How can the Universe exist without Logos?

Aphorism
reply to post by neoholographic

 

How can physical objects be put into sequential arrangements without the laws of physics?

They are one and the same.

What???

One and the same? Welcome aboard.

At first you said they're not fundamental truths and now they are fundamental truths and these laws are one with nature. I have no problem with that. Oneness is a key feature of spirituality. Again, this is Logos.

The problem you have is how did matter give rise to these fundamental laws which you now admit are fundamental without the existence of these fundamental laws to begin with?

By you saying there One and the same you're conceding my point. Talking about matter without these laws doesn't make any sense. This is why materialism doesn't make sense.

reply to post by Aphorism

The underlying laws of physics? Not sensible objects?

You've lost me.

I'm not surprised. You don't seem to understand the difference between intelligible and sensible, you confuse cause and effect, and you think that something that requires a law to exist can be responsible for the creation of that law, which is a logical impossibility.

Something that I relate to in contemplation is the apparent effect brain activity in and of itself has upon reality at the quantum scale.

Today in relation to modern science we do relate to quantum events as random.

But thought is not random in that animals and humans do not think randomly in respect to day to day life.

Thought in and of itself generates an EPR paradox effect upon everything created at the same time.

Just like words spoken interfere with air molecules and as such a EPR paradox effect is also generated.

reply to post by neoholographic

At first you said they're not fundamental truths and now they are fundamental truths and these laws are one with nature.

I'm saying these "laws" are descriptions of phenomena.

I'm saying that when you speak of fundamental laws, you are merely speaking of physical bodies, but attributing their actions to imaginary laws and not the physical bodies themselves.

ETA: I am not a materialist. Matter is too ill-defined. I don't believe the brain is identical to consciousness and all that nonsense.

reply to post by adjensen

I'm not surprised. You don't seem to understand the difference between intelligible and sensible, you confuse cause and effect, and you think that something that requires a law to exist can be responsible for the creation of that law, which is a logical impossibility.

I'm not surprised either. You invent answers before arriving at them, which is an idealist's modus operandi. It is impossible to follow your kettle logic.

And what about the matter of the singularity in that no current calculation takes it out of infinity?

In context anything could exit in a singularity and while one can try to rationalize the potential. That basis would not entail relating to everything in fact without understanding all reality.

Ten of the naturally social fish were first trained inside their tank to associate a door permitting them to move into different compartments and join their larger group with a certain number of shapes.

The same fish were then tested several times in an otherwise empty, unfamiliar tank to see whether they would choose to swim through the door marked with the right number of shapes.

The results showed that the fish chose the correct door more often than by chance alone, said study lead author Christian Agrillo, a psychologist at the University of Padova in Italy.

Source

Any thoughts?

Consciousness in retrospect has the potential of being pervasive. Perhaps not in the sense of Human awareness but in consideration of a 13.7 billion year old "Universe", that is about 40 billion light years wide, where there are probably Fish? Everywhere is a valid answer.

In consideration what it the potential of everything alive in the Universe during 1/10th of a second.

As individuals we make a difference but what about everything in a moment?

Could that constitute a referent in regard to consciousness beyond the individual but inclusive of a person as well??

In other words during a moment I think something so in the context of a random quantum reality how does it figure in, with relation to every other thought that occurred in that same moment everywhere??

Any thought?

Is this a chicken or egg discussion? How can it be relevant of what came before what if time is a feature of this universe?

It's like arguing which is further south: the laws of nature or matter. Might seem logical in Flatland where it feels as if everything flows north. What's the "shape" of reality?

As for the brain (and this is just an opinion), it is one of those "interesting things" that arise, seemingly against the laws of thermodynamics, when energy from a source continually flows through a system and exits via a sink (Sun -> Earth -> Space). BZ reactions illustrate this nicely using chemistry.

reply to post by Aphorism


Now they're imaginary laws? How can they be imaginary and also One and the same?

What are imaginary laws? Where's the evidence for these imaginary laws?

I would like to see a peer reviewed paper that shows that the laws of physics are imaginary.

How is the law of gravity imaginary?

How is Bohr's radius imaginary?

How is Planck's constant or the speed of light imaginary?

How can we make planes fly or cars drive if these laws are imaginary?

How do Physical bodies create the laws of physics without the laws of physics?

I have heard of Stephen Hawking and imaginary time.

I see you said you're not a materialist but you illustrate the clear problem for materialist. The laws of physics are in a sequential arrangement that gives us planets, stars, moons and comets. We couldn't have civilizations without these fundamental laws. People would just remain hot all summer without air conditioning without the laws of physics and Logos which puts matter in a sequential arrangement that gives us air conditioning systems.

reply to post by neoholographic


Why do normal people argue so vehemently based on the scientific knowledge of the time? The theories of others?

At what point in your life did you think you'd end up on a conspiracy site arguing whether gravity is constant or on the theorems of dead Mathematicians?

I'm not taking the mic or anything, I find it quite interesting, if there was a lodge in the middle of nowhere named ATS in 1014ad then people like us would meet up, some proposing theories and others just shooting them down (in their own heads) with the scientific knowledge of the time, "but how can your thoeory be right if we KNOW The Earth is the centre of the universe?... "

These aren't your theories so I just find it funny the people who take to conspiracy sites etc but can't even in an abstract way, see past the science of the time.... It's never fixed, if you get what I mean...

Im not saying your wrong here but these aren't your own theories and I bet you haven't tested many of them but here the OP is proposing an abstract theory that you are using fixed scientific knowledge of the time to shoot down, so I hope you've been to space or tested a few of these theories for yourself as the onus wasn't on Einstein to prove his theory, it fell to the rest of us and time.... Not a single debunker using Newtonian concepts of days gone by ....

reply to post by neoholographic

Now they're imaginary laws? How can they be imaginary and also One and the same?

What are imaginary laws? Where's the evidence for these imaginary laws?

I would like to see a peer reviewed paper that shows that the laws of physics are imaginary.

How is the law of gravity imaginary?

How is Bohr's radius imaginary?

How is Planck's constant or the speed of light imaginary?

How can we make planes fly or cars drive if these laws are imaginary?

How do Physical bodies create the laws of physics without the laws of physics?

I have heard of Stephen Hawking and imaginary time.

I see you said you're not a materialist but you illustrate the clear problem for materialist. The laws of physics are in a sequential arrangement that gives us planets, stars, moons and comets. We couldn't have civilizations without these fundamental laws. People would just remain hot all summer without air conditioning without the laws of physics and Logos which puts matter in a sequential arrangement that gives us air conditioning systems.

They are imaginary in the sense that you are using them: as forces that govern, design and put into "sequential arraignment" (time to come up with a better buzz phrase I think) the physical pieces of the universe. Like I said earlier, it is the God idea reworded and exaggerated. The laws are not imaginary when they are seen as created by men to describe phenomena.

I mean look, you're using an ancient Greek word to explain your laws, and attributing the invention of computers, air conditioning systems, and the "law of gravity" (we call it general relativity now, proof that man makes the laws), to this ancient Greek idea, trying to connect it to the Bible in some offhanded totally meaningless way. Man made all of these, and you're trying to tell me something you call "logos" is what connects the guy who invented air conditioning, to the universe?

How is the law of gravity imaginary?

It was invented in a man's imagination.

How is Bohr's radius imaginary?

Bohr used his imagination to create it. Find me a radius anywhere in nature and you might have a case.

How is Planck's constant or the speed of light imaginary?

They were invented in the imagination of men.

How can we make planes fly or cars drive if these laws are imaginary?

Imagination.

How do Physical bodies create the laws of physics without the laws of physics?

Physical bodies are what the laws of physics describe. This is what physics does.

reply to post by Aphorism


I think calling all of those things "inventions" is a little extreme. As you said before, they are "interpretations". Interpretations require a preexisting idea or material to be processed and translated. These preexisting ideas and materials are most certainly not the product of man. These are the raw data that we study in order to establish a pattern by which to understand and predict the laws that influenced said data. That's not our invention. That's our analysis.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

I think calling all of those things "inventions" is a little extreme. As you said before, they are "interpretations". Interpretations require a preexisting idea or material to be processed and translated. These preexisting ideas and materials are most certainly not the product of man.

Inventions also require preexisting ideas and material. Every material isn't the product of man, but every idea certainly is.

These are the raw data that we study in order to establish a pattern by which to understand and predict the laws that influenced said data. That's not our invention. That's our analysis.

We analyze raw data, sure, but establishing patterns and predictions is our invention. The very fact that we must use the power of the imagination to make sense of what we see, articulate it, and refine our articulations implies invention and creativity, not discovery.

reply to post by Aphorism

Can you expand on this:

establishing patterns and predictions is our invention

I admit to predictions being an invention but we don't invent patterns we recognize them. The pattern would exist whether we existed or not, no?

reply to post by Aphorism


What??

You're not making any sense. You said:

They are imaginary in the sense that you are using them: as forces that govern, design and put into "sequential arraignment" (time to come up with a better buzz phrase I think) the physical pieces of the universe. Like I said earlier, it is the God idea reworded and exaggerated. The laws are not imaginary when they are seen as created by men to describe phenomena.

This makes absolutely no sense. At first I thought there was a real debate here but it's simply delusional to say the laws of physics are imaginary.

I think you have mixed up 2 different things and for some reason you got locked into this illogical stance that the laws of physics are imaginary.

There's a debate on weather math is objectively real and this goes back to Plato. There's has never been a debate to whether the laws of physics are real. That's just insane for lack of a better word.

Like I said, if you think the laws of physics are imaginary, jump off of a tall building and see how imaginary gravity is.

If you think the laws of physics are imaginary, show me a physical body that exceeds the speed of light.

If you think the laws of physics are imaginary how do you explain the electromagnetic spectrum.

If you think the laws of physics are imaginary, how can star formation or planet formation occur without the laws of physics?

What about the atomic mass constant or planck's constant? How are they imaginary?

I want you to show me a peer reviewed paper or a scientist that claims the laws of physics come from imagination.

You do know how science works? Bohr or Planck didn't just make things up from a daydream and viola they magically became the laws of physics. These things have to be tested and then agree with observation. Recently there was a discovery of gravitational waves. This observation was predicted by people like Alan Guth and Einstein. If replicated then it's observed phenomena (since you like that word) and there's nothing imaginary about it.

What about the strong nuclear force or the expansion rate of the universe?

Tell me how can you play a DVD if the laws of physics are imaginary? How can you have a DVD player if the laws of physics are imaginary?

How can we have GPS if time dilation is imaginary?

How can you eat food or take a walk if the laws of physics are imaginary?

It makes no sense.

reply to post by neoholographic

This makes absolutely no sense. At first I thought there was a real debate here but it's simply delusional to say the laws of physics are imaginary.

I think you have mixed up 2 different things and for some reason you got locked into this illogical stance that the laws of physics are imaginary.

There's a debate on weather math is objectively real and this goes back to Plato. There's has never been a debate to whether the laws of physics are real. That's just insane for lack of a better word.

Like I said, if you think the laws of physics are imaginary, jump off of a tall building and see how imaginary gravity is.

If you think the laws of physics are imaginary, show me a physical body that exceeds the speed of light.

If you think the laws of physics are imaginary how do you explain the electromagnetic spectrum.

If you think the laws of physics are imaginary, how can star formation or planet formation occur without the laws of physics?

What about the atomic mass constant or planck's constant? How are they imaginary?

I want you to show me a peer reviewed paper or a scientist that claims the laws of physics come from imagination.

You do know how science works? Bohr or Planck didn't just make things up from a daydream and viola they magically became the laws of physics. These things have to be tested and then agree with observation. Recently there was a discovery of gravitational waves. This observation was predicted by people like Alan Guth and Einstein. If replicated then it's observed phenomena (since you like that word) and there's nothing imaginary about it.

What about the strong nuclear force or the expansion rate of the universe?

Tell me how can you play a DVD if the laws of physics are imaginary? How can you have a DVD player if the laws of physics are imaginary?

How can we have GPS if time dilation is imaginary?

How can you eat food or take a walk if the laws of physics are imaginary?

It makes no sense.

