Hypotheses and models are predictions of behavior. Hypotheses are if-then statements, as in “if our idea is true then you should see this specific observation”.
Explanations can and are approached through the scientific method (i.e. hypothesis testing).
OK. I think I see where some of the confusion may be. As I understand it, absolute space is not about physical space itself, but about the nature of reality. As far as I can tell, absolute space is a concept based on an inductive inference that, even though it’s beyond what is humanly knowable, all human observation and experience suggests that in actual reality there is an absolute location and speed of objects in universal space relative to universal space itself.
My issue is not whether science has an approach to explanation. It’s about the blurring of the distinction between description and explanation. In my opinion explanation is sometimes not treated separately from description, but lumped together with it despite there being distinct approaches in science for each.
We humans do tend to treat well supported explanations as facts for practical reasons. Infectious germs are still a theory (i.e. explanation), but you probably think of germs causing disease as a fact, and describe it as such. At some point, hedging every explanation becomes tedious and unnecessary.
This is correct. The equation themselves of course provides no evidence. This is my point of view from the beginning.
So, if I come up with a description (equation) that is derived from the theory:
Theory 1): “There exist an absolute spacetime in our Universe”
that does not match our observations, will you agree that absolute spacetime is disfavored by observations?
It’s on thing if it is “well supported.” In the case of absolute vs relative space, as I understand it, Einstein dismissed the former based simply on verificationism, a now defunct position.
I’m not clear on what exactly is meant by absolute spacetime and how exactly it differs from Newton’s absolute space?
Absolute spacetime is Newton’s absolute space + absolute time, what you previously call absolute simultaneity. Note that to Newton and his peers, absolute space IS absolute spacetime, as Newton’s law of motion already presupposes absolute time.
Oh. I thought absolute simultaneity meant two events separated by distance happening at exactly the same time?
And I thought spacetime is a concept of a “fusing together” of space and time. From what I’ve read, that concept wasn’t around until the early 1900s, right? Before that there was no concept of space and time being “fused” together, was there?
Plane of simultaneity = splitting spacetime to 3 spatial and 1 time dimension. Absolute simultaneity = there exist a preferred splitting of spacetime to 3 spatial and 1 time dimension.
Correct, spacetime refers to the fusing of space and time. However, absolute spacetime in this language is completely equivalent to having absolute space and absolute time, i.e. what Newton calls absolute space plus the absolute time that he already presupposes using Newton’s laws.
I must say, these are very basic concepts that you should master first if you want to discuss absolute spacetime (or even just absolute spaces) or absolute simultaneity in either physics or philosophy. It seems you are ill equipped to be discussing these topics…
One of those well-supported things is evolutionary biology.
Actually I’m not exactly sure why these other concepts of absolute time, simultaneity and spacetime are entering into the discussion. I understand they’re related, but nonetheless they’re separate ideas which can be discussed afterwards on their own.
But the concept that I’m particularly concerned with is Newton’s “absolute space” as he’s defined it, and the fact that Einstein dismissed it in principle based on a now defunct philosophical view.
I believe “a God’s eye view” captures the essence of Newton’s idea. But you seem to have a differing opinion about that. So maybe it would be a good idea, before we go any further, to explain your view of what Newton meant by the term “absolute space.”
Hmm, perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the literature first. They are not as separate ideas as you think they are. I recommend brushing up on your classical mechanics with Taylor’s Classical Mechanics to fully understand the Newtonian absolute space and absolute time, and your general relativity with Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler’s Gravitation to fully understand the spacetime picture.
For SR maybe, although Einstein’s view is not clear of why he dismissed Newton’s absolute space. Regardless, the most well tested theory of spacetime is GR, in which Newton’s absolute space is false, and there no verificationism is needed to reject absolute space. We talked about this before.
Depends on what you mean by a “God’s eye view”. Why don’t you explain what YOU think Newton’s absolute space is. Please use rigorous (mathematical) statements instead of simplifications like “God’s eye view”, which can mean different things to different people so that there can be no more room for misconceptions.
How can descriptive mathematical statements be used for explanations? How does that make sense? The way I understand it, ideas are explanatory, equations are descriptive.
Mathematics is just a language, I can make explanations and descriptions with both English and mathematics.
Example theory:
English: “The Earth is flat”
Math: R_{Earth} = 0, where R is the Riemannian curvature
Example description derived from the previous theory:
English: “Triangles on Earth have angles that sums to 180 degrees”
Math: \sum_{i}^3 \theta_i = 180\deg
I can even mix and match:
Question: Why is it that “Triangles on Earth have angles that sums to 180 degrees”?
Explanation: Because R_{Earth} = 0
Oh. So mechanisms are descriptions of behavior, and theories/theoreticals are explanations of existence, and math can be used in both as a description of behavior and an explanation of existence?
If so that seems to make sense. So it would be important to distinguish when it’s being used to describe, and when it’s being used to explain. Is there a way in math to recognize that distinction?
To me it boils down to this: absolute space = observer independent space; relative space = observer dependent space. I don’t know how, or if that can be expressed mathematically. But that’s the way I see it.
Edit: Observer in this case would be understood as human in nature.
Yes, it is important to distinguish when one is describing or explaining. Like in English, there is no way to recognize this distinction in math from just the statements alone.
This is not good enough, right. For example, the question “What is the space as seen by observer Lisa?” has the same answer whether it is answered by a different observer Bob or another different observer Kevin.
You should expound further on what you mean by “observer independent” and “observer dependent”. It is difficult to do this without using mathematical language, so I expect you to need to speak in mathematics here. This situation is similar to the fact that it is difficult to describe “Schadenfreude” in English without borrowing the word from German.
Edit: @Jim, I just read your edit:
If this is is included in your definition of observer independence/dependence, then what you are talking about is not Newton’s absolute space. Newton’s absolute space does not rely on the humanity of the observer.
Observer independent simply means existing independent of human observation and visa versa.
My understanding is that his observer is not human in nature.
So,
But humanity of the observer never enters into any discussion of absolute spaces, either in Newtonian or relativistic physics, so what you are talking about is not Newton’s absolute space.
Let’s go back one step: what is an observer to you?
Edit: @Jim What I am trying to get at is the following: in Newtonian physics, the concept of “observer” does not appear in its formulation. What appears is the word “Frame of Reference”. What I am trying to get at is whether Newton’s “Frame of Reference” is what you call “observer”.
I believe so, yes.
But Newton’s “Frame of Reference” has nothing to do with humanity. Indeed, there is no notion of the “humanity” of a “frame of reference”, so how do you square it with your definition of absolute space which requires a concept of humanity to be defined on the “frame of reference”?
In particular, in Newtonian physics, the absolute space does not have anything to do with humanity, so if your idea of “absolute space” requires the concept of humanity to be attached to its “frame of reference”, then your “absolute space” is not Newton’s “absolute space”.