Physics: "An Inherently Flawed Mirror"?

Right you are.

We've been under the same impression around here. Except some of us would not think that physics can explain the "why" at all, flaws or no flaws. In fact, some of us believe that there is no satisfying answer to the "Why"... some of us think it's a fallacious question.

Reply to god must be atheist

Hi

Thanks for the vote of confidence.
Interesting tag you have .
Does it imply God/s could be a Factor affecting physical Reality?

Physics seems flawed to me in ways. It seems axiomatic that laws can't change because identical objects act identically. If they didn't physics would be impossible. But what we are measuring is questionable. Are we really measuring a multiverse? When laws seem to change, are the true laws coming to the front of a filter? Also, if you have Newtons laws and say they were 75% sure they were accurate, and then have Einstein's and say it's 95% possible it's accurate, is it really at 95% considering that the 75% guess was wrong? Physicists get excited by new theories but don't consider this

Reply to Chris1952Engineer

"Classical" model of physics ... a reliable reflection of "Activity" within the larger "Reality" we all inhabit AND a faithful guide to understanding and problem solving "change" in the "real" world.

Classical physics works well to solve problems in the world of physical reality of space and motion created just for that purpose. But how can that be extended into our daily lives?

Reply to Gregory
Hi thanks for the comment.

I think you are right to question what is being measured. Experience shows me that tolerance exists with all measurements and all components. I am not convinced of the multiverse concept.

Quoting Chris1952Engineer

Interesting tag you have .
Does it imply God/s could be a Factor affecting physical Reality?

Thanks for asking. No, it does not imply that.

Reply to Chris1952Engineer

Do you find materialism satisfying? I like it but if it's not your cup of tea there is much in philosophy, religion, and spirituality to consider

The reason I chose my moniker was this following mental exercise I have made up:

God must be an atheist because to be a theist, one must have faith in a god. Faith excludes knowledge. But god does have knowledge of his own existence (Cogito Ergo Sum). Therefore he lacks faith in himself, as he has knowledge of himself. Those who lack faith in a god are atheists. Since god lacks faith in himself, he fits the definition of an atheist.

Richard Feynman, one of the greatest physicists, I seem to recall stated that physics could never say why nature behaves as it does, only how.

Reply to Chris1952Engineer Not flawed; just incomplete.

Reply to jgill You might be thinking of the well-known Heisenberg quote: 'We have to remember that what we observe is not nature herself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning.'

Reply to Chris1952Engineer First off, I don't get the analogy of a mirror unless you're trying to understand yourself, by which I mean both consciousness itself and its uniqueness as you, through physics.

Second, physics, all of science in fact, is not in the business of answering why questions of the kind that seeks a reason for the way things are. Why questions in science stop at descriptions of the way things are.

[s]It seems the question why? comes in at least two varieties. One is of the type "why things are the way they are?" and the other is of the type "how things are?". As far as I can tell, science answers the second type of why questions and, for better or worse, like it or not, knowing "how things are?" serves as a jumping board to answering "why things are the way they are?" that are downstream as in subsequent to "how things are?".[/s]

It appears that I've made a boo-boo. It's actually like this: science's raison d'etre is to describe how things are but knowing that gives us a platform of sorts to answer why things are the way they are?, questions that assume a definitive form downstream from how things are.

However, if one asks why? of the scientific descriptions of how things are themselves, we're met with a wall of silence.

To illustrate, physics has a very good description of gravity in Newtonian terms i.e. physicists have knowledge of how things are in re gravity but ask physicists the question "why gravity exists in the first place?" and they have no ready answer.

If it's all the same to you or anyone else for that matter, I'd like some feedback on what I just said. Anyone?

Reply to TheMadFool Modern science, and modern thinking generally, rejects teleology, which is the idea that ‘things happen for a reason’ or that beings have a reason for existence. Or rather, the kinds of reasons which science deals with are what in Aristotelian philosophy are called efficient and material causes. ‘Formal’ cause and ‘final’ cause were both thrown out along with Aristotelian physics, which was inextricably bound up with Ptolemaic cosmology and geo-centrism. ‘Ancient and medieval ethics, argues MacIntyre in After Virtue, relied wholly on the teleological idea that human life had a proper end or character, and that human beings could not reach this natural end without preparation, that being the foundation of virtue ethics. Renaissance science rejected Aristotle's teleological physics as an incorrect and unnecessary account, which led Renaissance philosophy to make a similar rejection in the realm of ethics.‘

Quoting Wayfarer

Modern science, and modern thinking generally, rejects teleology, which is the idea that ‘things happen for a reason’ or that beings have a reason for existence. Or rather, the kinds of reasons which science deals with are what in Aristotelian philosophy are called efficient and material causes. ‘Formal’ cause and ‘final’ cause were both thrown out along with Aristotelian physics, which was inextricably bound up with Ptolemaic cosmology and geo-centrism. ‘Ancient and medieval ethics, argues MacIntyre in After Virtue, relied wholly on the teleological idea that human life had a proper end or character, and that human beings could not reach this natural end without preparation, that being the foundation of virtue ethics. Renaissance science rejected Aristotle's teleological physics as an incorrect and unnecessary account, which led Renaissance philosophy to make a similar rejection in the realm of ethics.‘

:up: Will get back to you. Thanks

Quoting Chris1952Engineer

However since retiring I have had time to consider other models such as "Relativity" and "Quantum Mechanics" and find myself increasingly drawn to the conclusion that Physics is a flawed mirror. One that we need to understand before we can move on and be at peace with both Science and ourselves.

