can science accept assertive law?

Can you explain this concern. I am not seeing a problem.

I'll first note that I am not a quantum physicist, so I may have some of this wrong. As far as I know, there is no such theory.It is observed that behavior of such particles appears to have a random component. Note that this is observation, not theory. Note also, that "random" and "chaotic" mean quite different things.Most physicists will agree that they cannot rule out the possibility of hidden variables, such that the behaviour of sub-atomic particles could be completely determined by those hidden variables. However, observation shows that if there are such hidden variables, they could not be local variables. I don't see the relation. You seem to have an entire thread on that topic, namely if scientists accept God in science, is science destroyed?. I think you are confused by "chaos". Technically, behavior can be completely describable by equations, yet still be chaotic. So being chaotic does not rule out the possibility of order, though there might be an appearance of disorder. Sorry, but that seems incoherent. I'm wondering if you are confused about what are scientific laws. They are quite different from laws in our legal system. They are part of an attempt to describe the world.Some scientific laws are false, and known to be false - Boyle's law would be a good example here. It is true only for ideal gases, but false for any real gases. It is, however, a very good and useful approximation when used with real gases.Edited by nwr, : spelling, spacing.

Well, okay. But this is a science discussion, so we should be using the scientific meaning of chaos, not the common dictionary meaning.From the Wikipedia entry on chaos

quote:

---

In lay terms, chaotic systems are systems that look random but aren't. They are actually deterministic systems (predictable if you have enough information) governed by physical laws, that are very difficult to predict accurately (a commonly used example is weather forecasting).

---

Science only defines what it studies. Philosophers and theologians might study (or claim to study) existence. Science studies what it can observe in the world, and defines only what is needed for its accounts of what it studies. Science studies what it can observe. Asserted statements are not part of what science studies - except, perhaps, psychology might use asserted statements as providing information on the psychology of the asserter.I'm not sure where you got the idea that science will only explore the tentative. Scientific theories may be tentative, but there are also scientific facts.

I am not seeing that definite statement. To me, "existence" is just a word, and thus not a statement. Worse still, it a vague word, so not at all definite.

Perhaps "idea" is a basic concept in philosophy. It isn't studied by science. Maybe psychologists would be interested in studying the idea of "idea", if they could only work out how to study it. "Existence" is a vague term, used with multiple meanings. That's why none of us has a clue as to what you are really trying to talk about.Science studies what can be measured, what can be tested in the laboratory.You are taking the vague term "existence", and asserting that it is a thing. You have provided no basis nor justification for that assertion.From Wikipedia: "Reification (fallacy), fallacy of treating an abstraction as if it were a real thing."

To the contrary, existence as a real thing is absurd.Maybe what you mean by "existence" is a real thing. If so, then it is different from what most other people mean by "existence." You have failed to be clear on what it is that you are actually talking about.

Just about any mathematician will tell you that the number 3 exists, and that the number 3 (like all numbers) is abstract. It's that last part, the "exists in existence", which makes the whole sentence incoherent.

What's to elaborate. "Exists in existence" makes no sense.

I'm pretty sure that Percy was commenting on existence as it is studied within philosophy. I really doubt that his reference was to the question of whether philosophy exists.I'll make a general comment, related to the forum "Is it science." It is an important aspect of science, that clarity is required. A scientific investigation might start without clear conclusions, and without a clear methodology. But it at least has to be clear about what is being investigated.I hope you are beginning to understand that what you wanted to discuss is not science, at least as you have presented it, because it lacks that clarity.

It seems that I replied too hastily. Thanks to Percy for correcting me. I have hidden the original content of my inappropriate reply - use "peek" if you really want to see it.Edited by nwr, : original post withdrawn

It should have been obvious that I was replying to imageinvisible (Message 45).

Thank's for gently pointing out that I was confused.