How can the Universe exist without Logos?

reply to post by bastion

Watch the video he explains they exist.

He says they exist as shadows on a cave, alluding to Plato's allegory. This is a physicist and nobel prize laureate explaining that physical laws exist as shadows on a cave, yet you're still standing by your claims that even on ATS you're surprised to
see such a "theory", that you were disturbed to see such nonsense. Yet here it is, a physicist and nobel prize laureate saying the exact same thing.

Laughable. Truly.

reply to post by usertwelve

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.

They don't deserve better. That is their only argument, to call you a troll. They believe physics to be something other than a body of knowledge. Don't apologize for someone else's ignorance.

reply to post by Aphorism


There is a difference between a map and a territory a map can show you how to get to where you are going.

In this case Physics would represent the map and nature the territory.

reply to post by Kashai

There is a difference between a map and a territory a map can show you how to get to where you are going.

In this case Physics would represent the map and nature the territory.

Absolutely. A simple definition of Physical or natural or scientific law shows us this fact. Men make all laws.

reply to post by Aphorism


" Men make all laws."

I would disagree.

Say in hypothesis I build a space ship that can travel 99.99% the speed of light. I then hire you as one of the Astronaut's that will be going on a mission.

The mission is to expose mankind thousand of years from now to humans from this time period.

So you and your crew are assigned to travel 15 light years at 99.99% the speed of light and then return to Earth at the same speed.

You see if you did that you would travel into the future and there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that confirms that would be the case.

Laws are not always made by men and in context the point would be that in the case of time dilation such as hypothetical journey as was above described, would result in you ending up in Earths future.

Nature has laws, the "map" described as physics is an effort to understand those laws.

You asked earlier how is a structure such as the universe is managed? Perhaps it is like a farm.

A point would be you could not return based upon our current technology and anything you had of value could very well be worthless when you return to Earth.

Any thoughts?

reply to post by Kashai


Great points but you're dealing with an illogical argument.

A scientific law isn't made in the minds of men. That's just absurd. Einsteins mind didn't make gravity. These laws have to be observed and replicated independent of the Scientist who came up with the theory. This is why Einstein came up with a theory and Eddington tested that theory.

Did gravity just disappear a million years ago because Newton or Einstein hadn't imagined it???

That makes no sense.

How did galaxies form and planets form before there were Scientist who imagined theories on how planets and galaxies form?

How did evolution occur before Darwin if these things are just made in mens mind?

Did the strong nuclear force or the weak nuclear force exist prior to a scientist naming it the strong or weak nuclear force?

This is simply an absurd argument.

The twins keep avoiding the simple question, how can Scientist imagine scientific laws that are observed and replicated?

Can I imagine a tachyon and tomorrow it's a scientific law?

Can I imagine warp drive and tomorrow it's scientific law?

A Politician can imagine a law and get other members of Congress to support a bill that's eventually signed into law.

A Scientific Law doesn't work this way. A Scientist can imagine theories all they want but until it's observed and replicated by other Scientist it's not Scientific law.

Again, the simple question:

HOW CAN A SCIENTIST IMAGINE A SCIENTIFIC LAW THAT'S OBSERVED AND REPLICATED?

Is it magic? Do these Scientist work with Sylvia Browne when they make predictions?

ALSO, IT'S NOT THE SCIENTIST MAKING PREDICTIONS, IT'S THE MATHEMATICS.

When Eddington tested Einsteins theories, he wasn't testing Einsteins imagination.

The recent discovery of gravitational waves was testing the mathematical predictions not Alan Guth's imagination.

If I imagine a theory for a tachyon and say can you test my imagination? I might get taken away in a straight jacket. In order for the theory of a tachyon to become scientific law, It has to make mathematical predictions that can be independently tested.

I can imagine that there's a planet in Alpha Centauri that's occupied by clones of Playboy Models. How can you disprove my imagination?How would you go about finding disagreement with my theory? According to some, if I imagine a theory that Playboy Models exist on a planet in Alpha Centauri then it must be Scientific Law because Laws are made in the mind of men. How many men would love my planet? Then we could imagine warp drive and warp drive would become Scientific Law then we can go to the planet of Playboy model clones in Alpha Centauri.

reply to post by Aphorism


I guess you need to brush up on your Plato then as he's stating the laws aren't tangible objects and we don't know what causes them yet- which is the whole message behind Great Dialogues and is something every physicist I've heard of including myself is in full agreement with. Platos allegory works because of the constants and physical laws.