There is clearly a fundamental flaw in one of the foundational propositions of modern physics, Newton's first law. This law, the law of inertia, states a taking for granted of the temporal continuity of physical existence. An external force is required to change the internal constitution of a physical object. But if we desire to account for the reality of free willing human beings, we need to repeal this law and consider the opposite condition, that a force is required to maintain the temporal continuity of physical existence. In theology, this force which maintains temporal continuity is known as the Will of God. In understanding the need to assume the reality of this force to account for the temporal continuity of physical existence, we can understand that the temporal continuity described as inertia, is the result of an active internal force, rather than something passive requiring an external force to interfere. This accounts for the observed fact that true change comes from within.

In reality, the temporal continuity which is described by the law of inertia, and which we have come to take for granted as a brute fact, through the acceptance of this law, is not a demonstrable necessity. Therefore the temporal continuity of physical existence which we know and observe ought to be considered as a contingency. It is contingent on the internal force, inhering within every physical body, which maintains the coherency of that body. Until we replace the law of inertia with a proper understanding of this internal force (The Will of God), which acts consistently through the passage of time to maintain the coherency of physical existence, physics will always be fundamentally flawed.

Quoting magritte

Classical physics works well to solve problems in the world of physical reality of space and motion

Hi Margarite

Exactly. This makes it the only one of the 3 models/ScientificTheories offered by Physics that directly applies to "our daily lives". The other two are specialist theories that relate to the behaviour of light and sub-atomic particles.

Quoting magritte

how can that be extended into our daily lives?

We can create a Visual "Black Box Model" that illustrates HOW Form defines function through the "electroMechanical" properties of reatance, "reluctance" and "Resistance" to produce "The larger Reality we all Inhabit, act upon and seek to Control".

It is well known that "A picture is worth a thousand words". After using the p/+P-\properties R, XC and XL to repair, service and occasionally design "electroMechanical" Systems for so many years I believe I may be able to supply one.

The problem is how to validate it because "Science" has it own method/Rationale.
The only answer seems to Socratic Debate and validation through general discussion.

Ideas?
Comments?
Do you think it is even possible to get to a unified physical model?

Anyway: Thank you for your insight. Look after you and yours, I'm of to do the same for a while.

Reply to Gregory

Looking back: I do find materialism satisfying. Will explain why later today when I have tidied up.

Quoting Wayfarer

?jgill
You might be thinking of the well-known Heisenberg quote: 'We have to remember that what we observe is not nature herself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning.'

"The next reason that you might think you do not understand what I am telling you is, while I am describing to you how nature works, you won't understand why nature works that way. But you see, nobody understands that."

R. Feynman, QED, page 10. :cool:

Reply to jgill:up:

Quoting Chris1952Engineer

Physics can never show "WHY" Reality behaves as it does until we understand its inherent flaws.

Well, physics has uncovered lots of WHYs, recently including why matter has mass. But why questions always yield more why questions. It is almost inevitable that any answer to a why question will demand some physical underpinning, but it doesn't follow that physics depends on answering them. Physics is about what things are made of and how they behave.

Quoting Chris1952Engineer

3) Physics can never show "WHY" Reality behaves as it does until we understand its inherent flaws.

True. That doesn't mean physics is flawed though. For physics purpose is not to explain why, but to explain what and how. I'm sure as an engineer, you understand that it is a tool for a particular job, and should not be criticized because it is the wrong tool for a different job.

Reply to Gregory


Hi back. "Chores" done. Wife happy. Much easier to think when I used to disappear off to work. Not so many distractions

In the early sixties I walked into my fathers radio and TV shop to help out and discovered a whole host of new and exciting Electrical and electronic gadgets. I was fascinated by them.

I simply had to know HOW they functioned, WHAT they were made of and WHY they did what they did.

In an instant I had gained a profession that requires a Materialistic outlook. A career that would keep my future wife in a manner to which she would soon become accustomed and a job "electroMechanical engineer" that has held my interest and provided a deep sense of satisfaction up to this day and beyond in the guise of a "hobby".

It does this for me because it is a quandary at heart: It involves solving practical "real life" problems e.g. "Why has my television stopped working" and yet it requires an understanding of the purely theoretical Classical Properties of Resistance, reactance and reluctance to do it.

It is puzzle solving at it purest and deeply satisfying. Very similar to being a doctor:

Except the "patient" does not "whine" when you blow it up and you do not have to "poke and hope". Classical Physics has provided the underlying framework and properties.

Quoting Wayfarer

Modern science, and modern thinking generally, rejects teleology, which is the idea that ‘things happen for a reason’ or that beings have a reason for existence. Or rather, the kinds of reasons which science deals with are what in Aristotelian philosophy are called efficient and material causes. ‘Formal’ cause and ‘final’ cause were both thrown out along with Aristotelian physics, which was inextricably bound up with Ptolemaic cosmology and geo-centrism. ‘Ancient and medieval ethics, argues MacIntyre in After Virtue, relied wholly on the teleological idea that human life had a proper end or character, and that human beings could not reach this natural end without preparation, that being the foundation of virtue ethics. Renaissance science rejected Aristotle's teleological physics as an incorrect and unnecessary account, which led Renaissance philosophy to make a similar rejection in the realm of ethics.‘

Permit me to do a quick recap of Aristotelian causes (the better word as per wiki is "explanation"):

The answer to why? in re a wooden table
1. Material cause: made of (wood)
2. Efficient cause: maker (carpentry)
3. Formal cause: design (table's shape, proportion, etc.)
4. Final cause: purpose (eating)

As you said, science seems to be about 1 and 2, only a little bit or not at all about 3 and definitely never about 4.

