

[dga471 (Daniel)]

I don’t see how this discussion is going anywhere. The main points of @Jim’s arguments have been mentioned and summarized repeatedly, and here we are just met with both sides claiming that the other is just denying reality.

Jim, it looks like not many people are convinced by your arguments or even think there is an argument at all. Perhaps that’s because everyone here is secretly a logical positivist, as you have repeatedly accused, but another possibility is that your arguments aren’t substantial or expressed in a way that makes sense to people who are interested to talking about these things. In the last few posts, you have posted links to more “mainstream” philosophical resources such as SEP. My advice is to keep reading resources and articles like these, which may make you better able to express your opinions in a way that is understandable and relatable to other people.

[T_aquaticus]

@Jim

Why?

You are saying that you reject a scientific conclusion because of some unknown process occurring through some unknown mechanisms for which you have zero evidence. You are inventing fantasies as a way of rejecting supported scientific conclusions. That’s denial.

@Jim

By that definition a blind man could measure a table and could say he observed a table.

In science, that would be correct.

[faded_Glory]

@Jim

By that definition a blind man could measure a table and could say he observed a table

Observation doesn’t have to be visual. When he measured the table he had to touch it to find the edges. Touching is one of our 5 senses so yes, he did observe the table.

[Jim]

Since I wasn’t aware of any warning of the closing of the topic I am posting this as my conclusion to that thread.

@dga471

The main points of @Jim’s arguments have been mentioned and summarized repeatedly, …

Agreed.

@dga471

and here we are just met with both sides claiming that the other is just denying reality.

I think here the main problem is attempts to import from physics its meanings of words, which are arguably incoherently redefined, as well as scientific methodology into what essentially amounts to a discussion that is mainly metaphysical in nature where non-deductive inferences from relevant evidence are employed. So neither scientific methodology nor the redefined terms of physics are relevant, but rather philosophical rules of inference are.

@dga471

Jim, it looks like not many people are convinced by your arguments or even think there is an argument at all. Perhaps that’s because everyone here is secretly a logical positivist, as you have repeatedly accused, but another possibility is that your arguments aren’t substantial or expressed in a way that makes sense to people who are interested to talking about these things.

I never accused anyone of secretly being a logical positivists. I’m only suggesting that there are subtle lingering aspects of logical positivism that others are unknowingly being influenced by. But otherwise, though up to this point in the discussion I’m inclined to disagree, I am open to the possibility that what you’re suggesting may be the case.

@dga471

My advice is to keep reading resources and articles like these, which may make you better able to express your opinions in a way that is understandable and relatable to other people.

That may be the case. But I suspect it is not. I’ve tried several time to express what I’m saying in different ways without much success. I suspect that it has to do with a lack of being able to distinguish between the scientific and the philosophical aspects of my position on the part of those who still don’t get what I’ve expressed in several different ways now.

I don’t profess to be an expert in any way, but I do sense that what might be a more productive suggestion is if those who can’t seem to follow what I’m saying take some time to brush up on their philosophy and review things like what the rules of inference are especially for nondeductive arguments, and work on being able to recognize where the limits of science are, and particularly when things have moved outside of the realm of physics into the realm of metaphysics.

@T_aquaticus

You are saying that you reject a scientific conclusion because of some unknown process occurring through some unknown mechanisms for which you have zero evidence. You are inventing fantasies as a way of rejecting supported scientific conclusions. That’s denial.

What do you mean by supported scientific conclusions? The question presently under discussion is what is causing clock rates to change. As far as I can tell there is no unquestionably conclusive scientific explanation.

The only explanation that I know of on offer by science is that time itself is slowing down which cannot be correlated to any empirical evidence and is supported by only one piece of evidence to speak of. To say I’m in denial because I don’t agree with that explanation is just to say that it’s not OK to challenge a scientific claim because it is a scientific claim, which is just circular.

The discussion is about explanations of things which cannot be empirically verified. The only way to reach a conclusion in such matters is by nondeductive reasoning, i.e., following the evidence where it leads. And I have given an evidential case for my position already more than once.

Obviously I think the evidence leads in a different direction than you do. But you seem to be saying I have no warrant for challenging empirically unverifiable scientific claims. How do you justify that position other than be in denial about the fact that the claims in question cannot be empirically verified?

@faded_Glory

Observation doesn’t have to be visual. When he measured the table he had to touch it to find the edges. Touching is one of our 5 senses so yes, he did observe the table.

Observation is conventionally associated with sight. The other senses would conventionally be associated with detection. Detection doesn’t involve sight. But it’s kind of hard to observe something without sight, at least in the conventional sense of the word.

[T_aquaticus]

@Jim

The question presently under discussion is what is causing clock rates to change. As far as I can tell there is no unquestionably conclusive scientific explanation.

Then you are wrong. There are conclusive experiments, such as the Hafele-Keating experiment. It includes empirical evidence demonstrating that time ticks at different rates in different inertial frames:

Hafele–Keating experiment

@Jim

To say I’m in denial because I don’t agree with that explanation is just to say that it’s not OK to challenge a scientific claim because it is a scientific claim, which is just circular.

You aren’t challenging the conclusion. You are rejecting the conclusion without reason. That’s denial.

@Jim

Obviously I think the evidence leads in a different direction than you do. But you seem to be saying I have no warrant for challenging empirically unverifiable scientific claims.

You have no evidence that gravity is affecting the mechanisms within clocks to make them tick at different rates independent of time.