Do we affect the" physical " indepentent of the laws of physics

Hi 2ice_baked_taters,You want to be careful to engage in rational analysis by avoiding semantic confusion. This can be avoided if you're careful to use terms in a precise manner so that rationality isn't lost. No, you are not a force. You are matter and energy. Matter and energy can exert forces on one another, but you are not yourself a force. You can use the matter and energy of your body to bring forces to bear on other matter and energy, or even on yourself, but you are not a force. Can you provide an example of something you do that is not according to known physical laws?--Percy

Sure thing. This is from Wikipedia: Clearly you are not a force. People are physical systems too complex for determinate analysis. So is the weather much of the time. Or try predicting where a water molecule that just descended the drain in your sink will be next week. But water, weather and people still follow all known physical laws. Inability to predict is not an indication of unknown physical laws at work.--Percy

The dog's neck applies the force to the collar which applies the force to the rope which in turn applies it to the person. You can carry it even further back and to increasing levels of detail. For example, the dog's muscles exert forces on the dog's skeleton which in turn transmits it to both the ground and the collar. I'm afraid I'm not able to make any sense out of this as an argument supporting your premise that human beings are a force. People can exert forces, but they are not themselves a force. The units of force are (in metric) (kg)(meters)/sec². Can you show how to express a person in these units?Despite our subjective impressions of our own free will and so forth, human beings appear to obey all laws of physics and chemistry. I think that this will become more and more clear to you as you try to develop examples of things operating outside physical laws.--Percy

Yes, good point with regard to the ultimate level of current understanding, but our understanding keeps advancing, and we do understand "what animates the stuff" at the macro, chemical, atomic and sub-atomic levels. But they *do* apply the force. This we can observe and measure.I'm getting the feeling that you're not really thinking so much of a force as much as what initiates the action causing the force. Am I on the right track?Scientists assume that causality holds for much, but not all, of our universe. If a neuron in your brain fires causing a cascade of impulses that cause a muscle to contract that lifts your arm, science presumes that something caused that neuron to fire. Perhaps a fly was buzzing around your head, and the buzzing sound entered your ear causing nerve impulses to tell your brain what was happening, which reacted by causing the neuron to fire to make your arm brush the fly away.Scientists also understand that the universe includes non-causal activity. For example, we don't know what causes an atom of a radioactive element to pick one particular moment in time to decay. We don't know what causes entangled particles to pick one spin over another when disentangled. There may be true randomness in these processes, or there may be more that we do not yet understand. But as I said earlier, unpredictability is not evidence of new laws of physics at work. If I choose not to see what? You haven't provided an example of anything that doesn't obey the known physical laws of our universe, so there is not yet anything that I'm choosing not to see. I think you're confusing my corrections of misstatements with an unwillingness to explore. If what you'd really like to do is pretend we know nothing and start from scratch, then you're right, I'm not with you. But if you'd like to bring a fresh perspective to some unexplained phenomena, then I'm listening.--Percy

You said that people are a force who do things in ways contrary to the laws of physics, but since people are not a force, and since nothing we do is known to be contrary to the laws of physics, you are wrong. It isn't that I'm choosing not to see it. It's that I understand what you're saying and am pointing out that you're wrong. But I'm not trying to explain who we are. I'm trying to address the thread's topic, which is whether people can have an impact on the real world in ways not covered by the laws of physics.In your opening post you argued that there is an aspect of reality that is subject to our beliefs. Perhaps it would help if you provided an example.--Percy

Good luck in your explorations! --Percy

In physics force can most simply be expressed as: Where F is force, m is mass and a is acceleration. This means that the metric units of force are kilogram-meters/second², otherwise known as the Newton. Your question is about the laws of physics. In physics "force" has a clear and unambiguous definition. It enables us to say things like, "If you push on an unimpeded 1 kilogram mass for 1 second with a force of 1 Newton it will accelerate at a rate of 1 meter/sec², and at the end of the 1 second of acceleration it will be traveling at a rate of 1 meter/sec."In essence, your question asks if it is possible to do things like make the 1 kilogram mass move at 1 meter/sec without exerting a force on it. As far as we know, there is no physical or chemical activity in human beings that violates the laws of physics.--Percy

