Why is the aether appealing?

That's my point. A vacuum is something, and geometry is all you need for structure. It should not be called nothing, because nothing is logical negation of all things, and that's the only meaning it has. Still, old habbits die hard, and people have assumed empty space is nothing for thousands of years.

Why this is, seems to be a question of psychology. I would guess that it relates to the fact we can't actually see empty space (it's invisible).

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

For some, because it explains relativity.

For others, because in their minds it refutes it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

OK. But the question remains of why there is something rather than nothing, since the concept of 'something' is meaningless without its antithesis, so there is still a question to be answered about 'nothing'.

This may be why the aether is still a popular notion. All attempts to reduce matter (existence) to its fundamental constituents end, or rather don't end, in infinite regression unless some monist (non-dual) substance is hypothesised as being the fundamental constituent to which reductionism eventually reduces.

In metaphysics this monist substance is often taken to be consciousness or, by a more physicalist view, nothingness. In science this is a paradoxical substance since, being monist, it cannot be a scientific concept (all systems of scientific enquiry are demonstrably dual in nature). An all-pervasive and infinite aether is about as near as a scientific approach can get to something monist. As the existence of something monist as the substrate of existence seems to be a logical necessity to many people, whether by intuition or strict reductionist logic, and as the aether is the closest a physicalist view can get to a hypothesis of a monist entity, the idea just won't go away.

Hope that makes sense. It's a very slippery topic.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Beercules

A majority of the sustainers do that only because they find very difficult to accept that life can be entirely a function of dead atoms,the aether let the door wide open to 'something extra'...Personally I agree with them here,I 'believe' that too [belief meaning that in my subjective system of values the hypothesis that something that can at least be approximated as being 'the aether' does exist is more probable to be true].It is [still],nonwithstanding some critics,a rational position in spite of the subdetermination problem,there are enough rational grounds to defend such a position.

The basis for my 'belief' are [apart from the problem of consciousness]:

1.Some strange personal experiences.

2.Functionalism has a crushing edge over realism [in physics at least] in the majority of cases scientific theories are simple models.

3.Michelson-Morley's experiment do not rule out entirely a sort of 'aether' interacting very faintly with macroscopic matter of the type of 'quantum potential' of Bohm.

4.Occam's razor and,more generally,the parsimony principle does not assure the truth [in absolute] of the simpler hypothesis: our actual knowledge does not need the existence of an aether,epistemologically the aether is useless now indeed,still this means nothing ontologically since 'the aether' (Bohm's quantum potential for example) is perfectly compatible with all observed facts...

Sure,I always say that clearly,this is only my own stricly personal belief,my current philosophical position.I remain open to change...

 

The question is nonsense, since it asks for a cause of existence. Since any prior cause would also necessarily exist, the question could only be answered with a circular response.

First of all, nothing is defined as the logical negation of all things. It is not a state or thing in itself. Just like nowhere and nobody are negations. There be no antithesis to existence, by definition.

Fields work just as well as a unifying principle, with no need for substances or aether. See strings or LQG for example.

That is quite silly. I seriously hope you don't think that is an answer as to why there is something rather than nothing?

Anyway, this thread is about the appeal of the aether. Let's not take it off track.

 

metacristi,

I think that's a different concept of an aether altogether. The notion of an aether would not change the fact we are made of atoms, because as you've said the aether is redundant. Humans, planets and stars would function without it, so it's safe to assume if the aether exists, it does not interact with us or other matter.

 

What about a connectivity (eg. copper can enable transfer of electric current) if there is no aether how can parts correspond/influence one another how can the light fly stright. I understand that the matter is actually a structure of atoms with "empty places" in between them but does not this ""empty space" in between the structures influence the structures? (because the structure parts do not touch)

 

Absolutely right in a way. That's what makes it so confusing. But I didn't mean to imply cause and effect. I said that there is a question as to why there is something rather than nothing, but asking 'how there is something' would be just as good. The question should have an answer in that form.

This is the ultimate exam question for physics, and of course it has a circular response. Only a circular response could explain the circular mechanism that somehow creates what exists out of what exists, managing to do this before anything at all exists, which is the inevitable and strange structure of any scientific explanation based only on what exists.

In other words circularity must explain why there is something rather than nothing. The only alternative is to take the view that existence arose from something that existed before anything existed. It's a stark choice. I suppose eternal material existence is an option, but few feel it makes any sense.

