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.
Originally posted by Produkt
The fact's and truth's of science
Originally posted by Produkt
The physic's of aeroplane's, a proven fact/truth, or else we wouldn't be flying!
Originally posted by Produkt
It's because we've discovered how electricity works, that we are able to put it to work. We're not wrong about it, for the simple fact that we put it to use! It's not a theory anymore, it's a fact.
dictionary.reference.com...
1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy.
2. a. Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact.
Originally posted by Produkt
I never stated that science was fact
www.physlink.com...
The law you cite, applies only to 'closed systems', i.e. where nothing can be added or subtracted from the 'specimen'. Obviously if you apply the law to an empty box, then open the box and dump in a handful of sand, or quarks, or energy, you don't expect the law to apply, because the system is not 'closed'.
It is not known whether the universe as a whole is a closed system now at present. As far as conditions preceding and at the very moment of the 'big bang', we can only speculate whether the universe was closed, or open (to another, larger system), or whether the First Law (or lots of other laws) even applies under those extreme conditions.
Answered by: Grant Hallman, Ph.D., Universtiy of Toronto, 1971/1967
In the macroscopic world, the domain of ‘classical’ physics, the laws of thermodynamics are, and have always been, true.
However, on the quantum scale, it is a very different matter. Hiesenberg’s uncertainty states that there will always be a level of uncertainty when you try to make measurements of particles and other quantum scale occurrences. You can never know everything about a particle’s position and motion at any one time. This is an intrinsic uncertainty, it is not due to limitations on our measuring devices. This uncertainty of the energy of anything of the Planck scale is size allows some very bizarre phenomena to occur.
Originally posted by grimreaper797
also my definition of individuality is based on the misinterpretation of people in concerns to what an individual is. what i provided was scientific facts to back up why i believe this. identical twins are individuals are they not? a perfect example, we will go back to a self aware computer
make these computers look exactly alike...programmed exactly the same, identical in looks. a majority of people wouldnt call them individuals, some might since they are self aware, but most still wouldnt because they are all alike in looks. this would be wrong because they may look identical yet they at the roots, are made up with different "somethings". the somethings are identical in looks as well, but they arent the same something now are they, they are two different somethings. if there are two of them each, no matter how alike they look, are individual of eachother.
in my theory basically, whatever is the smallest most fundemental particle in existance is what holds it individuality. this reason being is stated above. nothing else has true individuality by definition. this definition is an obvious challange to the present one. i present it because if there is any change in matter or energy, not in characteristics but in actual material that was used, then this being no longer holds its individuality.
since nothing living holds this form, nothing living holds true individuality by new definition. most matter does not hold this form, only the most fundemental particles in the universe can hold its original material for an indefinate amount of time, reguardless of change in characteristics.
make these computers look exactly alike...programmed exactly the same, identical in looks. a majority of people wouldnt call them individuals, some might since they are self aware, but most still wouldnt because they are all alike in looks.
if there are two of them each, no matter how alike they look, are individual of eachother.
so wait let me get this straight....according to your words, many parts of science are facts...but science itself isnt a fact? ive got 3 examples of you calling parts of science known facts yet
no one are individuals in the sense of the word. anything higher then fundemental particles wouldnt be individuals because the original particles that made them would not be part of them anymore. not to mention the fact we break down an are reused in other life forms and matter so this also says we dont have individuality since that cluster is constantly changing as far as its original particles go then the cluster breaks apart and forms a new cluster.
also my definition of individuality is based on the misinterpretation of people in concerns to what an individual is. what i provided was scientific facts to back up why i believe this. identical twins are individuals are they not? a perfect example, we will go back to a self aware computer
make these computers look exactly alike...programmed exactly the same, identical in looks. a majority of people wouldnt call them individuals, some might since they are self aware, but most still wouldnt because they are all alike in looks.
dictionary.reference.com...
in·di·vid·u·al·i·ty
1. The aggregate of qualities and characteristics that distinguish one person or thing from others; character: choices that were intended to express his individuality; monotonous towns lacking in individuality.
2. An individual or distinguishing feature.
i said you did because you didnt state theories you said specifically that "i never said science was a fact" science includes those that have been proven and theories both.
twins arent individuals, you arent an individual, i am not an individual. a self aware computer isnt an individual. a fundemental particle is individule. even on the quantum scale with the same opening for energy being barrowed and put into existance with a gravitational field, that doesnt change the fact these new energies cant become part of the existing energies. the existing energies are still individual of this new energy. it also doesnt change the fact that converting energy into matter still holds a ratio where alot more energy would be needed to make matter, so energy would have to be smaller then matter. 1 of these energies cannot be bigger then 1 particle of matter simply because the ratio doesnt even out. if it did we would have matter popping up out of nowhere all the time because the ease it would be to create one particle of matter.
a fundemental particle is individule. even on the quantum scale with the same opening for energy being barrowed and put into existance with a gravitational field, that doesnt change the fact these new energies cant become part of the existing energies. the existing energies are still individual of this new energy. it also doesnt change the fact that converting energy into matter still holds a ratio where alot more energy would be needed to make matter, so energy would have to be smaller then matter.
