Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   In the begining...... nothing.... unless infinite past.
Christian7
Member (Idle past 249 days)
Posts: 628
From: n/a
Joined: 01-19-2004


Message 16 of 79 (192843)
03-20-2005 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Eta_Carinae
03-20-2005 3:37 PM


Re: Don't get up about the word law.
A law is something defined by science that explains things that occur in nature.
Example: The law of gravity pulls everything towards the earth.
However, I am using law to mean much more then that. I am talking about the absolute mechanics which cause the universe to operate.
A computer displays information on the screen. OK, this is a law. However, this computer has mechanisms inside it run by other laws which cause that law to be and so on, untill you reach the final set of laws or law.
So I am trying to use law to mean that declaration that this work a certiain way but on the smallest scale of the universe.
So it is hard to describe but I don't think that the universe has anything which prevents only does things which seem to prevent as explained previously.
It is hard to explain and I can't really do it.
Do you have anything else cause I would like to move on but if you have more I wan't to talk about it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Eta_Carinae, posted 03-20-2005 3:37 PM Eta_Carinae has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Eta_Carinae, posted 03-20-2005 4:26 PM Christian7 has replied

Eta_Carinae
Member (Idle past 4375 days)
Posts: 547
From: US
Joined: 11-15-2003


Message 17 of 79 (192845)
03-20-2005 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Christian7
03-20-2005 4:20 PM


You are incorrect.
A law is something defined by science that explains things that occur in nature.
This is not what 'law' is.
A 'law' is just something that encapsulates what we expect to be the result of an experiment.
It is not explanatory in and of itself.
The 1st Law of Thermodynamics arose out of observation in the experiments of people like Joule. It was not derived theoretically but empirically.
Your inability to explain what you mean by laws not being preventitive is not going to allow you to make a valid point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Christian7, posted 03-20-2005 4:20 PM Christian7 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Christian7, posted 03-20-2005 4:51 PM Eta_Carinae has replied

Christian7
Member (Idle past 249 days)
Posts: 628
From: n/a
Joined: 01-19-2004


Message 18 of 79 (192850)
03-20-2005 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Eta_Carinae
03-20-2005 4:26 PM


Re: You are incorrect.
I know what a law is I just can't explain it well.
I am talking about absolute laws though. Ones that are true wheather we think they are or not. Like gravity, just because you don't believe it is a law does not mean it is not a law. So I don't mean are defined laws but laws that exist wheather we know of them or not even though the standard definition of law says we know of them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Eta_Carinae, posted 03-20-2005 4:26 PM Eta_Carinae has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Eta_Carinae, posted 03-20-2005 4:54 PM Christian7 has replied
 Message 27 by coffee_addict, posted 03-21-2005 1:03 AM Christian7 has not replied

Eta_Carinae
Member (Idle past 4375 days)
Posts: 547
From: US
Joined: 11-15-2003


Message 19 of 79 (192851)
03-20-2005 4:54 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Christian7
03-20-2005 4:51 PM


Re: You are incorrect.
So how do you argue that gravity is on any more fundamental level than the exclusion principle.
I think you are getting lost here.
How do you spot an absolute law by the way. What criteria do you apply?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Christian7, posted 03-20-2005 4:51 PM Christian7 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Christian7, posted 03-20-2005 5:48 PM Eta_Carinae has replied

Christian7
Member (Idle past 249 days)
Posts: 628
From: n/a
Joined: 01-19-2004


Message 20 of 79 (192860)
03-20-2005 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Eta_Carinae
03-20-2005 4:54 PM


Re: You are incorrect.
I think that an absolute law (unlike gravity, sorry, I only used for example but I don't think gravity) is a law that does not work because of smaller mechanics or anything causing it to work but just works.
I really don't want to keep going on explaining this it is difficult to express what I mean.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Eta_Carinae, posted 03-20-2005 4:54 PM Eta_Carinae has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by CK, posted 03-20-2005 5:56 PM Christian7 has not replied
 Message 22 by Eta_Carinae, posted 03-20-2005 6:01 PM Christian7 has not replied

CK
Member (Idle past 4128 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 21 of 79 (192862)
03-20-2005 5:56 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Christian7
03-20-2005 5:48 PM