For my money, science doesn't answer a particular variety of why questions, ones that ask for an explanation for why scientific descriptive laws are the way they are. To reiterate, the scientific descriptions of gravity, how it works, is accurate to, if memory serves, to the 12th decimal place. However, ask scientists, "why there's gravity?" and they're as stumped as we are. FYI, Einstein managed to answer that question - mass causes space to curve but that doesn't help at all since the next question is "why does mass cause space to curve?". I gather even Einstein had no answer to that question.

Nonetheless, there seems to be a fundamental flaw in such questions because take the scenario in which an observation Z is given a scientific description Y. We could ask, "why Y?" and that would prompt scientists to explain Y with X but then we can ask, "why X?" and scientists would've to come up with an explanation W for X which would prompt the question, "why W?", so on ad infinitum. At some point scientists would have to put their feet down so to speak and say "no more why questions"!!

Thanks. :up:

Reply to Chris1952Engineer Yes, science does not explain why reality is what it is. Science is a description of reality: A causes B, if x then y, etc. Like looking at a landscape and describing it. It doesn't really explain any more than primitive relationships between things.

Looking at the above conversation, man's need to create a branch of thought which is not science, and which endeavours to learn the purpose of physical laws screams at the reader. "Why is gravity a good thing? Is it a good thing in the first place? Why should we accept gravity as presented, and not protest to have it a different way? What is morally good about Laplasse's equation, and why is PV/T = pv/t an evil phenomena? why are we doing physics research into QM, when the whole thing could be so much easier to decide by plebisite?" (SP)

Quoting god must be atheist

Faith excludes knowledge

Hi again.

I would argue that faith does not exclude knowledge.
It is simply a different form of knowledge:

Real Life experience stored as memes and "intuitive" Learned Response. individual reality" that is ultimately tested across generations and social structures through Socratic method and Darwinian survival to create "Wisdom".

Thank you for the insight your individual reality and mental exercise have provided. Look after you and yours. Regards Chris

What hasn’t been mentioned is the role that physics has assumed as paradigmatic for science generally. The ‘Laws of Physics’, said Whitehead, assumed the role accorded to the ‘inexorable decrees of Fate’ by Greek drama, in modern thought.

What physics offers is unprecedented clarity, certainty and control with respect to the objects of its analysis. When Newton’s Principia were published, it was if mankind had suddenly learned the ‘levers of the Universe’. Of course those principles were superseded or subsumed by the discovery of relativity but the fact remains they were the beginning of the ‘universal science’. Hence the influence of physicalism in modern culture and the phenomenon of ‘physics envy’ which is the desire for other scientific disciplines to attain the same level of clarity and certainty as physics.

Quoting TheMadFool

For my money, science doesn't answer a particular variety of why questions, ones that ask for an explanation for why scientific descriptive laws are the way they are.

There’s an important distinction to be made between methodological and metaphysical naturalism. The former is simply the judicious assumption to leave aside, or bracket out, factors which are not reasonably in scope for scientific method. And there are many such factors. But methodological naturalism morphs into metaphysical naturalism when those methodological assumptions are treated as ‘statements about reality’. That is why physicalism can be compared to a ‘Procrustean bed’ (Procrustes being a mythological Greek bandit who would stretch or squeeze hapless travellers into his iron bed.)

Methodological naturalism, by contrast, has a kind of Socratic modesty - it doesn’t make assumptions beyond its warrant or make statements beyond its domain. But you don’t see a lot of that. Rather the spirit of science nowadays is Promethean rather than Socratic; having displaced God, we now want to replace him. (A journalist once asked Craig Venter, synthesiser of DNA, whether he was concerned by the accusation that scientists like himself were ‘playing God’. ‘We’re not playing’, was the response - with a wink, I suspect, but still...)

Quoting Wayfarer

physics has assumed as paradigmatic for science generally.

`
It shows in my posts and probably in those of other members.

Quoting Wayfarer

What physics offers is unprecedented clarity, certainty and control with respect to the objects of its analysis.

This is why.

Quoting Wayfarer

Hence the influence of physicalism in modern culture and the phenomenon of ‘physics envy’ which is the desire for other scientific disciplines to attain the same level of clarity and certainty as physics.

This seems inevitable given what you said but, on analysis, seems like a Zohnerism.

[quote=Wikipedia]In recognition of his experiment, journalist James K. Glassman coined the term "Zohnerism" to refer to "the use of a true fact to lead a scientifically and mathematically ignorant public to a false conclusion".[/quote]

Dihydrogen Monoxide Parody

I mean to become a adherent of physicalism just because physics in particular and science in general is highly accurate in its predictions is like thinking the best sharpshooter in the army has the answer to every conceivable question. Bad analogy? I don't know. Just saying.

Quoting Wayfarer

There’s an important distinction to be made between methodological and metaphysical naturalism. The former is simply the judicious assumption to leave aside, or bracket out, factors which are not reasonably in scope for scientific method.

A wise decision - avoids controversies which might otherwise distract and no useful scientific work will ever get done.

Quoting Wayfarer

But methodological naturalism morphs into metaphysical naturalism when those methodological assumptions are treated as ‘statements about reality’. That is why physicalism can be compared to a ‘Procrustean bed’ (Procrustes being a mythological Greek bandit who would stretch or squeeze hapless travellers into his iron bed.)

Do you have any examples, instances, of the "travellers" that don't fit in physicalism's Procrustes? If you have the time that is.

Quoting Wayfarer

Methodological naturalism, by contrast, has a kind of Socratic modesty - it doesn’t make assumptions beyond its warrant or make statements beyond its domain. But you don’t see a lot of that. Rather the spirit of science nowadays is Promethean rather than Socratic; having displaced God, we now want to replace him. (A journalist once asked Craig Venter, synthesiser of DNA, whether he was concerned by the accusation that scientists like himself were ‘playing God’. ‘We’re not playing’, was the response - with a wink, I suspect, but still...)

