Force is mass times acceleration.

Energy is half the mass times the square of velocity.

Power is force times distance, and power is work over time.

There are a few variations on these equations, but it's all pretty much permutations of mass, time and distance. More that that and it quickly becomes metaphysics.

Physics is the study of motion.

it's all pretty much permutations of mass, time and distance — Banno

Though mass is better defined in terms of energy than vice versa, and energy at a quantum level is about frequency and wavelength which in turn are all about time and distance again, so it really all boils down to time and distance.

To me talk about quantum mechanics always falls into talk about philosophy eventually. Distance is space and who knows what time is. As Augustine said "if someone asked me if I knew what time was I would say yes. If he asked what it was I would say I didn't know". I like the PBS digital studios series on physics that is on YouTube. To my mind the talk falls into philosophy every couple minutes in almost every video nonetheless. I started out this little thread with the force-energy-power thing because it was Hume who had first got me thinking about this stuff. He said "natural philosophers" ( scientists) throw these works around when there was (in Hume's opinion) no way to define them. He even did a kind of Cartesian self-analysis to see if he could find these concepts in terms of internal experience. All and all I think he took skepticism too far and that we don't have to choose to be so doubtful. If we try we can find some meaning to words which we apply to phenomena we might be successful. But the line between physics and philosophy appears to be incurably blurry. Too bad for those scientists who dislike philosophy I guess..

Thanks for the above replies guys.

It may seem odd, but one reason I switched undergrad major from physics to math was the relative clarity of definitions in the latter compared with those of the former.

The world is very relatively in tune with the world wrote Andre Breton. Surrealism in poetry was prominant during the rise of quantum physics, interestingly.

Hume denied that

1) objects must have laws in them

2) that causality must in the world

The number one principle of science is that "identical objects act identically in identical situations." Hume denied that (1) and (2) even had meaning. Laws, force, power, substance, and energy were ideas that for him which (1) meant nothing and (2) didn't apply to the world as we know it. He would have made a great Buddha way back when perhaps. He brings up interesting illustrations though for me to consider in my relation to the world in the form of conceptualization.

"The bread, which I formerly eat, nourished me; that is, a body of such sensible qualities, was, at that time , ensure with such secret power: But does it follow, that other bread must also nourish me at another time, and that like sensible qualities must always be attended with like secret powers? The consequence seems nowise necessary."

" May I not clearly and distinctly conceive , that a body, falling from the clouds, and which, in all other respects, resembles snow, has yet the taste of sat or feeling of fire? "

Hume.

His poetic imagination was able to combine the sensible is any way he wanted. I was recently wondering if Newtonian Time and Space was really just the rational laws behind our reality. I don't know if these laws are mathematical or simply about logic, or about something else, but it makes seeing Newton in light of Einstein easier I think. After all, we are able to coordinate frames of reference in ways that make sense

Physics is concerned with two issues in my humble opinion: First comes description of the way matter behaves - patterns in the way matter interacts with matter, then comes the theoretical framework that attempts to make sense of these patterns - concepts like force, energy come into the picture at this point. The description of the behavior of matter usually takes on a mathematical form and, last I checked, the concepts that constitute the explanatory hypothesis/theory too are mathematical.

Imagine a chess board (The world) being played by Mr. Sole Principle. He is the only thing with force in the universe. Each piece of the game (which I guess he plays against himself) has no principles inside them. They are totally empty. Just because he has played the game up to 2021 a certain way, doesn t mean he won't play it differently tomorrow. I can feel force in my body but when I see a plane flying, Hume asks how we can know what is truly moving it. The Sole Principle might be another dimension, Malebranches God, or anything. At least this is Hume's case. He really dug a hole that is hard to get out of. The mathematical part does relate to the difference between random and determined I talked about, but when can one become the other? At the moment of the big bang all mathematics breaks down

At the moment of the big bang all mathematics breaks down — Gregory

Mathematics doesn't break down, the theory that results in particular formulae breaks down. That's why scientists are on the lookout for new theories and not new mathematics.

Nevertheless, if math with infinity (presuming infinity is the hobgoblin in the equations) can be somehow made comprehensible, things would just fall into place and everything would make sense. Perhaps, somewhere, in the derivations, there's a division by 0, hidden, hopefully for our sake, in plain sight.

Doesn't seem odd to me. If you want to do applied physics, do a physics degree. If you want to do theory, do maths. At my uni we had to take our electives in the maths department if we wanted to do advanced theoretical physics.

it really all boils down to time and distance. — Pfhorrest

:up: Yup, with decorative physical constants: in other words, we're measuring it wrong!

↪jgill
Doesn't seem odd to me. If you want to do applied physics, do a physics degree. If you want to do theory, do maths. At my uni we had to take our electives in the maths department if we wanted to do advanced theoretical physics — Kenosha Kid

I've mentioned this before, but I was at the U of Chicago in the late 1950s and was surprised to learn that the physics department had entirely separated from the math department and required its students to take their math courses with them. This arrangement probably didn't last, but I just checked and saw that there might still be some minor friction between departments, with a comment that under a certain curriculum "you may have to learn . . . on your own".

I've had fun dabbling in simple vector fields in the complex plane, but quantum fields are quite a bit more complicated, even with a modest background in functional analysis. My hat's off to you guys. :cool:

I've had fun dabbling in simple vector fields in the complex plane, but quantum fields are quite a bit more complicated, even with a modest background in functional analysis. My hat's off to you guys. :cool: — jgill

I didn't have much issue with quantum field theory, at least until perturbation theory which can get a bit hard to keep track of, but classical field theory was hard. Curvilinear coordinates are not, well, straight forward :rofl: especially when you have to do it as a physics undergrad in a mathematics department. Those guys know their mustard!

He is the only thing with force in the universe. — Gregory

Mr. Sole Principle is the passing of time, it is responsible for all the force in the universe.

The passage of time is like the fire of Heraclitus. For him, ordering the fire was the Logos of opposites, kinda a dialectical yin and yang thing. Knowing what this Logos says to our minds is hard, if not impossible. Of course the trick to knowledge is to realize we cant prove everything from the very bottom to the top. Maurice Blondel, Maritain, and Karl Rahner agreed with Kant that the questions of substance and a universal substrate are beyond a certain level of truth. Those thinkers found meaning in action, a dynamic religion; Alfred Whitehead wrote about an even more extreme form of dynamic religion. To me though the question of whether rites (the Mass, indigenous ceremonies, spells, incantations) can change matter is straightforward forward and it's irrelevant whether there is a God behind it or if our mental vibrations alter the vibrations of things that aren't us

Verificationalism
Positivism
Logical analyism
Pragmatism
Functionalism..

these all seem almost too related to be considered separate from each other. If science works common sense says stay the course. WHY it works is a different question I believe

There was Berkeley's position that objects are mental, Hume's position that objects are indefinite, and Kent's position that objects are phenomena of noumena. In none of these systems or in Aristotle's scheme is the possibility of confusion and the rise of "The Absurd" (Camus) removed. In the literature of religions and cultures situations arise that reveal the the confusion that the outer world can cause in our minds. What is called "quantum mysticism" can be consistent with Kant's philosophy but how cant we ever have a true theory of everything if we cant get out hands on the ultimate substrate?

The passage of time is like the fire of Heraclitus. For him, ordering the fire was the Logos of opposites, kinda a dialectical yin and yang thing. — Gregory

i think this is backward. The passing of time is what orders the opposites, not vise versa. The fundamental opposites are past and future, and without the passing of time there is no such order.

but how cant we ever have a true theory of everything if we can get out hands on the ultimate substrate? — Gregory

Maybe it is not as complicated and mysterious as humans would like it to be. It's like an incredible magic trip, which when revealed is amazingly simple but say the same time destroys the awe of magic. We enjoy the mysterious but simplicity also has its own wonder. Just observe. It's right there.

I corrected grammar in my last two posts so now they make more sense now :)

i think this is backward. The passing of time is what orders the opposites, not vise versa. The fundamental opposites are past and future, and without the passing of time there is no such order — Metaphysician Undercover

I haven't studied all the fragments of Heraclitus but according to Bertrand Russell's History of Philosophy (on youtube by workingklass0) the Logos is what orders the flux of fire in his system. You seem to be thinking that there is the common Prime Mover position and then pure materialism, and that that's just it. There is actually many positions. Besides subjective idealism (Berkeley, everything is mental) and objective materialism (that human consciosnessness directly creates the entire material order), there are different grades of transcendental idealism (Kant, Fitche), actual idealism (Giovanni Gentile), absolute idealism (Schelling, Hegel), and whatever it was that Charles Peirce was trying to say. THEREFORE,... where does the Logos reside? In God's mind (something beyond us), in our minds, or in no minds whatsoever? Again, could the Time and Space of Newton be reinterpreted to mean the laws of physics (Logos?)? Science has tried to find absolute nothing, but there always seems to be something left over. There would, nonetheless, be the laws of physics and logic if we had nothingness, right? It's not a clear issue, no easy answers. Pure nothingness would be beyond all laws and truths, but then what is beyond pure nothingness? Maybe it's circular and comes back to consciousness. The relationship between mind and matter is hotly debated and much has been said, not simply by Hegel or The Secret book (and documentary), but by many others. Interestingly, Huston Smith said in one of his books that Dao in Daoism means both "law" and "breath", so basically is means "spoken Logos". Yet Daoism refrains from calling this an act of a Person, and Daoism has a lot in common with Hegel, who didn't believe in the traditional God (although he called himself a Christian). Even Hinduism's "brahmin" means "breath" and this breath speaks Aum (of which's sound waves the world is composed), so in Greek terms it's logos. Yet their complex philosophies and theologies point towards the logos being more IN us than outside us

Dean Buonomano has written a book Your Brain is a Time Machine that has added this to general discussion

Heraclitus's Fire has quite a bit to do with science because Heraclitan Logos, rather than being an after the fact explanatory story, is intended to be independent universal powers beyond the limitations of everyday human personal experience. Fire, more than a traditional substance, is the motivator that drives the world even when there are no humans to explain or to make sense of what goes on.

