.Physicists haven’t just been sitting on their hands during the past 400 years. They’ve arrived at some well-established, experimentally well-supported, never falsified laws of physics.
.
And yes, believe it or not, observational evidence indicates that those laws were also operating at times before there were any physicists. — Michael Ossipoff
.
You don't seem to have understood my criticism. The "laws of physics" are descriptions of how things behave. As such they were produced by human beings. How could they be "operating" before there were physicists, when physicists created them?
.No, they’re observed through the senses (often via instrumentation). You can call then “entities” if you want to, but they’re provisional facts, that are accepted if they’re sufficiently confirmed, and never falsified. …eventually increasingly regarded as confirmed instead of provisional. And yes, they’re based on observation of physical events and conditions. — Michael Ossipoff
.Laws of physics are produced by inductive reason, they are not observed through the senses.
.Through the senses we observe individual, particular instances, but a law of physics is a generalization which applies to numerous instances.
.You really think that contradicts the statement that there’s observational evidence that currently accepted and used physical laws obtained at earlier times when there weren’t physicists? — Michael Ossipoff
.
Yes, I really think you contradict yourself. I don't see how physical laws could have "obtained" in any normal sense of the word "obtained", prior to their existence.
.Angry-noises and vague, unspecified, unsupported expressions of personal opinion are standard, typical common troll-tactics.
.
If there's another sample, it won't be answered.
I stop replying to people who show that they're incapable of disagreeing politely. — Michael Ossipoff
.Wow, I politely pointed out a simple problem with your metaphysics, without "vague, unspecified, unsupported expressions of personal opinion", and look who's expressing all sorts of anger.
Why does 2 + 2 = 4? — WISDOMfromPO-MO
You make it sound as if the laws of physics were “created” and “produced” by magicians who made it so. — Michael Ossipoff
No, the laws of physics were discovered by physicists. …as suggestions about how the physical world works. …as evident relations between certain physical quantity-values. — Michael Ossipoff
By the way, replying to something else that you said in your previous post, there’s no contradiction between my statements about metaphysics and my statements about physics. Those are separate subjects. I suggest that the notion that those statements contradict eachother results from a conflation of physics and metaphysics.
. — Michael Ossipoff
Modern observations show the currently observed laws of physics operating long before there were any physicists. — Michael Ossipoff
So no, I'm not saying that the physical laws exist independent of us. — Michael Ossipoff
.You make it sound as if the laws of physics were “created” and “produced” by magicians who made it so. — Michael Ossipoff
.When I clearly stated that the laws of physics are descriptions, this statement is totally irrelevant.
.No, the laws of physics were discovered by physicists. …as suggestions about how the physical world works. …as evident relations between certain physical quantity-values. — Michael Ossipoff
.OK, call them "suggestions about how the world works" rather than my term "descriptions" if you like. How would physicists "discover" a suggestion?
.One might discover some by reading books, but there has to be a first time that such a suggestion was made by a physicist, and that physicist made that suggestion, the suggestion was not discovered.
.By the way, replying to something else that you said in your previous post, there’s no contradiction between my statements about metaphysics and my statements about physics. Those are separate subjects. I suggest that the notion that those statements contradict eachother results from a conflation of physics and metaphysics.
. — Michael Ossipoff
.
OK, so your epistemic principles allow that what you believe concerning physics contradicts what you believe concerning metaphysics.
.As per the contradiction I pointed out, let me give it to you straight. You said:
“Modern observations show the currently observed laws of physics operating long before there were any physicists.” — Michael Ossipoff
Then you said:
“So no, I'm not saying that the physical laws exist independent of us.” — Michael Ossipoff
Clearly the first statement says that laws of physics were operating before there were any physicists, implying that they are independent of us, and the second statement says that laws of physics do not exist independently of us. Can you explain how this is not contradiction?
