50 Years Ago When Harold Wilson Was In...
ChatterBank3 mins ago
What Is A Law?
How do scientists determine what is a law?
I understand it to mean that if the same process or experiment, repeated over and over again, results in the same outcome, then that is a law.
Afterwards, any suggestion of a different outcome, or different initial conditions, would be recognised as a violation of that law.
Am I correct?
I understand it to mean that if the same process or experiment, repeated over and over again, results in the same outcome, then that is a law.
Afterwards, any suggestion of a different outcome, or different initial conditions, would be recognised as a violation of that law.
Am I correct?
Answers
"So, abiogenesis is a violation of the observed law of biogenesis. Yes?" No. Biogenesis isn't a "law", in the sense that you are trying to apply the term.
20:11 Mon 19th Oct 2020
Theland
Question Author
Mibs - Would you provide a link to a YouTube lecture or a scientific paper that shares your views.
I must confess that I find them a bit confusing.
05:49 Fri 23rd Oct 2020
Please feel free to Google away. If someone else can explain me better than I can neither would I be surprised by that.
Emergence - emergent universe - acausal universe - feel free to let your imagination run wild. Invariably the value of whatever truth you should find there rests on your own understanding, not on who said it.
Question Author
Mibs - Would you provide a link to a YouTube lecture or a scientific paper that shares your views.
I must confess that I find them a bit confusing.
05:49 Fri 23rd Oct 2020
Please feel free to Google away. If someone else can explain me better than I can neither would I be surprised by that.
Emergence - emergent universe - acausal universe - feel free to let your imagination run wild. Invariably the value of whatever truth you should find there rests on your own understanding, not on who said it.
// Invariably the value of whatever truth you should find there rests on your own understanding, not on who said it//
and down the tube goes 15 y teaching at school
very fine sentiments - but I only dissected one body and assumed the rest would be alike
I have never done any of Einsteins gedanken expts (*) - like being in a free falling life and seeing what happens to a light beam
(*) gedanken - geddit - they were thought expts
and down the tube goes 15 y teaching at school
very fine sentiments - but I only dissected one body and assumed the rest would be alike
I have never done any of Einsteins gedanken expts (*) - like being in a free falling life and seeing what happens to a light beam
(*) gedanken - geddit - they were thought expts
There is a logical inconsistency in your argument, is there not? It's one that sits at the heart of every religion: God is invoked as an explanation for the existence of everything, but never needs anything or anyone else to explain God's existence itself. Presumably you'd admit this point, and I'm not mentioning this because I think it's a fatal flaw. My point is, though, that in allowing God to justify its own existence, you are in reality allowing that *something* must be capable of explaining its own existence.
All of this leads to the following question: why does a scientific law necessary need a law-giver? Why are scientific laws incapable of justifying their own existence? What is it about them that you think relegates them to the status of "second causes"?
It may be that you have good answers to these questions, but "a law requires a law-giver" is not such an answer. I'd suggest that this answer could only work in the case where the law in question is essentially arbitrary: where a choice had to be made, between (at least) two equally viable outcomes.* To take a particular example, God's laws in the Old Testament are, at least superficially, arbitrary: Lev. 12:4 states that a woman should wait 40 days (7+33) after giving birth to a son before being considered "purified from her bleeding" (and twice as long for a daughter), but I don't think that there can be any serious attempt to justify that precisely this time limit, and precisely double it for a daughter, was the only theoretically possible such limit. Why not 28 instead of 40? The Bible is obsessed with the number 7, after all, so 4*7 days would fit with this fairly naturally. Why double the time for a daughter? Why any time at all, if it comes to that?
Regardless of the rights or wrongs, though, the point is that a choice existed, and that another choice would clearly have done just as well, and so it stands to reason that somebody must have made this choice. There is no fundamental reason that 40 is the necessary answer to this question (or, if there is, I'd love to hear it).
Compare this with, say, the scientific Law of Conservation of Energy,
which states that the total energy in the Universe remains constant (although it's allowed to change from one type of energy to another). As I was drafting this post, it occurred to me that the Law is actually broken within our Universe, but what's important here is that it is easily possible, within physics, to understand where the law comes from and under what circumstances it would be broken. The law is therefore not arbitrary: it doesn't follow from a choice, or from observations that may have been flawed, or a convenient approximation, but from clear mathematical principles. Specifically, you can prove that conservation of energy is guaranteed in a Universe that is physically the same today as it is tomorrow: that is, a Universe that behaves in the same way no matter what the time is**. As a result, I'd argue, there is no need for a law-giver. This, and other laws, are inevitable consequences. No choice needed to be made: Energy was either conserved or not because of how the Universe *is*.
Still, none of this proves that the Universe doesn't need a law-giver. You might answer that a choice needs to be made about how the Universe is, after all. But it does prove that you have to understand more completely the nature of Universal Laws before making the assertion that "laws need law-givers". They are simply a different kind of law.
