| | Ed wrote, Okay, Bill, I'll stop using the debate-technique "Appeal to a minor" -- as it does seem unfair. Kids -- because they think with less inhibition than adults -- can be more ingenious than adults. I don't agree. Besides, he had his facts wrong. At any rate, my Red Herring does seem to have worked here and I've avoided having to answer your question, by simply challenging the premise that you packed it into. Though I found Wolf's links quite interesting (particularly research like this:) Chiao, R.Y. 1993: "Superluminal (but causal) propagation of wavepackets in transparent media with inverted atomic populations" in Phys. Rev. A 48, B34.... Since there is as yet no consensus that Einstein was wrong and that that superluminal propagation of information is possible, I don't think I can be faulted for accepting his conclusion and using it in my argument. I am not a physicist and am in no position to debate the merits of Einstein's theory. Nor do I think it is necessary. The light speed limit was presented as an example of an immutable law. Even if there are special circumstances under which that speed can be exceeded, it would not affect the main point of my argument, which is that reality is not infinitely plastic or malleable, that it has a certain identity which limits what is possible to an existent under a given set of conditions. I will attempt an answer to your question ( "... do you agree that no amount of human ingenuity can enable man to travel faster than the speed of light, because of the "extra-mental" limitations of reality?")
I just can't do it, Bill. I just can't fathom a limitation on applied human ingenuity. The only limitations I'm willing to put on man's potential are axiomatic concepts. We will never be able to escape axioms. There will never be a time when man successfully bifurcates existence from identity. There will never be a consciousness that is conscious of nothing but itself. Etc. It isn't only axioms that cannot be contradicted; it's also the nature of an existent and the limits that its nature places on what is possible to it. If it turns out that the speed of light cannot be exceeded, then no amount of human ingenuity can overcome it. Human ingenuity is limited by the nature of reality and must work within its confines. To quote Francis Bacon's famous aphorism, "Nature to be commanded must be obeyed." Now, if light-speed (as a natural limit) is axiomatic, then I must concede my position in this debate. If light-speed is not axiomatic, then I will hold out until a stronger argument is brought forth. But don't you see, it doesn't matter. The speed of light was simply an example to illustrate that reality, by its nature, has limits that cannot be transcended. So, using dialectics, I pass the ball back to you with this question:
Is light-speed (as a natural limit) axiomatic? Is the law of gravity axiomatic? No, but both the law of gravity and the speed of light (assuming Einstein to be correct) are laws of reality. Neither is axiomatic in the Objectivist sense of that term, but that doesn't mean that they aren't physical laws. What is axiomatic is the law of identity. And the law of identity, remember, is not simply a linguistic convention; it is a statement about the nature of reality. It says that a thing is what it is, and accordingly, that it can do only what it can do--that it is limited by its nature. Since human intelligence and its objects are limited by their respective identities, man's ability to know reality is limited as well.
- Bill
|
|