this would be wrong because they may look identical yet they at the roots, are made up with different "somethings". the somethings are identical in looks as well, but they arent the same something now are they, they are two different somethings. if there are two of them each, no matter how alike they look, are individual of eachother.
self awareness doesnt make any individuality on a physical level, so in the cases of computers as well, still no individual.
im starting to give up because your frame of individual constantly comes back to mental even when talkin about it in a physical sense. no experiences make any difference in somethings individuality. i told you what my defintion of challange was. thoughts have no effect on physical individuality, nor does interaction experiences. the only thing that has effect on physical individuality is if the original particles that originally made up something infanitely joined together and couldnt be broken down or changed at all under any circumstance. the only thing that cant be broken down and changed under any circumstance would be a fundemental particle.
how come whenever i attempt to show you individuality on the fundemental scale you have trouble, but when i try to show you what i mean in a way youd understand it suddenly im contradicting myself? i presented the identical twins thing to show you something that looks the same, doesnt mean its not an individual (twins would be individual to you, despite looks) and computer one was to show you even something that is programmed exactly the same way, is still individual because of the fact the two particles arent the same particle (not mean characteristically but physically)
say machine A is made up of particle 1 2 3 and 4. and machine B is made up of particle 5 6 7 and 8. both are the exact same in looks programming and all. now right now particles 1 2 3 4 arent particles 5 6 7 8, despite the fact they make up the exact same computer with the exact same functions, at the exact same time. if these machines were fundemental particles....they would be individuals. BUT since particle 1 may break apart from machine A and particle 4 may break apart from machine B, machine A could pick up particle 4 and now a part of machine A is connected with machine B. even if these two machines started this way since the begining of the universe i would not consider A or B individuals because they no longer have the same particles as when they were originated.
now, as you know, all the sciences right now are pretty much a theory. gravitation is a theory, quantum is a theory. alot of things are still theories as far as physics goes. right now you are attempting to prove me wrong with a theory, that directly conflicts with another theory and one of them MUST be wrong. unfortunately if one is wrong the other doesnt give a full explaination as to how the universe works.
keep in mind string theory and quantum are definately going to conflict since quantum and relativity cannot balance the universe. the joining theory is hopefully string theory. of course they are going to conflict...if they didnt there wouldnt be a need for string theory because the two theories wouldnt have problems co existing. since the two theories conflict, theres something definately wrong with the theories mind you.
ps explain in detail just how your model specifically proves my model wrong, i want details because you arent explaining it enough.
your quantum thing talks about adding material and creating it on a quantum scale, now assuming this theory is right, this still doesnt discredit my theory. its bringing in a new particle, not adding onto an existing fundemental particle, theres a huge different.
Originally posted by Produkt
Ok... so twin's aren't individual's now ...
But wait?
Wha? Here they are, but identical computer's despite the (mental aspect) are not? Damn... can you say total contradiction.
In fact, your whole definition of individuality is also unfounded. As you exist in the here and now, the present, the moment, whatever you would like to call it. YES, individuality does exist.
dictionary.reference.com...
in·di·vid·u·al·i·ty
1. The aggregate of qualities and characteristics that distinguish one person or thing from others; character: choices that were intended to express his individuality; monotonous towns lacking in individuality.
2. An individual or distinguishing feature.
I'm not sure, but it'd be interesting to see one redefine the very definition of individuality and make it become widley acceptable to fit the view's of a philosophical theory.
Wait??? I'm getting very confused on what you consider individuality! You've already stated that people are individuals, such as twins, but now twice you've changed your story and said they aren't? Exactly how scientific is your theory?
B...B...But?
Wait. So are they or or they not made up of the same something? In one instance your telling me that they aren't and this is why they hold individuality, in the next your telling me that they are made up of the same energy or something ... IDK... I'm so very confused at this point, and I suspect so are you.
Huh... interesting. I disagree however and so would 99% of humanity. Or any life form for that matter, granted it could voice it's opinion. On the physical level. it IS the physical level that give's you the ability to perform higher cognitive thought's! Brush up on chemistry, biology, and computer science, and AI theory. Also, not one person think's exactly alike, thus giving them individuality as per defined.
Quite wrong. Someone's not paying attention. This isn't always leading back to just the mental. As I pointed out, the physical play's the most biggest, enourmess part concerning the mental. Not just the arrangment of all the individual atom's within the complex brain, but also the many physical variable of enviromental reaction's that shape and define the mental. To say the only thing that has an effect on the physical is at the particle level is to deny that your very own existance (in a way). That no matter what, in light of what your saying, nothing has any real effect on YOU, despite the mental and physical problem's on the macroscale of many variable's that most would take into consideration's as affectimg their inividuality.
Simply put, because your notion of what individuality is, is a contradiction. For the very reason's I've already outlined. I hope you were paying attention as I pointed them out. If you've forgotten, please take this moment of inttermission to go back over them.