But you don’t think that the laws could have obtained until there were physicists to create them. So you’re speaking of them as more than descriptions. You’re speaking of them as some kind sorcery, in which physicists have made the laws and made them obtain. To put it differently, you’re implying that the physicist has the power of a script-writer, to make things any way that s/he chooses to. — Michael Ossipoff
Do you really believe that the law of gravity, and Newton’s laws of motion didn’t obtain in the days of the early Egyptian civilization? Don’t we have paintings from that time that show a jar resting on a table-top, or people standing on the ground? In fact, without gravity, the Earth wouldn’t have an atmosphere, and so how would there have been a Sumerian civilization, with no oxygen-containing atmosphere? In fact, how would we have any ancestors? — Michael Ossipoff
hen we know that Newton was the one to develop these laws, why would you think that the ancient Egyptians were using the same laws long before Newton? — Metaphysician Undercover
I suggest that you consider the possibility that some laws other than Newton's obtained at this time. — Metaphysician Undercover
If an ancient Egyptian dropped a brick, it would accelerate according to the formula given in the Laws of Motion; although the Egyptian wouldn't know this was the case. — Wayfarer
Let's see - Nefertiti's Law. Do you think calling it that would mean objects would fall at a different rate? — Wayfarer
that is what makes a law "correct" — Metaphysician Undercover
.But you don’t think that the laws could have obtained until there were physicists to create them. So you’re speaking of them as more than descriptions. You’re speaking of them as some kind sorcery, in which physicists have made the laws and made them obtain. To put it differently, you’re implying that the physicist has the power of a script-writer, to make things any way that s/he chooses to. — Michael Ossipoff
.No, I am simply pointing out that it is impossible for a description to be used prior to the existence of the description.
.Take the statement "the sky is blue" for example. There was a time before that statement was ever made. Before that statement was made, it is impossible that people were saying that the sky is blue. There is no such thing as an unstated statement, that is nonsense, and so it is also nonsense to say that the unstated statement obtained.
.Do you really believe that the law of gravity, and Newton’s laws of motion didn’t obtain in the days of the early Egyptian civilization? Don’t we have paintings from that time that show a jar resting on a table-top, or people standing on the ground? In fact, without gravity, the Earth wouldn’t have an atmosphere, and so how would there have been a Sumerian civilization, with no oxygen-containing atmosphere? In fact, how would we have any ancestors? — Michael Ossipoff
.How does a picture of jar resting on a table-top imply that Newton's laws of motion were applied in early Egyptian civilization?
.When we know that Newton was the one to develop these laws, why would you think that the ancient Egyptians were using the same laws long before Newton?
.I suggest that you consider the possibility that some laws other than Newton's obtained at this time.
Like Michael, you are creating the illusion that people accepted a statement which was never stated. — Metaphysician Undercover
I’ve repeatedly clarified and emphasized that I’m not saying that a physical law that obtained a billion years ago is a description that was being spoken at that time. — Michael Ossipoff
In fact, I haven’t been defining a physical law as a description at all. I’ve been defining it as a relation between quantity-values — Michael Ossipoff
If you want to claim that some other set of physical laws obtained during Egyptian times, instead of the physical laws that are now established, and that that’s confirmed by what is known about those earlier times, then the burden would be on you to show that. — Michael Ossipoff
is interpreted as gibberish by me.The laws of motion are not culturally dependent. — Wayfarer
'The law' refers to a regularity in nature. — Wayfarer
You might argue that these terms, "force", "mass", and "acceleration", as well as "equals" and "times", refer to regularities in nature, (what Michael Ossipoff seems to take for granted), but that would be a very difficult argument to maintain, with some of these terms such as "force" and "equals", which appear to be purely conceptual, not referring to anything in nature. — Metaphysician Undercover
So f=ma refers to a purely conceptual relationship (equals) between something conceptual (force), and the measurable regularities of mass and acceleration. Since the stated relationship itself, "equals", is purely conceptual, the stated law refers to the way that we conceive of these regularities of nature (the formula), and not the regularities themselves.
.I’ve repeatedly clarified and emphasized that I’m not saying that a physical law that obtained a billion years ago is a description that was being spoken at that time. — Michael Ossipoff
.You haven't yet explained how a physical law which came into existence a few hundred years ago could have "obtained a billion years ago".
