RE: SUO: RE: A proposed SUO content outline
>(This is reply is quite delayed because of interruptions. Still, I wanted
>to get on the record.)
>
>Pat,
>
>We (probably) aren't as far apart as I thought.
Good! I guess this is what communication is really for, right?
<snip>
> >>I also recall that Einstein relied extensively on simultaneity (as John
> >>Sowa's http://www.bestweb.net/~sowa/ontology/causal.htm reminded us).
> >>This clearly depends on a relationship between two events in space-time.
> >
> >Those are used in his intuitive account of special relativity, which
> >is indeed wonderfully convincing. But the point there is really only
> >to infer the equations of the coordiante transformations. Once those
> >are determined, there is no need to then refer all measurements to
> >other events or other 'things': space-time itself has a geometry.
> >(However, as Ive emphasised before, space-time with the Minkowski
> >metric is a very different beast from the nice orthogonal Newtonian
> >4-d spacetime that Matthew West and I like to use for ontological
> >reasoning. I really don't think we should base a practical ontology
> >on Minkowski space; I don't want to have to be always thinking about
>
>But we may have to provide room for it. I recall thinking some time ago
>that the modeling the problem of communicating between two "far apart"
>objects with laser beams was easier to formulate in spacetime with the
>Minkowski metric. I don't recall if it was really easier, or whether it
>was just a tool I wanted to learn to use.
Well, it certainly is easier: in the M. metric, light(in vacuo)
travels along vectors with a zero metric, ie it always travels zero
distance in zero time.
Pat
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC (850)434 8903 home
40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
Pensacola, FL 32501 (850)202 4440 fax
phayes@ai.uwf.edu
http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes