A Physics forum. Physics Banter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » Physics Banter forum » Physics Newsgroups » Physics - General Discussion
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Tags: ,

Defining nature



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old August 20th 04 posted to sci.physics
Mike Helland
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 594
Default Defining nature

wrote:
(Mike Helland) wrote in message

om...
Nature in the dictionary is defined as the material world and its
phenomena.


[snip a lot of self-indulgent crap, along with a request to do his

homework]

Nature is the set of all phenomena, a combination of four distinct
sets defined by the fundamental forces.


The part of this that overlaps with the dicitionary is not yours.
The part of this that does not overlap with the dictionary is not
correct since it assumes "four forces" (or something like that)
as the definition of nature. Even if there are exactly four forces
(and we have no reason to expect that is true since we currently
know of three, gravity, electro-weak, and strong) it can't be part
of the definition. Our definition of nature cannot depend on details
such as this, because our understanding of those details could

change,
could be wrong, or could be hopelessly mistaken for some other

reason.

The electromagnetic force and the weak force actually are different,
they involve different mediating bosons, they work differntly, so we
regard them as different defintions.

The second part of your objection is merely that the defintion is wrong
because we might find out that its wrong. This is of course true for
everything said in science.

You should try to argue why the defintion is wrong, instead of arguing
that it *could* be wrong, which should always be assumed.

Our defintions *can* depend on details like this, because if the
details change our defintions change. Science is different from
religion because new information, or different information is welcomed
as it invites us to change our thinking. That you discourage
establishing defintions about things that might change is an indication
that you fail to grasp the method of critical rationalism.

Ads
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Defining nature Mike Helland Physics - General Discussion 6 August 21st 04 10:49 AM
Defining nature Mike Helland Physics - General Discussion 0 August 20th 04 05:16 PM
Defining nature Mike Helland Physics - General Discussion 0 August 20th 04 05:11 PM
Defining nature Mike Helland Physics - General Discussion 1 August 20th 04 03:16 PM
Defining mass algebraically Donald G. Shead Physics - General Discussion 8 May 20th 04 02:36 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:46 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 2.4.0
Copyright ©2004-2008 Physics Banter, part of the NewsgroupBanter project.
The comments are property of their posters.
Loans - Remortgages - Houses for Sale - Mobile Phone - Video Codes