It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

How can the Universe exist without Logos?

page: 5
8
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 1 2014 @ 11:32 PM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 





LOL


I posted the video to illustrate my point that laws come under scrutiny and are changed not because of veiwing new evidence or new phenomena, but through the powers of the imagination.




posted on Apr, 1 2014 @ 11:38 PM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 


Logos also gives us the sequential arrangements of information

So you are saying there is enforcement of these laws. Logos enforces these laws.

Logos prevents anything from going faster than light. Did I understand that correctly?



posted on Apr, 1 2014 @ 11:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Aphorism
 


What you said doesn't make any sense. You have this pesky little problems called Observation and replication.

You said:


Now I don't doubt the truth value of these propositions, but they are still propositions and nothing more. There is nothing absolute about them, and they are created within a cosmically small frame of reference, from which 99.9999999% of the observable phenomena in the universe is out of our reach. Knowing this, I cannot see how anyone has the arrogance to postulate these mathematical models as irrefutable truth, and to reduce the universe to an equation is the epitome of foolhardy. In my opinion at least.


As far as I can tell this doesn't mean anything as it pertains to Observation and Replication.

There not just propositions. These things are tested and these test are replicated. Nobody saying Einstein's theories are just propositions. That makes no sense. We test for things like time dilation and gravitational waves. What do you think the LHC is going to do?

Look at Quantum Mechanics. These are not just propositions. These things are tested and observed and give us real world technologies not just propositions.

Here's an article from Scientific American that talks about this. Again, these things are not just propositions. They have been replicated and observed. Nobody said they're absolute truth. The reason you said this is because your argument is extremely weak. To claim the laws of physics are imaginary makes no sense. I'm convinced you watched the video of Wolfram when he was talking about the debate about whether mathematics is invented or discovered and somehow confused that with the laws of physics. You're still talking about things are propositions and just math. You somehow extrapolated a debate about the nature of mathematics into the laws of physics are imaginary.


What could be weirder than quantum mechanics? This physics framework is responsible for any number of bizarre phenomena—theoretical cats that are simultaneously dead and alive, particles kilometers apart that can nonetheless communicate instantaneously, and indecisive photons that somehow go two directions at once.

But it is also responsible for the technological advances that make modern life possible. Without quantum mechanics there would be no transistor, and hence no personal computer; no laser, and hence no Blu-ray players.


I can go on and on, but it's really pointless. The laws of physics are not imaginary and they're not your new word propositions. These are theories that have been observed and replicated over the years and there's nothing imaginary about that.



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 12:09 AM
link   
Here's another article titled "What if Quantum Mechanics went on strike?"


“If quantum mechanics suddenly went on strike,” Max Tegmark of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology explains in “Quantum Leap,” “every single machine that we have in the U.S., almost, would stop functioning.”

And as I thought about it, I realized that Tegmark was right—most every gadget in my house that was invented since the 1930s dips at least a toe into the quantum realm. Both the solar cells on my yard lights and the electric eye on my garage door opener exploit the photoelectric effect, for example. This phenomena, in which incoming light knocks electrons off their atoms, led Einstein to first postulate that light behaves as if it comes in packets of energy. He called them “energy quanta” in a 1905 paper explaining the effect—work for which he was eventually awarded a Nobel Prize.


www.pbs.org...

Quantum Mechanics isn't imaginary. These things aren't just propositions. Again, debates about mathematics are being misunderstood and extended to calling these things imaginary.



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 06:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Aphorism
 


What other phenomenon are we calling gravity? If one knew, one would point it out to me. But all one can ever point to is an equation.

Time itself. It doesn't always have to be equations, that is not how I view gravity ever since coming across Lewis Carroll Epstein diagrams when young and this is why I say "shape". The commonly seen rubber mat model is only half of the picture - the space/space picture. For the space/time part think of a straight line on a flat sheet, then roll it into a cone. Trick is to combine the two. No mathematics needed.

But these are always, and will always be, approximations to the real universe which follows rules (presumably governed by logic). Reading up on logos just now, and of inductive, deductive and reductive reasoning, I would say all apply to the scientific method. However, ultimately, deductive reasoning would be the objective to prove that reality is this way because it cannot be any other. (I'm a novice to this so it's just an opinion).

Our imagination that creates these models is severely limited, hell, we can't even imagine a 4D cube. A blind man is never going to imagine "green", so what hope is there of imagining reality? These models give clues, they give a slice through reality. They may be completely wrong but give correct results (within limits) but sooner or later theories change. Sadly not soon enough for the commonly accepted hocus-pocus view of quantum mechanics. 80 years we've had this collapsing waveform nonsense.

Fashion is everything in science. If you are out of fashion then chances are you are out of funding too. Laws, which are interpretations, follow fashions of the time. Right now it is fuzziness and parallel worlds.

We must remember we are African apes (by and large, some Neanderthal etc.) and think within those boundaries. To argue whether mathematics is invented or discovered is a little premature. We haven't even scratched the surface of what time, space or matter is. We need the basics first. We are no more capable of answering that than a chimpanzee is at this stage. We probably never will, for that we need a higher intelligence (which we most likely would argue and disagree with).



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 07:00 AM
link   

Aphorism

The planets, stars, moons and us give rise to the laws of physics. Not the other way around.


I have absolutely no idea how you arrived at that conclusion. Are you sure you haven't got the gravity mixed up with the gravitational force?

All of these require gravity to exist in order to form. If gravity was at a different constant then different objects would be formed, as is easily demonstrated by altering the value of G. These bodies in turn exert a gravitational force based on thee mass of the two bodies divided by the square of the distance between them.

The same goes for all fundamental constants, without these parameters matter would be very different indeed. Changing things like charge of electrons, the electro-magnetic force etc... would massively alter the structure of the universe (assuming it wouldn't have collapsed in on itself if gravity was strong enough.

If you don't think they required gravity to form then how do you propose they formed in the first place? And where does the gravitational constant come from? (Genuinely intrigued how you arrived at this conclusion as I can't see how it could possibly work but I'm very interested in it as a thought experiment).

What makes you think we are capable of altering the laws of Physics? i.e how do you propose a human can alter the speed of light in a vacuum given that it's (assumed to be) a universal constant?
edit on 2-4-2014 by bastion because: (no reason given)



Aphorism


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.



I'm pretty convinced you're just trolling now. None of that makes any sense. If I imagine the speed of light is 2m/s it doesn't change the speed of light. If I imagine I can fly, it doesn't mean I can fly. Why? Because the Physical laws prohibit it.
edit on 2-4-2014 by bastion because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 09:42 AM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 



As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.
- Einstein





There not just propositions. These things are tested and these test are replicated. Nobody saying Einstein's theories are just propositions. That makes no sense. We test for things like time dilation and gravitational waves. What do you think the LHC is going to do?


A hypothesis or a theory is a proposition. This is simple vocabulary. To say they are not from the imagination insipidly takes away from the genius of folks like Einstein, Newton and Galileo. They are tested after they are imagined.



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 09:43 AM
link   
reply to post by bastion
 





All of these require gravity to exist in order to form. If gravity was at a different constant then different objects would be formed, as is easily demonstrated by altering the value of G.


Change the value of G and lets see what happens. I'm being sincere here. Change the value of G and lets see what happens to gravity.




I'm pretty convinced you're just trolling now. None of that makes any sense. If I imagine the speed of light is 2m/s it doesn't change the speed of light. If I imagine I can fly, it doesn't mean I can fly. Why? Because the Physical laws prohibit it.


That's the way things work. We describe the way things work and model the way things work. We cannot say that something is prohibiting them. That is a meaningless statement. There is no governing law issued by some divine judge at work prohibiting things from performing certain acts. That's just the way things are.
edit on 2-4-2014 by Aphorism because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 09:44 AM
link   
reply to post by bastion
 


I'm very interested in it as a thought experiment

Same here. I propose we look at these "laws" as behaviors of objects rather than a governing force acting on the object. If we take the speed of light as an example, we can say that the speed limit is not a boundary of the universe but a behavior of the objects within. Gravity would be a behavior of space and not a limit/law of the universe. So what we have is a universe where objects behave verses them being controlled and governed.



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 10:45 AM
link   

usertwelve
reply to post by bastion
 


I'm very interested in it as a thought experiment

Same here. I propose we look at these "laws" as behaviors of objects rather than a governing force acting on the object. If we take the speed of light as an example, we can say that the speed limit is not a boundary of the universe but a behavior of the objects within. Gravity would be a behavior of space and not a limit/law of the universe. So what we have is a universe where objects behave verses them being controlled and governed.


This makes zero sense.

I keep telling what a law in science is and you keep coming up with stuff that has nothing to do with science. You and the other guy sound like the same person.

These things are not behaviors or propositions or imaginary, they're called scientific laws for a reason.

This is because these theories have been replicated and observed over the years.



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 10:50 AM
link   
From my readings I've come to understand the Logos to be the invisible language of the Universe. When shamans are in the spirit realm, they can actually see sounds. We would normally call this synesthesia. but know one knows how we could see sound or hear color. Its possible colors do have unheard sounds associated with them, just on another level of reality. The Logos is the energy pattern of words made visible using certain shamanic techniques. For instance in the Amazon, there are healing songs called icaros. They are taught to the shaman by the plant spirits of the forest. The women of the tribe can actually weave a tapestry from the patterns of the shamans song. This is very secret information. Were talking about the possible keys to the Universe and beyond.
edit on 2-4-2014 by Oannes because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Aphorism
reply to post by neoholographic
 



As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.
- Einstein





There not just propositions. These things are tested and these test are replicated. Nobody saying Einstein's theories are just propositions. That makes no sense. We test for things like time dilation and gravitational waves. What do you think the LHC is going to do?


A hypothesis or a theory is a proposition. This is simple vocabulary. To say they are not from the imagination insipidly takes away from the genius of folks like Einstein, Newton and Galileo. They are tested after they are imagined.


Again, this has nothing to do with science and is just a meaningless statement.

Of course imagination is important but that doesn't mean scientific theories that have been observed and replicated are imaginary LOL.

Einstein used his imagination when he was coming up with his theories.

IMAGINATION HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT WHEN ARTHUR EDDINGTON CONFIRMED HIS THEORIES.

IMAGINATION HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT WHEN OTHER SCIENTIST REPLICATED AND OBSERVED THESE THEORIES.

You seem to think these Scientist are magical men who imagine a theory and then Viola the theory magically becomes scientific law.
edit on 2-4-2014 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 11:01 AM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 

I'm just trying to understand the point of view. If you are closed to such an activity you may depart while we enjoy the experiment.

BTW, you never did answer my question.
edit on 4/2/2014 by usertwelve because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 11:01 AM
link   
reply to post by bastion
 


You summed it up perfectly. I actually think the two posters are the same person trying to cloud up the thread with nonsense. They seem to show up at the same time and repeat the same nonsense. You said:


I'm pretty convinced you're just trolling now. None of that makes any sense. If I imagine the speed of light is 2m/s it doesn't change the speed of light. If I imagine I can fly, it doesn't mean I can fly. Why? Because the Physical laws prohibit it.


Exactly.

Scientist are not magical men and women who imagine a theory and viola it magically becomes scientific law without replication and observation.



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Buziblu
 


Great points!


But these are always, and will always be, approximations to the real universe which follows rules (presumably governed by logic). Reading up on logos just now, and of inductive, deductive and reductive reasoning, I would say all apply to the scientific method. However, ultimately, deductive reasoning would be the objective to prove that reality is this way because it cannot be any other. (I'm a novice to this so it's just an opinion).

Our imagination that creates these models is severely limited, hell, we can't even imagine a 4D cube. A blind man is never going to imagine "green", so what hope is there of imagining reality?


Exactly, they're many theories that come from the imagination of Scientist but they're not replicated or observed. Also, it's not just imagination. Reason and logic play a big part because they're not coming up with theories in a vacuum. Many times these theories are built on previous theories. Like the Photoelectric Effect from Einstein helped plant the seeds for Quantum Mechanics.

These things are not just imaginations or propositions. They come from reason and logic (Logos) and it takes reason and logic to deduce theories that become scientific law through observation and replication.



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 11:34 AM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 


I actually think the two posters are the same person trying to cloud up the thread with nonsense

I have enjoyed your thread so far but you are making it difficult with the emotional responses and personal attacks. I've never understood why members feel the need for such behavior on their own threads. If you don't like an idea you have the option to ignore it.

And that's all I have to say about that.



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 11:40 AM
link   
Here's another example that equating scientific laws to imagination is just silly.

Take the Steady State Theory.

This theory was "imagined" by the Scientist that came up with it. They used reason and logic to come up with their theory. If it was about imagination, VIOLA the Steady State Theory would magically be right and we could just throw out the replication and observation process. But luckily, it's not about magical scientist that imagine theories and Viola these imagined theories are accepted. There's a reason they're called Scientific law because observation and replication occurs over the years. Here's more:


In cosmology, the Steady State theory is a now-obsolete theory and model alternative to the Big Bang theory of the universe's origin (the standard cosmological model). In steady state views, new matter is continuously created as the universe expands, thus adhering to perfect cosmological principle.

While the steady state model enjoyed some popularity in the first half of the 20th century, it is now rejected by the vast majority of professional cosmologists and other scientists, as the observational evidence points to a Big Bang-type cosmology and a finite age of the universe.


Again, this had nothing to do with imagination. Either the theory agreed or disagreed with observation. When it didn't agree proponents had to change things up to a Quasi Steady State Theory.



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 11:56 AM
link   
reply to post by usertwelve
 


It's not a personal attack.

Like I said earlier, this happens from time to time on ATS. Posters come onto a thread and start to debate issues that have nothing to do with the thread.

If you think the laws of Physics are imaginary, then you should start a thread debating that point instead of trolling other threads to make that assertion.

The reason I said you could be the same poster because you guys make the same argument and I made a post late last night and Viola, you both appear then disappear making the same arguments.

At the end of the day, I have no problem debating whether the laws of physics are real or imaginary, even though the debate is pure nonsense. There's a lot of debates that occur that are built on nonsense.

My point is, you should start a thread debating this point because it has nothing to do with this thread. In fact, it's most likely a misunderstanding about an ongoing debate between whether mathematics are discovered or invented and has nothing to do with the laws of physics being imaginary.
edit on 2-4-2014 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Oannes
From my readings I've come to understand the Logos to be the invisible language of the Universe. When shamans are in the spirit realm, they can actually see sounds. We would normally call this synesthesia. but know one knows how we could see sound or hear color. Its possible colors do have unheard sounds associated with them, just on another level of reality. The Logos is the energy pattern of words made visible using certain shamanic techniques. For instance in the Amazon, there are healing songs called icaros. They are taught to the shaman by the plant spirits of the forest. The women of the tribe can actually weave a tapestry from the patterns of the shamans song. This is very secret information. Were talking about the possible keys to the Universe and beyond.
edit on 2-4-2014 by Oannes because: (no reason given)


Good points and I will have to look up icaros and read more about it.



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 

Great. Let's try again then.

You said:

Logos also gives us the sequential arrangements of information

I asked:
So you are saying there is enforcement of these laws. Logos enforces these laws.

Logos prevents anything from going faster than light. Did I understand that correctly?



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join