If a physical law is just a limited mathematical description of a some limited behavior of matter that is mutable over time then I would prefer to call it a speculative theory of wave fields subject to change.

Quantum mechanics is a limited description (it has self imposed limits) on how ca system of particles may behaved depending upon a system being observed. There is no precision and it is very limited in what it can say. It's not a law. It's just a way of viewing quanta for limited purpose - and our understanding changes as our knowledge changes.

However, of the Schrodinger equation, wave-particle duality, and the Uncertainty Principle is all that science has to call a law, then it is important to recognize the limitations of this concept of natural laws.

Numbers are not mathematics. They are symbols of an observed multiplicity in space, and yes these symbols have changed over time. Nothing is immutable.

If all the talk about laws simply comes down to quantum mechanics, then there are no laws, since quantum mechanics limits itself on what it can know and predict. It is merely a probabilistic description of what might happen within a narrowly defined system.

I don't remember you at all. But apparently in all the years that have passed, the only law you've come up with is the number 7 which for me is as much of a law as is the letter M.

The question at hand is not the practicality of quantum physics. Nor is the question whether a probabilistic equation can be considered precise. The question is about laws. That is the topic I was addressing.

One can use what ever adjectives one wishes. The subject of this thread is laws which is a noun.

As for accuracy, physics as moved from the Newtonian concrete to the quantum ambiguous and probable. If accuracy is defined by a probability wave then accuracy had taken a left turn. Physics is very useful but hardly precise. What is highly probable is that it will all change - again and again and again.

7 is a symbol, not a law. It represents a multiplicity on space that has been learned in some past time, symbolically agreed upon in some past time (but actually quite decent) and this agreement has been passed down via education systems. Agreement about how to assign a symbol to a multiplicity is not a law unless you are claiming a symbolic representation of a multiplicity is a law. In which case we need not only need a complete enumeration of laws but also a definition of what a law is.

As with God's laws, scientific knowledge and mathematical equations are subject to dispute and change in every instance.

As history has shown, nature is constantly changing, our knowledge of nature is constantly changing, mathematics is constantly changing, mathematical equations to describe our knowledge of nature is constantly changing, the ideas that the mathematical equations represent are constantly changing and debated.

What equations that do exist are limited in their description and are not universal to every event. If laws exist they have yet to be articulated or enumerated which is central to the question at hand.

Then I suggest that the two laws are not laws at all but rather mathematical equations that have been defined to describe a very strict set of behavior of unrelated ideas. In other words they are incomplete, non-specific, and might very well have changed, or will change over time. They are temporary though useful. Hardly reach the heights of a law.

I if

1) Is this a complete list?

2) Can you show that each law applies to every event and is invariant through all time (post and future) and are included within each other without contradiction (e.g. reciprocity of Special Relativity)?

We are looking for laws nit evolving observations and mathematical symbolism.

I didn't realize that mathematical equations and generalized, undefinable stuff like neo-Darwinism can say anything. I though only people can say things like what you just said.

Before answering a question such as yours, with a high degree of precision, one must first:

1) Enumerate the laws that one wishes to discuss and

2) Explain how these laws are invariable through time and are applicable to every possible event.

I have never seen this done. Proponents of such a concept as laws of nature generally prefer to discuss them in gross generalities which I reject.

Instead, I prefer a more changeable and evolving universe as Rupert Sheldrake describes. I find this a more realistic view of the universe:

http://www.sheldrake.org/research/most-of-the-so-called-laws-of-nature-are-more-like-habits

You can play Trump. You'd be perfect. An infantile, bullying, uneducated, narcissistic, cry-baby, looking for attention. You can even have your idiotic rat pack help you out because bullies can't handle things on their own. I'll play the press, giving it all to you. What do you say?

I see. It appears ad hominem is permitted. No problem. I've seen much worse.

Is ad hominem permitted on this site?

The wave is the pattern.

Everything would be holographic.

You are quite welcome. Good luck on your research on this topic.

While it may be overwhelming, if you visited google scholar you will find references to scholarly work concerning a holographic universe.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=holographic+universe+theory&lr=lang_en&as_sdt=1%2C33&oq=holographic+universe

In my frame of understanding things, Memory would be a holographic imprint which is embedded in the fabric of the Universe. Yes, thought would be involved since it is the reference wave that observes the Memory but thought had to be considered in its most extended meaning. Stephen Robbins provides the most accessible explanation that Bohm presented his speculative version in his writings which he discussed the Undivided Universe.

Yes, if there is no memory of something anywhere it doesn't exist. One might say the universe is Memory.

A holographic pattern within universal waves would be the defining aspect of existence, but one must first embrace the holographic model of the universe and memory.

https://youtu.be/RtuxTXEhj3A

If there is some memory of it, it exists. If you are an adherent of the holographic model of the universe, you can say that it exists, if there is a holographic pattern of it.

A symbolic statement is talking about itself. This must assuredly will lead to real world problems as is often the case in paradoxical symbolism and art.

Now, if someone said, "Everything I say is a lie", I would take him at his word knowing sometimes need v will tell a lie.

There is always going to be a problem when symbols are given real status beyond just being a symbol.

Are there any answers that you have to the questions you have presented? I'd love to hear them. — GreyScorpio

The dreaded question. I am afraid there is no answer though there is cause to continue to meditate and penetrate the question with some hope of prying some deeper understanding of the nature of life and death.

Heraclitus says that when we are awake we see death, but when we are asleep we see dreams.

Heraclitus also suggests that fellow workers - fellow souls - play in sleep and dreams.