Re: You are incorrect.
Don't give up! - I might pick something up as you struggle with the concept.
It's worth it for that "AHHHA I'VE GOT IT!" moment.
Your grasp of certain things is a lot better than most of the kids that I used to teach who were your age.
This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 20-Mar-2005 05:57 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Christian7, posted 03-20-2005 5:48 PM Christian7 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Phat, posted 03-21-2005 9:50 AM CK has not replied

Eta_Carinae
Member (Idle past 4375 days)
Posts: 547
From: US
Joined: 11-15-2003


Message 22 of 79 (192863)
03-20-2005 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Christian7
03-20-2005 5:48 PM


If you want I'll close the thread for you then.
Seriously, if you are having a hard time explaining your own position and the definition of terms what is the point.
You made some suppositions that I think are based upon misunderstanding of what a law is and know you are complaining you want to move on because your head is hurting.
What are we to move onto???
If gravity isn't an example then pray tell, as I asked above, what is the criteria for an 'absolute law' as opposed to other laws.
Aren't you just playing a metaphysical game here with no rules?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Christian7, posted 03-20-2005 5:48 PM Christian7 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Funkaloyd, posted 03-20-2005 6:46 PM Eta_Carinae has replied

Funkaloyd
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 79 (192867)
03-20-2005 6:46 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Eta_Carinae
03-20-2005 6:01 PM


Re: If you want I'll close the thread for you then.
Even if he can't defend the conclusion of his original post, he still brought up some other ideas which could be addressed here, i.e. consciousness creating consciousness, and the "decision" to create the Universe 13 billion years ago rather than 50 years ago.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Eta_Carinae, posted 03-20-2005 6:01 PM Eta_Carinae has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Eta_Carinae, posted 03-20-2005 6:51 PM Funkaloyd has not replied

Eta_Carinae
Member (Idle past 4375 days)
Posts: 547
From: US
Joined: 11-15-2003


Message 24 of 79 (192869)
03-20-2005 6:51 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Funkaloyd
03-20-2005 6:46 PM


Re: If you want I'll close the thread for you then.
I was being facetious. But his complaint that it was hard to think about (even expressing his own position) is not a good start.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Funkaloyd, posted 03-20-2005 6:46 PM Funkaloyd has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Christian7, posted 03-20-2005 9:22 PM Eta_Carinae has not replied

Christian7
Member (Idle past 249 days)
Posts: 628
From: n/a
Joined: 01-19-2004


Message 25 of 79 (192895)
03-20-2005 9:22 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Eta_Carinae
03-20-2005 6:51 PM


Re: If you want I'll close the thread for you then.
OK... I will think about the whole "LAW" thing and come back to it. Let's move on to the other issues now because I can't resolve the "LAW" thing at this present time but intend to after my brain is refreshed because I have not just been thinking. I have been experimenting with the possiblility of mind over matter which I don't know for sure is true or not but regardless of whatever everyone says I wan't to see.
Anyway, let's adress some of the other things in my original post. Don't think I am a dumb dumb for expirememting without psi phenomina cause I am just testing to see for myself if it is possible. OK... time to get back on topic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Eta_Carinae, posted 03-20-2005 6:51 PM Eta_Carinae has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by AdminJar, posted 03-21-2005 12:08 AM Christian7 has not replied

AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 79 (192931)
03-21-2005 12:08 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Christian7
03-20-2005 9:22 PM


I really think you need to understand the basics
before you try to tackle anything else. If you don't understand things such as Laws, how will you ever be able to determine if something is possible of not?
Hang in. Work with Eta. He can be a great teacher. When he says something you don't understand, ask him to explain it again using some different method. Make him work if necessary, he can do it.
Frankly, even considering something like Mind over Matter is an exercise in futility at this point. You just don't have the basics yet.
This message has been edited by AdminJar, 03-20-2005 11:09 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Christian7, posted 03-20-2005 9:22 PM Christian7 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by coffee_addict, posted 03-21-2005 1:20 AM AdminJar has not replied

coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 27 of 79 (192937)
03-21-2005 1:03 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Christian7
03-20-2005 4:51 PM