(Asterisks * and ** will be added below.)
All of this leads to the following question: why does a scientific law necessary need a law-giver? Why are scientific laws incapable of justifying their own existence? What is it about them that you think relegates them to the status of "second causes"?
It may be that you have good answers to these questions, but "a law requires a law-giver" is not such an answer. I'd suggest that this answer could only work in the case where the law in question is essentially arbitrary: where a choice had to be made, between (at least) two equally viable outcomes.* To take a particular example, God's laws in the Old Testament are, at least superficially, arbitrary: Lev. 12:4 states that a woman should wait 40 days (7+33) after giving birth to a son before being considered "purified from her bleeding" (and twice as long for a daughter), but I don't think that there can be any serious attempt to justify that precisely this time limit, and precisely double it for a daughter, was the only theoretically possible such limit. Why not 28 instead of 40? The Bible is obsessed with the number 7, after all, so 4*7 days would fit with this fairly naturally. Why double the time for a daughter? Why any time at all, if it comes to that?
Regardless of the rights or wrongs, though, the point is that a choice existed, and that another choice would clearly have done just as well, and so it stands to reason that somebody must have made this choice. There is no fundamental reason that 40 is the necessary answer to this question (or, if there is, I'd love to hear it).
Compare this with, say, the scientific Law of Conservation of Energy,
which states that the total energy in the Universe remains constant (although it's allowed to change from one type of energy to another). As I was drafting this post, it occurred to me that the Law is actually broken within our Universe, but what's important here is that it is easily possible, within physics, to understand where the law comes from and under what circumstances it would be broken. The law is therefore not arbitrary: it doesn't follow from a choice, or from observations that may have been flawed, or a convenient approximation, but from clear mathematical principles. Specifically, you can prove that conservation of energy is guaranteed in a Universe that is physically the same today as it is tomorrow: that is, a Universe that behaves in the same way no matter what the time is**. As a result, I'd argue, there is no need for a law-giver. This, and other laws, are inevitable consequences. No choice needed to be made: Energy was either conserved or not because of how the Universe *is*.
Still, none of this proves that the Universe doesn't need a law-giver. You might answer that a choice needs to be made about how the Universe is, after all. But it does prove that you have to understand more completely the nature of Universal Laws before making the assertion that "laws need law-givers". They are simply a different kind of law.
(Asterisks * and ** will be added below.)
"I'd suggest that this answer could only work in the case where the law in question is essentially arbitrary: where a choice had to be made, between (at least) two equally viable outcomes.*"
In making this statement I'm also excluding the "multiverse solution", which would mean that, even if scientific laws did boil down to a choice, then this doesn't matter, because every choice was made in at least one of infinite distinct "Universes". I find this solution more or less the same kind of cop-out as invoking a God. It doesn't seem to me to answer anything at all. And, besides, the fundamental definition of a Universe in this picture would surely see that each is functionally separated from each other, meaning that the multiverse picture is unlikely ever to be testable. I don't like untestable ideas.
* * * * * *
"Specifically, you can prove that conservation of energy is guaranteed in a Universe that is physically the same today as it is tomorrow: that is, a Universe that behaves in the same way no matter what the time is**."
One of the consequences of General Relativity is that we *do* care what day it is, because the Universe is allowed to change in shape/size/time etc. As a result, General Relativistic models, and in particular the one that best describes our Universe, tend to violate conservation of energy.
In making this statement I'm also excluding the "multiverse solution", which would mean that, even if scientific laws did boil down to a choice, then this doesn't matter, because every choice was made in at least one of infinite distinct "Universes". I find this solution more or less the same kind of cop-out as invoking a God. It doesn't seem to me to answer anything at all. And, besides, the fundamental definition of a Universe in this picture would surely see that each is functionally separated from each other, meaning that the multiverse picture is unlikely ever to be testable. I don't like untestable ideas.
* * * * * *
"Specifically, you can prove that conservation of energy is guaranteed in a Universe that is physically the same today as it is tomorrow: that is, a Universe that behaves in the same way no matter what the time is**."
One of the consequences of General Relativity is that we *do* care what day it is, because the Universe is allowed to change in shape/size/time etc. As a result, General Relativistic models, and in particular the one that best describes our Universe, tend to violate conservation of energy.
Final points, for now:
1. Much of what I'm saying relies on applying mathematical ideas to understanding physical laws. Clearly, I may have applied them incorrectly, but whether or not that's true, no attempt to understand the nature of the Universe is ever going to suffer by learning more about mathematics.
2. Moreover, the entire point about mathematics is that it's completely objective: when done correctly, what tends to happen is that you find the equations are forcing you to go in a particular direction, and you are just following the path already laid out. This is why I argue that self-justifying laws are possible within the Universe: once expressed mathematically, certain fundamental laws force certain others, and very little becomes truly arbitrary as a result.
3. On the other hand, our physical understanding of the Universe is far from complete, so who knows whether my arguments will be forced to change in the future? At the moment, though, there is nothing that is provably arbitrary in physics: every gap in our understanding can be safely assumed is our fault for not understanding, not the Universe's for making an arbitrary choice.
4. In terms of specific areas of mathematics that are influencing my thinking above, you should check out (a) Noether's Theorem, and (b) The Principle of Stationary Action (more usually called least action).
1. Much of what I'm saying relies on applying mathematical ideas to understanding physical laws. Clearly, I may have applied them incorrectly, but whether or not that's true, no attempt to understand the nature of the Universe is ever going to suffer by learning more about mathematics.
2. Moreover, the entire point about mathematics is that it's completely objective: when done correctly, what tends to happen is that you find the equations are forcing you to go in a particular direction, and you are just following the path already laid out. This is why I argue that self-justifying laws are possible within the Universe: once expressed mathematically, certain fundamental laws force certain others, and very little becomes truly arbitrary as a result.
3. On the other hand, our physical understanding of the Universe is far from complete, so who knows whether my arguments will be forced to change in the future? At the moment, though, there is nothing that is provably arbitrary in physics: every gap in our understanding can be safely assumed is our fault for not understanding, not the Universe's for making an arbitrary choice.
4. In terms of specific areas of mathematics that are influencing my thinking above, you should check out (a) Noether's Theorem, and (b) The Principle of Stationary Action (more usually called least action).
The double slit experiment is influenced by measurement by a conscious observer, which has led to thoughts of consciousness affecting our reality.
Sean Carroll's theory of quantum waves existing in Hilbert space, and collapsing into particles suggests a cosmic conscious observer to create and sustain reality.
The holographic model of the universe existing in its purest form as information, leads me to suggest that empirical evidence tells us that all information originates from a mind.
There is no system known to science where information is spontaneously generated from nothing, whether the written word, computer coding, or genes on DNA to reproduce a protein.
Sean Carroll's theory of quantum waves existing in Hilbert space, and collapsing into particles suggests a cosmic conscious observer to create and sustain reality.
The holographic model of the universe existing in its purest form as information, leads me to suggest that empirical evidence tells us that all information originates from a mind.
There is no system known to science where information is spontaneously generated from nothing, whether the written word, computer coding, or genes on DNA to reproduce a protein.
Also, whilst I can't say that consciousness doesn't explain some effects on Quantum Mechanics, I can say that there are other explanations out there. It may suit you to default to the most "human-centric" model, which in turn allows you to motivate existence of a God, but it is again a fallacy.
It comes back to the same point I was making about a first cause. All you have achieved is to argue that something is capable of causing itself. The Universe is capable of causing itself. The Universe is also capable of observing itself.
It comes back to the same point I was making about a first cause. All you have achieved is to argue that something is capable of causing itself. The Universe is capable of causing itself. The Universe is also capable of observing itself.
Unsure why the "infinite" number of universes could be considered a cop out. It simply means that everything that can be, is. And explains it "all" by indicating that we are here simply because it's only in such a universe that we could be; and now here, are able to wonder about everything. If you accept this universe exists, then why not all ? And if it is a block universe I reckon that each moment of time exists together too. It's all static, unchanging, in the bigger picture.
// Sean Carroll's theory of quantum waves existing in Hilbert space, and collapsing into particles suggests a cosmic conscious observer to create and sustain reality.//
no it doesnt
it remains hopeless rubbish [ every thing aftter suggests ...... ]
as for - order has never comeout of chaos
er yes it has look around you
oh oh order has never come out of chaos and this world has and so - - - there must be a creator
oh Lord - spare us!
can some one edit - what is a law
to
there is a law that says mad people congregate in the science section of AB
no it doesnt
it remains hopeless rubbish [ every thing aftter suggests ...... ]
as for - order has never comeout of chaos
er yes it has look around you
oh oh order has never come out of chaos and this world has and so - - - there must be a creator
oh Lord - spare us!
can some one edit - what is a law
to
there is a law that says mad people congregate in the science section of AB
It's a cop-out (imo) because it's inherently untestable. If you can never prove that the other Universes exist, by observing them, then it's no more worthwhile an explanation than an intelligent designer.
If somebody could come up with a viable way to test the theory (and the test passed), then I'd withdraw my objections, but for the time being I think it's better to search for solutions to our questions in *this* universe, rather than imagining other ones.
If somebody could come up with a viable way to test the theory (and the test passed), then I'd withdraw my objections, but for the time being I think it's better to search for solutions to our questions in *this* universe, rather than imagining other ones.
jim: "How naive of me to think that you might read and reply to what I posted. " - well done for a valiant attempt to reason with a theist but I fear you cannot get through to their closed minds. Theland etc post these sorts of questions so they can draw you in and ambush you with their "unquestionable truth" - kudos for once again trying to crowbar some sense into their heads.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank5 mins ago
ChatterBank8 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles10 mins ago
Mass Job Losses In The Retail Sector...
News24 mins ago