A physical law or scientific law, according to the Oxford English dictionary, "is a theoretical principle deduced from particular facts, applicable to a defined group or class of phenomena, and expressible by the statement that a particular phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions be present."[1] Physical laws are typically conclusions based on repeated scientific experiments and observations over many years and which have become accepted universally within the scientific community.

theory |ˈTHēərē, ˈTHi(ə)rē|
noun (pl. theories)
a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, esp. one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained: Darwin's theory of evolution.
• a set of principles on which the practice of an activity is based: a theory of education | music theory.
• an idea used to account for a situation or justify a course of action: my theory would be that the place has been seriously mismanaged.
• Mathematics a collection of propositions to illustrate the principles of a subject.

idea |īˈdēə|
noun
1 a thought or suggestion as to a possible course of action: they don't think it's a very good idea.
• a concept or mental impression: our menu list will give you some idea of how interesting a low-fat diet can be.
• an opinion or belief: nineteenth-century ideas about drinking.
2 (the idea) the aim or purpose: I took a job with the idea of getting some money together.
3 Philosophy (in Platonic thought) an eternally existing pattern of which individual things in any class are imperfect copies.
• (in Kantian thought) a concept of pure reason, not empirically based in experience.

imagination |iˌmajəˈnāSHən|
noun
the faculty or action of forming new ideas, or images or concepts of external objects not present to the senses: she'd never been blessed with a vivid imagination.
• the ability of the mind to be creative or resourceful: technology gives workers the chance to use their imagination.
• the part of the mind that imagines things: a girl who existed only in my imagination.

That's it. They are ideas, nothing more. Where do ideas come from? The imagination. I don't know how to make it any more simple for you. Many are even named after the one who imagined it and put it to paper.

AfterInfinity
reply to post by Aphorism

 

I think calling all of those things "inventions" is a little extreme. As you said before, they are "interpretations". Interpretations require a preexisting idea or material to be processed and translated. These preexisting ideas and materials are most certainly not the product of man. These are the raw data that we study in order to establish a pattern by which to understand and predict the laws that influenced said data. That's not our invention. That's our analysis.

Exactly, basically he's mixing up 2 separate debates. Somehow he heard Wolfram and others debating about Mathematics and for some reason extended that to the laws of physics.

The debate has nothing to do with the mathematical debate. That debate has being going on since Plato and some mathematicians are Platonist and some are not. Some think we discover mathematical truths while others think mathematics is a human invention. This is why he played the video of Wolfram on the 1st page of this thread.

This debate has nothing to do with the laws of physics that the mathematics is describing. This is a debate on whether mathematics is discovered and objectively real or is a human invention.

I'm a Platonist and I think mathematical truths are objectively real but this has nothing to do with this debate or whether or not the laws of physics are imaginary. That makes no sense and we couldn't have a universe or a civilization without the laws of physics. This isn't even a debate. Nobody says the laws of physics are imaginary.

Like I said, the debate about mathematics being invented or discovered has nothing to do with the laws of physics being imaginary.

reply to post by Aphorism


Did you read the definition you posted. Will you please post one Scientist or show me one peer reviewed paper that says the laws of physics are imaginary.

Again, you have listened to Stephen Wolfram and you somehow mixed up a debate about mathematics and came to the illogical conclusion that the laws of physics are imaginary. Look at the definition you posted.

A physical law or scientific law, according to the Oxford English dictionary, "is a theoretical principle deduced from particular facts, applicable to a defined group or class of phenomena, and expressible by the statement that a particular phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions be present."[1] Physical laws are typically conclusions based on repeated scientific experiments and observations over many years and which have become accepted universally within the scientific community.

A physical law becomes accepted by the scientific community after repeated observations. What does this have to do with imagination?

IF SOMEONE HAS A DAYDREAM AND IMAGINES A THEORY THAT'S MEANINGLESS UNLESS THAT THEORY IS REPLICATED AND OBSERVED.

Did you even read the definition you posted?

Like I said, try jumping up in the air and you will repeatedly come back to the ground because of gravity. This has nothing to do with anyones imagination.

reply to post by neoholographic


So would you argue that they are not theoretical principles?

reply to post by Aphorism


Again, you have to read the definition you posted.

It's a theoretical principle that has been observed and replicated over and over again and then it becomes accepted by the scientific community.

There are many theories that come from peoples imagination that are not repeated and replicated over and over again. This is science.

Like I said, you mixed up a debate about whether mathematics is real or discovered and for some reason you came to the conclusion that the laws of physics are imaginary. That makes no sense. These laws aren't imaginary or anyone could imagine up a theory that becomes a law through repetition and observation.