Interesting take on the issue. Thanks a ton!

Quoting TheMadFool

Do you have any examples, instances, of the "travellers" that don't fit in physicalism's Procrustes?

Non-materialists. There are many varieties.

Quoting Wayfarer

Non-materialists. There are many varieties.

You seem like a non-materialist. Why? Was/is there anything that led you down that path?

Reply to Chris1952Engineer I don't think this is physics specific. You can ask "Why" forever in any field and best you will get is circular logic.

Reply to jgill

I agree with you 100%.
I have owned the book: Feynman's Thesis and his new approach to Quantum Theory.
edited by Laurie M. Brown ISBN 981-256-366-0 for many years now.

Richard possessed an enviable insight.

Quoting jgill

physics could never say why nature behaves as it does, only how.

Attributed Richard Feynman ???

Cannot seem to find it. Looked @https://www.brainyquote.com/authors/richard-p-feynman-quotes

However I do believe YOU are 100% right with that STATEMENT-"meme grouping" WHEREVER it came from: !!!

You have provided me with some Very\-valuable.......................................Insight/+information.

Can I offer a "meme group"- idea of my own in Exchange\payment?

Physics can never "say" WHY because it's "language" is mathematics.
A medium developed from individual RelationShip\s with a 4D larger Physical Reality that we all seek to change/- Control +\ connect with through g/G\'s force in order to benefit ourselves and our genes as individuals.

Thank you. :up:
AND to quote Hughie Green (look him up). I mean this most sincerely, folks. :starstruck:

Flaw one. (source: R Feynman - Reply to jgill + Chris1952Enginner)
Physics is a purely descriptive medium employing the language of mathematics.
The mirror on Reality it provides will always require:
translation-/Interpretation\+evaluation through "Scientific Method" to Validate\-Experimentalt+\virtual Theories against individual-memes+realities.

The quote is on page ten of QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter, R. Feynman, Princeton University Press, 1985. It's in the introduction by Feynman. The book is a redacted version of a series of lectures Feynman gave at UCLA as part of the Alix C. Mautner Memorial Lecture series. :cool:

Reply to Banno

Hi Banno

Apologies for the delay in answering.
Your post of a f/F\fact??? is giving me a problem. :confused:

Try this:

How do you know that physics is: Quoting Banno

incomplete.

There could be several reasons WHY physicists could have a full "data set"and yet be unable to provide a UNIFIED VIEW: A "why-/WHY\+why" derived from the WHAT and HOW of a larger 4Dimensional Physical Reality we all seek to change-/Control\+connect with through g/G force\s in order to benefit our genes and ourselves as individuals.

Does that make sense to you ????

Reply to jgill Reply to jgill

Hi Great to hear from you again.
Have corrected the attribution for "Flaw one".

Have Question for YOU (if you're willing?).

Do you believe mathematics is capable of truly modelling a 4Dimensional r/-R+\reality when it is fundamentally a 2 d-Dimensional Virtual Reality?
Yes/No

Reply to Chris1952Engineer Hm. Your style detracts from the legibility of your posts.

Would you be surprised that an explanation of American voting regimes does not explain the structure of ant hills in South Australia?

Would you look for a better explanation of ant hills by filling in the detail of the voting system in California?

Why should physics ever be "complete"?

Reply to Chris1952Engineer Math is not inherently two dimensional, although that's how the student is initially introduced to the subject. For example, college calculus normally follows a pattern established by what used to be a prerequisite course in 2-D: Analytic Geometry. But I think there are universities that begin calculus in n-dimensions. Or, I know that's been attempted. However, high school students work generally in 2-D since it is easier to visualize and thus convey principles and doesn't require complicated spatial intricacies.

Traditionally, pen and paper were the instruments of discovery and promulgation of mathematical knowledge. These days there is much math done in n-dimensions or infinite dimensions.

Quoting jgill

in 2-D since it is easier to visualize and thus convey principles

You are Right!!!!
Got it the wrong way r/R\round !!!
................................... :sad:
..................................r\R/r

It is NOT math that is a Duality.
Math is a MULTIVERSE : a Translation Matrix just like the mIrroR !!

Thank You 1. Thank You 2. Thank You 3..d/D\d 4? 5? 6?............ISBN 978-0-521-54266-1 Paperback.
.................................................................... :cool: ......c|C|change-g|G|g+s|S|stability = r-/|\R\|/+reality?
..................................................................d\D/d................................Diameter+denSTitY-Balance+?
The p/P\product...................................o-Form+function............RealDiference AND PotentialdifferenZes.

BECAUSE the only options open to ANY PHYSICAL ENTITY are:
Move-back+forth in Space : Transition up /OR\ down in energy.

Origin: Mundells roundabout WGC. 2002. Source UoH = MCY+CAY-g\|/G/|\+g-?x+jgill
Does this ALL make sense to you?

It does to me NOW . thAnks . thAnks . thAnks

"Third time pays forALL" ???? J.R.R. Tolkien, The Hobbit........ISBN: MY-bookshelf+???

IF you have the time I have a further Question, a Consider:ation and a st o rY of WHY that MAY explain the Working's of a s/S\single 3d|D|duality-electro/Mechanical\entity I inhabit+am-An EternalPart of................... ..................?

Quoting Banno

Your style detracts from the legibility of your posts

I know it is Different. BUT . It Serves a p-/P\purpose for em-/ME+\me. It emphasises my P-philosophy:

The only options open to ANY PHYSICAL ENTITY are:

------------Move-back+forth in Space : Transition up /OR\ down in energY

Quoting Banno

Would you be surprised that an explanation of American voting regimes does not explain the structure of ant hills in South Australia?

