|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,914 Year: 4,171/9,624 Month: 1,042/974 Week: 1/368 Day: 1/11 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 5881 days) Posts: 566 From: Boulder Junction WI. Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Do we affect the" physical " indepentent of the laws of physics | |||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
I affect the world around me on a daily basis in some very unique and unpredictable ways.
I expect you do.
I am a force that does things at will and in many ways not according to any known physical laws.
Let us know when you are ready to demonstrate your ability to flap your arms and fly.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
You wil find nothing I ever say to that falls to the level of response such as this.
In fact you have made the bare assertion
I am a force that does things at will and in many ways not according to any known physical laws. but you have not provided any evidence at all to support this claim.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
That is because it was meant to attempt to introduce a different perspective.
The problem is that you are careless in your wording. In the OP, you wrote:The laws of physics do not recognize the force of me. My physical body though, must obey them so I must succumb to them in that context. I don't have any problems with that, provided that I take your use of "force" to be metaphorical. But when you say "in many ways not according to any known physical laws," you have contradicted that OP statement. For your wording here claims that there is a violation of known physical laws. That might not be what you intended, but it is what you wrote.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
My suggestion is to look at us as a force that science has not addressed yet.
Don't you see the difference between "science has not addressed this" and "this is not according to any known physical laws"? The second says that something happens different from what science says. The first says only that science doesn't say anything. That's why I suggested your wording was careless.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Suppose, of my own free will, I decide to do something. To be specific, suppose I decide to eat an apple. As a consequence of my eating that apple, various physical things happen. In principle, these actions can be described in terms of the motion of atoms. When you say "this is not according to any known physical laws" you seem to be saying that the motion of atoms violates physical laws.
Based on other things you have posted in this thread, I suspect that isn't what you mean. Rather, I think you wanted to say that people seem to act with free will, and science doesn't appear to have a good way of accounting for this.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
quote:That very mundane example does not seem to warrant the title of this thread.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Science does painfully lack the ability to prove it's source.
What does "prove it's source" mean? And why is it painful. I'm having difficulty working out what it is you are trying to say.
As I said before....we talk about forces all the time and the only evidence they exist are the tracks they leave.
That seems to suggest a misunderstanding. "Force" is a technical term in physics. It is defined in terms of the effect of the force. Your use of "the only evidence" misplaced. There could be no better evidence of a force. I spend part of my time studying human cognition, and I do think outside the box - so far outside that cognitive scientists are likely to conclude that I am obviously wrong. There are various groups within cognitive science, with different ideas as to how to explain cognition. You seem to fit with those known as "mysterians". The mysterians are those who want to take quite mundane things, and make a mystery out of them. If you want to be a mysterian, that's your choice. But it is silly to use your choice as an argument against science. Nobody is claiming that science has the answer to everything. Nobody is currently claiming that science has explained human cognition.
If you are under the assumption that what we know scientificly defines all that is, you have limited yourself.
I don't limit myself, at least not in that way. Most scientists are open to new discoveries.
My idea may be way off but as I said I believe it is worth consideration.
As far as I can tell, you have not presented any idea that is worth consideration. You have tried to present an aura of mystery, but I cannot see any interesting ideas within that mystery. If you have something that is worth consideration, then tell us what it is so that we can consider it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
We are the source for science. We define it.
I prefer to say that reality is the source for science. Yes we define science. We could even be said to invent it. But we invent it to deal with what we find in reality, so that make reality the primary source.
It is hardly some imperial yardstick.
I'm not sure of your point there. Science, as an institution, could be considered a kind of epistemic empire, and science is its own yardstick.
That seems to suggest a misunderstanding. "Force" is a technical term in physics. It is defined in terms of the effect of the force. Your use of "the only evidence" misplaced. There could be no better evidence of a force. Yes this is the point. So why not a similar view of us? Give me reasons. I never suggested the common place is mysterious.
You started this thread. When asked for examples, you gave common place ones. That you made a thread of them, suggests that you find a mystery there.
You are coming to my idea with preconceptions.
No. I am coming to your idea, trying to work out what you think warrants a discussion topic.
We are both human and prone to bias.
Granted. But that does not help me understand what it is that you are trying to discuss.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
You seem to hold science with much more esteem then the tool you profess it to be. As if the "divine reality" is the source for science.
You are reading things into it that I never said.
You are coming to my idea with preconceptions.
No. I still don't know what is your idea, if there is one.
You are either engadging me for another purpose or you are arguing your beliefs -Imho
You have been complaining that nobody was responding to your thread. So I have tried to be a nice guy and give some sort of response, even though I haven't found anything here worth responding to.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
If we are indeed a force with purpose then
Then I suggest you start to explore it. Maybe you will come up with something interesting that others want to comment on.
it opens a whole new world to explore.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Since science is a human thing and subject to all our faults and prejudices. It will never be any more or less falible than we are.