This sentance alone contradict's your notion of individuality. Computer a and computer B are both made up of different particals, but look the same, but they aren't individuals.
How so, they aren't the same at the fundamental level of what your notion of indivduality is based upon.
But ok, let's continue... So computer A and B exchange different particals... Assuming computer A picks up particle 4 from computer B, they still aren't individuals? How so? At the fundamental level, they're still made up of different particals in this example. Thus they are indeed individuals despite looking the same, as you previously stated that twins are individuals.
Actually, Quantum Mechanics is no longer a theory ... thought I'd just point it out. Moving on however... Yes, agreed, some part's of science are just theories, and seeing as how you acknowledge this I find it rather difficult for you to not be able to grasp a concept of what you considered a contradiction of mine earlier. Quite right though, I am trying to disprove your theory of individuality with another theory. And seeing as how neither have any evidence to back either up, we can necessarily be calling your's or mine a fact, or based upon fact's as you tried saying of your theory previously, as it is based upon a theory, which you just admitted here now. Also, that's another contradiction again.
How do you figure? Seeing as how relativity is still a theory, some currently undefined concept could theoretically allow the two to merge in a way to better define the inner workings of the univerese. So in essence, you cannot factually state the phrase, cannot. There's only one theory in confliction, that would be relativity, as noted earlier, quantum mechanics no longer reside's on the realm of theories, but has now become a fact of life. (hope you remembered the definition of a fact.)
Truethfully, my model has been explained fairly enough to disprove your model. As nothing hold's any sense of true individuality for any determinate length of time. I'm assuming the phrase quantum entanglement went fully over your head earlier as well. My quantum example neither add's no subtract's, just change's from one form to another. As duly noted (although not well thought out, I'm not a physicist after all.) The underlying physics at the fundamental level is a proven science. We don't know what goes on at that level. Just as the quantum level allows for many seemingly wierd thing's too occur that don't occur on a macroscale, it's safe too assume, theoretically, this could be furthur agitated at and even deeper level. Just as thermodynamics applies only on a macro scale and quantum mechanics applies on the micro scale, what of the fundamental scale? Could be completely new level of undiscovered physics. We don't know as none of it is proven fact's. So, no matter how impossibal my theory may sound, it's still very probable to be found true.
you understand that two particles no matter how alike they look and the characteristics they hold are still two different particles right? thats what i was trying to show you, on a more obvious level for you. i used computers to show you even something that looks exactly alike and hold the exact same characteristics are still two different computers. im trying to explain it to you using what you understand because youre not grasping that individuality doesnt rely on traits but the amount of matter and the original matter used (or energy)
reguardless of a definition some person made up doesnt mean its right.
characteristically, fundemental particles are not considered individuals.
the particles are individuals, but the computers lose the aspect of maintaining originality to their form of the begining of their existance, so they cant be considered an individual.
if quantum mechanics isnt a theory, why cant it explain how everything in the universe works rather then just on a extremely small scale?
provide specific examples of how quantum physics is a prove fact in all aspect, since quantum physics includes all of it, not just selective parts.
general relativity deals with a large scale, quantum on a small scale. to combine the two it like going down the road and seeing two signs both saying "1 way street" pointed in different directions.
Originally posted by Produkt
So they are individuals then? Meaning the fundamental particals?
Ok let's assume thousands upon thousands of scientist's have gotten the definition of individuality wrong, and you alone got it right....
But wait, you just told me they were!
Jesus fing christ, make up your mind.
For the very same reason's biology can't explain how everything in the universe works. That particular field doesn't cover that particular subject as much as say... idk, this thing called the grand unified field theory.
Untill you can show me that you've learned to stop contradicting yourself, your best bet would not to ask me, but to pick up a text book or talk to someone who work's in the quantum mechanics field of science. They are more fully qualified to explain these thing's to you.
The Grand Unified Theory is another field of science that UNIFIES all of physics into one model. So your statement below is wrong. And on that note, there is one possible unified theory that does explain some of the thing's other current model's don't explain. There's a thread or two here on ATS about it. Search for hyperdrive, probably in the sci/tech or space explorations forum's.
general relativity deals with a large scale, quantum on a small scale. to combine the two it like going down the road and seeing two signs both saying "1 way street" pointed in different directions.
lets assume that im going by a different definition of individual that says characteristics dont qualitify because physical characteristics dont change what particles were contained inside of the subject before and after the change (unless new clusters or particles are subtracted or added where the new form doesnt hold the same particles as before, this would be a change in both characteristics and physical property or individuality)
if its wrong on a large scale then obviously there are some flaws, this should be known if you have ever read about it. if the rules of it cant apply to both sides
ok well if my statement below is wrong then youll have to bring that up with the people at PBS because i took the example directly out of one of their videos about the basics of unifying the theories together. so tell that to them.
All we know is that quarks and leptons are smaller than 10-19 meters in radius. As far as we can tell, they have no internal structure or even any size. It is possible that future evidence will, once again, show this understanding to be an illusion and demonstrate that there is substructure within the particles that we now view as fundamental.