Depends: how - long + HOW d/D\detailed Can the eXplanation be ???
S.e.e-search "Butterfly Effect"

Quoting Banno

Why should physics ever be "complete"?

Because the Universe is a Single electroMagneticentity.
AND
Physics is a Mathematical digital-/Dimensioning\+description of ThatSystem employing Formula, functions AND facts.

Quoting Chris1952Engineer

Does this ALL make sense to you?

Too weird. Sorry :roll:

Quoting khaled

I don't think this is physics specific. You can ask "Why" forever in any field and best you will get is circular logic.

Physics is not about asking anything. It is the study of Form "WHAT" + function "HOW". through the language of numbers. Where is the circular Logic in that? Can you give me an example .

Reply to jgill Reply to jgill

No problem .:cool:.

We just see the SAME thing in a d/D\different WAY

.BECAUSE.:
I am still TWo-Dimensional in my thinking.
.I. need to separate + d/D\define - Form AND function in order to evaluate s/S\structure within an electroMechanical system OR .Duality.
.YOU. took time to learn "imaginary" numbers and can think in 3D ?because? mathematics has it's own inherent Structure.

HOW Explain????????
Ah..... mmm.
YES. To quote .MAX BYGRAVES."I wanna tell you a story"

Once upon a time I was totally fascinated by the g/G\great mystery of Electrical and electronic products. So I w/W\waved g\G/goodbye to M-D+ left for college to study City&Guilds Electronic Technician level 1. There I learned about the factors and Properties that determined the behaviour of electronic ProductsV=I.R Xc =1/2.pi.f.C Xl = 2.pi.f.L and the rightHandrule.

Everything was going great Guns: Until

Quoting TheMadFool

I don't get the analogy of a mirror

The mirror is a simile reflecting the "FACT" that whatever we all do we are all separated from both Reality and individual reality by a "Translation Matrix". Would you agree / disagree Yes\No

Reply to EnPassant Quoting EnPassant

science does not explain why reality is what it is.

No, it does not.
BUT
It does use math to describe the HOW+WHAT of a 3D Reality we are all part of.
Would agree /disagree Yes\No

Quoting Chris1952Engineer

It does use math to describe the HOW+WHAT of a 3D Reality we are all part of.
Would agree /disagree Yes\No

Up to a point. Science can only show basic primitive relations. It cannot address higher or more sophisticated questions like meaning and consciousness etc.

Quoting Chris1952Engineer

3) Physics can never show "WHY" Reality behaves as it does until we understand its inherent flaws.

Physics asks "how" Nature works, and does not attempt to answer "why" questions. That is the purview of Metaphysics and Philosophy. So, the study of physics is not so much "flawed", as it is self-limited. :smile:

Science Categories : Aristotle divided the theoretical sciences into three groups:physics, mathematics, and theology. { Note -- theology is now known as meta-physics }
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Aristotle/Physics-and-metaphysics

....

Reply to EnPassant
Quoting EnPassant

Up to a point.

Precisely. Yes. You make a very important point. ONE that I would totally agree with.

For me:
There is a Considerable difference between a fundamental Physical Reality that is subject to mass
AND a complex multifaceted reality created through Individual experience and the action of:
Matter-Genes+meme's.

One is: "The Board upon which we all write/Play".
The other is "The Scenery within\Which we act AND encounter Consequences".

Source: Newton "To every action there is an equal AND opposite reaction"

Quoting Gnomon

Physics asks "how" Nature works, and does not attempt to answer "why" questions.

Precisely. Yes.Yes. You make THE important point. ONE would totally agree with THAT.

re: Physics
I prefer the following definition: Physics. the branch of science concerned with the nature and properties of matter and energy. Source: Oxford Languages.

It is "tuned" to my perspective:
I can interpret "concerned with the nature" as HOW
I can interpret "properties of matter and energy" as WHAT.
I can then Understand WHY, "Drive the Train"and Benefit in the Real World.

On this basis we are all e/E\engineers seeking to answer the ONLY three q/Q\questions that really matter in order to benefit our Genes and validate our memes.

The Scientist simply has a wider viewpoint and works on behalf of Humanity.

Maybe: It's time to listen to him-/Her\IT+ stop playing trains/Monopoly and tidy up our room?

After all it's NOT Real Money these days it's just numbers in a computer-www WE all built.

Quoting Chris1952Engineer

I would argue that faith does not exclude knowledge.

How would that argument sound like?

My argument that faith excludes knowledge is based on faith being unreliable, at best with a completely random rate of success of getting predictions right, and getting its wishes fulfilled. Knowledge has a much better batting average than faith.

Take two examples. I have faith that god exists (batting average: 0.500) or else that god does not exist (batting average: 0.500). I have knowledge that I am me, and that I am not somebody else. Batting average: 1.000.

This is a huge divider between knowledge and faith. Faith is no form of knowledge. it is a form of a guessing game, with betting on an outcome without knowledge what the outcome will be.

Quoting god must be atheist

How would that argument sound like?

In my view faith is NOT just about god the son/God the Father\g's holy spirit.
There are other kinds of f/Faith\faith:

Faith in one's SELF.
faith in ones OWN experienceS
and
faith in Learned memes proven to be of benefit through Natural Selection.

A Question in return.

HOW do youPersonally interpret: g\G/g'S ????

Quoting Chris1952Engineer

Faith in one[/b]'SELFelf,
faith in ones OWN experienceS

How can you have faith in the existence of these?

Are we talking about the same thing when we say "faith"?

To me faith is belief, particularly at times religious/dogmatic/superstitious belief.

Do you believe (that is, not know, but believe) that you exist?

Quoting Chris1952Engineer

HOW do youPersonally interpret: g\G/g'S ????

Interesting question. I believe that god may exist, and equally likely that god does not exist.

