Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
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
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 25, 2016 - 01:21pm 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.
--
And if we can predict that the ball will repeatedly fall straight down, or the climber as it were, why is that so? What keeps the climber from flying sideways. If we say the physical properties that create gravity, drive the climber straight down, what keeps those physical properties constant in the sense of producing the same outcome when Ward takes a ripper, say, off Sacherer Cracker?
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Dec 25, 2016 - 01:38pm PT
|
draw the free-body diagram with all the external forces and see where the resultant force points...
it's down...
not sideways.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 25, 2016 - 01:59pm PT
|
But why do the forces impose themselves uniformally in this and other instances? Are you saying the mass itself creates the force? Or put differently, we can predict the movement of objects. Owing no what?
If it turns out there is no graviton, what does "the force of gravity" actually mean other then a derivative term describing attraction, which begs the question, why should objects attract? If we say, because of the force of gravity, we are busting out the forked tongue, are we not?
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
|
Dec 25, 2016 - 05:03pm PT
|
Something to do with curvature of space-time, perhaps?
Or Hilbert spaces in a pinch? You gravitated to them earlier.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Dec 25, 2016 - 05:42pm PT
|
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"
If the laws of physics are manifestations of "space time structure" they are manifestations of a limited "space time structure" that by virtue of their limitation produce order.
Such a structure is as intangible as time itself, except through its manifestations, and yet it is, in fact, the order of the universe.
As well the structure of space and time reveals itself through the wholly immaterial device of mathematics. What is that mathematical order lying behind the aggregate chaos of nature?
What is the nature of formulas that reveal distance and area and weight, mathematical relationships that exist throughout the universe and will exist as relationships as long as the universe exists.
Isn't that space time structure the system of regulations that stands apart from the material but by which all material must abide? And isn't that structure, in a broad sense, a kind of final term?
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
Dec 25, 2016 - 05:50pm PT
|
the structure of space and time reveals itself through the wholly immaterial device of mathematics
It could be the other way 'round.
Physics, metaphysics, and pataphysics.
|
|
Ward Trotter
Trad climber
|
|
|
Dec 25, 2016 - 06:12pm PT
|
when Ward takes a ripper, say, off Sacherer Cracker?
On 12/20 Ward took a short whipper off a route called " In Search of Klingons" over in the Hall of Horrors at JT (near The Exorcist). Not hard, actually a warm-up lead, but I just plain rushed a slightly awkward insecure bear-hug type move. You could hear the cam dig in deeply and crunch some loose grains.
In a hurry. I'll get back to ya'll on this interesting subject in due course
Merry Christmas
Happy Holidays
WT
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Dec 25, 2016 - 07:15pm PT
|
Isn't that space time structure the system of regulations that stands apart from the material but by which all material must abide?
it is probably dynamical... which is to say, a product of the physics itself... and most likely of the allowed symmetries.
the "it" in that sentence refers to both space-time and to mathematics...
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Dec 25, 2016 - 08:35pm PT
|
I have nothing of value to add to this conversation, so I’ll respond to Sycorax on an immaterial issue.
sycorax: You use conceit incorrectly here.
I don’t think you saw the opposites and just how spiritual the issue we were talking about.
S'ok.
I apologize for my bruskness, but I have little respect for definitions. Conversations ultimately revolve around what they are about. I believe we *grasp meanings,* not read words. Definitions reek of literalism to me.
I was an English major. (I hope one doesn’t need to be someone with a degree to talk here.)
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
|
Dec 25, 2016 - 09:17pm PT
|
Mathematics derived partly from observations of physical phenomena and partly from the imagination. From the concrete to the abstract is the arrow of progress . . . with some exceptions.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 26, 2016 - 03:08am PT
|
it is probably dynamical... which is to say, a product of the physics itself
Is this a case of the map creating the territory, whereby the territory is derived from the physics?