This is not a persuasive argument. Science is a joint effort, with scientists checking each other's results. The cooperation and mutual checking involved should make science far less subject to faults than are individual scientists. And our experience is consistent with this.
Science is flawed because it's source is.
You keep using that word "source", but you have never explained what you mean.
Remember that science is a "thought process" before you bite into this one.
No, it isn't a thought process. It is al empirical project. It involves much interaction with the world. Sure, scientists use thought, but they use a whole lot more.
If I understood you right- your telling me we might obtain a model of something we have no definition for, using a method based on a source that is undetermined?
And to think that you denied you were a mysterian (in Message 57). Yet here you are using vague language and your own undefined terminology, making it sound unnecessarily mysterious.
Son Goku writes: Force is a poor word choice as force is already defined as the change of momentum over time.A better word would be "causal agent" or something similar. I have a problem with this definition of force since we speak of the force of gravity and electomagnetic forces. The human language is at a loss here without using spiritual terms and If we go there we might as well stick with force.
No, spiritual terms only confuse the issues. Scientific terminology has the advantage of precision. When using it, we at least know what we are talking about. That's far better than what happens when spiritual terms are used.
Considering that science is only one way to look at things and only an aspect of us it will only give us one kind of perspective.
Sorry to disagree, but science gives us many perspectives.
Science has no meaning. We give science meaning.
Science gives us a great deal of meaning.
We use meaning to understand ourselves.
And we use science to understand ourselves.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
You keep using that word "source", but you have never explained what you mean. My context is clear. My position is clear. But for you That would be the "you" you so conveniently keep refering to.It's allways all about "you", isn't it....lol However....nothing in science is precise.
Measurements are imprecise. But scientific laws and definitions can be very precise.
Scientific method is a thought process derived by "you's" and used by many "you's" to establish facts and general laws concerning the physical world through observation and testing by "you's"
When you turn the switch, and the light goes on, that isn't a matter of thought processes. When astronauts landed on the moon, it wasn't just a matter of thought processes.
Anywho if the term "you" I have used does not work for "you" in this context I have established please feel free to offer reasonable alternatives. I am open to suggestions.
There are legitimate questions as to what constitutes a person. Is it just the atoms? Is it the chemical and informational processes? Is it an immaterial spiritual soul? People disagree about how to account for personal identity. This is the kind of issue that is studied in cognitive science. In my opinion, you are confusing the issue by trying to make it one of science in general, instead of concentrating on it as an aspect of cognitive science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
2ice_baked_taters writes:
We don't.
Son Goku writes: Our problem is with your incorrect use of the word force where it doesn't apply. Then why do we use it in this "incorrect" way? I am using it exactly the same way every person must use it to comunicate the idea.
Evidently, you do not understand how "force" is used in physics.
Find a way for all of science to clearly define it's own definitions in this regard.
Science already has a clear definition for "force."
Hence my reason for refering to us as a force. Science is built on clear and precise definitions is it not?
Clear and precise definitions, with empirical procedures that make use of these definitions (as in measuring).
That would apear to be a fundamental problem.
And why is that a problem for science?Science has no knowledge, evidence or good definition of "the mind". Incidently, there are people who study the mind. Some of them assert that there are no such things as minds.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
2ice_baked_taters writes:
I'm not clear on what you think needs explaining. You did right here below in this exerpt from your post 71. You used it the same way I intended it to be used.Explain this. Son Goku should have worded that as "rate of change of momentum with respect to time." And both the force of gravity and electromagnetic forces are defined as just that. Perhaps you are a bit rusty on your physics. My reference was to "force" as used in physics. It is precisely defined. Whatever you have been trying to describe as "force of me" is still unclear after 85 or so messages in this thread.
Unless you are going to claim that the writen language should be eliminated from physics definitions.
I'm not sure of your point. Pick up a physics book. It will have a clear definition. If it still isn't clear, then take a physics class. The laboratory component of that class is where you will learn, through practical experience, what is meant by "force."
Yes....science will have no problem with everything above concerning my idea but the measuring part. That will pose the biggest problem for science proving the foundation upon which it is built.
The foundation for measurement is simply its repeatability, as demonstrated with empirical testing. It requires no more foundation than that.
Have to start somewhere no?
Science is pragmatic. Scientists do what works. It is not a system of logical proof from first principles. There are no first principles.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Us humans truly are outside the laws of nature
Do you have any evidence at all to support this conclusion?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024