I also believe that any claim on the nature of god is a hoax, as god (in case god exists) never gave any evidence of its own qualities.

This should answer your question, and the direct answer is, of course, that I don't believe a god exist, although it may; and I don't interpret something that does not exist, and I don't interpret existing things that I have no evidence of whatsoever.

Quoting god must be atheist

How can you have faith in the existence of these?

By making myself clearer.
Apologies for sloppy thinking.
Edited previous post.
Now reads:

In my view faith is NOT just about god the son/God the Father\g's holy spirit.
There are other kinds of f/Faith\faith:(AND g-/G\+g's)

Faith in one's SELF.
faith in ones OWN experiences
and
faith in Learned memes proven to be of benefit through Natural Selection.

Moving on:
Faith in one's SELF. The fundamental BIOS of humanity: eXamine/CrY\eat.

faith in Form.
Descartes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito,_ergo_sum

Does that work 4U????

Reply to Chris1952Engineer I am afraid you and I are getting further and further away from understanding the other.

What a shame.

Hi
Was getting back to your point.(delayed by “housekeeping”)
Agree with you. But also have a different perspective.
My ratio not 50/50 but 49.9999\50.00001 in favour.
After all:
Something has to hold the Universe together
Somebody has to have created it in the first place because God only switched on the lights in my book.
Science has three different descriptions and seems to be arguing with it’s self inn a multiverse of it’s own creation.

Does that put me back on track???

Reply to Chris1952Engineer Yes, you're back on track in my books. Differences don't take a man off the track. Not recognizing differences or similarities does. You are okay.

I was really taken aback by your random use of capitals and bold face. That was disturbing to see. You tried, I believe, to shortcut description; unfortunately your shortcuts that replaced longhand explanations are only meaningful to you. They have no interpersonal, only intrapersonal communicative value.

Quoting Chris1952Engineer

You are Right!!!!
Got it the wrong way r/R\round !!!
................................... :sad:
..................................r\R/r

It is NOT math that is a Duality.
Math is a MULTIVERSE : a Translation Matrix just like the mIrroR !!

Thank You 1. Thank You 2. Thank You 3..d/D\d 4? 5? 6?............ISBN 978-0-521-54266-1 Paperback.
.................................................................... :cool: ......c|C|change-g|G|g+s|S|stability = r-/|\R\|/+reality?
..................................................................d\D/d................................Diameter+denSTitY-Balance+?
The p/P\product...................................o-Form+function............RealDiference AND PotentialdifferenZes.

BECAUSE the only options open to ANY PHYSICAL ENTITY are:
Move-back+forth in Space : Transition up /OR\ down in energy.

Origin: Mundells roundabout WGC. 2002. Source UoH = MCY+CAY-g\|/G/|\+g-?x+jgill
Does this ALL make sense to you?

It does to me NOW . thAnks . thAnks . thAnks

"Third time pays forALL" ???? J.R.R. Tolkien, The Hobbit........ISBN: MY-bookshelf+???

IF you have the time I have a further Question, a Consider:ation and a st o rY of WHY that MAY explain the Working's of a s/S\single 3d|D|duality-electro/Mechanical\entity I inhabit+am-An EternalPart of................... ..................?

For your information only, Engineer1952, this is complete nonsense to your readers. You need to force yourself to learn to communicate more meaningfully to humanity other than yourself.

Reply to god must be atheist
Quoting god must be atheist

Yes, you're back on track in my books. Differences don't take a man off the track. Not recognizing differences or similarities does. You are okay.

Thank you for your company, feedback and tolerance.
Got there in the end!

Quoting god must be atheist

unfortunately your shortcuts that replaced longhand explanations are only meaningful to you. They have no interpersonal, only intrapersonal communicative value.

Exactly. Talking to my self. Bad habit.

Quoting jgill

Too weird. Sorry :roll:

My fault entirely.
Apologies for the delay in getting back to you.
There is a big difference between knowing something, understanding something and Explaining IT to someone else.:smile: .
eSPeCiaLLY when someone uN-eXpectedly gives you the last Piece of a puzzle that has fascinated you since 1968.

Can I calmly go back to the beginning and start again?:cool: ... ?
Could you perform 3D Mathematical modelling of TWO dimensional Geometric shapes in f r/-R+\r ee SpaceTime?
Do I need to explain further ?-/?\+?---------------?-/?\+?

With sincere Regards+Thank-S
...I am most g/G\gratefully Yours ----
Christopher Anthony Young (former(miet(retIRed 2017 d/D\dueS-s CurrentL)lY unPaid))

p.s. I can rephrase all this IF requested BUT it Will take some time To Complete.

Quoting Chris1952Engineer

Could you perform 3D Mathematical modelling of TWO dimensional Geometric shapes in f r/-R+\r ee SpaceTime?

The space part of space time is 3-D, and since 2-D is a subset of 3-D a flat square would be just that, much as you looking at one on a piece of paper. I must be missing your point. If so, please explain in normal language without all the extra symbols. I take it you were born in 1952 and are a retired engineer.

Reply to jgill

Yes. An electronics engineer.

Quoting jgill

The space part of space time is 3-D, and since 2-D is a subset of 3-D a flat square would be just that,

Quoting god must be atheist

I believe, to shortcut description;

correCT.
Quoting jgill

much as you looking at one on a piece of paper.

. CorREct

Please take a sheet of paper, a pen and perform the following mental-physical+graphical exercise.

At top of the paper write the following 2-D mathematical relationship-/Rule\relationships'S that have been fundamental to my professional career for over fifty years:

V = I.R where V = potentialDifference I = Current and R = Resistance
XC = 1/2.pi.f.c where XC = reactance pi= relationship between circumference+Diameter f = frequency

Comments??
TBA

Quoting jgill

much as you looking at one on a piece of paper.