Hamlet's famous soliloquy mediates on the nature of sleep.

Bergson briefly discusses the nature of dreaming in regards to memory.

If the universe is holographic and the brain is the reference wave that reveals the hologram, the the reference wave must change to sense something different within the hologram when it is asleep. Why? How? Maybe in time something will come to me - or to you. The answer most probably lies in the nature of persistent Memory, so Bergson is always a good place to start.

Before we proceed, I invite you to review this scholarly paper at your leisure, but most especially before you once again use the word, an expression most often used by the confused.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1204.4616

Particles are an artifact of ancient models, and are still used today, to facilitate mathematical calculations and symbolic interactions. At best, using the notion of particles is incomplete, at worst is is misleading.

The is no confusion between a priori and a posterirori knowledge. It is all Memory.

Your questions are quite on target. I think you may find some insights with Bergson and if you wish Bohm.

The question Augustino is asking is reasonable. He is also questioning where is the bridge in dualism? It is not only reasonable, it begs to be asked. So much so, that Nobel Prize winner Bergson spent his life trying to formulate a possible answer. For Bryson, the answer lies in the nature of Duration and Memory.

You are quite welcome. I am looking forward to hearing what you may discover.

For me, it provides an extraordinary path for exploring the nature of life and death, the purpose of life, and a spirituality that provides some meaning and ethical path in life. If we are persistent Memory then time (duration) gathers a totally new feeling and meaning. It provides context for my life.

Deleuze is said to be a modern scholar of Bergson, but for my taste he wondered too far away. The original is always the best. I began by reading some of his works, then some scholarly papers which are easily googled, and then I fell upon Stephen Robbins, who does a masterful job of explaining Bergson's ideas in modern holographic terms. Interestingly, and I emailed him directly on this issue, is that he avoids Bergson's concept of the Elan Vital, which is of course vital to understanding Bergson.

https://youtu.be/RtuxTXEhj3A

So like everything in life, Bergson is an endless exploration of deeper understanding. De Broglie wrote an excellent essay on Bergson if you can find it in the library: (I purchased the book a while ago).


http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-010-3096-0_38

They are embedded in the holographic field as Memory.
— Rich
Which means very little in practical terms.

Bergson resolved the clumsiness of both monism and dualism. If anything, it may be considered a more process oriented philosophy though he called it a resolution of dualism.
— Rich
I have almost 0 knowledge of Bergson, so forgive me, but why does he call it dualism if the two don't have a boundary between each other, but are instead more like a gradation?
seconds ago ReplyShareFlag — Agustino

In practical terms it makes all the difference in the world in the way we view and treat life, for those who are exploring the quality of who they are.

This is how Bergson begins his first major work Matter and Memory:

"THIS book affirms the reality of spirit and the reality of matter, and tries to determine the relation of the one to the other by the study of a definite example, that of memory. It is, then, frankly dualistic. But, on the other hand, it deals with body and mind in such a way as, we hope, to lessen greatly, if not to overcome, the theoretical difficulties which have always beset dualism, and which cause it, though suggested by the immediate verdict of consciousness and adopted by common sense, to be held, in small honour among philosophers."

His ideas were greatly refined in subsequent writings.

They are embedded in the holographic field as Memory.

Bergson resolved the clumsiness of both monism and dualism. If anything, it may be considered a more process oriented philosophy though he called it a resolution of dualism.

Where is the soul before birth? Why don't I remember anything? — Agustino

You do. It is called instincts, inherited traits inborn skills.

I consider Bergson's a mode of dualism that has dissolved the line between the two.

I'm still waiting for you to show me a thought kicking a physical stone. — Agustino

The thought is the initial impulse conveyed through the energetic, substantial field which we call bodily matter. There is no hardline between the two, just differences in substantiality. It is a continuum as electricity moves a train.

However, there is an important difference which Aristotle points to. Matter is understood to be passive, while the soul is an active form. This becomes relevant in the cosmological argument. If we adhere to this difference, it is impossible that they are the same. This is evident from what you say as well. Mind is "evolving in Time" (active), while Matter is not (passive). That one is passive and the other is active makes it impossible that they are one and the same thing. — Metaphysician Undercover

In my thought process I view matter as relatively passive, remembering that all matter is decaying (half-lives), thus there is no absolute passivity (everything is changing albeit in different directions) but we can say that matter is a continuation in the spectrum of death. What happens below total decay is probably best addressed by Bohm's notion of an implicate order. I don't believe Bohm ever referenced Bergson directly but there may have been some indirect influence arrive their interpretations of quanta are very similar as are their references to a holographic explanation of the universe.

There are other options that sit in the world between absolute chance and absolute certainty. Neither poles of absolutes are satisfying for me because they do not explain the universe I am observing. They are too absolute. So I pursue a middle path of intelligent evolution via experimentation and learning.

One must study with precision. It is the host that is unhealthy, the germs are simply a manifestation. Understanding health lends itself to a healthier body. Medicine in the U.S is not equivalent to medicine in other developed countries, and the U.S. had the worst outcomes of 35 developed countries whole spending twice as much per capita. Medicine, as with all biological sciences, is highly subjective.

I believe dreams are probably the most direct way of exploring the nature of life (and death). Dreams do not have the same sense of temporal duration as do the awake state. Neither do these two states share the same sense of space. The holographic view of the universe which we share in the awake state disappears and what emerges in the dream state is wildly different!

How does this occur?! Why does it occur?! What brings us in and out of these states??!! Can this be analogous to the birth-death cycle? It is an interesting line of inquiry, one which I pursue more and then.