Re: You are incorrect.
Guidosoft writes:
I know what a law is I just can't explain it well.
When I was in high school, our English teacher would always tell us that if you think you know something but can't explain it very well, then you don't really know it. My college freshman physics prof once told me the same thing.
Young people (including myself) tend to believe that we know more than we do. The only way for us to self-check to see whether we know as much as we do is to see if we can really explain what we think we know. You have to remember that not being self-critical is a straight path toward arrogance.
For example, I frequently tutor physics in my school. Part of this job is to get to know the stuff really really well before a tutoring session. Especially when there are more than 5 people who show up to ask questions about homework and stuff, it would be really embarrassing to be standing up there writing stuff on the board and appear to not be on top of those stuff. However, there have been times when I thought I knew exactly what to say and write on the board but realized during the session that I was unsure of some things or how to approach a problem. The question is did I really know those stuff even if I couldn't really use them for physics problems? If you say yes, the people I tutored might disagree with you. (Don't worry, it hasn't happened to me for a long time now. I've been working hard to keep ahead of my students.)
I am talking about absolute laws though. Ones that are true wheather we think they are or not. Like gravity, just because you don't believe it is a law does not mean it is not a law. So I don't mean are defined laws but laws that exist wheather we know of them or not even though the standard definition of law says we know of them.
You are trying to apply a philosophical concept of "absolute laws" into science. It really doesn't work that way in science.
Here is something for you to think about while you're at it. If something is an absolute law, how do you propose we go on confirming that it is indeed an absolute law and not a scientific law that is subject to change?
This message has been edited by Resurrected Hector, 03-21-2005 01:29 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Christian7, posted 03-20-2005 4:51 PM Christian7 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by CK, posted 03-21-2005 10:57 AM coffee_addict has not replied
 Message 32 by Phat, posted 03-21-2005 12:33 PM coffee_addict has not replied

coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 28 of 79 (192940)
03-21-2005 1:20 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by AdminJar
03-21-2005 12:08 AM


Re: I really think you need to understand the basics
I think I know where Guid is coming from, as I was in the same mentality not too long ago. Whether or not this is a good way to teach students how to approach science, schools these days often get into the pattern of not explaining the uncertainty parts of the laws that are taught in science classrooms. I remember believing, as were my classmates, that the laws we learned in our science classes were really "absolute" laws. Of course we were never told that these were absolute laws, the curriculum certainly steered us toward believing that the universe behave the way it does because it follows these laws. Because I went on into the fields of science, I stumbled upon the fact that it was the other way around that these laws exist because the universe seemed to have behaved in such ways according to our past observations.
It is like the question of whether a tornados don't usually touch down on cities because the cities are there or because the cities are there because tornados don't usually touch down on those locations. Recently, I became amazed by how many people I've talked to who actually believe that the reason tornados don't touch down on cities is because artificial structures prevent the winds from forming into tornados. It never occured to them that tornados existed before there were cities.
The same concept can be applied to laws. The universe behaved the way it appear to behave long before any of the laws were "discovered". It , therefore, is not that hard to come to think that these laws dictate the universe rather than the universe dictating these laws.
By the way, this message was meant for Guid as well as AJ.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by AdminJar, posted 03-21-2005 12:08 AM AdminJar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Phat, posted 03-22-2005 5:51 AM coffee_addict has replied

Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 29 of 79 (193016)
03-21-2005 9:50 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by CK
03-20-2005 5:56 PM


Read'n, Writin and R'thmatic
CharlesKnight writes:
Your grasp of certain things is a lot better than most of the kids that I used to teach who were your age.
You were a teacher, Charles? What grades did you teach and what particular subjects? Teaching is not easy. I have been tutoring some kids from the local High School on a limited basis in English "Think-Aloud Reading. It is NOT easy, and I am learning more than teaching at this point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by CK, posted 03-20-2005 5:56 PM CK has not replied

CK
Member (Idle past 4128 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 30 of 79 (193029)
03-21-2005 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by coffee_addict
03-21-2005 1:03 AM


Re: You are incorrect.
that's a very good question Lam. I'd like you to think about a possible answer and report back to us next time.
LOOK KITTENS! (Said the ex-teacher).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by coffee_addict, posted 03-21-2005 1:03 AM coffee_addict has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Phat, posted 03-21-2005 12:19 PM CK has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024