Please take a sheet of paper, a pen and perform the following mental-physical+graphical exercise.

At top of the paper write the following 2-D mathematical relationship-/Rule\relationships'S that have been fundamental to my professional career for over fifty years:

V = I.R where V = potentialDifference I = Current and R = Resistance
XC = 1/2.pi.f.c where XC = reactance pi= relationship between circumference+Diameter f = frequency

TBA

Since this thread has slowed down, I wanted to try to jump in here quickly. The following video has much to add to my question here, so watch it if your interested. It's ten minutes only:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNqNnUJVcVs

Although I haven't read Einstein say this in words, I have heard all over the place that he thought the earth moves up towards an object when the object appears to fall. Now if the world is round and someone drops an apple on the North pole and someone drops an apple on the South pole, which way will the earth move? It doesn't make sense. If the earth was an accelerating disk, this actually would make sense however. Is the world a disk that sometimes acts as a sphere, or it is sphere that sometimes acts like a disk, or is it neither or both? Modern science seems to get stranger and stranger as time moves on and it's hard for us lay people to know what to think about material realism anymore

Reply to Gregory

Some basic physical literacy wouldn't go astray here.

Quoting Gregory

Since this thread has slowed down,

Maybe we need to drop an apple on it to make it accelerate.

Seriously speaking, yes, when you drop the apple, it accelerates toward the Earth, and he earth accelates toward the apple, and upon impact they both stop movement caused by this drop.

You are also right in saying that the Earth would not move if two apples of the same size and mass were dropped from equal distances form the centre of the Earth, at opposite sides of the Earth. South pole, North pole, will do just as well as any other two opposite sides.

You must realize, however, that when you pick up an apple from the ground and you lift it up, then you not only distance the apple from the centre of gravity of the Earth-apple mass, but you also move the Earth away not just form the apple, but from the same centre as well. Then when you drop the apple, and it hits the ground at the same spot where it lay before you picked it up, the Earth moves toward the apple, the apple moves toward the Earth, and they both stop movement upon impact.

One more fascinating fact for you: there is a centre of gravity in the apple-Earth system. The initial stage is that the apple lies on the ground. If you lift it up, it moves the apple and the Earth in relation to the centre of gravity of their system. If you throw the apple at escape velocity toward the sky, the apple and the Earth will constantly be moving away from each other for ever, and also from their common centre of gravity. But if you took note of the centre of gravity between the Earth and the apple, it will never move as long as the only things that move in the system are only the Earth and the apple. Whether the apple is lying on the ground, or falls, or is lifted, or speeds away at escape velocity, the centre of gravity of the system of Earth and the apple remains in the same spot.

This is what @Banno in his haughty and condescending way said you should know when he suggested a basic grounding in physics literacy... he actually called it physical literacy, which means a bit different, but we won't tell him that, will we.

He knows.

The reasoning is that Gregory was not paying attention in physics class, therefore science doesn't make sense.

I've seen more cogent arguments on milk cartons.

Reply to god must be atheist

Thanks. I've never taken a physics class before. Banno get's haughty all the time on this forum

Reply to Banno

I presented a specific argument about dropping apples on the North and South pole. This is a philosophy forum and I most read philosophy, so it's ok to ask general physics questions when they come up. The link I cited mentioned particles from outer space which react to the earth as if it was flat. These where specific questions I was interested in.

Reply to Gregory I guess it's his privilege, as it is our privilege to behave any way we want. I don't like him at all, but I guess he figures (no knowledge claimed, I'm not him, I don't know his true motivation) that he is not on a popularity contest. In a way he has the right, but it is really demeaning to other users. He sucks up to the mods big time though, I noticed. He is not of strong moral character in my opinion, but that is nothing else but my own opinion. Nobody should quote me on that, because my opinion is not evidence of his character.

Reply to god must be atheist

I don't know why he misrepresented the specific questions I was asking in such a ridiculous and demeaning way

Quoting Gregory

I don't know why he misrepresented the specific questions I was asking in such a ridiculous and demeaning way

It is not to be our worry why he does what he does. Let him be and don't let him negatively influence you. He is an autonomous human being, and we must not have the pretence to claim we can, should or must change him. Just don't let his haughtiness bring you down, in fact, don't even read his posts.

Other sites have functions that hide any user's posts from your sight on the site if you choose. This site does not.

Quoting god must be atheist

Other sites have functions that hide any user's posts from your sight on the site if you choose. This site does not.

Years ago I was on a religious site that had that option

Ahhh, don't let the grumpy old bastard get to you. He's probably just having trouble with his bowls.

What a garbled mess this thread has become. :sad:

Quoting jgill

What a garbled mess this thread has become.

A true reflection of quantum physics.

Quoting jgill

much as you looking at one on a piece of paper.

Quoting jgill

What a garbled mess this thread has become. :sad:

Yes. Let's see WHAT we can do about it :roll:

(Thanks again for the inspiration BY the w.W.way).

Can you help me predict that Project-Experiment "Grail Quest" will show us that "R"eality is Chunky + hence iT iS Constantly SeeK\ing - SMootH stability - TheRmal eQuiliBRium + Balance.

As required by Universal L&W's of Thermodynamics.

Right I think THAT is IT: (Please Correct Me IF i am Wrong)

No more numbers.!!!!

No more coLouring in fact ors- Form ulae+ function s.

Let's just get that blank 2-D sheet of paper (Virtual OR otherwise) AND
Get Started.

Consider:

The simplest possible r/-R+\reality.
One containing only two different sized sub-atomic particles.
circle 1 in the top Left Hand corner.
Circle 2 in the bottom Right Hand corner.