.As I explained, this is contradiction, and until we sort this out, there is no point in starting with the premise that a physical law obtained a billion years ago.
.In fact, I haven’t been defining a physical law as a description at all. I’ve been defining it as a relation between quantity-values — Michael Ossipoff
.Again, quantities and values are human measurements, so this does not get you past this problem.
.If you want to claim that some other set of physical laws obtained during Egyptian times, instead of the physical laws that are now established, and that that’s confirmed by what is known about those earlier times, then the burden would be on you to show that. — Michael Ossipoff
.No, what I am saying is that if there are no human beings to create physical laws, then no physical laws obtain. That's a pretty simple, straight forward position. I think that the onus is on you to explain how you believe that something which comes about from human judgement, "a relation between quantity-values" could exist prior to there being any human beings.
.
Do you understand what a "value" is? If so, how do you think that a value could exist without someone to determine the value?
Since the stated relationship itself, "equals", is purely conceptual, the stated law refers to the way that we conceive of these regularities of nature (the formula), and not the regularities themselves. — Metaphysician Undercover
On these bases I would suggest that they 'why' of the universe is probabilistically favoured towards a lack of meaning, and if that is true then any unveirifyable and sense-less statement about entities outside the ambit of empirical reality is essentially a meaningless question. — Sam Keays
The word "Nature" tends to be, intentionally or unintentionally, and obfuscation. For one thing, Its usage is a Materialist's way of trying to frame the discussion in terms of a premise that the physical world is what's natural, and is Reality itself. — Michael Ossipoff
What I take for granted? I've been saying all along that the physical world and its contents aren't objectively real or existent,and that the hypotheticals that it consists of aren't objectively factual,but only need and have meaning in terms of their own local inter-referring context..
Purely conceptpual? Of course. That's what I've been saying all along.
My metaphysics, Skepticism, is an Idealism..
Thank you for arguing for Skepticism. — Michael Ossipoff
What's that? You say you weren't there a billion years ago, to create and enforce the law of gravity, to keep the Earth in Solar-orbit? That's ok, because the various scientists, and the information that they've reported, are in your experience, part of your life-experience possibility-story, as is are your own physical observations. — Michael Ossipoff
Easy. As I said above, and in my post before this one, a story includes time. By definition, story takes place across time. Your life-experience possibility story is such a story. — Michael Ossipoff
I don’t know what you think kept the Earth in orbit a billion years ago, but the law of gravity discovered by Newton, and the gravitational constant experimentally found by Cavendish amount to a physical law that explains why the Earth is still in orbit. — Michael Ossipoff
So you're point is only that it's not 'a law' until it's written down, whereas I am saying that objects will accelerate in accordance with the formula f=ma whether it's been written down or not. That is why Newton's formula is called 'a discovery' i.e. it uncovers something that already existed but hitherto had not been understood. — Wayfarer
This strongly suggests that the probability of our being wrong on something which we do not know and has been constructed based on logical axioms that are ultimately rooted in well documented psychological and evolved states of assumed thinking (such as towards animism and spiritualism) which have benefited us in the past should be held with suspicion on probabilistic grounds. — Sam Keays
Also science, in defining the field of maximum probability explanations for observed correlations in empirical experience tends to have the effect of also assigning probabilities to those things defined as 'how'. Both how and why are questions that touch on categories of causation, which is implicitly defined above only 'why' implies a level above the initial scope of explanation - a how questions seems to be causation within a defined scope or limit. It actually interesting to consider for example that the 'why' of life was, until the 19th century, generally defined as vitalism or some kind of force separate from those known at the time - gravity, electricity and magnetism - read Kant or Hegel or other German idealists and lot of the weirdness (and frankly on some level irrelevance) in their presentation of natural science comes from these presumptions of the age. The 'why' of life can be found, as can it be within any other system inside the natural universe.
