LS Re: The Mother of all Relativity.

Hugo Fjelsted Alroe (
Wed, 17 Sep 1997 12:11:11 +0100

On relativity and metaphysics.

Bodvar wrote that MoQ as opposed to SOM may be likened to Relativity as
opposed to classical physics.

1 - There may be some likeness in there being a paradigmatic
revolution/change involved, but if you suggest that the metaphysics of
Relativity is a kind of precursor of MoQ, I am somewhat sceptic towards
that. Einsteins theories of relativity rests on a strictly phenomenological
metaphysics, it is a world where 'observers observing the world' is the
fundamental prerequisite. Look at one of his gedankenexperiments, and you
will see that it is always based on electromagnetic (light usually) signals
by which an independent observer tries to make sense of what he sees.

2 - Actually I tend to see Relativity Theory as a SOM platypus, not in its
capacity as a tool for making predictions of course but as a provider of an
understanding of kinematics, of the way things and no-things move. There are
a number of paradoxes in the metaphysics of relativity, and I believe taking
a pirsigian step back and acknowledging the SOM underlying the theory, and
that the paradoxes may arise from here, is a first step towards resolving
them. This does not mean that MoQ as Pirsig has explicated it has something
to offer here, only that it resembles how he has resolved other metaphysical
paradoxes. Or did Pirsig discuss Relativity Theory critically?

3 - But if we leave out Einsteins solution, I can see how you find the
general move from absolutism towards relationism supportive or symptomatic
of SOM-->MoQ. And I am not advocating a more absolutist metaphysics of
kinematics, on the contrary the paradoxes of relativity seems to arise
because Einstein did/could not go far enough towards a relationary foundation.

4 - These are very loose arguments, but I think the paradoxes and how they
arise can be shown in a rigorous way and I have done some work on it - still
preliminary though. I should say I have been an amateur Relativity Theorist
for some years and have some grasp of the Special Relativity issues, but I
still know too little of General Relativity to say much on that.

5 - Bodvar wrote:
-->I am no expert, but I know that GR in a sense "contains" the NP; it is
principally possible to calculate a moon trip based on GR but it is far too
accurate; NP suffices with wide margins. Still, when speeds are high enough,
as in particle accelerators, GR must be applied.
I think they only use Special Relativity in particle acellerator physics, -
or am I wrong?

Relatively Yours

post message -
unsubscribe/queries -
homepage -

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:41:56 CEST