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: 8
8
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 3 2014 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 

It would seem you are missing the meaning of details that have been presented. Aphorism is not implying the things we observe are imaginary. It is the ideas that describe these things that are from our imagination.




posted on Apr, 3 2014 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 


Physics isn't physis, neo. Sorry pal.

Bodies of knowledge do not exist outside of human discourse and dialectic. It is absurd to say otherwise. That's where your laws of nature, theoretical physics, and your abstract platonic worlds will forever remain.

I'll concede defeat in this debate. Debating dogma, ignorance and dishonesty over rationality is tiresome.



posted on Apr, 3 2014 @ 01:39 PM
link   

usertwelve
reply to post by neoholographic
 

It would seem you are missing the meaning of details that have been presented. Aphorism is not implying the things we observe are imaginary. It is the ideas that describe these things that are from our imagination.


This is just meaningless.

What does any of this have to do with the thread?

Whose disputing that imagination plays a part when coming up with theories? Show me where that's been disputed?

You and your twin realize how silly you sound and now you saying he didn't say the laws of physics were imaginary. The laws of physics describe what we observe and replicate. What's imaginary about that?

Again, this statement is devoid of any meaning.

It's like saying imagination came up with Santa and his flying reindeer or imagination came up with Spongebob. What does that have to do with the laws of physics that are observed and replicated? What is the point?

It doesn't matter if we call it gravity on earth and a civilization from another planet calls it mud, it 's the same thing. The ideas that describe these things have to be observed and replicated before they're scientific laws, what's imaginary about that?



posted on Apr, 3 2014 @ 01:54 PM
link   

usertwelve
reply to post by bastion
 


the laws set the boundaries within which everything must act.

That's called legislation. You are indeed in contradiction to the OP.



No you're still confusing Physical laws with the laws of man, which both myself and the OP have been trying to tell you is wrong as they're completely different.

Legislation requires making and enacting laws, if this applied to Physics there'd be no planets or humans to even coin the term gravity - gravity existed from the birth of the Universe, it didn't come into being when the term was first coined - think about this, if physical laws only came into existence when humans enacted them then there'd be no gravity causing the apple to fall that allowed Newton to divise his explanation of the laws of gravity - hence no such word of gravity, nothing to hold planets in orbits, or stop them from splitting up - simple logic easilly proves that approach to be complete nonsense.

There is no legislation in Physics. There is legislation in man made law. You're trying to treat physical laws as if they were the same as judicial ones when they are completely different and act in different ways. The physical laws mother nature obeys are set by mother nature, man cannot change these laws, they are completely fixed. Put a team of legal experts together and they can change the law, scientists are powerless to change the laws mother nature obeys unless they create an entirely new universe which may have new laws dependent on the initial conditions.

Physical Law




Many fundamental physical laws are mathematical consequences of various symmetries of space, time, or other aspects of nature. Specifically, Noether's theorem connects some conservation laws to certain symmetries. For example, conservation of energy is a consequence of the shift symmetry of time (no moment of time is different from any other), while conservation of momentum is a consequence of the symmetry (homogeneity) of space (no place in space is special, or different than any other). The indistinguishability of all particles of each fundamental type (say, electrons, or photons) results in the Dirac and Bose quantum statistics which in turn result in the Pauli exclusion principle for fermions and in Bose–Einstein condensation for bosons. The rotational symmetry between time and space coordinate axes (when one is taken as imaginary, another as real) results in Lorentz transformations which in turn result in special relativity theory. Symmetry between inertial and gravitational mass results in general relativity. The inverse square law of interactions mediated by massless bosons is the mathematical consequence of the 3-dimensionality of space. One strategy in the search for the most fundamental laws of nature is to search for the most general mathematical symmetry group that can be applied to the fundamental interactions.


Human law


Man-made law is law that is made by human beings.It is a concept that is usually considered in opposition to concepts like natural law or divine law.[1] As such, it is not an easy concept to pin down, given that it has varied over the years and across cultures.[1]


See they're completely separate and don't act in the same way.

I strongly recommend you read Scientific Laws, Principles, and Theories: A Reference Guide if you want to find out how scientific laws work.
edit on 3-4-2014 by bastion because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-4-2014 by bastion because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2014 @ 01:55 PM
link   

usertwelve
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


math in its active operations all around us

Math is the language we use to describe the things we observe. As an object moves through space for example, there are no calculations being executed. We as humans use math to describe its movement and predict it's behavior. That language would not exist had we not imagined it.


But my point is that just because we imagined the language doesn't make the story just imagination. It's a translation of something that exists whether we have the words to express it or not. Did the inch start existing just because we assigned a word to it? Did the concept of five, or ten or a hundred start existing just because we started talking about it? How about the hour? Maybe the periodic table, or the half life of an isotope. I guess all those properties only started existing once we developed the language to understand them. Math being that language.

That's the point I'm making here. It just feels as though math itself is being degraded by referring to its expression as just "imagination" and "inventions". Like people are investing in delusions by referring to them. Maybe I'm not understanding what's being said here.

edit on 3-4-2014 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2014 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Aphorism
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 





What's your point? Math is impractical or unstable because its a translating and not a raw expression? If anything, the models from which we have taken our mathematical studies are translations in themselves. But they are examples of math in its active operations all around us, giving us plenty of examples of what works in theory and what works in practice. So I don't understand your issue with math.


I don't have an issue with math. I have an issue when it is made out to be something it is not.


And what is it being made out to be?



posted on Apr, 3 2014 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


I guess all those properties only started existing once we developed the language to understand them.

Now you have it. Well done!



posted on Apr, 3 2014 @ 02:05 PM
link   

usertwelve
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


I guess all those properties only started existing once we developed the language to understand them.

Now you have it. Well done!


Um...I don't agree with that. Otherwise, you might as well say the universe didn't exist until we developed the language to describe its mechanics, because the raw data we translated didn't exist. It's like that question of if a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound? According to our scientific understanding of sound, the shift in physical matter would undoubtedly yield the vibrations we interpret as sound, regardless of whether we are there to witness it or not. The same goes for the universe.
edit on 3-4-2014 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2014 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


Exactly, it makes zero sense.



posted on Apr, 3 2014 @ 02:07 PM
link   

There is no legislation in Physics.

I didn't say there was. You did with this statement.

the laws set the boundaries within which everything must act.

I just reduced your sentence into a single word. Same goes for "the ability to arrange". That reduces to "control". It's quite simple actually.



posted on Apr, 3 2014 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by usertwelve
 


Why does the ability to arrange mean to control the laws of physics?

Tell me, whose going to break them? Your imagination????



posted on Apr, 3 2014 @ 02:10 PM
link   

usertwelve

There is no legislation in Physics.

I didn't say there was. You did with this statement.

the laws set the boundaries within which everything must act.

I just reduced your sentence into a single word. Same goes for "the ability to arrange". That reduces to "control". It's quite simple actually.


Hmm...I now wonder what the structure of that small dense point of matter was, before the Big Bang. Was it orderly, or was it chaotic? A constant, stable construct, or a fluctuating knot of reactions, like a tiny sun?

Becomes it seems to me that you're suggesting a universe without "legislation" would be exactly that: a writhing maelstrom of spontaneous atomic reactions. But it seems like that's a paradox - existence without order. The nature of destruction yielding creation.
edit on 3-4-2014 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2014 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by usertwelve
 


Complete nonsense. If that were true there would be no stars, Earth, Humans, Galaxies, elements matter.

Please don't spread lies about these things, Physics can be tricky enough to learn without people being told unfounded nonsense.

reply to post by usertwelve
 


It's a scientific fact, the problem is you're using human law in physical law when they're completely different which is causing you to think a physical boundary is a type of legislation when it clearly isn't. Science has very specific vocabulary, if you treat scientific terms as their layman homnyms you're obviously going to get mixed up as the words have completely different contexts and meanings.
edit on 3-4-2014 by bastion because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2014 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 

Sorry, my fault. I should have provide more context to your quote.


Did the inch start existing just because we assigned a word to it? Did the concept of five, or ten or a hundred start existing just because we started talking about it? How about the hour? Maybe the periodic table, or the half life of an isotope.

These are different things.
Numbers: imagined
Measurements of space and time: imagined
Periodic table: imagined (the element we describe with it: real)
Half life of an isotope: real



posted on Apr, 3 2014 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by usertwelve
 


My twin,

Their refusal to question even their basic understanding of the bodies of knowledge they call themselves experts of is indicative of their lack of philosophical taste. I wouldn't even bother. Their dogma precedes and guides their rationality.



posted on Apr, 3 2014 @ 02:18 PM
link   

usertwelve
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 

Sorry, my fault. I should have provide more context to your quote.


Did the inch start existing just because we assigned a word to it? Did the concept of five, or ten or a hundred start existing just because we started talking about it? How about the hour? Maybe the periodic table, or the half life of an isotope.

These are different things.
Numbers: imagined
Measurements of space and time: imagined
Periodic table: imagined (the element we describe with it: real)
Half life of an isotope: real




Aphorism
reply to post by usertwelve
 


My twin,

Their refusal to question even their basic understanding of the bodies of knowledge they call themselves experts of is indicative of their lack of philosophical taste. I wouldn't even bother. Their dogma precedes and guides their rationality.


No it's called having a stong background in the area and knowing you can't seperate the difference between Physical and human laws - feel free to write to any Physics professor asking them if physical laws exist, if planets cause gravity and if constants exist everywhere in nature and every single one will tell you you're wrong as they're well know, proven and exist everywhere - you really don't have to take my word for it. Even the links you posted earlier confirm all this by saying Physical laws are discovered and not invented.

Wrong on all accounts apart from half life of isotope (and imaginary numbers), though you can't claim that's real if you consider time imagined as it's measured in time.
edit on 3-4-2014 by bastion because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2014 @ 02:19 PM
link   

usertwelve
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 

Sorry, my fault. I should have provide more context to your quote.


Did the inch start existing just because we assigned a word to it? Did the concept of five, or ten or a hundred start existing just because we started talking about it? How about the hour? Maybe the periodic table, or the half life of an isotope.

These are different things.
Numbers: imagined
Measurements of space and time: imagined
Periodic table: imagined (the element we describe with it: real)
Half life of an isotope: real



What???

What's the point of what you're saying?

How are numbers imaginary that describe predictions that have been observed and replicated? Again, what does this mean?

I can say the TV I'm watching came from someones imagination or that Family Guy came from someones imagination but Family Guy isn't describing Planck's Constant. Family Guy isn't describing Bohr's radius or the Strong Nuclear Force.

What is the point to what you're saying?



posted on Apr, 3 2014 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by bastion
 





It's a scientific fact, the problem is you're using human law in physical law when they're completely different which is causing you to think a physical boundary is a type of legislation when it clearly isn't. Science has very specific vocabulary, if you treat scientific terms as their layman homnyms you're obviously going to get mixed up as the words have completely different contexts and meanings.





As far as the physical laws of the universe actually, physically existing in some form somewhere (this is the total extent of my understanding of Platonism): no, I don’t think there are very many scientists who think that.


Do the "laws" of physics exist?



posted on Apr, 3 2014 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 


now you saying he didn't say the laws of physics were imaginary.

I never said he didn't say that (if he is a he). I said that our description of these things are imagined. Just like the laws. We have observed behavior and used imagination to communicate that behavior.


The laws of physics describe what we observe and replicate. What's imaginary about that?

Think about your statement here. The laws of physics describe what we observe. Bingo! Imagination.



posted on Apr, 3 2014 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Aphorism
reply to post by bastion
 





It's a scientific fact, the problem is you're using human law in physical law when they're completely different which is causing you to think a physical boundary is a type of legislation when it clearly isn't. Science has very specific vocabulary, if you treat scientific terms as their layman homnyms you're obviously going to get mixed up as the words have completely different contexts and meanings.





As far as the physical laws of the universe actually, physically existing in some form somewhere (this is the total extent of my understanding of Platonism): no, I don’t think there are very many scientists who think that.


Do the "laws" of physics exist?


Read the first sentence of the answer

'Physicist: Discovered. Although most of the laws that can be re-arranged and expressed in different ways. For example you can express “conservation of total momentum” as “the velocity of the center of mass never changes”.'

Of course physical laws aren't objects you can pick up, they're the laws with which physical objects behave within.


usertwelve

The laws of physics describe what we observe and replicate. What's imaginary about that?

Think about your statement here. The laws of physics describe what we observe. Bingo! Imagination.


Observations are not imaginary, they're measurements of reality, the laws are made by the observations of the behaviour these all obey - how many times do we have to repeat this?
edit on 3-4-2014 by bastion because: (no reason given)


If it was all imagary how do you explain the millions of inventions we rely on everyday which were made through observing data to find out the laws they obey.
edit on 3-4-2014 by bastion because: (no reason given)







 
8
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join