Total Posts:57|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The origin of physical law

Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,571
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2016 3:33:40 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
I'm interested in people's views on what led to the laws of physics existing. The mathematical laws we have are of course approximations, GR for example leads to singularities under certain circumstances so is considered incomplete but clearly there are laws.

So could science ever possibly explain why we observe these laws?

If science did explain these laws would that explanation itself also be a law that requires it's own explanation?

Are these questions outside the scope of scientific exploration?

Harry.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,580
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2016 3:43:37 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/17/2016 3:33:40 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
I'm interested in people's views on what led to the laws of physics existing. The mathematical laws we have are of course approximations,

LOL. Approximations? Wtf is that supposed to mean?

GR for example leads to singularities under certain circumstances so is considered incomplete but clearly there are laws.

You don't have a clue what GR says.

So could science ever possibly explain why we observe these laws?

No, science does not answer the question "Why".

If science did explain these laws would that explanation itself also be a law that requires it's own explanation?

LOL.

Are these questions outside the scope of scientific exploration?

They are certainly outside the scope of your understanding.

Harry.

Hairy.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,571
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2016 4:16:25 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/17/2016 3:43:37 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/17/2016 3:33:40 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
I'm interested in people's views on what led to the laws of physics existing. The mathematical laws we have are of course approximations,

LOL. Approximations? Wtf is that supposed to mean?

GR for example leads to singularities under certain circumstances so is considered incomplete but clearly there are laws.

You don't have a clue what GR says.

So could science ever possibly explain why we observe these laws?

No, science does not answer the question "Why".

If science did explain these laws would that explanation itself also be a law that requires it's own explanation?

LOL.

Are these questions outside the scope of scientific exploration?

They are certainly outside the scope of your understanding.

Harry.

Hairy.

I'm ignoring any posts you submit in this thread from here on Dummel, all you have to offer are ad hominem attacks which requires no intelligence, perhaps this explains your habit.

Harry.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,580
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2016 4:33:10 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/17/2016 4:16:25 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 1/17/2016 3:43:37 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/17/2016 3:33:40 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
I'm interested in people's views on what led to the laws of physics existing. The mathematical laws we have are of course approximations,

LOL. Approximations? Wtf is that supposed to mean?

GR for example leads to singularities under certain circumstances so is considered incomplete but clearly there are laws.

You don't have a clue what GR says.

So could science ever possibly explain why we observe these laws?

No, science does not answer the question "Why".

If science did explain these laws would that explanation itself also be a law that requires it's own explanation?

LOL.

Are these questions outside the scope of scientific exploration?

They are certainly outside the scope of your understanding.

Harry.

Hairy.

I'm ignoring any posts you submit in this thread from here on Dummel, all you have to offer are ad hominem attacks which requires no intelligence, perhaps this explains your habit.

You are free to do so, but that doesn't stop anyone from pointing out your ignorance and incredulity.

Harry.

Fairy.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
ssadi
Posts: 324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2016 6:58:25 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/17/2016 3:33:40 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
I'm interested in people's views on what led to the laws of physics existing.

I don't think we have a SCIENTIFIC explanation for that yet (at least I don't know one).

The mathematical laws we have are of course approximations, GR for example leads to singularities under certain circumstances so is considered incomplete but clearly there are laws.

Mathematical laws are not approximations, except approximation laws in mathematics.

So could science ever possibly explain why we observe these laws?

It wouldn't. Science doesn't deal with question "Why?".

If science did explain these laws would that explanation itself also be a law that requires it's own explanation?

Explanation of a known law of physics, e.g., 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, is not another law that requires another law to explain it. It is just an explanation.

Are these questions outside the scope of scientific exploration?

Yes, they are.

Harry.

Sadi.
Or were they created without anything being before them (or out of something different than the basic material of all creation, so that they know things others do not), or are they the creators (of themselves, so that they can maintain themselves and are free in their acts)? Or did they create the heavens and the earth (so that their sovereignty belongs to them)? No indeed. Rather, they have no certain knowledge (about creation, humankind, and the basic facts concerning them).

Quran, 52:35-36
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2016 7:29:04 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/17/2016 3:33:40 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
I'm interested in people's views on what led to the laws of physics existing. The mathematical laws we have are of course approximations, GR for example leads to singularities under certain circumstances so is considered incomplete but clearly there are laws.

The Laws of physics are human descriptors of observations. Same with mathematical Laws. Because these "laws" are descriptive they could be wrong.

But let me assume you meant eh prescriptive underlining regulators of interactions in reality. Then it follows that these "laws" emerge from the properties of spacetime and energy themselves. Like why does a ball roll? because it is round. The observed action of it rolling emerges from the property of it being round. That as a round edge comes into contact with the ground kinetic energy is preserved in the ball.


So could science ever possibly explain why we observe these laws?

I don't think why we observe the laws is a question science is even trying to answer. You may find some of this type of questioning in theoretical papers about a holographic universe or a simulated universe. But in general I think the Scientific community leaves this question in the realm of metaphysics.

If science did explain these laws would that explanation itself also be a law that requires it's own explanation?

I think with a Grand theory of Everything (Guts Toes) or with the formulation of "laws" that unite all forces, then Science is trying to describe the most underlining of properties that govern all interactions.

But It's important to point out that "Laws" in Science only describe a consistent observation. The Laws do not dictate why or what is the cause of that observation. "An object at rest tends to stay at rest.." "principle of mass conservation states that for any system closed to all transfers of matter and energy, the mass of the system must remain constant over time, as system mass cannot change quantity if it is not added or removed". Again there is no mention to "Why" mass can not be destroyed.


Are these questions outside the scope of scientific exploration?

I think Science is a method of investigation that attempts to explain things we observe. Science also values explanations that are consistent internally and externally. It doesn't mean scientific explanations are always correct. They certainly have changed in just 100 years.

Eventually we lack the ability to really "observe" what is happening. We already see this in the realm of quantum mechanics and uncertainty principle. So the explanation for our observations stem from forces and interactions we can not observe. An underlining universal law of all forces and interactions is impossible for Science to devise on it's own.

How would Science as a system to explain observations be able to formulate a definitive explanation of things unseeable? Godel incompleteness theorem can be extrapolated to this case as well. "For any formal effectively generated theory T including basic arithmetical truths and also certain truths about formal provability, if T includes a statement of its own consistency then T is inconsistent."


Harry.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2016 9:05:31 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/17/2016 3:33:40 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
I'm interested in people's views on what led to the laws of physics existing. The mathematical laws we have are of course approximations, GR for example leads to singularities under certain circumstances so is considered incomplete but clearly there are laws.

So could science ever possibly explain why we observe these laws?

If science did explain these laws would that explanation itself also be a law that requires it's own explanation?

Are these questions outside the scope of scientific exploration?

Harry.

Science will probably never explain why the laws are there; it's a notion of infinite regress. Even if we found a law that described how everything worked, it would explain why everything is the way it is, but would not explain why that law is there.
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,571
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2016 12:40:35 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/17/2016 6:58:25 PM, ssadi wrote:
At 1/17/2016 3:33:40 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
I'm interested in people's views on what led to the laws of physics existing.

I don't think we have a SCIENTIFIC explanation for that yet (at least I don't know one).

The mathematical laws we have are of course approximations, GR for example leads to singularities under certain circumstances so is considered incomplete but clearly there are laws.

Mathematical laws are not approximations, except approximation laws in mathematics.

What I', referring to there might better be put as "incomplete" rather than "approximate", however a theory in physics is also called a model and the majority of these models are approximations - a good example is Newtons inverse square law of gravitation.


So could science ever possibly explain why we observe these laws?

It wouldn't. Science doesn't deal with question "Why?".

So the science book my son had when he was "Why is the sky blue"? is a figment of my imagination? Of course science strives to find out "why" what are you talking about? Why do we see rainbows, why does oil float on water? why does the moon not fall to the earth?

If science did explain these laws would that explanation itself also be a law that requires it's own explanation?

Explanation of a known law of physics, e.g., 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, is not another law that requires another law to explain it. It is just an explanation.

You misunderstood then - IF we had an explanation for WHY there's a second law of thermodynamics THEN that explanation would itself need to be explained - do you disagree with that?


Are these questions outside the scope of scientific exploration?

Yes, they are.

How do you know?


Harry.

Sadi.
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,571
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2016 12:49:58 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/17/2016 7:29:04 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/17/2016 3:33:40 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
I'm interested in people's views on what led to the laws of physics existing. The mathematical laws we have are of course approximations, GR for example leads to singularities under certain circumstances so is considered incomplete but clearly there are laws.

The Laws of physics are human descriptors of observations. Same with mathematical Laws. Because these "laws" are descriptive they could be wrong.

Exactly this is what I meant by approximate.

But let me assume you meant eh prescriptive underlining regulators of interactions in reality. Then it follows that these "laws" emerge from the properties of spacetime and energy themselves. Like why does a ball roll? because it is round. The observed action of it rolling emerges from the property of it being round. That as a round edge comes into contact with the ground kinetic energy is preserved in the ball.

Well consider mach's principle - eloquently phrased by Einstein:

"You are standing in a field looking at the stars. Your arms are resting freely at your side, and you see that the distant stars are not moving. Now start spinning. The stars are whirling around you and your arms are pulled away from your body. Why should your arms be pulled away when the stars are whirling? Why should they be dangling freely when the stars don't move?"

This is a law easily verified - what is it's origin? did some process give rise to this law or are these laws just "there"?


So could science ever possibly explain why we observe these laws?

I don't think why we observe the laws is a question science is even trying to answer. You may find some of this type of questioning in theoretical papers about a holographic universe or a simulated universe. But in general I think the Scientific community leaves this question in the realm of metaphysics.

I agree - its beyond the scope of science.


If science did explain these laws would that explanation itself also be a law that requires it's own explanation?

I think with a Grand theory of Everything (Guts Toes) or with the formulation of "laws" that unite all forces, then Science is trying to describe the most underlining of properties that govern all interactions.


But It's important to point out that "Laws" in Science only describe a consistent observation. The Laws do not dictate why or what is the cause of that observation. "An object at rest tends to stay at rest.." "principle of mass conservation states that for any system closed to all transfers of matter and energy, the mass of the system must remain constant over time, as system mass cannot change quantity if it is not added or removed". Again there is no mention to "Why" mass can not be destroyed.


But these laws do have an objective existence don't they? Therefore it is only natural to see some explanation for the presence of these laws.


Are these questions outside the scope of scientific exploration?

I think Science is a method of investigation that attempts to explain things we observe. Science also values explanations that are consistent internally and externally. It doesn't mean scientific explanations are always correct. They certainly have changed in just 100 years.

Eventually we lack the ability to really "observe" what is happening. We already see this in the realm of quantum mechanics and uncertainty principle. So the explanation for our observations stem from forces and interactions we can not observe. An underlining universal law of all forces and interactions is impossible for Science to devise on it's own.

How would Science as a system to explain observations be able to formulate a definitive explanation of things unseeable? Godel incompleteness theorem can be extrapolated to this case as well. "For any formal effectively generated theory T including basic arithmetical truths and also certain truths about formal provability, if T includes a statement of its own consistency then T is inconsistent."

Godel's theorem is definitely relevant here - I'm glad you mentioned it. It tells us that a theory of everything would itself be incomplete no matter what theoretical model we devise to describe the physics of the universe there will always be questions about that universe that the model cannot answer.

In other words it is impossible to construct a complete scientific explanation for the origin of the universe.


Harry.
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,571
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2016 12:50:36 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/17/2016 9:05:31 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 1/17/2016 3:33:40 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
I'm interested in people's views on what led to the laws of physics existing. The mathematical laws we have are of course approximations, GR for example leads to singularities under certain circumstances so is considered incomplete but clearly there are laws.

So could science ever possibly explain why we observe these laws?

If science did explain these laws would that explanation itself also be a law that requires it's own explanation?

Are these questions outside the scope of scientific exploration?

Harry.

Science will probably never explain why the laws are there; it's a notion of infinite regress. Even if we found a law that described how everything worked, it would explain why everything is the way it is, but would not explain why that law is there.

I agree with your assessment.

Harry.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2016 2:15:30 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/18/2016 12:49:58 AM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 1/17/2016 7:29:04 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/17/2016 3:33:40 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
I'm interested in people's views on what led to the laws of physics existing. The mathematical laws we have are of course approximations, GR for example leads to singularities under certain circumstances so is considered incomplete but clearly there are laws.

The Laws of physics are human descriptors of observations. Same with mathematical Laws. Because these "laws" are descriptive they could be wrong.

Exactly this is what I meant by approximate.

But let me assume you meant eh prescriptive underlining regulators of interactions in reality. Then it follows that these "laws" emerge from the properties of spacetime and energy themselves. Like why does a ball roll? because it is round. The observed action of it rolling emerges from the property of it being round. That as a round edge comes into contact with the ground kinetic energy is preserved in the ball.

Well consider mach's principle - eloquently phrased by Einstein:

"You are standing in a field looking at the stars. Your arms are resting freely at your side, and you see that the distant stars are not moving. Now start spinning. The stars are whirling around you and your arms are pulled away from your body. Why should your arms be pulled away when the stars are whirling? Why should they be dangling freely when the stars don't move?"

This is a law easily verified - what is it's origin? did some process give rise to this law or are these laws just "there"?

The process that gives rise to the stating of the law is the same as the process that is being described.



So could science ever possibly explain why we observe these laws?

I don't think why we observe the laws is a question science is even trying to answer. You may find some of this type of questioning in theoretical papers about a holographic universe or a simulated universe. But in general I think the Scientific community leaves this question in the realm of metaphysics.

I agree - its beyond the scope of science.


If science did explain these laws would that explanation itself also be a law that requires it's own explanation?

I think with a Grand theory of Everything (Guts Toes) or with the formulation of "laws" that unite all forces, then Science is trying to describe the most underlining of properties that govern all interactions.


But It's important to point out that "Laws" in Science only describe a consistent observation. The Laws do not dictate why or what is the cause of that observation. "An object at rest tends to stay at rest.." "principle of mass conservation states that for any system closed to all transfers of matter and energy, the mass of the system must remain constant over time, as system mass cannot change quantity if it is not added or removed". Again there is no mention to "Why" mass can not be destroyed.


But these laws do have an objective existence don't they? Therefore it is only natural to see some explanation for the presence of these laws.

Objective as in agreed upon by observers in the same frame of reference? Probably. But they don't have any existence. No more than "blue" has an existence. Blue is a description of something. It may not even be the same way 2 different people describe the same object.

Even if the language of terms being used to describe the law. 2 Different mathematicians can describe the same coordinate in different terms. Some descriptions more flexible, and some more useful than others.



Are these questions outside the scope of scientific exploration?

I think Science is a method of investigation that attempts to explain things we observe. Science also values explanations that are consistent internally and externally. It doesn't mean scientific explanations are always correct. They certainly have changed in just 100 years.

Eventually we lack the ability to really "observe" what is happening. We already see this in the realm of quantum mechanics and uncertainty principle. So the explanation for our observations stem from forces and interactions we can not observe. An underlining universal law of all forces and interactions is impossible for Science to devise on it's own.

How would Science as a system to explain observations be able to formulate a definitive explanation of things unseeable? Godel incompleteness theorem can be extrapolated to this case as well. "For any formal effectively generated theory T including basic arithmetical truths and also certain truths about formal provability, if T includes a statement of its own consistency then T is inconsistent."

Godel's theorem is definitely relevant here - I'm glad you mentioned it. It tells us that a theory of everything would itself be incomplete no matter what theoretical model we devise to describe the physics of the universe there will always be questions about that universe that the model cannot answer.

In other words it is impossible to construct a complete scientific explanation for the origin of the universe.

Exactly what I what my point was.



Harry.
ssadi
Posts: 324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2016 6:32:36 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/18/2016 12:40:35 AM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 1/17/2016 6:58:25 PM, ssadi wrote:
At 1/17/2016 3:33:40 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
I'm interested in people's views on what led to the laws of physics existing.

I don't think we have a SCIENTIFIC explanation for that yet (at least I don't know one).

The mathematical laws we have are of course approximations, GR for example leads to singularities under certain circumstances so is considered incomplete but clearly there are laws.

Mathematical laws are not approximations, except approximation laws in mathematics.

What I', referring to there might better be put as "incomplete" rather than "approximate", however a theory in physics is also called a model and the majority of these models are approximations - a good example is Newtons inverse square law of gravitation.

There are approximation laws/theorems in mathematics. They are used in simplifying more complex mathematical equations. To give an example;

sinA ~ tanA ~ A for very small A (A ~ 0)

This is an approximation in mathematics!

What is your evidence that the inverse square law of gravitation is an approximation?


So could science ever possibly explain why we observe these laws?

It wouldn't. Science doesn't deal with question "Why?".

So the science book my son had when he was "Why is the sky blue"? is a figment of my imagination? Of course science strives to find out "why" what are you talking about? Why do we see rainbows, why does oil float on water? why does the moon not fall to the earth?

Why? ~ What is the purpose? (the "Why" I am talking about)

How? ~ What is the physical process?

Science only deals with the question "How?" shortly defined above. So, considering these definitions, the more proper scientific question would be "How do we see the sky blue?". Because that is to what the book gives answer.


If science did explain these laws would that explanation itself also be a law that requires it's own explanation?

Explanation of a known law of physics, e.g., 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, is not another law that requires another law to explain it. It is just an explanation.

You misunderstood then - IF we had an explanation for WHY there's a second law of thermodynamics THEN that explanation would itself need to be explained - do you disagree with that?

As I explained above, an explanation is not a law.. it is just an explanation. An explanation doesn"t require another explanation.. but one can elaborate or clarify what the explanation is.


Are these questions outside the scope of scientific exploration?

Yes, they are.

How do you know?

I am a physicist.


Harry.

Sadi.
Or were they created without anything being before them (or out of something different than the basic material of all creation, so that they know things others do not), or are they the creators (of themselves, so that they can maintain themselves and are free in their acts)? Or did they create the heavens and the earth (so that their sovereignty belongs to them)? No indeed. Rather, they have no certain knowledge (about creation, humankind, and the basic facts concerning them).

Quran, 52:35-36
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,571
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2016 2:11:18 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/18/2016 2:15:30 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/18/2016 12:49:58 AM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 1/17/2016 7:29:04 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/17/2016 3:33:40 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
I'm interested in people's views on what led to the laws of physics existing. The mathematical laws we have are of course approximations, GR for example leads to singularities under certain circumstances so is considered incomplete but clearly there are laws.

The Laws of physics are human descriptors of observations. Same with mathematical Laws. Because these "laws" are descriptive they could be wrong.

Exactly this is what I meant by approximate.

But let me assume you meant eh prescriptive underlining regulators of interactions in reality. Then it follows that these "laws" emerge from the properties of spacetime and energy themselves. Like why does a ball roll? because it is round. The observed action of it rolling emerges from the property of it being round. That as a round edge comes into contact with the ground kinetic energy is preserved in the ball.

Well consider mach's principle - eloquently phrased by Einstein:

"You are standing in a field looking at the stars. Your arms are resting freely at your side, and you see that the distant stars are not moving. Now start spinning. The stars are whirling around you and your arms are pulled away from your body. Why should your arms be pulled away when the stars are whirling? Why should they be dangling freely when the stars don't move?"

This is a law easily verified - what is it's origin? did some process give rise to this law or are these laws just "there"?

The process that gives rise to the stating of the law is the same as the process that is being described.



So could science ever possibly explain why we observe these laws?

I don't think why we observe the laws is a question science is even trying to answer. You may find some of this type of questioning in theoretical papers about a holographic universe or a simulated universe. But in general I think the Scientific community leaves this question in the realm of metaphysics.

I agree - its beyond the scope of science.


If science did explain these laws would that explanation itself also be a law that requires it's own explanation?

I think with a Grand theory of Everything (Guts Toes) or with the formulation of "laws" that unite all forces, then Science is trying to describe the most underlining of properties that govern all interactions.


But It's important to point out that "Laws" in Science only describe a consistent observation. The Laws do not dictate why or what is the cause of that observation. "An object at rest tends to stay at rest.." "principle of mass conservation states that for any system closed to all transfers of matter and energy, the mass of the system must remain constant over time, as system mass cannot change quantity if it is not added or removed". Again there is no mention to "Why" mass can not be destroyed.


But these laws do have an objective existence don't they? Therefore it is only natural to see some explanation for the presence of these laws.

Objective as in agreed upon by observers in the same frame of reference? Probably. But they don't have any existence. No more than "blue" has an existence. Blue is a description of something. It may not even be the same way 2 different people describe the same object.

Even if the language of terms being used to describe the law. 2 Different mathematicians can describe the same coordinate in different terms. Some descriptions more flexible, and some more useful than others.

Well the goal of GR was to derive mathematical laws that were invariant for all frames of reference and all coordinate systems, it acheived that goal. The gravitational field equations could therefore be described as absolute, all observers see exactly the same law.


Are these questions outside the scope of scientific exploration?

I think Science is a method of investigation that attempts to explain things we observe. Science also values explanations that are consistent internally and externally. It doesn't mean scientific explanations are always correct. They certainly have changed in just 100 years.

Eventually we lack the ability to really "observe" what is happening. We already see this in the realm of quantum mechanics and uncertainty principle. So the explanation for our observations stem from forces and interactions we can not observe. An underlining universal law of all forces and interactions is impossible for Science to devise on it's own.

How would Science as a system to explain observations be able to formulate a definitive explanation of things unseeable? Godel incompleteness theorem can be extrapolated to this case as well. "For any formal effectively generated theory T including basic arithmetical truths and also certain truths about formal provability, if T includes a statement of its own consistency then T is inconsistent."

Godel's theorem is definitely relevant here - I'm glad you mentioned it. It tells us that a theory of everything would itself be incomplete no matter what theoretical model we devise to describe the physics of the universe there will always be questions about that universe that the model cannot answer.

In other words it is impossible to construct a complete scientific explanation for the origin of the universe.

Exactly what I what my point was.



Harry.
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,571
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2016 2:15:06 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/18/2016 6:32:36 AM, ssadi wrote:
At 1/18/2016 12:40:35 AM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 1/17/2016 6:58:25 PM, ssadi wrote:
At 1/17/2016 3:33:40 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
I'm interested in people's views on what led to the laws of physics existing.

I don't think we have a SCIENTIFIC explanation for that yet (at least I don't know one).

The mathematical laws we have are of course approximations, GR for example leads to singularities under certain circumstances so is considered incomplete but clearly there are laws.

Mathematical laws are not approximations, except approximation laws in mathematics.

What I', referring to there might better be put as "incomplete" rather than "approximate", however a theory in physics is also called a model and the majority of these models are approximations - a good example is Newtons inverse square law of gravitation.

There are approximation laws/theorems in mathematics. They are used in simplifying more complex mathematical equations. To give an example;

sinA ~ tanA ~ A for very small A (A ~ 0)

This is an approximation in mathematics!

What is your evidence that the inverse square law of gravitation is an approximation?

This is well known. It doesnt account for the precession of the perihelion of mercury. GR leads to a slight change to the inverse square law that fits with observation.


So could science ever possibly explain why we observe these laws?

It wouldn't. Science doesn't deal with question "Why?".

So the science book my son had when he was "Why is the sky blue"? is a figment of my imagination? Of course science strives to find out "why" what are you talking about? Why do we see rainbows, why does oil float on water? why does the moon not fall to the earth?

Why? ~ What is the purpose? (the "Why" I am talking about)

How? ~ What is the physical process?

Science only deals with the question "How?" shortly defined above. So, considering these definitions, the more proper scientific question would be "How do we see the sky blue?". Because that is to what the book gives answer.


If science did explain these laws would that explanation itself also be a law that requires it's own explanation?

Explanation of a known law of physics, e.g., 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, is not another law that requires another law to explain it. It is just an explanation.

You misunderstood then - IF we had an explanation for WHY there's a second law of thermodynamics THEN that explanation would itself need to be explained - do you disagree with that?

As I explained above, an explanation is not a law.. it is just an explanation. An explanation doesn"t require another explanation.. but one can elaborate or clarify what the explanation is.


Are these questions outside the scope of scientific exploration?

Yes, they are.

How do you know?

I am a physicist.


Harry.

Sadi.
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,571
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2016 2:18:41 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/18/2016 6:32:36 AM, ssadi wrote:
At 1/18/2016 12:40:35 AM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 1/17/2016 6:58:25 PM, ssadi wrote:
At 1/17/2016 3:33:40 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
I'm interested in people's views on what led to the laws of physics existing.

I don't think we have a SCIENTIFIC explanation for that yet (at least I don't know one).

The mathematical laws we have are of course approximations, GR for example leads to singularities under certain circumstances so is considered incomplete but clearly there are laws.

Mathematical laws are not approximations, except approximation laws in mathematics.

What I', referring to there might better be put as "incomplete" rather than "approximate", however a theory in physics is also called a model and the majority of these models are approximations - a good example is Newtons inverse square law of gravitation.

There are approximation laws/theorems in mathematics. They are used in simplifying more complex mathematical equations. To give an example;

sinA ~ tanA ~ A for very small A (A ~ 0)

This is an approximation in mathematics!

What is your evidence that the inverse square law of gravitation is an approximation?


So could science ever possibly explain why we observe these laws?

It wouldn't. Science doesn't deal with question "Why?".

So the science book my son had when he was "Why is the sky blue"? is a figment of my imagination? Of course science strives to find out "why" what are you talking about? Why do we see rainbows, why does oil float on water? why does the moon not fall to the earth?

Why? ~ What is the purpose? (the "Why" I am talking about)

How? ~ What is the physical process?

Science only deals with the question "How?" shortly defined above. So, considering these definitions, the more proper scientific question would be "How do we see the sky blue?". Because that is to what the book gives answer.


If science did explain these laws would that explanation itself also be a law that requires it's own explanation?

Explanation of a known law of physics, e.g., 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, is not another law that requires another law to explain it. It is just an explanation.

You misunderstood then - IF we had an explanation for WHY there's a second law of thermodynamics THEN that explanation would itself need to be explained - do you disagree with that?

As I explained above, an explanation is not a law.. it is just an explanation. An explanation doesn"t require another explanation.. but one can elaborate or clarify what the explanation is.


Are these questions outside the scope of scientific exploration?

Yes, they are.

How do you know?

I am a physicist.

That didn't understand that our theoretical models are approximation? that didn't know the weakness in Newton's gravitational law?


Harry.

Sadi.
Evidence
Posts: 843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2016 3:38:55 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/17/2016 3:43:37 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/17/2016 3:33:40 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
I'm interested in people's views on what led to the laws of physics existing. The mathematical laws we have are of course approximations,

LOL. Approximations? Wtf is that supposed to mean?

Approximation: a value or quantity that is nearly but not exactly correct.

English is my third language, so that's OK DR, there is no shame in not understanding a long word like that. There is no shame in admitting it like you just did out in the open.
Here is a tip: look it up, it's why we have dictionaries.

GR for example leads to singularities under certain circumstances so is considered incomplete but clearly there are laws.

You don't have a clue what GR says.

So could science ever possibly explain why we observe these laws?

No, science does not answer the question "Why". :

Or who, or where from, but BB-Evolution does. Matter of FACT, the entire BB-Evolution stories were invented for the purpose of "who?", .. to identify, then eliminate this "Who" at all costs with something as dumb as a cause, like "because".

"If you say there is no Creator, no I.D. in creation, then who or what created the universe and everything in it?"
BB-Evolutionists: "No one"
"So how did it come about?"
BB-Evolutionists: "Because!"

Like Dirty Harry asks: "Where did laws come from?" Even though it is obvious for anyone with even 2 years of elementary schooling (an adult 2-nd grader) that if we have laws, someone had to
1. define them and
2. put them in order, but for BB-Evolutionist the whole purpose is to destroy those laws and create new ones that resembles chaos, like saying: "laws just mutated into place accidently, .. or chance, yea, chance, .. you keep rolling those dice with no numbers on them till you have order, .. it's possible right? Sure it is, and this can be done by the probability theory, because this theory is so nonsensical, twisted and beyond reason like (special relativistic effects lol) that even simple words like "approximation" doesn't make any sense. Anything outside of "just because" and "it happened OK!" to them makes no sense?
There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil
to one who is striking at the root. - Henry David Thoreau
Evidence
Posts: 843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2016 4:04:32 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/17/2016 7:29:04 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/17/2016 3:33:40 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
I'm interested in people's views on what led to the laws of physics existing. The mathematical laws we have are of course approximations, GR for example leads to singularities under certain circumstances so is considered incomplete but clearly there are laws.
The Laws of physics are human descriptors of observations. Same with mathematical Laws. Because these "laws" are descriptive they could be wrong.

But let me assume you meant eh prescriptive underlining regulators of interactions in reality. Then it follows that these "laws" emerge from the properties of spacetime and energy themselves.

Like why does a ball roll? because it is round. The observed action of it rolling emerges from the property of it being round. That as a round edge comes into contact with the ground kinetic energy is preserved in the ball.


?? .. and a dice rolls because .. ?

Here is a question, please explain this with the same logic you explained why we have laws?
Time dilation

scenario: a ship leaving earth, speeds up to 0.3 C and cruses.

Q. Why does the effects of time-dilation happen? Is it because the ship is "distancing" away from the earth? Or, .. because of just "speed"? (think about it before you answer)

Thank you Mhykiel!

Odon.
There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil
to one who is striking at the root. - Henry David Thoreau
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2016 12:31:40 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/18/2016 4:04:32 PM, Evidence wrote:
At 1/17/2016 7:29:04 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/17/2016 3:33:40 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
I'm interested in people's views on what led to the laws of physics existing. The mathematical laws we have are of course approximations, GR for example leads to singularities under certain circumstances so is considered incomplete but clearly there are laws.
The Laws of physics are human descriptors of observations. Same with mathematical Laws. Because these "laws" are descriptive they could be wrong.

But let me assume you meant eh prescriptive underlining regulators of interactions in reality. Then it follows that these "laws" emerge from the properties of spacetime and energy themselves.

Like why does a ball roll? because it is round. The observed action of it rolling emerges from the property of it being round. That as a round edge comes into contact with the ground kinetic energy is preserved in the ball.


?? .. and a dice rolls because .. ?

Here is a question, please explain this with the same logic you explained why we have laws?
Time dilation

scenario: a ship leaving earth, speeds up to 0.3 C and cruses.

Q. Why does the effects of time-dilation happen? Is it because the ship is "distancing" away from the earth? Or, .. because of just "speed"? (think about it before you answer)

Thank you Mhykiel!


Odon.

I think you miss the point I was making. "Law" is the word used. Take for instance the "Law of Inertia" It is a statement made with words. We, as a society, have formulated so called "Laws" and have even gotten rid of some so called "Laws". "Laws" were just descriptors of the observations we make that hold true (as far as we know) all the time.

But they are not prescriptive, descriptive. The Ball doesn't have any will that says "oh I must stay in motion". The Ball stays in motion because of the way it's properties interact with other things with different properties.

Once this understanding was established, and I can tell Harry understood. I then could answer his question. Which, to summarize, So could science ever possibly explain why we observe these laws?

Which My answer was if science could explain all "Laws", by which laws could they support such claims? Incompleteness theory.

Self referencing is a circular loop. So for a theorem, in this case a law of all laws, would be uncertain if not based on something from outside the law of all laws.

Did that clarify my position?
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,571
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2016 3:52:06 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/18/2016 6:32:36 AM, ssadi wrote:
At 1/18/2016 12:40:35 AM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 1/17/2016 6:58:25 PM, ssadi wrote:
At 1/17/2016 3:33:40 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
I'm interested in people's views on what led to the laws of physics existing.

I don't think we have a SCIENTIFIC explanation for that yet (at least I don't know one).

The mathematical laws we have are of course approximations, GR for example leads to singularities under certain circumstances so is considered incomplete but clearly there are laws.

Mathematical laws are not approximations, except approximation laws in mathematics.

What I', referring to there might better be put as "incomplete" rather than "approximate", however a theory in physics is also called a model and the majority of these models are approximations - a good example is Newtons inverse square law of gravitation.

There are approximation laws/theorems in mathematics. They are used in simplifying more complex mathematical equations. To give an example;

sinA ~ tanA ~ A for very small A (A ~ 0)

This is an approximation in mathematics!

What is your evidence that the inverse square law of gravitation is an approximation?


So could science ever possibly explain why we observe these laws?

It wouldn't. Science doesn't deal with question "Why?".

So the science book my son had when he was "Why is the sky blue"? is a figment of my imagination? Of course science strives to find out "why" what are you talking about? Why do we see rainbows, why does oil float on water? why does the moon not fall to the earth?

Why? ~ What is the purpose? (the "Why" I am talking about)

How? ~ What is the physical process?

Science only deals with the question "How?" shortly defined above. So, considering these definitions, the more proper scientific question would be "How do we see the sky blue?". Because that is to what the book gives answer.


If science did explain these laws would that explanation itself also be a law that requires it's own explanation?

Explanation of a known law of physics, e.g., 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, is not another law that requires another law to explain it. It is just an explanation.

You misunderstood then - IF we had an explanation for WHY there's a second law of thermodynamics THEN that explanation would itself need to be explained - do you disagree with that?

As I explained above, an explanation is not a law.. it is just an explanation. An explanation doesn"t require another explanation.. but one can elaborate or clarify what the explanation is.


Are these questions outside the scope of scientific exploration?

Yes, they are.

How do you know?

I am a physicist.


Harry.

Sadi.

See about half way down this page: http://physics.stackexchange.com...

You'll see the inverse square law multiplied by another factor, that factor is absent in Newton's analysis, hence the inverse square law of Newton is an approximation.