Now when people talk about 'why' they mean an ontological why specifically, namely the purpose or meaning of the universe. In an obvious sense, the reason science cannot answer this is that its whole ediface is constructed on probabilistic, self-reinforcing observations within the closed system of empirical reality and our universe. However, rationality in the form of logic and its highly formalised and decontextualised applications in mathematics are in one sense grounded in reality - it is why we have evolved to be able to use them as they are useful for modelling our environment and come from and are made possible by the universe's causally predictable patterns occurring in our thought process. On the other hand, as Kant well documented it can easily break loose of its constraints and entertain purely hypothetical entities based on logical capacities - such as a being unconstrained by the conditions of reality around us - namely some kind of God figure. So in a trivial sense science cannot answer this question... but it is suggestive in two ways. First of all that it has repeatedly defied our pure reason in the past. The rationalist science of Aristotle, admirable and incredibly inventive in its way, was not able to stand the pressure of empirical observation which is well know. This strongly suggests that the probability of our being wrong on something which we do not know and has been constructed based on logical axioms that are ultimately rooted in well documented psychological and evolved states of assumed thinking (such as towards animism and spiritualism) which have benefited us in the past should be held with suspicion on probabilistic grounds. Secondly, the general drift of the evidential structure is towards a universe more grand and un-teleologic than ever, a reduced role for the importance of humans and human volition (if it even exists) and the fact that life in some way a complex arms race game that has been played between aggregating quanitities chemicals as a sort of fluke with little more meaning that that. On these bases I would suggest that they 'why' of the universe is probabilistically favoured towards a lack of meaning, and if that is true then any unveirifyable and sense-less statement about entities outside the ambit of empirical reality is essentially a meaningless question. — Sam Keays
Thank you for arguing for Skepticism. — Michael Ossipoff
..
I have no problem arguing skepticism. I do it all the time, in fact I am very skeptical of your metaphysics, as you should know by now.
.I am very skeptical of your metaphysics
.So I'll state the problem as clearly as I can, as it appears in the quoted passage. According to my understanding, a concept is something created by a human mind., and existing in a human mind, completely mind dependent. Yet you claim that the physical world is purely conceptual
., and that there were concepts before there were human minds
., laws of physics and things like that, billions of years ago. How do you support this claim? Are these concepts supposed to exist within the mind of God?
.What's that? You say you weren't there a billion years ago, to create and enforce the law of gravity, to keep the Earth in Solar-orbit? That's ok, because the various scientists, and the information that they've reported, are in your experience, part of your life-experience possibility-story, as is are your own physical observations. — Michael Ossipoff
.I really haven't been able to grasp this "life-experience possibility-story". Perhaps that's why I don't understand. Can you explain it in plain English?
.For instance, how is the earth a billion years ago in my own life-experience? The concept of "the earth a billion years ago" is in my own life experience, but the earth a billion years ago is not.
Easy. As I said above, and in my post before this one, a story includes time. By definition, story takes place across time. Your life-experience possibility story is such a story. — Michael Ossipoff
.OK, so do you agree that a story requires an author of that story.
.Who is the author of my life-experience possibility story?
.,I don’t know what you think kept the Earth in orbit a billion years ago, but the law of gravity discovered by Newton, and the gravitational constant experimentally found by Cavendish amount to a physical law that explains why the Earth is still in orbit. — Michael Ossipoff
.It may be gravity which keeps the earth in orbit, but it's definitely not the law of gravity which does this.
.The law of gravity is one of the different ways that human beings understand gravity. And our understanding of gravity does not keep the earth in orbit.
.That this is true is evident from the fact that we sometimes create laws which are false, wrong. If laws were discovered, it would be impossible to have a false, or wrong law, because you couldn't discover a false law
Scholasticism was a great example of how this can become a grand and learned and complicated artifice whilst bearing little connection to reality. — Sam Keays
On these bases I would suggest that they 'why' of the universe is probabilistically favoured towards a lack of meaning, — Sam Keays
Why would that be in favor of theism, rather than, say, deism, pantheism, etc?However, I personally find the 'fine-tuning' arguments, and the 'biological information' arguments, quite persuasive in favour of theism. — Wayfarer
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.