Again, could the Time and Space of Newton be reinterpreted to mean the laws of physics (Logos?)? — Gregory

Newton's time and space are prerequisite assumptions without which his Laws don't quite add up, but for the most part, the Laws are good enough.

Ye if we have an infinite series of vibrations (of fire!) stretching into the past with no end, then the future is different from the past because the past is completed infinity. Every vibration is "in the middle" so to speak (intermediate) but the whole series is complete because of the logos (laws) that are directing it

Ye if we have an infinite series of vibrations (of fire!) stretching into the past with no end, then the future is different from the past because the past is completed infinity — Gregory

Wrong. Think of starting the harmonic series in both directions, then later popping into existence. At that point in time the series is still progressing negatively. But carry on.

I'm a little confused so perhaps you should "carry on" for a moment for me. I see an infinite series as

1) mathematical and ordered according to as we understand and imagine it

Or

2) physical series of moments or vibrations

Does 1 make sense on its own, or 2, or both? As I see it, 2 is just 1 with the addition of physical force

Consider each term of the form, 1/n , a momentary vibration. Count both directions , 1/n and -1/n . As you add up the moments the sums tend to plus and minus infinity and counting in both directions means counting backwards never ends. There is no "end of infinity". That's it for me. :meh:

To me talk about quantum mechanics always falls into talk about philosophy eventually. — Gregory

I'm thinking that's becasue we don't do the maths.

Bacon, Hobbes, and Descartes were first among well known scholars to first strongly emphasis using mathematics to understand physics (aside from the Pythagorian school). At least that is what I've gathered from reading history. The world is more than mathematical though so we have to add concepts to the workings of numbers in order to do physics. The manner in which the motion of an eternal universe is structured determines if it makes reasonable sense standing on its own (without adding infinite premises). Am I wrong in thinking that an infinite series can only exist in the world only by being an eternal moving present? I think the series can only be infinite in that it extends into the past (always was). Descartes's vortex was the first series attempt to understand this, if my reading of history is correct (although Hobbes wrote on physics. I don't know anything about his particular arguments)

What is force? What is energy? What is power?
Defining words that apply to the action of physical objects can be tricky. So getting past the language barrier to form true communication between us is difficult. — Gregory

For philosophical purposes, I define Physics in opposition to Meta-Physics, which includes the Platonic purity of mathematics. The problem of succinctly defining terms in Physics, may be why some mathematicians feel superior to the physicists, who propose complex arcane theories to explain mundane nature. On the other hand, some Physicists, argue that pure mathematics is not realistic & empirical, but idealistic & theoretical. FWIW, I have developed my own philosophical (Meta-Physical) definitions for such subjects of Physics as "Force". "Energy", and "Power". :nerd:

Mathematical realism, like realism in general, holds that mathematical entities exist independently of the human mind. Thus humans do not invent mathematics, but rather discover it, and any other intelligent beings in the universe would presumably do the same. In this point of view, there is really one sort of mathematics that can be discovered; triangles, for example, are real entities, not the creations of the human mind.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/philosophy-mathematics/

Mathematical Platonism is the form of realism that suggests that mathematical entities are abstract, have no spatiotemporal or causal properties, and are eternal and unchanging.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mathematics

Meta-Physics :
4. Physics refers to the things we perceive with the eye of the body. Meta-physics refers to the things we conceive with the eye of the mind. Meta-physics includes the properties, and qualities, and functions that make a thing what it is. Matter is just the clay from which a thing is made. Meta-physics is the design (form, purpose); physics is the product (shape, action). The act of creation brings an ideal design into actual existence. The design concept is the “formal” cause of the thing designed.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html

Is your "formal cause" in the mind (Kant) or somehow simultaneously in the mind AND in matter (Hegel)? I think this is pertinent to your position since I can't see how information can exist when no minds are around. Modern philosophy took the "formal" and put it in consciousness ( maybe where it belongs). Modern thought essentially started when' people like Galileo said that most of what the Middle Ages assigned to physical reality was really just the workings of human minds (although some medieval mystics said as much and posited God as being "prime matter")

although Hobbes wrote on physics. I don't know anything about his particular arguments — Gregory

He's my favorite philosopher!

Hobbes the philosopher