How can the Universe exist without Logos?

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

Okay. Let's take the number one. I place a single pebble in front of you, which can be expressed as one stone. If I take away any vocabulary for expressing the concept of 'one', does that stop it from possessing the quality of being a single pebble? The fact that it is one stone is a reality, even if you can't express it. It is the difference between no stones and two or more stones. The idea is there because a physical event inspired it. The language was invented to help us communicate it.

And so it is with measurements of time and space. If I put a square inch of wood in front of you, but you don't have any way to express what a square inch is, that wood does not stop being a square inch. If you forget what an hour is, that does not stop sixty seconds worth of change from happening in, on, and around you. So if a new particle is discovered, or a new planet or a new star system or a new element, does that mean that particle or planet or element didn't exist before we discovered it?

The half life is no different from any of those other labels. It requires math in order to express, math in order to observe, and math in order to work with. The same math you use to describe length, duration, or frequency. The same math which allows us to record, communicate, and experiment with all of reality. It is the universal language, for laws which are (to the best of our knowledge) universal.

reply to post by usertwelve


You're not making any sense at all.

I keep asking you what's your point??

What are you talking about?? Scientific laws are theories that are confirmed through observation and replication.

You keep saying imagination. What in the world are you talking about? Do you even have a point??? Explain what you're talking about. What does imagination have to do with observation and replication of scientific theories.

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.

Very well, offer me a better word for these sentences. Keep in mind that I have not said that there is any form of control or legislation in physics. I'm just reducing the statements being made into words.

There's a sequential arrangement of information.

The laws set the boundaries within which everything must act.

reply to post by neoholographic

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

If I were sitting next to you might want to arrange my face into a bloody pulp. But you would need control over me to do so. Simple right?

reply to post by bastion

though you can't claim that's real if you consider time imagined

I didn't say time was imagined. Only the measurement of it.

usertwelve
reply to post by neoholographic

 

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

If I were sitting next to you might want to arrange my face into a bloody pulp. But you would need control over me to do so. Simple right?

LOL, this is just Gibberish. I ask you to explain your point and you say this??? Do you even have a point?

reply to post by AfterInfinity

Becomes it seems to me that you're suggesting a universe without "legislation" would be exactly that: a writhing maelstrom of spontaneous atomic reactions.

It would seem so.

Aphorism

Watch the video he explains they exist.

reply to post by usertwelve


I can't use non-scientific language to describe how science works without cheating you or dumbing stuff down to the point of absurdity. I'm more than happy to recommend books that provide beginners to advanced guides on how science works and explain where your'e going wrong though (see the last page for one example). If science allowed fluffy language then it's be worse than useless as there'd be no set lexicon for scientists to converse in.

I'm unable to expand on the sequential law aspect as that is not an area I have studied in detail or fully understand.

reply to post by usertwelve


Half-life is measured in units of time (i.e seconds, minutes, years) while these distinctions are arbitrary you can easily say a second is the length of time it takes for light to travel 299,792,458m or 9,192,631,770 periods of hyperfine Uranium 133 - making it based on physical constants. Days are the time for the Earth to orbit on its axis, years the time to orbit the Sun, all change for each planet Most SI figures now use such measures to avoid arbitrary human points however they're taking a while to reach the public as most people wouldn't understand what those numbers mean.

reply to post by neoholographic

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

Think about your sentence. Are predictions not from the imagination? What is real is the behavior.

usertwelve
reply to post by AfterInfinity

 

Becomes it seems to me that you're suggesting a universe without "legislation" would be exactly that: a writhing maelstrom of spontaneous atomic reactions.

It would seem so.

Doesn't that seem illogical? I've never heard of an explosion holding itself together just enough to continue exploding. After a certain point, there wouldn't be anything left to explode. That's just a rough translation, of course. So in the end, there wouldn't be a universe. It would explode, run out of fuel, and return to being a dense knot of particles. Rinse and repeat. So how do you think the universe has managed to preserve itself, in spite of being naturally chaotic, as you suggest?

reply to post by bastion

Observations are not imaginary, they're measurements of reality

I thought we were discussing whether laws are imagined. Certainly no one has stated that observations are imagined. Laws are imagined from observations.

reply to post by neoholographic

What does imagination have to do with observation and replication of scientific theories.

To observe and replicate we must first have imagination. Imagination then gives us an understanding of what we have observed. We have observed the behavior of the universe and imagined laws for that behavior. The laws came from imagination.

usertwelve
reply to post by bastion

 

Observations are not imaginary, they're measurements of reality

I thought we were discussing whether laws are imagined. Certainly no one has stated that observations are imagined. Laws are imagined from observations.

Hmm. Okay. So if I "imagine" a law from observations, then gather a group of friends and each of us perform our own tests, and we all get together and discover that our findings match the law drawn up from my initial observations, and then we draw up an equation to describe it and send it to a science convention, where we find a publisher who gets a friend to share it at a board meeting, and then they examine and test it and find they are unable to prove it false...is that still considered "imagination"? Are those results and observations a result of a force originating from inside my head? Or their heads? Do you think, that if I believe hard enough, I can literally change the laws of physics through my imagination?

reply to post by bastion

I can't use non-scientific language to describe how science works without cheating you or dumbing stuff down to the point of absurdity.

I gave you no guidelines. Use a scientific word.

usertwelve
reply to post by bastion

 

I can't use non-scientific language to describe how science works without cheating you or dumbing stuff down to the point of absurdity.

I gave you guidelines. Use a scientific word.

I already did, you confused scientific terms with human legal terms. Until you learn scientific lexicon I can't have a meaningful conversation with you. I suggest you start with boundary conditions: link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10958-009-9620-y


If you're not going to be civil when I'm trying to help you understand and link you to resources so you don't have to take my word for it then consider me done as this has been a complete waste of my time so far. People pay me a hell of a lot of money to teach Maths and Physics - while I love teaching them I'm not prepared to carry on going round in circles with people not interested in learning or taking the time to read resources before coming back to the conversation.

reply to post by Aphorism


LOL, did you even watch the video you posted???

What he actually said was Platonism.

He said the laws of physics are like SHADOWS ON THE WALL (PLATO).

These laws of physics can change as new information emerges, but tell me how can nature exist without it's shadow?

How can you separate the observation of planck's constant from the math that describes planck's constant? How can you separate the math that predicted gravity waves from the observation of gravity waves??

You keep saying these things but what's your point? How do you separate the math from the reality it's describing? The logic and reason in the equations is the same logic and reason that's becomes a scientific law through observation and replication.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

Okay. Let's take the number one.

Where did the number one come from?

The language was invented to help us communicate it.

Indeed.

If I put a square inch of wood in front of you

What's a square inch...

The half life is no different from any of those other labels.

The half life would exist whether we measured it or not.

neoholographic

usertwelve
reply to post by neoholographic

 

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

If I were sitting next to you might want to arrange my face into a bloody pulp. But you would need control over me to do so. Simple right?

LOL, this is just Gibberish. I ask you to explain your point and you say this??? Do you even have a point?

Very well. Can you explain how something can be arranged without controlling it.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

Hmm. Okay. So if I "imagine" a law from observations
...
Are those results and observations a result of a force originating from inside my head? Or their heads?

The law will always be imaginary. The observed behavior that the law describes is very real.