Harry.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2016 6:24:13 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/17/2016 3:33:40 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
I'm interested in people's views on what led to the laws of physics existing. The mathematical laws we have are of course approximations, GR for example leads to singularities under certain circumstances so is considered incomplete but clearly there are laws.
So could science ever possibly explain why we observe these laws?
It's an interesting question, Harry.

We can think of laws as repeatable regularities in our observable universe. If these regularities didn't recur reliably, science would be unable to predict, so to a great extent, science is the study of repeatable regularity, and repeatable regularity validates and verifies scientific ideas.

Scientific 'laws' are our codifications of repeatable regularity -- they're natural behaviour expressed as human language, and as you rightly point out they're imprecise (our observations aren't always entirely regular or repeatable) and often incomplete (we may not see all the repeatable regularities that may be observed.)

Interesting though, are the big surprises we sometimes discover when we look hard. For example:

1. Unexpected Mutability: Things that seem unchanging, may be changeable with effort (for example, mass is not always conserved -- it can be converted to energy.)
2. Unexpected Unity: Things that seem unconnected, may be connected after all (for example, space, time and mass are more connected than once people thought.)
3. Unexpected Divisibility: Things that seem permanently connected, may be separable (for example, atoms can be divided, and organisms can be cloned.)
4. Unexpected Observation: Things that aren't suspected, suddenly become observable (for example, microorganisms, radiation or black holes.)

I singled out these surprises because they represent big, ontological changes -- that is, changes to what we think exists, and how it is classified. Such changes are profound, affecting the language of science, how we conjecture and form inferences, how we experiment, and how we verify and interpret experimental results. These surprises tend to create scientific revolutions.

Metaphysics -- the principles behind physics -- is either a conjectural form of theoretical physics, or a scientific philosophy, whichever way you prefer to describe it. But whenever we discover these big surprises, our metaphysical understanding changes. So to an extent, physics does inform our ideas of metaphysics.

How far might that go? I don't know. Are universal laws themselves mutable? Is there more unity to be found in physics than we suspect? Are universes divisible, and might we calve off a baby universe from this one? Could we translate energy into and out of the space and time we know, into other coordinates? If so, are there other notions of universe?

The answers to these kinds of questions determine how much we might discover about the metaphysics of our universe. I'm aware of conjecture on this topic, but no practical experiments.

So my answer is: conceivably, meaning we can propose paths by which it might occur. But I can't say: possibly, because there's no basis to assess likelihood.
ssadi
Posts: 324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2016 3:31:57 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/19/2016 3:52:06 AM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 1/18/2016 6:32:36 AM, ssadi wrote:
At 1/18/2016 12:40:35 AM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 1/17/2016 6:58:25 PM, ssadi wrote:
At 1/17/2016 3:33:40 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
I'm interested in people's views on what led to the laws of physics existing.

I don't think we have a SCIENTIFIC explanation for that yet (at least I don't know one).

The mathematical laws we have are of course approximations, GR for example leads to singularities under certain circumstances so is considered incomplete but clearly there are laws.

Mathematical laws are not approximations, except approximation laws in mathematics.

What I', referring to there might better be put as "incomplete" rather than "approximate", however a theory in physics is also called a model and the majority of these models are approximations - a good example is Newtons inverse square law of gravitation.

There are approximation laws/theorems in mathematics. They are used in simplifying more complex mathematical equations. To give an example;

sinA ~ tanA ~ A for very small A (A ~ 0)

This is an approximation in mathematics!

What is your evidence that the inverse square law of gravitation is an approximation?


So could science ever possibly explain why we observe these laws?

It wouldn't. Science doesn't deal with question "Why?".

So the science book my son had when he was "Why is the sky blue"? is a figment of my imagination? Of course science strives to find out "why" what are you talking about? Why do we see rainbows, why does oil float on water? why does the moon not fall to the earth?

Why? ~ What is the purpose? (the "Why" I am talking about)

How? ~ What is the physical process?

Science only deals with the question "How?" shortly defined above. So, considering these definitions, the more proper scientific question would be "How do we see the sky blue?". Because that is to what the book gives answer.


If science did explain these laws would that explanation itself also be a law that requires it's own explanation?

Explanation of a known law of physics, e.g., 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, is not another law that requires another law to explain it. It is just an explanation.

You misunderstood then - IF we had an explanation for WHY there's a second law of thermodynamics THEN that explanation would itself need to be explained - do you disagree with that?

As I explained above, an explanation is not a law.. it is just an explanation. An explanation doesn"t require another explanation.. but one can elaborate or clarify what the explanation is.


Are these questions outside the scope of scientific exploration?

Yes, they are.

How do you know?

I am a physicist.


Harry.

Sadi.

See about half way down this page: http://physics.stackexchange.com...

You'll see the inverse square law multiplied by another factor, that factor is absent in Newton's analysis, hence the inverse square law of Newton is an approximation.

Harry.

LOL! Now I see..

We are talking about different things. :) I agree with that btw..

Accurate laws of approximation - What I am talking about!

Approximately accurate laws of approximation - What you are talking about!
Inaccurate laws of approximation - What you are talking about!


Accurate laws - What I am talking about!

Inaccurate laws - What you are talking about!
Approximately (not exactly) accurate laws - What you are talking about!


What I say is there are exact laws (without considering even it was later found to be true or wrong) such as the Newton's universal law of gravitation for point masses, and there are approximation laws such as Newton's universal law of gravitation for large (and asymmetric) objects. An approximation law (I am talking about) is not a law which is approximately true, but the law is defined as an approximation..

I hope I made my point clear! In short, I am quite aware that scientific laws and theories are falsifiable (falsifiability is a requirement for scientific theories).. This doesn't always mean that they are false. And this property doesn't make them approximations or approximately true, rather they are accepted to be accurately true until observed / showed otherwise.
Or were they created without anything being before them (or out of something different than the basic material of all creation, so that they know things others do not), or are they the creators (of themselves, so that they can maintain themselves and are free in their acts)? Or did they create the heavens and the earth (so that their sovereignty belongs to them)? No indeed. Rather, they have no certain knowledge (about creation, humankind, and the basic facts concerning them).

Quran, 52:35-36
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2016 5:39:42 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/18/2016 3:38:55 PM, Evidence wrote:
"If you say there is no Creator, no I.D. in creation, then who or what created the universe and everything in it?"
BB-Evolutionists: "No one"
"So how did it come about?"
BB-Evolutionists: "Because!"

My what a strawman. Actually the conversation would go:

"If you say there is no Creator, no I.D. in creation, then who or what created the universe and everything in it?"
BB-Evolutionists: "As far as we can tell no one"
"So how did it come about?"
BB-Evolutionists: "We have no idea."

And then if you flipped it around, the truth really comes out when you ask "Where did God come from?". All of a sudden creators aren't needed for everything, or everything does not have a beginning after all, etc.
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,571
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2016 5:41:52 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/19/2016 6:24:13 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 1/17/2016 3:33:40 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
I'm interested in people's views on what led to the laws of physics existing. The mathematical laws we have are of course approximations, GR for example leads to singularities under certain circumstances so is considered incomplete but clearly there are laws.
So could science ever possibly explain why we observe these laws?
It's an interesting question, Harry.

