How can the Universe exist without Logos?

usertwelve
reply to post by AfterInfinity

 

Hmm. Okay. So if I "imagine" a law from observations
...
Are those results and observations a result of a force originating from inside my head? Or their heads?

The law will always be imaginary. The observed behavior that the law describes is very real.

So is the color red imaginary as well? Maybe the C note on a piano or a guitar? Those vibrations are imaginary?

usertwelve
reply to post by AfterInfinity

 

Okay. Let's take the number one.

Where did the number one come from?

Real/Natural numbers were invented, complex and irrational numbers were discovered. Though these are very tricky areas f maths even great mathematicians struggle to comprehend.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

So in the end, there wouldn't be a universe. It would explode, run out of fuel, and return to being a dense knot of particles. Rinse and repeat.

This is exactly what modern physicists are postulating. Pretty cool you came to the same conclusion.

So how do you think the universe has managed to preserve itself, in spite of being naturally chaotic, as you suggest?

The billion dollar question.

reply to post by bastion

I already did

Sorry I must have missed them. Can you point them out to me?

If you're not going to be civil

I am by no means attempting to be uncivil. I apologize if I gave that impression.

reply to post by usertwelve


I already told you.

You keep mixing up political laws with scientific laws.

There's no need to enforce, govern or control laws that can't be broken.

Tell me, who can break the reason and logic of Logos.

bastion

usertwelve
reply to post by AfterInfinity

 

Okay. Let's take the number one.

Where did the number one come from?

Real/Natural numbers were invented, complex and irrational numbers were discovered.

It's not like numbers were just invented and thrown together to make a decision sound convincing. Using math, to me, is like consulting example provided by structures and behaviors that have more than sufficed for thousands of years. We look at what's been demonstrated as possible and reliable, pick apart its components until we understand their relationship and why such a construct succeeds, test it, establish its reliability, then use it as a point of reference. The universe is one giant schematic we have studied for centuries in order to understand what works and why. We didn't just pop up knowing this. We took notes from nature. I keep getting this impression that math is being filed in the "circular logic" folder because we invented it and therefore it works. No, that's not what happened. We know it works because nature has spent hundreds of thousands of years demonstrating it to us. The need for translation does not devalue the material being translated. The assignment of sounds and shapes to these concepts does not devalue their validity as tried and proven products and symptoms of forces that have existed and operated and achieved and stumbled and broken down and rebuilt and improved millenia before we were a gleam in the Cro Magnons' eyes.

reply to post by neoholographic

These laws of physics can change as new information emerges

Didn't you say these laws were unbreakable? Behavior changes.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

So is the color red imaginary as well? Maybe the C note on a piano or a guitar? Those vibrations are imaginary?

Very real indeed. They also are not laws.

neoholographic
reply to post by usertwelve

 

There's no need to enforce, govern or control laws that can't be broken.

This is the point I've been trying to make. What if existence is it's own function? Existence doesn't exist to do anything other than exist? And for as long as it exists, it will find other ways to exist in order to keep existing. In other words, matter and energy will find ways to live on even if it has to kick the can down the road a block or two to find some stability, because it cannot be destroyed. It can't simply vanish into nothingness.

usertwelve
reply to post by neoholographic

 

These laws of physics can change as new information emerges

Didn't you saw these laws were unbreakable? Behavior changes.

What???

I have been saying that these laws can change as new information emerges because we're still discovering the laws of physics. You do know that gravity existed before Newton or the photoelectric effect existed before Einstein? They just discovered these things through mathematics.

reply to post by bastion

Real/Natural numbers were invented, complex and irrational numbers were discovered. Though these are very tricky areas f maths even great mathematicians struggle to comprehend.

Agreed

reply to post by AfterInfinity


That's a good point.

For some reason he keeps acting like scientific law is just like a political law that says stop at a red light. The reason why you need police to enforce the law to stop at a red light is because it can be broken.

usertwelve
reply to post by bastion

 

I already did

Sorry I must have missed them. Can you point them out to me?

See my prevous post on how the laws of the Universe create the boundaries within which all matter must behave

reply to post by AfterInfinity


Precisely, while invented the nautral number counting system is incredibly useful. So useful in fact that there's still huge debates between top mathematicians over whether it all exists independent of man.

The difference between complex and irrational numbers is they were first discovered via analyzing properties on nature - i.e pi is needed to calculate anything to do with circles, spheres and associated - they were already inbuilt into the data before we started to try and understand it. While the figure 3.14.. would not exist in a different base number system the constant would exist as it's something completely independent of man.

If you don't study maths aleady, I strongly suggest taking it up as you have a fantastic grasp of the logic/interactions behind it which is the area that id hardest to teach or learn.

neoholographic
reply to post by AfterInfinity

 

That's a good point.

For some reason he keeps acting like scientific law is just like a political law that says stop at a red light. The reason why you need police to enforce the law to stop at a red light is because it can be broken.

Indeed. And breaking a law means you're forcing it to do anything but follow that particular law. How are you supposed to control a law of physics and break it at the same time?

neoholographic

usertwelve
reply to post by neoholographic

 

These laws of physics can change as new information emerges

Didn't you saw these laws were unbreakable? Behavior changes.

What???

I have been saying that these laws can change as new information emerges because we're still discovering the laws of physics. You do know that gravity existed before Newton or the photoelectric effect existed before Einstein? They just discovered these things through mathematics.

Your words:

There's no need to enforce, govern or control laws that can't be broken.

reply to post by bastion

I was looking for words to describe the sentences that are being used. Did you provide that and I missed it?

reply to post by usertwelve


Again, you're just asking the same questions and they make no sense.

JUST BECAUSE A SCIENTIFIC LAW CHANGES DOESN'T MEAN THE LAW IS BROKEN LIKE RUNNING A RED LIGHT!!

It just means we have came up with new theories and better technology to explain the nature of reality. There's nothing broken.

When Einstein discovered the Photoelectric effect and then people like Bohr and Heisenberg came along and developed Quantum Mechanics what law was broken?

When Einsten came along after Newton, what law was broken?

They just discovered aspects of reality through the scientific method that were yet to be discovered.

reply to post by neoholographic

I am in total agreement here. That is why laws are from the imagination and behavior is real.

reply to post by usertwelve


No because I gave the reason earlier - science uses specific terminology for a reason, too keep it consistent and accurate. I therefore cannot translate the words into layman's terms without cheating you by converting it into a non scientific statement. The only way to understand it is to learn scientific language and the reasoning behind it - the book I posted earlier contains all that.

bastion
reply to post by usertwelve

 

No because I gave the reason earlier - science uses specific terminology for a reason, too keep it consistent and accurate. I therefore cannot translate the words into layman's terms without cheating you by converting it into a non scientific statement. The only way to understand it is to learn scientific language and the reasoning behind it - the book I posted earlier contains all that.

If you can provide the words I'll attempt to elevate my understanding by researching them if I don't understand them. Would that be sufficient?