On 4 fév, 03:41, rAgAv wrote:
So the fact it has never been falsified makes it baseless? You have a
strange notion of baseless.

I call it baseless because it hasn't been falsified *yet*. The
occurence of future falsification is uncertain. Therefore, laws cannot
be stamped down as "true forever". So, the assumptions that laws are
true is ultimately baseless...though it can be said to be practical.
It is just like saying that the keyboard you're typing with will work
forever just because it's been working till now...since its creation.
Such an assumption, in my view, is baseless.

Descartes had the same feeling at first.

He then decided to try and find some footing that he could trust
as absolute. It took him years to finally conclude that since
he could think, this could only mean that he really existed.

He then rebuilt all of his thinking schemes on that footing, starting
with identifying what in the material world sustained his thinking
process: his brain, then the body that sustained his brain, and
so on, and then went on to try understanding what his body and
all of the universe was made of at the more elementary level, from
what was known at the time.

What you probably need is to do a similar exercise, that is,
find some absolute reference that you will trust as being
absolute.

André Miichaud

On Feb 4, 8:52 am, wrote:
On 4 fév, 03:41, rAgAv wrote:

So the fact it has never been falsified makes it baseless? You have a
strange notion of baseless.

I call it baseless because it hasn't been falsified *yet*. The
occurence of future falsification is uncertain. Therefore, laws cannot
be stamped down as "true forever". So, the assumptions that laws are
true is ultimately baseless...though it can be said to be practical.

Your stance is compatible with physics. The problems are open. Past
knowledge can be broken. However it is up to you to identify such an
invalid assumption and clarify it. Then you will have made a
contribution. Just to make someone think for a moment may be enough.

You are providing the ultimate skeptical position but the utility of
skepticism is in finding a weak link and mending it rather than
discarding the entire chain. As Mitch points out below you might
discard just about the whole chain but you will be caught constructing
on some basis which will always be challengable by someone else in the
future. We are stuck as prisoners of reality and the fact that we are
humans practicing science can only be partially overcome. A principle
of improvement cannot be challenged except by your ultimate
skepticism. You might be right but the human thing to do is to take
the gamble and apply yourself to improving the reconstruction rather
than just focus on demolition alone. Find the cracks in the existing
structure and they will guide you. I do believe there are plenty of
cracks all the way down to the foundation.

- Tim

It is just like saying that the keyboard you're typing with will work
forever just because it's been working till now...since its creation.
Such an assumption, in my view, is baseless.

Descartes had the same feeling at first.

He then decided to try and find some footing that he could trust
as absolute. It took him years to finally conclude that since
he could think, this could only mean that he really existed.

He then rebuilt all of his thinking schemes on that footing, starting
with identifying what in the material world sustained his thinking
process: his brain, then the body that sustained his brain, and
so on, and then went on to try understanding what his body and
all of the universe was made of at the more elementary level, from
what was known at the time.

What you probably need is to do a similar exercise, that is,
find some absolute reference that you will trust as being
absolute.

André Miichaud

On Feb 4, 8:24*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
* *Laws and theories are tools... if they lead to new understand then
* *one might say they are fruitful. *

I agree Sam...I agree that Laws are indeed practical and fruitful in
giving us ideas, images of what the real world is like...but under one
condition. Laws are fruitful only as long as this "real world" is a
system that remains constant. After all, if we're studying a system
that reconfigures itself mindlessly, with utmost unpredictability and
with respect to something outside of space and time or something that
we don't have the capacity to sense, then there would be no use for
the study of laws that govern the happenings in one of those
configurations; we'd probably have to create laws that would relate
and constraint the factors that would appear to govern the
reconfiguration pattern of the systems(i.e. as long as we human beings
are *constant* observers of such reconfiguration).*This* was what my
initial post suggested. The non-guarantee of the world to remain
constant is what I was pointing to. I never intended to say that laws
are fruitless. In fact, there is absolutely more benefit in having
these "baseless" laws than having none as far as our aim remains to
know what is happening around us.


"Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com" wrote:
You might be right but the human thing to do is to take
the gamble and apply yourself to improving the reconstruction rather
than just focus on demolition alone.

How do you suppose we can account for the invariance of causality of
the real world? I frankly don't know the answer...to me, it only
suggests that the universe is independent of any active variable and
is at the most stable of its configurations (at equilibrium); perhaps
that is why the cause and effect relationship is same...however naive
this may sound.



A principle of improvement cannot be challenged except by your ultimate
skepticism. . Find the cracks in the existing
structure and they will guide you. I do believe there are plenty of
cracks all the way down to the foundation.

