How can the Universe exist without Logos?

reply to post by usertwelve


Again, you repeat the same nonsense.

Every time I ask you to explain your point you can't. It's just meaningless.

What exactly do you mean that the laws of physics are from imagination?

How can someone imagine a scientific law that's confirmed through observation and replication?

Are you just trolling because I keep asking you this simple question and you just blindly ask the same questions.

What the point? How can a scientific law be imagination when it's confirmed by observation and replication?

Could you explain what this means?

usertwelve
reply to post by neoholographic

 

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

That's like saying my faucet is imaginary but the water I got from it is real. If the behavior is real, so is the source. One does not get an actual effect from an imaginary cause, even if an actual cause gets confused with an imaginary cause.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


Exactly!

It's pure nonsense. He just keeps asking the same questions and then when you ask what does he mean he starts asking the same questions again. It makes no sense.

neoholographic
reply to post by AfterInfinity

 

Exactly!

It's pure nonsense. He just keeps asking the same questions and then when you ask what does he mean he starts asking the same questions again. It makes no sense.

I'm about done with this discussion. It's going nowhere. I'm not asking for people to agree with me, I'm asking for a coherent explanation of why I'm supposedly wrong, or at least some meaningful response.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

If the behavior is real, so is the source.

The behavior is the source. The law is just how we describe, predict, and communicate the behavior. Without the imagination there is no need for law. As the OP pointed out these behaviors can change. We classify them as laws when the behavior is predictable. The law itself is imagined.

reply to post by usertwelve


Again, this makes no sense.

How can a scientific law be imagination when it's confirmed through observation and replication.

Tell me how a Scientist can imagine a scientific law?

Give me the scientific method of the imagination of scientific laws.

usertwelve
reply to post by AfterInfinity

 

If the behavior is real, so is the source.

The behavior is the source. The law is just how we describe, predict, and communicate the behavior. Without the imagination there is no need for law. As the OP pointed out these behaviors can change. We classify them as laws when the behavior is predictable. The law itself is imagined.

Behavior is predictable because the principle is constant. Doesn't sound like imagination to me. If either of us gets in an accident and slips into coma, thereby becoming ignorant to the entire world outside of our skulls, do those laws stop existing? Does gravity suddenly stop, or time run backwards, or Earth begin to perform spontaneous figure eights in space? Do the oceans suddenly rise up and fly away in search of less abusive parasites to play with? Perhaps the sun suddenly opens its gaping maw and swallows our planet whole, before going back to sleeping and burning. Who knows, maybe the Orion constellation will do a jig in the sky if we pretend not to look at it long enough. After all, if we're not around to observe the universe, all bets are off. There are no rules, as long as we're not watching. Right? Is that what you're saying?

reply to post by neoholographic

How can a scientific law be imagination when it's confirmed through observation and replication.

Tell me how a Scientist can imagine a scientific law?

Tell me a scientific law that came about without a Scientist?

Give me the scientific method of the imagination of scientific laws.

Sorry I'm not sure I understand the question.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

do those laws stop existing

The law is a description of the behavior. The behavior will not stop but it might change.

There are no rules, as long as we're not watching. Right? Is that what you're saying?

I couldn't speculate on that but there are theories that are very similar.

reply to post by usertwelve


Man you're just a troll. This just seals it.

A scientist doesn't imagine scientific laws.

The reason you haven't answered any of these questions is because you can't or you're just trolling.

Now I'm asking you again. Explain how a scientist can imagine a scientific law that's confirmed through observation and replication. I asked you like 10 times and you just keep trolling.

reply to post by neoholographic

Man you're just a troll. This just seals it.

If that is how you feel I'll be kind enough to step away. I find this topic highly interesting.

reply to post by usertwelve

Tell me a scientific law that came about without a Scientist?

Off the top of my head: the laws of thermodynamics. They have been in operation long before Newton ever explained them to us. We named it, we described it, and we've worked with it. But we did not put those laws there. We did not make them happen. We did not design the rules by which those laws have been observed to operate. Just like even if we wanted to (and many of us do) we are as yet unable to change them. And that pretty much tells you that they are not imaginary.

reply to post by usertwelve


There's no need to step away if you're not a troll because you would just answer the question.

If you can't answer the simple question that's based on your claim and you just keep asking these silly questions even though people are telling you it's absurd, then of course I wish you would leave so people can actually debate the thread.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

the laws of thermodynamics

That is a behavior. WE have imagined the law that describes it from observing the behavior. The behavior might very well change.

reply to post by neoholographic

I believe your question was "What is my point?". No point really, just interesting conversation. Isn't that why we're here?

usertwelve
reply to post by AfterInfinity

 

the laws of thermodynamics

That is a behavior. WE have imagined the law that describes it from observing the behavior. The behavior might very well change.

The law determines the behavior, and we isolate the law according to the behavior observed. If the behavior is a direct product of the law, the behavior will not change as long as we understand the law. The behavior will do exactly as predicted according to the circumstances. That's the definition of "law". Its symptoms are expected because we know what the law does.

So in your mind, even if we observe every known instance of possible behavior from a law several times over, and cannot prove the law untrue by any means at our disposal, the law itself will remain imaginary, and not a fact?

reply to post by usertwelve


A Scientific law isn't a Political law.

A Politician can imagine a law would be a good idea and then they go to Congress and get other members to support it. The Bill then becomes law after the Presidents signature.

Scientific law doesn't work this way. A Scientist can't imagine a Scientific law. Imagination comes into play when a Scientist is building a theory. That theory only can become a scientific law through observation and replication. Imagination has nothing to do with it.

That's why I keep asking:

How can a Sciientist imagine a scientific law that's confirmed by observation and replication?

usertwelve
reply to post by neoholographic

 

I believe your question was "What is my point?". No point really, just interesting conversation. Isn't that why we're here?

edit on 4/3/2014 by usertwelve because: (no reason given)

Wow, just a troll.

You have been making a point that Scientific laws are just the imagination of Scientist and now you have no point LOL.

reply to post by neoholographic

Wow, just a troll.

Since we have diverted into name calling I'll be on my way. For what it is worth I have enjoyed our conversation. Sorry you feel differently.

edit:
After a bit of reflection I have to apologize for my answer to "what is my point?". It was irresponsible and made in hast. You deserve better than that and for that I am sorry. My point here was to discuss the idea at hand with people like all of you. To gain understanding of different views on different topics and to increase in knowledge and understanding. That you have helped me with and I am grateful. I wish I could return the favor. I'll be seeing you.

If the universe exists (which I would argue that it does), if something exists (and appears it does, at least as the universe, which appears to be at least relatively massive and complex), then 'laws' exist; if, the word 'law' means, 'ways in which the universe exists'. What the universe is, what it does, how, and why it is working, regularities. Could we say that it is a law that most humans eat food and drink water to prolong their existence (I dont say all in case someone wants to try and find the handful of potential exceptions)? That after ingesting substance the human usually some time later releases some substance as waste? So too can it be seen that for, energy exists, and can not be created or destroyed, the universe is logic, it is cause and affect, it is pieces and parts coming together and building, quality and quantity, these pieces and parts have different rules, see chemistry, see biology, see physics. The rules, are the laws. Why can you not jump to the moon right now and turn into a carrot? Why can you not eat a star? Why can you not cut your head off and then climb mount Everest on your hands only? Because there exists 'limitations', things that are possible, because, of the way things work, these things we call 'laws'.