J
Jim_Baur
Guest
Another question: Do some scientists or philosophers think that there are some beings that are immaterial but do not have consciousness?
Any ideas are welcome, thanks!
Any ideas are welcome, thanks!
- Status
J
Jim_Baur
Guest
Any ideas?
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
crowonsnow
*Not to overly confuse, but humans are the universe. We don’t inhabit the Earth, for example, we are actually it. We’re not all of it, but we are it. *
Pascal said we are greater than the universe, because we know the universe and the universe does not know itself.
*Not to overly confuse, but humans are the universe. We don’t inhabit the Earth, for example, we are actually it. We’re not all of it, but we are it. *
Pascal said we are greater than the universe, because we know the universe and the universe does not know itself.
Y
yppop
Guest
Jim Bauer
Just a few comments re: laws of physics and mathematics:
Long before Newton was hit on the head, apples fell from trees. Science merely describes what they think they see. Their descriptions of nature (the laws of physics) are changeable. Newton’s laws of motion were reformulated by Lagrange and later by Hamilton and finally subjected to the Einstein modifications. The Schrödinger wave equation is the foundation of Quantum Mechanics. I once took a course in solid state physics in which the professor introduced that equation with, “Schrödinger’s equation accurately describes the elements up to an including hydrogen!”
When the apple hit Newton on the head, all he observed (beside pain) was motion (time and space), which he attributed to two other concepts—mass and force. Mass and force are abstractions that are generally unobservable through anything other than the effects they induce. Abstraction allowed Newton to describe his observation mathematically. In introducing the principle of abstraction Newton invented a new tool for the creation of science. Without the principle of abstraction, science could not have travelled down a mathematical road. However, in travelling the mathematical road, modern science eventually ran in to trouble.
Mathematics does not accurately describe reality because there is too much contingency at the macroscopic level and too much probability at the microscopic level. Because all of mathematics used by the physics community is based on the continuity of space, which allows infinitesimally small distances, much of the current quantum theory requires manipulation of the mathematics. The manipulation effectively replaces the continuity of space. This is what Einstein was referring to in the quote Leela posted in #9 above.
All physics is subject to modification, therefore it doesn’t exist outside of God’s created universe. Physics is man’s invention, reality is God’s. As far as mathematics is concerned I subscribe to the view of the 19th century mathematician Leopold Kronecker who said “God created the integers, man created the rest.” So I believe the integers and the rest of the rational numbers derived from the integers exist outside the universe, all the rest (irrational, transcendental, and imaginary numbers) don’t.
Regarding the Philosophy of science, we can turn to Logical Positivism that:
Just a few comments re: laws of physics and mathematics:
Long before Newton was hit on the head, apples fell from trees. Science merely describes what they think they see. Their descriptions of nature (the laws of physics) are changeable. Newton’s laws of motion were reformulated by Lagrange and later by Hamilton and finally subjected to the Einstein modifications. The Schrödinger wave equation is the foundation of Quantum Mechanics. I once took a course in solid state physics in which the professor introduced that equation with, “Schrödinger’s equation accurately describes the elements up to an including hydrogen!”
When the apple hit Newton on the head, all he observed (beside pain) was motion (time and space), which he attributed to two other concepts—mass and force. Mass and force are abstractions that are generally unobservable through anything other than the effects they induce. Abstraction allowed Newton to describe his observation mathematically. In introducing the principle of abstraction Newton invented a new tool for the creation of science. Without the principle of abstraction, science could not have travelled down a mathematical road. However, in travelling the mathematical road, modern science eventually ran in to trouble.
Mathematics does not accurately describe reality because there is too much contingency at the macroscopic level and too much probability at the microscopic level. Because all of mathematics used by the physics community is based on the continuity of space, which allows infinitesimally small distances, much of the current quantum theory requires manipulation of the mathematics. The manipulation effectively replaces the continuity of space. This is what Einstein was referring to in the quote Leela posted in #9 above.
All physics is subject to modification, therefore it doesn’t exist outside of God’s created universe. Physics is man’s invention, reality is God’s. As far as mathematics is concerned I subscribe to the view of the 19th century mathematician Leopold Kronecker who said “God created the integers, man created the rest.” So I believe the integers and the rest of the rational numbers derived from the integers exist outside the universe, all the rest (irrational, transcendental, and imaginary numbers) don’t.
Regarding the Philosophy of science, we can turn to Logical Positivism that:
- rejects the idea that reality has some purpose;
- rejects any attempt to explain natural phenomena by attributing to it an essence or a secret cause of things;
- rejects as meaningless any explanation not verifiable through the senses;
- advocates the study of constant relationship among things without delving into the underlying causes.
S
Sair
Guest
I’ll throw my ten cents into the pile and give you what I think are the answers.
The natural world and its processes would exist with or without humans. It did so for millions of years. Based upon what we know about evolution - apparently a natural law - it operated independently of human minds for millennia. I would suggest that other laws of the physical universe would still operate regardless of whether humans were around to observe them or not. What we think of as the laws of physics represent human understanding of forces that operate in the universe, from the macro to the micro level. If there were no humans, therefore no human minds, there would be no such descriptive understanding, but the forces described would still operate.
As to mathematical principles, I’m unsure. I’ll leave that to someone who has a more mathematical mind than I
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
“God is a mathematician of a very high order and He used advanced mathematics in constructing the universe.” Paul Dirac, Mathematician
L
Leela
Guest
For example…?
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Paul id dead since 1984. Maybe someday you can ask him yourself?
Not to worry … he was an atheist who was contemptuous of traditional religions, even though he was awarded membership in the Pontifical Institute for Scientific Studies.
Seems the contempt was a one-way street.
Not to worry … he was an atheist who was contemptuous of traditional religions, even though he was awarded membership in the Pontifical Institute for Scientific Studies.
Seems the contempt was a one-way street.
J
Jim_Baur
Guest
I want to thank all of those or you who are helping.
THANKS!
JIM BAUR
THANKS!
JIM BAUR
G
geometer
Guest
Isaac Newton was not the first scientist to use mathematics to describe physics. He was, although, the co-founder in the development of the calculus, which is the branch of mathematics that is the study of limits.
It quickly became the covention that all new reseaches are documented using the calculus. In many cases the calculus is not the most efficent mathematics for solving problems in the sciences. Many are most simply resolved with an algebra.
However, any new thesis is always presented in the language of the calculus…
It quickly became the covention that all new reseaches are documented using the calculus. In many cases the calculus is not the most efficent mathematics for solving problems in the sciences. Many are most simply resolved with an algebra.
However, any new thesis is always presented in the language of the calculus…
J
Jim_Baur
Guest
Is this is correct?
We do not know the essence of the physical laws of nature. Mathematics is the best tool we have to describe the attributes of those laws.
Thanks!
We do not know the essence of the physical laws of nature. Mathematics is the best tool we have to describe the attributes of those laws.
Thanks!
L
Leela
Guest
One way of thinking is that the natural laws are essences that we hope to capture with our equations. Pragmatists like myself see the equations as tools for coping with reality rather than as representations of reality and can’t imagine essences. In what way does E= mc-squared represent reality? In the same way that a hammer represents reality. It doesn’t, but it is useful for certain purposes.
- Status