Sorry but I feel that this is illogical. 'Existence' wouldn't have a meaning unless we knew what we meant by non-existence.

You have missed my point about dualism and monism. Fields and strings are no more of a help to dualist explanations of existence than turtles piled on top of each other are.

Absolutely I do. It seems to be the only answer that makes logical sense.

I think you have missed the fact that Metacristi and I are saying the same thing, albeit that we look at it rather differently. By this view the aether is a perfectly good metaphor for whatever the monist substrate of existence actually is. As Metacristi suggests, it is possible that what we can know may always be one thing less thing than what actually exists, in other words epistemelogy is not ontology. A monist substrate of existence (as it is usually very clumsily called) has been posited by endless philosophers on logical grounds because dualism is ultimately an illogical way of describing or explaining the beginning of everything. Dualism forces one to suppose it started with at least two things. Space and time for instance, or mind and matter.

I don't feel we've left the track. There comes a point where straightforward physics must get muddled up with metaphysics if we're ever going to explain existence. The aether is one of those concepts that sit on the borderline.

 

Originally posted by ProCop
What about a connectivity (eg. copper can enable transfer of electric current) if there is no aether how can parts correspond/influence one another
Forces still exist between atoms. This is not an aether.

how can the light fly stright
I could just as easily ask how the parts of aether influence each other. You get down to a level where no 'physical' cause exists anymore... whether the question is standard physics or aether theory.

I understand that the matter is actually a structure of atoms with "empty places" in between them but does not this ""empty space" in between the structures influence the structures?
Only in so much as forces decrease (and sometimes increase) over the distance.

 

Physics doesn't deal with such nonsensical questions, and no physicalist (not physicist!) is actually claiming what you posted above is true.

The only appropriate answer is that it's an illogical question. We can discard it.

It's a blatent contradiction, and illogical nonsense as well. I'll leave that option to dunce cap wearing lazy thinkersthinkers and people with head injuries. In case you haven't noticed, I have absolutely no respect for people who don't believe in logic.

What in the world as you basing that on? Have you polled the philosophers of the world?

Ok, a few things here.

a. I have already shown a definition of nothing, non-existence etc. in the form of mere logical negation.

b. There is no way to argue that non existence can exist, since it blatently violates the law of non contradiction.

c. Saying that since we can't find a thing or state that represents non-existence we can't know the meaning of any thing, is absurd. I can just as well define spaces, galaxies, fields and what not without needing a contradictory concept of nothingness. Think about it.

A unified field could paint the picture of a universe where literally everything is a mere result of geometry. There is no dualism, as everything would be one.

You have got to be kidding me. The philosophical question is why something exists at all, and that includes gods, minds or whatever. Whether or not you equate the existence of some mind as being equal to a complete absence of anything physical is absolutely irrelevant. The question is still then why that non physical thing exists in the first place as well. Unless you want to make the fallacy of reifying the zero, the above only avoids the question.

Any attempt to explain an ontological question with an illogical proposition is the highest form of intellectual laziness there is. Once you discard logic, no intelligent conversation is possible any longer.

As I said, it is made redundant by field theory.

 

The EM force is communicated between electrons and the nucleus by virtual photons. I think it's time you took The Particle Adventure.

 

And if you accidentally quantum-tunnel from our current false-vacuume to one of a lower energy state BAAAD things happen.

 

Well I thought physicists were seeking a Theory of Everything. Have they given up? The 'stark choice' I refered to is entailed by physicalism. It's not my fault if both choices seem illogical.

Could you explain why it is illogical.

Quite agree. That's what I was saying.

Just an impression. I have never heard a serious argument made for it.

What - the thesis and anti-thesis you deny elsewhere.

No it doesn't. It merely shows that we generally muddle up two different defintions of existence.

Please read what I said with more care and some sort of open mind. I never suggested this.

You have not grasped the full meaning of dualism. Geometry entail dualism so your assertion is self-contradictory.

It answers the question (potentially) and certainly does not avoid it. It suggests that something exists because true 'nothing' is an impossibility. I though you agreed with that view. BTW I made no mention of minds or Gods.

Quite agree.

As I said, this is an illogical view. Where did these fields come from? Where does your regressive and reductive cosmological narrative actually end, or doesn't it?