What about David Bohm and his implicate order? Remember spending a week with Bohm. He was getting old and a little daffy and Carl Pribrim (a terribly arrogant know it all from Stanford) going crazy because Bohm couldn't make his points clear to Pribrim's satisfaction. Too bad I didn't get to hear Bohm a few years before. He was a formidable presence, though when he went off on Kristamurdi he got a little rare.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Dec 26, 2016 - 07:48am PT
|
Jgill: From the concrete to the abstract is the arrow of progress . . . with some exceptions.
I think it goes in both directions, John. We teach from the abstract in most instances after the first few years of education, and then we expect that students will properly apply generalizations to specific situations.
Both transformations present opportunities for problems, IME. As Largo points out, does the map create the territory (define what we should select and look for perceptually), or is the territory truly captured by a map? In both instances, we should say “no,” I think. For me, all this revolves around the lack of direct experience we have about most things (i.e., beliefs).
In school, we train (present, illustrate, apply, and test) students to see partialities in the world in certain ways (theoretically). We drive creativity and imagination out of them through inculcation of values, beliefs, and norms of our institutions and we reinforce “proper understanding” through socialization practices (typifications, habituations, definitions, reinforcements, punishments, rewards, etc.). It’s a wonder that people can see, think, and feel for themselves at all.
It presents a conundrum. We want people to share views, values, beliefs, etc. so that we can have orderly (working, productive, progressive) societies. Indeed, it seems to have worked fairly well in more primitive societies and tribes where some form of monotheism or monolithic social structure existed. Today, however, many places in the world are or are becoming multicultural and pluralistic. In those kinds of cultures, we honor the view that people should be improving themselves in measurable ways, in becoming more individualistic, and becoming their own people irrespective of broad cultural guidances. So, today it seems we present fragmented societies and groups. Unfortunately, that seems to have brought alienation, anomie, lack of purpose, fragmented identities, meaninglessness, depression, and unclear contexts to us. Very few things are clear to us.
When it comes to some of the technical issues (disciplinary, institutions), what do we want from folks? Do we really want them to observe and think for themselves, or do we want them to fall in-line with consensus?
I’d say that if you want folks to observe and think for themselves, it will drive them inward, into their interiorities, into themselves. If you want them to fall-in line with consensus, it would seem to encourage them to look externally.
BTW, as an aside, I would also like to question what constitutes “progress.” What would be the metric for progress? Resource efficiency? Achievement? Happiness? Less pain and suffering in the world? More social connections among people? Order? More degrees of freedom?
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
Dec 26, 2016 - 08:35am PT
|
Largo asks:
Is this a case of the map creating the territory, whereby the territory is derived from the physics?
And MikeL asks:
As Largo points out, does the map create the territory (define what we should select and look for perceptually), or is the territory truly captured by a map? In both instances, we should say “no,” I think. For me, all this revolves around the lack of direct experience we have about most things
Our sense organs define and select what we can look for perceptually.
Much of our learning and categorization of the things in our world is done before we understand what the grown-ups are making noises and scribbles about.
If you wonder how map and territory interact, you could look at the way machines now learn.
http://phys.org/news/2016-12-video.html
Disclaimer: Learning is not guaranteed to result in truth. An earlier machine-learning-objects system was named the Probably Approximately Correct model of learnability.
http://experts.illinois.edu/en/publications/learning-to-recognize-objects
For the rest of the disclaimer covering the difference between map and territory, read Brutus:
http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.php?topic_id=880640&msg=881642#msg881642
|
|
i-b-goB
Social climber
Wise Acres
|
|
|
Dec 26, 2016 - 12:15pm PT
|
More to the Christmas Story
And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men.
Luke 2:52
When reading the Christmas story in Luke 2, we usually stop halfway through the story, with Jesus still in the manger. But the last half of the chapter talks about what happened when Jesus was eight days old (verse 21); forty days old (verses 22-38); during His childhood (verses 39-40); when He was twelve years old (verses 41-50); and as a teenager and young adult (verses 51-52). That last verse—Luke 2:52—is our goal for our children—that they will mature as He did: mentally (in wisdom), physically (in stature), spiritually (in favor with God), and socially (and men).
As a parent, take time to think and pray through difficult situations concerning your child. Ask God to enable your child to grow up like Christ—in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!