Laws of nature!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jim_Baur
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

Jim_Baur

Guest
I am just sharing an idea!!!

We know how to describe gravity in its present state–at least to a high degree.

Our math describes the phenomenon of gravity in its present state.

We do not know the noumenal or the essence of gravity.

Therefore, we do not know how things were in the area of gravity 15,000,000,000 years ago.

We just do not know the essence of gravity but only the phenomena of the state in which it exists today.

This is true of all the physical laws.
 
“Essence of gravity”? Only substances have essences, but gravity is not a substance, nor is it really a thing but a description of the true relationship that bodies and particles have on one another.

I also think Kant’s distinction of noumenal and phenomenal is bunk.
 
The existence of gravity instead of the essence or nature.

But we do completely know the existence of gravity. We only describe it. In that sense there is a noumenal world of gravity.

Also, how do we resolve a Black Hole with the Big Bang?
 
Gravity doesn’t have an independent existence outside of the things affected by it - it’s not a thing. How can there be a noumenal world of gravity?
 
jonathan_hili

Thanks!!!

Please forgive my ignorance.

I do not know what or which questions to ask.

Are things the cause of gravity?

THANKS!
 
In a sense, yes, because one parcel of matter has an attractive force on another parcel of matter.
 
Thanks

I have read a great deal and have never heard that. Thanks for the information.

It really sounds important for the Big Bang. Of course I do not know much about it.

How do those scientists that hold the Big Bang move from the micro laws of science to the macro laws?

THANKS!!!
 
Jim_Baur said:
Thanks

I have read a great deal and have never heard that. Thanks for the information.

It really sounds important for the Big Bang. Of course I do not know much about it.

How do those scientists that hold the Big Bang move from the micro laws of science to the macro laws?

THANKS!!!
Click to expand...
Really, the problem between micro and macro is pretty independent of the big bang. (Such a problem would exist whether the big bang is true or false.)

Essentially, the micro and macro aren’t as unified as we might like, but they don’t really contradict each other either. It’s not so much a matter of reconciling contradictions, as searching for common roots.
 
Iron Donkey

THANKS!

As I mentioned, I really do not know that much about it.

To me, the Big Bang would have been micro, is that correct?

To me, moving from the micro world to the macro world, there must have been many intermediate worlds, is the accurate?

If so, how does science comprehend those stages of the scenario?

THANKS!
 
jonathan_hili said:
“Essence of gravity”? Only substances have essences, but gravity is not a substance, nor is it really a thing but a description of the true relationship that bodies and particles have on one another.

I also think Kant’s distinction of noumenal and phenomenal is bunk.
Click to expand...
You think everything is precisely as it appears to us?

What about the Eucharist?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top