 

A theory of everything has nothing to do with silly questions like "why is there something rather than nothing". It is an attempt to explain the precise nature of well, nature.

If you think physicalism is illogical, then you must think you have found some logical inconsistencies within. If you can't, then it is your fault, because you're just not putting any serious thought into it.

I already did. Asking for a cause of existence is an illogical contradiction, because the notion of cause of existence[/] is a contradiction. Something must exist before it can cause anything else, obviously.

Do you need an english lesson here?

No, that's a copout. We are talking about the existence of everything here. And existence can have no opposite, by definition.

You just said 'existence' cannot have meaning without understand what 'nonexistence' means, which is quite silly.

Show a self contraction.

No, it simply tries to change the concept from absence of everything, to absence of everything physical. The existence of anything non physical is no more likely than the existence of something physical. In other words, you might as well just say there exists something that is non contingent, and avoid dancing around the physicalist issue. You can just as easily claim that something physical is that non contingent thing.

And as I said to Lifegazer, put up or shutup. Show a logical contradiction with the idea, or give it up. That's all you've got to do - show a contradiction.

A fundemental unified field would not come from anywhere, since it's fundemental by definition. That seriously wasn't meant to be a real question, was it?

What?

 

I see. So a completed ToE will explain nature but not explain how it happens that nature exists. Not a very impressive goal then. I want more from a ToE from this.

I consider physicalism illogical for the reasons I have been repeatedly giving, and which you have been repeatedly ignoring.

I will repeat again that I did not mention causes. However your point here is clearly one of the reason physicalism is either illogical or forced into circularity.

Good grief. One moment you proudly claim to have defined existence by contrasting it with non-existence, the next you say that non-existence is a meaningless term. Then it's me that needs an english lesson.

I see. Perhaps you would like to try explaining your definition of existence without reference to its opposite. Clearly, if non-existence is impossible, everything must exist.

This is certainly getting silly. How can 'up' have a meaning unless 'down' has a meaning?

You asserted that the geometry would allow us to explain existence without the need for dualism. That is a self-contradiction. Do you understand what dualism in its most general sense is?

All physical things are dual in nature. Why do you think QM generally adopts the Copenhagen interpretation. Without dual properties things cannot be detected as existing. This is taken to mean (since science limits the defintion of existence to those things that are physical and thus dual in nature) that nothing exists before it is dualistically measured.

How many times do you want me to show you one?

Of course it was. It's the question that must always be asked of such hypotheses. It is unanswerable of course within any scientific theory. If existence began with fields (or anything else physical) then something physical must have always existed and physical existence is eternal. I take this to be your belief, although you seem reluctant to commit to it. Your mistake here is to think that calling a field fundamental makes it so.

I asked where your regressive explanation of the existence of matter ended. It seems to end with matter. In which case its a bit rich to accuse me of circularity.

 

A theory of everything as I've said before is only a theory of what everything in nature actually is. As I've also shown, asking "why" existence exists is an illogical question.

In all the threads you jumped into, I have yet to see you formulate a single logical argument. Basically, you start by saying you cannot imagine how something can possibly be, then when asked to show a logical inconsistency with the idea you simply move onto something else.

A perfect example of this is the issue of a beginning of time and the big bang. You make a claim without putting much thought into it, then refuse to give it any logical support for the notion.

The question "why" implies a question of cause. At either rate, there is neither a logical contradiction with a. a unievrse that existed forever, b. A universe finite in time with no "before" the first event. In order to show how either are illogical, all you've got to do is show a single self contradiction with the ideas. You can't.

All I can say is *read* the actual post more carefully. You do this all the time in threads, misreading posts and wasting time because of it.

Once again, as I said "nothing" is a logical negation, and that is all. The concept of an actual "thing" callled nothing, or "non-existence" is incoherent and not the proper use of the language. What is so hard to understand about that?

Now you're confusing the usage of existence as "things" and existence as a verb. I can well define "things" without a need for "nothing". But if you want to use "exists" the verb, you can't have it both ways with existence being a thing itself. In that case, exist is typically thought to be a property of concepts, not actual things.

Actually, you could give any arbitrary direction from your starting point the definition of "up" without needing an opposite. At any rate, you're still just making the fallacy of refiying the abstract - which in this case is the zero, or nothing. That is, you're taking the concept to be a thing in itself, when it's only meaning is as logical negation.