What you're proposing is objects set the laws - i.e govern the behaviour of the shadow from the puppet to the wall as you wrongly claim there are no constants/laws so light could bend any way it wanted in your head. In your view that there are no laws or constants - light could just decide to not be transparent any more so no one would ever see anything - let alone shaddows - this is how ridiculous your statements are.

Until you learn some basic science and stop trying to use youtube videos you don't understand/haven't watched to back up your 'argument' there really is no point continuing this conversation.

usertwelve
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.

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

The difficulty was in your failure to communicate the understanding by which you've declared the laws of physics to be imaginary, but their symptoms real. An imaginary pebble cannot cause a real ripple in a pond. If the ripples are there, the stone is also there. I'm sorry we were not able to reach an understanding.

Aphorism
reply to post by usertwelve

 

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.

They don't deserve better. That is their only argument, to call you a troll. They believe physics to be something other than a body of knowledge. Don't apologize for someone else's ignorance.

One, stop using "they". Only one person declared User12 to be a troll. Not to mention that I feel there was a certain unhelpful element at play in that there was no real explanation for User12's position. An imaginary cause cannot yield an actual product. That's what we call a "magic trick", and there's always a logical explanation behind the act. I also feel that you overstep yourself in deciding what people "deserve" around here.

Back to the actual topic: so according to most esteemed physicists and scholars, the most fundamental laws and forces of the universe might as well be Santa Claus's eight little reindeer for all the reality they constitute?

Watch the Adventure Time episode 'A Glitch Is A Glitch". The Logos is all throughout this episode. Finn and Jake have to rebuild the Universe from its quantum pieces. Another great metaphysical episode is "The Real You". This episode deals with themes of time, the 4th dimension, and its consequences when leaked into the 3rd dimension. For a "children's" show, these are some heady topics.

reply to post by neoholographic


I think the point that's trying to be made here is

There is no such thing as gravity, or the strong/weak forces, or 2nd law of Thermodynamics from the objective/universal perspective.

Gravity is not a law. It's a concept.

Actually, Laws, Theories, Hypothesis, Mathematics, et al are all human contrived concepts or tools that we use to describe and measure the universe that we observe from our perspective. But our so called "laws" are squashed like the little cock-a-roaches that they are when applying them to things/concepts like black holes or dark energy/matter. The universe just laughs. Same happens when we get down to the quantum world-- the classical laws are useless. I think we forget just how small and insignificant we really are.

I'm not convinced that we can assert our human contrived laws of nature across the entire universe when we don't even know 95% of what it is, where it is, or when it is. We know enough about how nature works within our local system to get a rocket up into space and land a probe on Mars, but I'm going to bet that things change quite drastically as we leave our solar system and galaxy... Our Earth based laws mean nothing on that grand of a scale...

(I accept that these ideas could be wrong. But I love these discussions. Just my 2 cents... )

Never mind. I'm done with this discussion. Have fun.

reply to post by PhotonEffect


reply to post by PhotonEffect


No. No. No. No. No.

Please just take a second to think about what you're saying here - our model of gravity may not be 100% right. However it is undeniable that gravity exists. Same as all the laws and constants. The computer you are currently using only exists and works because of EM laws and how we have used these laws and constants to create working machines based on the laws and principles.

The laws are not set by man, they are set by nature - that's why Newton's law was perfect until we noticed minor wobbles in the orbit of mercury. Science aims to discover and explore the laws nature has set for us and we have to a great degree.

If you don't believe me, please prove me wrong by flapping your arms and flying to the moon and back with a few rocks as proof gravity doesn't exist.

Claiming gravity doesn't exist or that all objects aren't governed by the same gravitational laws is far more ludicrous than claiming the Earth is flat and made or potato. Explain why you're on the ground and no objects are floating in mid air if gravity doesn't exist.

I'm out too, this thread is far too stupid to waste time on.



If this is the future of America or the standard of education over there your country is completely screwed and destined for the dark ages. It should be impossible in any developed nation to not receive a basic education, any scientific knowledge or to go through life not realising gravity exists.

reply to post by bastion


Exactly, it's just an asinine argument that has no basis in reality.

How can anyone treat a scientific law like a political law?

Man didn't invent gravity through his imagination.

Man didn't invent the electromagnetic spectrum through his imagination.

Man didn't invent the Cosmic Microwave Background with imagination.