You can say that I was attempting to use the *cold* reductionistic
methods of science to poke into the coldness of science (Cold =
objective).

I was presenting a possibility that was capable of giving us the
opportunity to make our view of the universe and its workings
comparable with that of an infants view of magnificent fireworks.

Anyway, the idea started out as an argument if there was objective
proof for the future occurence of my death due to old age. On one hand
was the tempting data denoting the statistical and temporal frequency
of "death" (however you may want to define it...) due to old age to
bounded entities (fancy word for 'people'...) that resembled me in
structure and function. On the other hand was the simple question -
"How is it an objective to assume that I will die just because the
others have died?" Others followed - " Isn't there a *possibility* if
not a non-zero probability of the defiance of laws that depend on
inductive inference and causal invariance?" "How can such laws be
trusted upon if their defiance has possibility?"

Regards.

On Feb 2, 11:56*pm, rAgAv wrote:
We all know that the direct cause and effect relationship between two
events is invariant with respect to the temporal or spatial location
of the events. In fact, physics is based around it. But, is there any
objective proof save for the unit probability of such invariance
accounted for by statistical observation in the past?

For instance, sitting here on the surface of planet earth, If I let go
of a ball, I'm more likely to assume that the ball would go down
instead of going up. Some would be very certain that the ball would go
down. This is merely because of the unit probability, as observed in
the past, of the occurence of such an effect given the same initial
conditions. Of course, we have the universal law of gravitation to
assert to us that the ball would go towards the center of the earth.
But, this assertion by our law cannot guarantee that the ball would
indeed go down because the law itself is an generalization attempt
made by us to take advantage of the observed unfailing nature of this
causal invariance. Objectively speaking, the law is nothing but a tool
of convenience that has not failed till now.

Imagine this, if the sun is to disappear suddenly and completely from
spacetime, should it be of any surprise to us? In fact, what
guarantees the continued existence of the sun in the first place? The
law of conservation of matter? What guarantees the validity of such a
law? There are no courts of physical law in the universe where we can
argue over the disappearance of the sun or the lack of enforcement of
the law that such an event defies. we'll just have to do with it and
modify our laws to accomodate this new "quirk" (i.e. if we're to
survive that long without the sun).

So, in essence, the only thing that has the capacity to objectively
guarantee that the ball would indeed go down when I let go of it the
next time is the ball going down when I let go of it the next time.

Think about this...the next time you press the key with the letter 'P'
printed on it, is there really any guarantee that it will be the
letter 'p' that will appear on your screen and not any martian symbol?
The only proof that the next time you strike the key, p will appear on
the screen is the effect itself.

Laws of physics are designed around this *assumed* invariance of
causality with respect to temporal and spatial location of the event.
There is nothing we can do if this baseless assumption is to falter.

Regards.

While this is nicely encapsulated, it is not at all new.

The fact that there ARE noticeable regularities to nature is precisely
what gives rise to science in the first place, and why the scientific
method seems to have some measure of success at what it does. Note
that science does not even attempt explanations of most unreplicable
events, since the replicability is crucial to many aspects of the
scientific method. Feynman notes that it is remarkable that there ARE
replicable and reproducible behaviors in the universe, which is
precisely what science makes note of.

However, as you note, no physical law is ever *proven* to be correct.
The best we can say is that a law seems to have enormously broad
application and an exception has never been found TO DATE.

PD

On Feb 4, 12:16 pm, rAgAv wrote:
On Feb 4, 8:24 pm, Sam Wormley wrote:

Laws and theories are tools... if they lead to new understand then
one might say they are fruitful.

I agree Sam...I agree that Laws are indeed practical and fruitful in
giving us ideas, images of what the real world is like...but under one
condition. Laws are fruitful only as long as this "real world" is a
system that remains constant. After all, if we're studying a system
that reconfigures itself mindlessly, with utmost unpredictability and
with respect to something outside of space and time or something that
we don't have the capacity to sense, then there would be no use for
the study of laws that govern the happenings in one of those
configurations; we'd probably have to create laws that would relate
and constraint the factors that would appear to govern the
reconfiguration pattern of the systems(i.e. as long as we human beings
are *constant* observers of such reconfiguration).*This* was what my
initial post suggested. The non-guarantee of the world to remain
constant is what I was pointing to. I never intended to say that laws
are fruitless. In fact, there is absolutely more benefit in having
these "baseless" laws than having none as far as our aim remains to
know what is happening around us.

"Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com" wrote:

You might be right but the human thing to do is to take
the gamble and apply yourself to improving the reconstruction rather
than just focus on demolition alone.

How do you suppose we can account for the invariance of causality of
the real world? I frankly don't know the answer...to me, it only
suggests that the universe is independent of any active variable and
is at the most stable of its configurations (at equilibrium); perhaps
that is why the cause and effect relationship is same...however naive
this may sound.

I think that a partial answer lies in the definition of causality.
Under the modern 4D interpretation of time or the classical Newtonian
version the same downfall makes its appearance in the mathematical
placement or a real number valued time. This model does not admit the
unidirectional nature of time. My own investigation reveals that time
corresponds naturally to a one-signed type of number which is
unidirectional yet these one-signed numbers are zero dimensional.
http://BandTechnology.com/PolySigned
http://BandTechnology.com/PolySigned/OneSigned.html
In that our interpretation of causality is linked to our
interpretation of time then so long as time remains poorly understood
then so will causality.

Could I try another angle? The past is generally considered to be
fixed in constancy since it has already occured. Yet we have no
ability to observe it. As I look at a wooden chair its spindle was
once part of a tree. Where that tree grew is a fact of the past yet my
own ability to trace it is highly dubious. We tend to mistake this as
a known yet there is a subtle difference isn't there? In such
subtleties there may be room to yield a new interpretation and it may
result that the very word 'causality' comes into question. Thence
determinism would likewise yield under a new interpretation and that
relief would be welcomed.

My brother has a funny stance on determinism which I assume you see is
directly linked with causality. He says that if existence were
deterministic and we have no ability to predict it then what does it
matter? I like the word 'semideterministic' but its really got to come
down to math at some point or else its all a bit hazy. Existence for
the human is remarkably stable and yet remarkably dynamic. A theory
which yields such qualities as directly as possible is what we are
after.

In polysign time's zero dimensional interpretation (its graphical
nonexistence) along with its unidirectional algebraic existence is
appropriate. As Janis Joplin once said
"It's all the same ****ing day man."


A principle of improvement cannot be challenged except by your ultimate
skepticism. . Find the cracks in the existing
structure and they will guide you. I do believe there are plenty of
cracks all the way down to the foundation.

You can say that I was attempting to use the *cold* reductionistic
methods of science to poke into the coldness of science (Cold =
objective).

I was presenting a possibility that was capable of giving us the
opportunity to make our view of the universe and its workings
comparable with that of an infants view of magnificent fireworks.

Anyway, the idea started out as an argument if there was objective
proof for the future occurence of my death due to old age. On one hand
was the tempting data denoting the statistical and temporal frequency
of "death" (however you may want to define it...) due to old age to
bounded entities (fancy word for 'people'...) that resembled me in
structure and function. On the other hand was the simple question -
"How is it an objective to assume that I will die just because the
others have died?" Others followed - " Isn't there a *possibility* if
not a non-zero probability of the defiance of laws that depend on
inductive inference and causal invariance?" "How can such laws be
trusted upon if their defiance has possibility?"

Regards.

Yikes. That's a big question. In that the problems are open I do think
that we have to be open to such possibilities. But it is in the 'laws'
which were broken that we would ammend things. Yes, the old law would
be broken by even a singular intrusion though I doubt that such an
intrusion would be singular. If we cannot make sense of the situation
then we would have to accept that the puzzle remained open for a
future solution. Still the scientific community need not be united on
such issues. Some will create an interim model that works half way and
get tremendous attention. That may be the current situation of both
string theory and particle theory. Their laws should not be trusted
unconditionally. Especially when quantum physicists divorce themselves
from philosophy then I think a trouble has been exposed. I think the
proper outcomes are either that a new philosophy will be born out of
QM or that QM is wrong.

Especially when the level of complexity of the mathematical
construction that a theory is built from reaches as far as quantum
physics has then I am comfortable predicting a collapse. What they
have built is more like a collage than a solid structure. If a cleaner
theory exists someone will have to challenge these existing 'laws'
rather than merely build on top of them.

If laws inherently yield dynamics then such a dynamic reality as you
are suggesting is possible. Even a constriction upon the human state
that cannot be tested directly by the human (since we are products of
the system) is appropriate I think. Though some reject string theory
on this ground I find the untestable aspects theoretically acceptable.
Still, going so deep I believe it is their burden to derive spacetime
rather than manually insert it into such high dimensional theory.

If the complexity of physics theory continues to rise without
simplification then isn't modern physics consistent with your own
belief? To break these laws will be a good thing but I would attempt
to break them in the direction of simplification rather than trending
with their complexity.

Sorry I wrote too much.
-Tim