How is that a self contradiction? Do you even know what logic is?

Yes, I know what dualism is. The mind is not seen as a non physical form of existence, but is merely a property of the feld (geometry). Thus there is only one actual thing that exists in such an ontology.

The duality of particles has absolutely nothing to do with "dualism" of metaphysics. There are several properties the quantum field has, and particle like behavior happens to be one of them.

See above. And for the record, have you ever studied quantum mechanics?

Just once, because I have yet to see you actually point out a logic inconcistency with physicalism. It leads me to believe that you've never learned how to put together a logical argument. Would you like a link with some information on that?

My argument has been that an eternal physical existence suffers from no logical inconsistencies.

It's just an ontology. Either it's at least logically consistent, or it's not.

No, my claim is that a regressive explanation of the existence of matter is nonsensical. If matter is eternal and fundemental, then there is no "why" to answer. This is also the case for any other ontology that seeks to be logically consistent. Whatever is fundemental to existence, cannot have been caused or created, otherwise it wouldn't be fundemental.

 

Also Canute, it looks like we're drifting away from the aether. This thread wasn't meant to discuss existence, but it's heading that way and would be better off in a thread of that topic. My point on the aether is that it offers nothing (in terms of ontology) that any soon to be unified field theory cannot.

 

Ok I'll give up on the 'nothing' argument. You clearly cannot be bothered to read what I write in any case.

I assume that you are suggesting that fields (or a field) existed 'prior' to the BB. Now cosmology, to quote Stuart Clark ('Towards the Edge of the Universe') is 'increasingly these days... concerned with how the Universe came into being'. (The question you claim is illogical).

You appear to be claiming that 'fields' are cosmology's answer to this question. Yet surely you are not suggesting that fields existed prior to the BB, in other words 'prior' to the existence of time and space.

Also - As, by your theory, 'nothing' cannot ever exist then this field of yours must be infinitely extended, since there can be nothing else but fields in existence. They would also have to be eternal, otherwise there would have been something in existence prior to fields.

So now we have an infinite and eternal field existing in space and time. And yet you argue against any idea of an aether. This does not seen reasonable.

Or have I misjudged what you mean by a 'unified field'? I understand (roughly) what unified field theory is about but without a clear definition of what you mean by 'field' here it is difficult to see any difference in meaning between 'unified field' and 'aether', although admittedly the former does have a more modern ring to it.

 

Physicists who claim the universe literally came into being are not asking the illogical question of how existence came to be. The asumption here is that spacetime is not fundemental, and the laws that govern quantum physics are. So these laws pre-exist the universe (spacetime at least) and bring our spacetime into existence from a fluctuation in this state. I don't think a lot of physicists buy into that.

No, I am saying that fields are a holistic explanation of the physical universe. The reductionist "atoms in a void" worldview has been replaced by something that can potentially explain everything in a very elegant and simple way. It is not suggest that fields pre exist the big bang in standard cosmology. But no one seriously thinks the standard model is fully correct, since we don't have an acurate description of quantum spacetime to know what happened when the universe was very dense. Here are the option:

A. The universe has existed forever.
B. The universe had a beginning, but this is merely a first event.
C. The universe exists as a static 4D universe, along the lines of the no boundary proposal.

Either are logically consistent, but no one really knows which is correct.

Doesn't follow. It could also be finite.

Err, why? My argument is that any appeal in the aether is surely made redundant by field theory. No fluid like substance is needed.

Lee Smolin has a fairly good comparison of local fields and spacetime itself. I'll see if he has anything online. In the meantime, know that while an aether is often a fluid like substance, a unified field is expected to be pure geometry.

 

Off-course, sorry

Have been itching to ask this question since I saw this post: well, the vacuum seems to be at least as appealing as the aether. How come the speed of light is defined under vacuum conditions? Nobody refutes this... Instead there are a lot of posts on travelling with the speed of light etc. ... As far as I can tell from several threads people get around putting themselves in questionable positions by just assuming that the "traveller" is a solid subject wooooshing through a vacuum with light-speed and the vacuum opens and closes itself for the "traveller". I have not seen anyone throwing in an argument that travel through vacuum would make this vacuum a non-vacuum...