We can think of laws as repeatable regularities in our observable universe. If these regularities didn't recur reliably, science would be unable to predict, so to a great extent, science is the study of repeatable regularity, and repeatable regularity validates and verifies scientific ideas.

Careful, by this definition cosmology isn't science, the Big Bang can't be repeated etc etc.

Scientific 'laws' are our codifications of repeatable regularity -- they're natural behaviour expressed as human language, and as you rightly point out they're imprecise (our observations aren't always entirely regular or repeatable) and often incomplete (we may not see all the repeatable regularities that may be observed.)

Interesting though, are the big surprises we sometimes discover when we look hard. For example:

1. Unexpected Mutability: Things that seem unchanging, may be changeable with effort (for example, mass is not always conserved -- it can be converted to energy.)
2. Unexpected Unity: Things that seem unconnected, may be connected after all (for example, space, time and mass are more connected than once people thought.)
3. Unexpected Divisibility: Things that seem permanently connected, may be separable (for example, atoms can be divided, and organisms can be cloned.)
4. Unexpected Observation: Things that aren't suspected, suddenly become observable (for example, microorganisms, radiation or black holes.)

I singled out these surprises because they represent big, ontological changes -- that is, changes to what we think exists, and how it is classified. Such changes are profound, affecting the language of science, how we conjecture and form inferences, how we experiment, and how we verify and interpret experimental results. These surprises tend to create scientific revolutions.

Metaphysics -- the principles behind physics -- is either a conjectural form of theoretical physics, or a scientific philosophy, whichever way you prefer to describe it. But whenever we discover these big surprises, our metaphysical understanding changes. So to an extent, physics does inform our ideas of metaphysics.

How far might that go? I don't know. Are universal laws themselves mutable? Is there more unity to be found in physics than we suspect? Are universes divisible, and might we calve off a baby universe from this one? Could we translate energy into and out of the space and time we know, into other coordinates? If so, are there other notions of universe?

The answers to these kinds of questions determine how much we might discover about the metaphysics of our universe. I'm aware of conjecture on this topic, but no practical experiments.

So my answer is: conceivably, meaning we can propose paths by which it might occur. But I can't say: possibly, because there's no basis to assess likelihood.
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,571
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2016 5:49:38 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/20/2016 5:39:42 PM, Floid wrote:
At 1/18/2016 3:38:55 PM, Evidence wrote:
"If you say there is no Creator, no I.D. in creation, then who or what created the universe and everything in it?"
BB-Evolutionists: "No one"
"So how did it come about?"
BB-Evolutionists: "Because!"

My what a strawman. Actually the conversation would go:

"If you say there is no Creator, no I.D. in creation, then who or what created the universe and everything in it?"
BB-Evolutionists: "As far as we can tell no one"
"So how did it come about?"
BB-Evolutionists: "We have no idea."

And then if you flipped it around, the truth really comes out when you ask "Where did God come from?". All of a sudden creators aren't needed for everything, or everything does not have a beginning after all, etc.

Except that by proposing God we step outside of materialism, science and no longer confine our analysis to materialism. As soon as we leave materialism behind we're no longer considering the issue from a purely scientific standpoint and enter a new realm.

As soon as consider non-materialism as an aspect of reality our understanding shifts, the questions:

But where did the non-material agency come from?

and

But where did the Big Bang's initial singularity come from?

Are fundamentally different types of questions, the futility of the second questions arises because it's a material question. The first question is not a question framed in materialism though and we should not insist that an answer to it should be of the same form as answers to material questions.

Harry.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2016 5:49:54 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/24/2016 5:41:52 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 1/19/2016 6:24:13 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 1/17/2016 3:33:40 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
I'm interested in people's views on what led to the laws of physics existing. The mathematical laws we have are of course approximations, GR for example leads to singularities under certain circumstances so is considered incomplete but clearly there are laws.
So could science ever possibly explain why we observe these laws?
It's an interesting question, Harry.

We can think of laws as repeatable regularities in our observable universe. If these regularities didn't recur reliably, science would be unable to predict, so to a great extent, science is the study of repeatable regularity, and repeatable regularity validates and verifies scientific ideas.

Careful, by this definition cosmology isn't science, the Big Bang can't be repeated etc etc.
No, that's not a valid conclusion, since cosmology relies on correlations themselves drawn from repeatable behaviour. For example, the frequency and spatial distributions of cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB) are critical to verifying or falsifying the Big Bang -- and the predicted correlations are drawn from repeatable observations of behaviours found repeatedly in the cosmos.
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,571
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2016 5:58:15 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/24/2016 5:49:54 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 1/24/2016 5:41:52 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 1/19/2016 6:24:13 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 1/17/2016 3:33:40 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
I'm interested in people's views on what led to the laws of physics existing. The mathematical laws we have are of course approximations, GR for example leads to singularities under certain circumstances so is considered incomplete but clearly there are laws.
So could science ever possibly explain why we observe these laws?
It's an interesting question, Harry.

We can think of laws as repeatable regularities in our observable universe. If these regularities didn't recur reliably, science would be unable to predict, so to a great extent, science is the study of repeatable regularity, and repeatable regularity validates and verifies scientific ideas.

Careful, by this definition cosmology isn't science, the Big Bang can't be repeated etc etc.
No, that's not a valid conclusion, since cosmology relies on correlations themselves drawn from repeatable behaviour. For example, the frequency and spatial distributions of cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB) are critical to verifying or falsifying the Big Bang -- and the predicted correlations are drawn from repeatable observations of behaviours found repeatedly in the cosmos.

So on what basis do you believe the laws of physics we observe locally are the same hundreds of millions of light years away or were the same billions of years ago?

Compliance with expected observations does not prove the laws are the same, only that whatever laws there are lead to the same results as our local laws.

Cosmology assumes both of these things - laws are the same everywhere and were the same in the past.

(as you well know observations made of remote objects reflects their appearance in the distant past).

Harry.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,580
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2016 6:04:18 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/24/2016 5:58:15 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 1/24/2016 5:49:54 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 1/24/2016 5:41:52 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 1/19/2016 6:24:13 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 1/17/2016 3:33:40 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
I'm interested in people's views on what led to the laws of physics existing. The mathematical laws we have are of course approximations, GR for example leads to singularities under certain circumstances so is considered incomplete but clearly there are laws.
So could science ever possibly explain why we observe these laws?
It's an interesting question, Harry.

We can think of laws as repeatable regularities in our observable universe. If these regularities didn't recur reliably, science would be unable to predict, so to a great extent, science is the study of repeatable regularity, and repeatable regularity validates and verifies scientific ideas.

Careful, by this definition cosmology isn't science, the Big Bang can't be repeated etc etc.
No, that's not a valid conclusion, since cosmology relies on correlations themselves drawn from repeatable behaviour. For example, the frequency and spatial distributions of cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB) are critical to verifying or falsifying the Big Bang -- and the predicted correlations are drawn from repeatable observations of behaviours found repeatedly in the cosmos.