Give them each an Imperfect+irregular textured surface.

Right.
Time to go away, draw that, have breakfast and pay attention to Wife.
:nerd:
Regards Chris
p.s Will Get Back 2U & aLL .?.
p.p.s. Look after You and yours.

Open for further comments Questions or opinions................now :pray:

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

A true reflection of quantum physics.

It's amazing how Dirac, Feynman, and others were able to discover the mathematics to deal with a world in which visualization seems so difficult, if not impossible. In high school in the early 1950s we were taught that electrons were like little BBs, flying around atoms. Now they are non-local fields or Poincare groups or whatever, and Feynman tells us to shut up and compute. For me, I don't know enough modern physics to even be wrong. :meh:

Reply to jgill
I agree that the mathematics required to deal with virtually anything, can be discovered. The question for me though, is how real are the things which are inferred from these mathematical solutions. It seems like we now have a whole class of things, like non-local fields, multiverses, dark matter, dark energy, etc., whose existence is inferred from the mathematics, but to me an existence which is highly doubtful. This is why I am very skeptical of the mathematical axioms, and the principles of physics, which are employed. Regardless of the problem which the mathematics solves, if it just creates another problem, it is not an adequate solution.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

. . . whose existence is inferred from the mathematics

The math in QT itself is pretty shaky. Renormalization and regularization procedures are used to manipulate expressions that annoyingly become infinite. And Feynman's "Sum of all paths integral" is not really a functional integral as most mathematicians think of the term. Nevertheless, with a lot of handwaving the physics works out. Here's a quote from Feynman on Wikipedia:

"The shell game that we play is technically called 'renormalization'. But no matter how clever the word, it is still what I would call a dippy process! Having to resort to such hocus-pocus has prevented us from proving that the theory of quantum electrodynamics is mathematically self-consistent. It's surprising that the theory still hasn't been proved self-consistent one way or the other by now; I suspect that renormalization is not mathematically legitimate." :cry:

Reply to jgill Quoting jgill

electrons were like little BBs,

Snap :grin:
That is how they taught me about thermionic Valves.
? Do you know anything about them?
ElectroStaticDevice, Works at High Voltage+Temperature. Easy-Peasy :blush:

Now days we employ transistors-Semiconductors+chips.
? Do you know anything about them?
Surprise: NO BBs there at all, JUST holes???

Makes you doubtful about their ExPlanation/s doesn't it.
It did me.

Anyway: Turns out there IS an explanation that works.
(Some math (I have been warned (site police(unwanted emails))

AND which has never failed me in over 50 years) and a thing called an AVOmeter that would sort it all out for M-me+E.

(Thank your mob for that one when you see them next)

Along With whoever discovered a thing called https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-hand_rule

Definitely TRUE I know that from PersonalExperience.

Sorry got to go: Wife just woke up.
Will get back to U-ALL :razz:

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

The question for me though, is how real are the things which are inferred from these mathematical solutions.

Exactly. I have spent a considerable time thinking about that issue. Years in fact.

The "slide" in the representation of Form and function as Physics moves from "Classical" to "Relative" and finally into the Quantum Mechanical viewpoint is v/V\very a\A/ apparent.

The "Click" came for me:
Quoting jgill

high school students work generally in 2-D since it is easier to visualiz(S)ze and thus convey principles

I took a pragmatic approach and returned to years -gone By:Y+ an approach that had proved [b]it[/b]'s-SelF to be both successful and PraCtical for OVER 50Year-/R\+r's.

"blackBox\X/x modeling/G\g's"
:cool:
Will Get Back 2-u.U.u.:ok: :starstruck:

Reply to Chris1952Engineer
Hey Chris, why do you write in such a strange way? I find it kind of distracting, making it difficult to read some of your longer posts.

It's the way I get things straight in my mind and a reflection of my core Philosophy:

"Reality" is the product of an electroMechanical d/Duality
Caused by properties of reluctance, Resistance and reactance.

c/C\creation I leave to g/G\g's AND individual Choice OR fW

Within it there are only 2 options open to any e\Entity/e:
move up/ \down in energy
OR back- +forth in spaCetime


Would you agree?.

??? Does anyone know how to put an image here?
OR is that not possible ?

Become a subscriber, Chris. Or link an image from an existing (safe) site.

This is an interesting thread and delves into the bizarre nature of some mathematical interpretations in physics, where the math can be crazy but results experimentally verifiable. For example,regularization techniques are used to "sum" series that normally would diverge to infinity. In the Casimir effect, the following weirdness prevails: [math]{{1}^{3}}+{{2}^{3}}+{{3}^{3}}+\cdots =\frac{1}{120}[/math] . Also of use is: [math]1+2+3+\cdots =-\frac{1}{12}[/math].

These "sums" are obtained by using analytic continuations of the Zeta function, and are jarring to one accustomed to normal mathematical summation. Crazy, in fact. If Kenosha Kid reads this he could tell us more about the physics.

Quoting jgill

Become a subscriber, Chris. Or link an image from an existing (safe) site.

Thanks. Logical :nerd: :cool:
Quoting jgill

diverge to infinity.

Read something in Feynmans preface about that :worry:
Charge low. Have to cop out for a Quick one 12% and falling

Quoting Chris1952Engineer

It's the way I get things straight in my mind and a reflection of my core Philosophy:

"Reality" is the product of an electroMechanical d/Duality
Caused by properties of reluctance, Resistance and reactance.

c/C\creation I leave to g/G\g's AND individual Choice OR fW

Within it there are only 2 options open to any e\Entity/e:
move up/ \down in energy
OR back- +forth in spaCetime

If all activities are describable as changes of energy, what accounts for the difference between electro and Mechanical?