Man didn't build the strong or weak nuclear force with his imagination.

As you said, it's an absurd argument that's not even worthy of an 8th grade science class but sometimes you run into this kind of nonsense.

reply to post by neoholographic


Fully agree. I teach Maths and Physics to 18 year olds in the UK but I'm absolutely stumped on how to teach someone gravity exists if they think it's just something imagined. Even toddlers know that if you fall over you hit the ground, it's something so obvious and embedded into everything I cannot grasp the mindset that thinks it's just imaginary.

reply to post by neoholographic


What about a design?

A template that the "stuff of infinity" bonds to, and when this "stuff" "clumps" around a "design" a "key" unlocks a "design mechanism" and the result is a structured form - the key unlocked when the object reaches sentience - and this can happen at any time.

reply to post by neoholographic

Did gravity just disappear a million years ago because Newton or Einstein hadn't imagined it???

We know the universe is non-Euclidean and Euclid has disappeared. (It's just a joke).

The discussion seems to be going in circles. The point is the laws of physics are our human-made best approximation that match observation. Gravity is real, but our laws are not complete and are interpretations.

As for shadows on a cave wall, what's so wrong in that? Everything we observe is a mere projection that exists in more dimensions than the 3 we see (or imagine). In Flatland the people don't seem real as they have no thickness in the 3rd dimension (excluding time) but then neither do we in the 4th.

I wonder if it ever may be possible to create an intelligence that can overcome these difficulties and do some of the thinking for us, or even just immerse ourselves in a virtual 4D world, say, to see if we ever get a grasp for it.

reply to post by neoholographic


I am in agreement with you friend physics is an interpretation of what has been observed in nature.

reply to post by bastion


Keep your hat on. Obviously there is a phenomenon, which we have dubbed "gravity", that keeps us relatively affixed to this planet, which also keeps this planet relatively affixed within its orbit around the sun etc etc. We have been able to identify it and measure it. We can't observe it directly but we can observe its effects on things, obviously. So let's get it straight that I'm not so crass to suggest otherwise.

My argument is more from a universal perspective. We're experiencing "gravity" from a very minute perspective. But what it is we really don't know. We don't know its real purpose. We call it a force, but what is that really, beyond our interpretations and descriptions using our own man made words and ideas? What really is the act of attraction between celestial bodies that our concept of "gravity" seeks to describe. Sure, we made up some math that can measure its consistency and confirm we're not imagining something. But that doesn't do anything to explain its existence in a universal sense.

We are not humans. We are something else entirely - maybe a type of universal microbe (but what's a microbe?) - which we have no idea of beyond our own made up interpretations. We've created a comfortable construct for ourselves and that lends a sense of familiarity with our environment which we take for granted. We tell ourselves we are humans and that we live on a planet and that we have emotions and that we struggle to survive. We are conditioned to accept this "human constructed reality". But make no mistake, neither that, nor the ideas about what we are observing, bear any real meaning from the ultimate objective universal perspective. And that's what I was trying to say.

reply to post by PhotonEffect


The point is; Logic. Everything that exists has an exact cause. Cause and affect. Everything that exists is able to exist and function as it does because of specific qualities of the nature of 'the stuff that exists' at any and every given moment of time. If matter was not drawn together, if planets did not revolve around a star, or a moon around the planet, no attraction, there would have never been the need to use a word, like gravity, to describe the attractions of mass to one another, the fact that mass does orbit mass and is attracted to mass, means that there is a reason is this so. Just as there is a reason why a human body can eat apples, bananas, cucumbers, potatos, and rice, and not eat a boulder and lava to subsist its existence. There is a reason why you can not turn into the sun right now, there is a reason why if you chopped your head off right now your body would no longer work, there is a reason computers arent made out of dirt, leaves, puke, and rain. Gravity exists, as in, there is a reason why/how the earth is consistently orbiting the sun, and the moon consistently orbiting the earth, and there is a reason why the earth is consistently a relatively dense object and not crumbling apart. Just as there is a reason why atoms exist, and chemicals work exactly the way they do, and that reason is, the laws of chemistry, even if we do not know completely, there is a reason why a N pole to a S pole of a magnet will cause them to come together, this is the event that happens more then any other event when putting an N pole of a magnet increasingly nearer to an S pole of a magnet, there must be a reason why this occurs and not for instance, they both turning into cheetos, or them both erupting everytime into flames.