So on what basis do you believe the laws of physics we observe locally are the same hundreds of millions of light years away or were the same billions of years ago?

Because, the universe is homogeneous and isotropic.

Compliance with expected observations does not prove the laws are the same, only that whatever laws there are lead to the same results as our local laws.

Cosmology assumes both of these things - laws are the same everywhere and were the same in the past.

(as you well know observations made of remote objects reflects their appearance in the distant past).

Funny how those objects in the distant past reveal the laws of physics as they are today.

Harry.

Wary.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2016 6:22:40 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/24/2016 5:58:15 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 1/24/2016 5:49:54 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 1/24/2016 5:41:52 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 1/19/2016 6:24:13 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 1/17/2016 3:33:40 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
I'm interested in people's views on what led to the laws of physics existing. The mathematical laws we have are of course approximations, GR for example leads to singularities under certain circumstances so is considered incomplete but clearly there are laws.
So could science ever possibly explain why we observe these laws?
It's an interesting question, Harry.
We can think of laws as repeatable regularities in our observable universe. If these regularities didn't recur reliably, science would be unable to predict, so to a great extent, science is the study of repeatable regularity, and repeatable regularity validates and verifies scientific ideas.
Careful, by this definition cosmology isn't science, the Big Bang can't be repeated etc etc.
No, that's not a valid conclusion, since cosmology relies on correlations themselves drawn from repeatable behaviour. For example, the frequency and spatial distributions of cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB) are critical to verifying or falsifying the Big Bang -- and the predicted correlations are drawn from repeatable observations of behaviours found repeatedly in the cosmos.
So on what basis do you believe the laws of physics we observe locally are the same hundreds of millions of light years away or were the same billions of years ago?
It's conceivable that they're not, Harry. In fact, it's conceivable that 'universal' constants aren't constant, but have gradually changing values distributed over time and space, so that the way things work change depending on where and when you look. So physicists can't assume that the universe is full of constants. They have to establish what (if anything) is constant, and what varies, and how it changes.

But when you explore the consequences of that, there'd be a lot of fascinating stuff to observe, given that we can observe in many different directions, and compare the near with the far. One could observe distributions of matter, shifts in spectral lines for hydrogen and other elements, for example, and see what that told us.

In fact, it's the shifts in spectral lines associated with distance that helped astrophysicists realise that the universe wasn't in a steady or constant state -- it was actually expanding, and that the expansion was accelerating over time. So there's one conjecture of constancy debunked by diligent systematic observation and correlation. :)

But the issue of constancy isn't just an abstraction for physicists, Harry. If your accustomed height or weight changed the further you traveled from (say) New Jersey, you could conclude that something was different across space. But statistics show that your height and weight remain fairly constant wherever on earth you travel -- so we treat human height and mass as constants with respect to space. In short: statistics give us confidence within tolerance.

I hope that may be useful.
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,571
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2016 6:23:03 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/24/2016 6:04:18 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/24/2016 5:58:15 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 1/24/2016 5:49:54 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 1/24/2016 5:41:52 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 1/19/2016 6:24:13 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 1/17/2016 3:33:40 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
I'm interested in people's views on what led to the laws of physics existing. The mathematical laws we have are of course approximations, GR for example leads to singularities under certain circumstances so is considered incomplete but clearly there are laws.
So could science ever possibly explain why we observe these laws?
It's an interesting question, Harry.

We can think of laws as repeatable regularities in our observable universe. If these regularities didn't recur reliably, science would be unable to predict, so to a great extent, science is the study of repeatable regularity, and repeatable regularity validates and verifies scientific ideas.

Careful, by this definition cosmology isn't science, the Big Bang can't be repeated etc etc.
No, that's not a valid conclusion, since cosmology relies on correlations themselves drawn from repeatable behaviour. For example, the frequency and spatial distributions of cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB) are critical to verifying or falsifying the Big Bang -- and the predicted correlations are drawn from repeatable observations of behaviours found repeatedly in the cosmos.

So on what basis do you believe the laws of physics we observe locally are the same hundreds of millions of light years away or were the same billions of years ago?

Because, the universe is homogeneous and isotropic.

How do you know this without visiting every corner of the universe or traveling in every direction or back in time?


Compliance with expected observations does not prove the laws are the same, only that whatever laws there are lead to the same results as our local laws.

Cosmology assumes both of these things - laws are the same everywhere and were the same in the past.

(as you well know observations made of remote objects reflects their appearance in the distant past).

Funny how those objects in the distant past reveal the laws of physics as they are today.

Like what Dummel? like the bizarre orbital speeds of spiral galactic material defying our known laws causing some to invent "dark matter" which is wholly speculative and for which we have zero local experimental lab evidence?

Duffus.


Harry.

Wary.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,580
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2016 6:48:27 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/24/2016 6:23:03 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 1/24/2016 6:04:18 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/24/2016 5:58:15 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 1/24/2016 5:49:54 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 1/24/2016 5:41:52 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 1/19/2016 6:24:13 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 1/17/2016 3:33:40 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
I'm interested in people's views on what led to the laws of physics existing. The mathematical laws we have are of course approximations, GR for example leads to singularities under certain circumstances so is considered incomplete but clearly there are laws.
So could science ever possibly explain why we observe these laws?
It's an interesting question, Harry.

We can think of laws as repeatable regularities in our observable universe. If these regularities didn't recur reliably, science would be unable to predict, so to a great extent, science is the study of repeatable regularity, and repeatable regularity validates and verifies scientific ideas.

Careful, by this definition cosmology isn't science, the Big Bang can't be repeated etc etc.
No, that's not a valid conclusion, since cosmology relies on correlations themselves drawn from repeatable behaviour. For example, the frequency and spatial distributions of cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB) are critical to verifying or falsifying the Big Bang -- and the predicted correlations are drawn from repeatable observations of behaviours found repeatedly in the cosmos.

So on what basis do you believe the laws of physics we observe locally are the same hundreds of millions of light years away or were the same billions of years ago?

Because, the universe is homogeneous and isotropic.

How do you know this without visiting every corner of the universe or traveling in every direction or back in time?

Ever hear of a thing called a "Telescope," Hairy?


Compliance with expected observations does not prove the laws are the same, only that whatever laws there are lead to the same results as our local laws.

Cosmology assumes both of these things - laws are the same everywhere and were the same in the past.

(as you well know observations made of remote objects reflects their appearance in the distant past).

Funny how those objects in the distant past reveal the laws of physics as they are today.

Like what Dummel? like the bizarre orbital speeds of spiral galactic material defying our known laws causing some to invent "dark matter" which is wholly speculative and for which we have zero local experimental lab evidence?

So essentially, you are ill informed of matter that is not luminous?

Duffus.

Ruffus.


Harry.

Wary.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth