Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
Dec 23, 2016 - 08:44pm PT
|
While ye do sleeping lie, open-eyed conspiracy it's time doth take
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Dec 24, 2016 - 08:55am PT
|
Ed: I would think that continued scientific examination of all aspects of reality will continue, and while science will not be able to make a pronouncement of truth, it will continue to seek those physical explanations and expand its domain of understanding.
I’m just kibitzing here, but there is some slippage here in the language for me.
On the one hand, you are clear that science is oriented to physical terms only. But then in other parts of your writing, you mention things like “all aspects of reality.”
Could we at least establish some ground among us for more fruitful conversations by admitting outright that there apparently are other aspects of reality that are not physical—or are you saying that all aspects of reality are physical, but that for some there are no physical explanations?
Were we to take the first tack, we could steer different conversations into pastures that would be less loaded with contradictions and stepping on each other toes.
I think it would also force some of us to admit that there are areas we just don’t know much about or that we shouldn’t be applying inappropriate theories to.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Dec 24, 2016 - 10:03am PT
|
I would say that it is the position of science to posit that everything is physical, which extends to even those things that are the result of physical processes...
that doesn't leave much room for the non-physical.
but lest you object too quickly, recall that I referred to this as a hypothesis, which means it is provisional, depending on observations, and that it is subject to falsification but not to proof.
A hypothesis can only be declared positively as "being consistent" with our measurements and observations, it is never "proven."
My feeling is that there is sufficient ground to object to this hypothesis, but that it focusses the discussion not on declaration, but on observation. That may be objectionable, but if we are to argue based on the certainty of our own witness we are then put in a position of accusing each other of being dishonest and our witness of being untrustworthy, and even intentionally false to make a point and win an argument.
If, on the other hand we take all of our witness to be true, then we have little to discuss in regard to the OP...
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Dec 24, 2016 - 11:10am PT
|
Hmmm, . . . well, Ed, I think you’re saying that we *should* be talking about things that we can verify consensually among one another (emphasizing validity of observations).
I won’t argue. It’s Christmas. I’ll just say that such a point of view (if I have it right) limits the conversation—which is sort of what I wanted to do I guess. But I was hoping that there would be more than one pasture.
In any event, cheers to all.
In a few hours we’re heading out of town to two big family Xmas dinners to be held over the next 36 hours. It may not be a good thing.
If one wants to study the weirdness of human social psychology, one can “go home” to be with one’s parents (maybe), one’s siblings, one’s relatives, and the in-laws. Add alcohol, darling children running around unsupervised, simmer in the pressure cooker in a contained small space, and viola . . . a misadventure in the making.
Be well.
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
|
Dec 24, 2016 - 04:24pm PT
|
Here's a little Xmas present:
Generator of Postmodern Articles
Each time you open the link it generates a new postmodern article.
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
Dec 24, 2016 - 06:37pm PT
|
Bataille uses the term ‘posttextual modernist theory’ to denote the stasis
of subconstructive class. But Cameron[9] suggests that the
works of Tarantino are postmodern.
Thank you, Santa. There is much to learn. And/Or unlearn?
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
|
Dec 24, 2016 - 07:20pm PT
|
In a sense, the failure, and some would say the
absurdity, of capitalist postconceptual theory which is a central theme of
Madonna’s "Material Girl" emerges again in "Erotica", although in a
more cultural sense. Several discourses concerning predialectic cultural theory exist.
I could read stuff like this all night long.
;>)
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Dec 24, 2016 - 07:30pm PT
|
You guys, . . . .
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Dec 24, 2016 - 09:20pm PT
|
"our civilization has been powerfully affected by the discovery that nature is strictly governed by impersonal laws."
Is nature's governance separated from its material nature or is material nature the constructor of its own laws? In other words, why are there laws, impersonal or otherwise and where do they come from? And how and why do you make a separation twixt impersonal law and nature? How is it that an impersonal physical law can be so eloquently described in a series of mathematical equations entirely separate from the physical reality they describe as if they are entirely apart existing as a predicate?
When we read "In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God...how can a scientist argue with such a profound statement?
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Dec 25, 2016 - 08:42am PT
|
HFCS: Always worthy of recollection, eg, for sake of reinforcement, at least a couple times per year...
It isn’t. Instead, it may be a sure sign of dogmatic inculcation.
As Wittgenstein said, “when you get the message, you can hang up the phone.”
Like most conceits, once most bright people hear the joke the first time, its power diminishes dramatically. It finally falls into a category of other conceits that are clever but not necessarily intelligent, soulful, or enduring.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Dec 25, 2016 - 10:46am PT
|
How is it that an impersonal physical law can be so eloquently described in a series of mathematical equations entirely separate from the physical reality they describe as if they are entirely apart existing as a predicate?
indeed, perhaps they are not "entirely separate from the physical reality," but rather determined by it...
|
|
Ward Trotter
Trad climber
|
|
|
Dec 25, 2016 - 10:54am PT
|
our civilization has been powerfully affected by the discovery that nature is strictly governed by impersonal laws
In general I agree with this statement. Very important that the sturm and drang of human history be thought of as occurring, or not, in exactly two contrasting ways: by divine design/intercession or not. This proposition is very similar to such central clarifications often asked as to the nature of God. The clarification begins with the question: If God exists is this God a moral God ? Does this God give a hoot or a holler if you decide to behave as Adolph Hitler or Mother Teresa?
The entire notion of an impersonal versus a personal universe can be disposed of in this way and yet securely maintain the belief in a God; for those of you so inclined.
This is post 13333
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 25, 2016 - 11:11am PT
|
Per physical laws, or the laws of physics...
Are we using "law" in the common usage ie - "something regarded as having binding force or effect." That "something" being said law?
Are we saying that, for example, that the laws of gravity are "created" by falling rocks?
In some poorly defined way, I think most people think of laws as forces that are either imposed from the outside the individual instance, or the form or organizational patters that arise in a dynamic system.
Would that not imply an inherent organizing principal above and beyond the physical stuff itself?
Using a strictly mechanical model of causation, where would gravity come from if it were outside of any thing? Would could that possibly mean from a physicalists POV?
|
|
chainsaw
Trad climber
CA
|
|
|
Dec 25, 2016 - 11:29am PT
|
Every Classiclal Mechanical, Physical and Biological "Law" ever conceived has been debunked, restructured, abridged, ammended, reinterpreted or outright proven false over time. These Laws simply dont exist. They are constructs of the mind. In our limited ability to grasp all that is our reality (universe) our minds produce sliderules called laws in order to best adapt. The universe is way too chaotic to be governed by law. Only observation and interpretation are possible as there are an infinite number of possibilities and nearly an infinite amount of matter in the universe. The idea that the universe obeys laws is a shortcut which attempts to bypass true science which is observation. The imposition of laws allows one to bypass observation and jump to a conclusion. While conveniently functional, even essential to our adaptation these laws may be, they really arent laws at all. They are a compilation derived from empirical observations. The idea of a "law" is that it cant be broken. But all these laws of science are broken with each new advancement of scientific knowlege. Therefore, they are not laws at all but merely assumptions that reflect our best, most current observations (sometimes, sometimes not!) The only Law that has never been disproven is the existence of a creator. Of course our belief or not in a creator has certainly been abridged, modified, deleted and disputed for millenia it cant be disproven, thus it is a law. The creation itself is the proof that it was created. Ironically this concept applies to all science: no law or fact can ever be proven, only disproven. If you do alot of science experiments according to proper scientific method, it is inappropriate to try proving anything. All that can really be done is to disprove as much as possible. The "truth" is what remains. I put truth in quotes because what remains is merely what cannot or has not yet been disproven. I am an anarchist by nature so this world view suits me fine. Kiss Chaos and Merry Christmas everyone!
|
|
chainsaw
Trad climber
CA
|
|
|
Dec 25, 2016 - 11:41am PT
|
Im guessing that someone will quote the axiom that 1+1=2 or that 1=1 to show a law that cannot be broken. But I say put two rabbits in a cage and you will see that 1+1=10 after a short time. Put one rabbit in a cage and dont feed it and you will see that 1=0. Laws are just signs, symbols and language. They might as well be hieroglyphics as their meaning is culturally based.
|
|
Ward Trotter
Trad climber
|
|
|
Dec 25, 2016 - 11:50am PT
|
Things that occur in nature are referred to as "Laws" when all the constituents and properties of a system tend to repeat their behavior in a way that can be predicted. A ball is dropped from the hand and then falls to earth. Every time a ball is dropped it falls to earth. The human mind, seeking to find reasons why this is so, generates a category called a law to predict this thing happening in the same manner repeatedly.
Simple observations are not inherent contradictions to things repeating themselves. If simple observation leads to repetition in this way then the human mind is constrained to perform the miraculous by magically predicting what will occur when a ball is dropped somewhere in the close vicinity of earth.
|
|
chainsaw
Trad climber
CA
|
|
|
Dec 25, 2016 - 12:11pm PT
|
Good answer Trotter. I guess Im being nitpicky. What if the ball is dropped inside the CERN supercollider?
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Dec 25, 2016 - 12:44pm PT
|
Simple observations are not inherent contradictions to things repeating themselves. If simple observation leads to repetition in this way then the human mind is constrained to perform the miraculous by magically predicting what will occur when a ball is dropped somewhere in the close vicinity of earth.
If you take a force such as gravity which can be measured and precisely estimated through indirect observation of mass and distance based on an understanding and anticipation regarding certainty of outcome, again, based on proven formulas within a broad set of entirely different circumstances, how can this not be thought of as a "law?" And why can't we at least entertain the notion that that law stands apart from the physical material to which it dictates or which produces it? That order must have been existent as a structure at the very beginning of of what is or the universe would be simply chaos.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Dec 25, 2016 - 01:17pm PT
|
Using a strictly mechanical model of causation, where would gravity come from if it were outside of any thing?
not sure what you are asking here, but I'm sure we've been over this before... for instance, one could take the statement:
"at every space-time point in an arbitrary gravitational field it is possible to choose a 'locally inertial coordinate system' such that, within a sufficiently small region of the point in question, the laws of nature take the same form as in unaccelerated Cartesian coordinate systems in the absence of gravitation"*
the "thing" we are talking about here is not masses and their interactions, but about the structure of space-time... and not only that, gravity is related to "no gravity"
* Steven Weinberg, Gravitation and Cosmology, 1972, page 68
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!