From: snodgras@crash.cts.com (John Snodgrass)
Subject: Re: invention of time
Date: 25 Aug 92 19:54:40 GMT

In <1992Aug21.164819.26974@galois.mit.edu> tycchow@riesz.mit.edu (Timothy Y. Chow) writes:

>2. The experiments conducted to verify time dilation were not "pure"
>observations but were "theory-laden."  The design and the interpretation
>of the experiment were drenched with assumptions about the existence of
>absolute time and other similarly dubious philosophical assumptions.  What
>is needed is a total revamping of all our scientific concepts (a paradigm
>shift) that removes all traces of imposing mathematics on reality.  After
>this revolution the experiments in question will be seen in a totally
>different light and we will wonder why on earth we ever referred to them as
>"verifications of time dilation."

>I can accept 1, but 2, which from reading some of Snodgrass's other
>articles seems to me to be the more accurate reading, is a bit much for me
>to swallow.
      You have correctly interpreted my argument. I'm only sorry that I
was not clever enough to make it clear to everyone from the start. As for your
unwillingness to swallow it, that is hardly surprising from my point of view.
But look at it simply. The current paradigm is based on a geometrical
interpretation of many phenomena: Einstein never denied this. In fact, he went
so far as to deny that special relativity was based on the Michelson-Morely
experiment, presumably because that smacked of empiricism. Einstein was not
interested in empiricism, he was interested in establishing geometry as the
basis of science. Why? Because to his mind, as to Plato's in his time, it
was attractive to imagine that the universe held, on some fundamental level,
the orderliness of what mathematicians marvel at as mathematics! This is why
one so often hears of the 'beauty' of relativity theory.

      Now, the question is, is this science? Obviously, I think not. IMO, it
is hard to swallow that nature has this, what I consider to be somewhat
puerile simplicity to its structure. I consider it to be pre-information-age
naivete to think that some mathematician, off the top of his head (or on the
basis of crude experiments with mirrors and candles) say, "Ahk! So, you see,
nothing can exceed the speed of light, because light is absolute! Yah, light
is absolute, and moves through geometrical nothingness!" I AM SURE. It's
so obvious how this was arrived at, and how many assumptions, both about
nature and about the relationship of mathematical description to nature,
were embedded in it. But it fit the times. Theoretical physicists loved it,
(eventually) for the very reason that it so elevated mathematics to the
pinnacle of science, rather than it's proper place as a descriptive symbology
for empirical observation, way down there as a tool. It had the added advantage
of being too obscure for non-initiates to even question, so it held great
potential as the core of a mystical or religious mystery. These are powerful
ingredients, attractive ingredients.

      The ball was set rolling back then, and though it has gotten bigger
and ever more unweildy (as its central confusion between mathematics and
reality mutates and multiplies) it is still rolling today. "Relativity is
the most experimentally verified theory in the history of science," one
often hears. But in actuality, every verification is so fraught with 
assumptions, and so dubious of interpretation, none of it is meaningful.
What relativity does have, however, is an near-total academic domination in
the field of physics, and if these comments were posted over on sci.physics
you would see just how angry and defensive these believers become when they
are challenged, and just how total is their loyalty to this belief system.
And, of course, these are the people who are performing and interpreting
such experiments.

      But as regards my argument, so there is no room for ambiguity, let
me just say that I reject all non-physical causes of physical events, whether
they be invoked as God or as geometry. (Einstein himself once said that
we might as well call mathematics God.) It seems to me that science requires
the positing of physical events as the cause of physical events, and anything
else is just the old mysticism rearing its ugly head once again.


>-- 
>Tim Chow     tycchow@math.mit.edu

      SnOdGrAsS