You're quibbling over vocabulary. So choose whichever words you like to describe your idea, the fact of the matter is that actions independent of the laws of physics are violations of those laws. You can't get around this fact by quibbling over vocabulary and saying, "Oh, they're not violations of the laws of physics, they're just independent of them." You're just repeating your initial assertion yet again. No one will find your idea persuasive until you either use proper vocabulary (people are not a force in physics) or clearly define your terms (How are you defining force?).So when you say, "Yes I understand," in reply to my explanation of "F = ma", it is contradicted by your later claim that "we are a force", since obviously people are not measured in units of kilogram-meters/sec².My suggestion is to rephrase your initial premise in terms that reflect an understanding of the definition of force.--Percy

Measuring and detecting something *is* showing it. Your refrigerator magnets sticking to your fridge is not a physical thing? Your electric vacuum cleaner cleaning your rug is not a physical thing?I think it might help if you chose your terms more carefully. Of course gravity and electromagnetism are physical things. Think more deeply about what is it that you're trying to say. Do you mean that we cannot see gravity and electromagnetism (at least outside the visible range)? "Our effect"? Unless you have a mouse in your pocket who agrees with you, this is just your "effect" we're talking about, and so far you have been unable to describe any phenomenon not covered by the laws of physics. If by this you mean that the more detailed our understanding of physics becomes the more removed from everyday experience it becomes, then I agree with you. Quantum theory is probably the best example of this.As I suggested the first time I replied to you in this thread, it might be a good idea if you provided an example of something you do that is not according to physical laws.--Percy

Perhaps it would help if you provided an example of what you're talking about.--Percy

I think Nwr and I are just trying to encourage you toward saying something specific and meaningful about your idea. That science doesn't know all there is no know is already obvious - if we already knew everything then there would be a lot of unemployed scientists. And science not only concedes that current views may change, it incorporates that fact as a foundational principle in tentativity.The very general terms in which you're stating your case could be used to advance any idea, whether it's you as a force or pink dragons in the Garden of Eden. Is there anything you can say that bears on your own idea specifically?Google Toolbar has a great spellchecker, and it works with both Internet Explorer and FireFox. AbE: Click here: Google Toolbar--PercyThis message has been edited by Percy, Mon, 05-01-2006 08:55 AM

Hi 2ice_baked_taters,I guess I agree with Nwr in that it seems that the absence of any clear and consistent articulation of your ideas is causing the negative responses.People who have no idea what they're talking about present their ideas in pretty much the same way you have here, including blaming everyone else. One of the characteristics of lack of knowledge and confusion is an inability to enable others to see your point of view. If you're actually someone who knows what he's talking about, then you have to present your ideas in a way that reflects that.I again suggest that you provide an example of what you're talking about. Discussion will be easier with something concrete to focus on.--Percy

If I could slip briefly into Admin mode, this is your topic, initiated by you to discuss whether we can affect the physical universe outside of the laws of physics. If you'd like to discuss a different topic concerning differences in perspective then please propose a new thread and I will approve it as quickly as I can.Returning to Percy mode, I again suggest that you provide an example of what you're talking about in order to help move the discussion forward. Or if you have other ideas for how to allow the discussion to make progress, that would be fine, too.--Percy

It feels to me like you're confounding phychological force, as in "force of his personality", with physical force. Psychology is the branch of science for the type of force you're talking about, not physics.--Percy

No. I'm saying that psychology and physics are two completely different fields. It is a fallacy to conclude that two different concepts are related simply because they share the same word. The possibility of bias exists as much for you as for anyone else. Sure, you can just declare us mindless automotons blindly following methodological naturalism and go on your way, but wouldn't you find it more satisfying to persuade people of your point of view?An alternative worth considering is that it is your own reasoning that is faulty. Another possibility is that you haven't developed strong enough arguments for your ideas. Yet another possibility is that your evidence is insufficient. If you really believe in your ideas then I encourage you to give some thought as to how to muster better arguments and evidence for them.--Percy