Laws of Nature

[fromderinside]

Your thread your rules. I believe they refer to human interpretations of regularity as they must coming from humans. I am obviously referring to the right. If there are laws of nature they cannot, probably, be apprehended by limited human access.

Since I am referring to the right, human laws must go through human validation. End.

I've always believed untermenche was putting cart before horse. One cannot speak of laws of nature (left) rules until one can demonstrate humans can divine regularities and rules defining nature (right).

I relieve it is why science is a faith that nature is lawful that permits us to go as far as we do in finding such. Then regularities as viewed by humans can be taken as evidence, rules constructed, and theories built. Still that does not mean there are laws of nature, that nature is lawful, or that humans are actually divining such laws.

 

[untermensche]

It is not so much in knowing what the "rules" or the "laws" are.

It is only knowing they are a necessary condition for any ordered existence.

You can't have a bunch of electrons all doing the same thing unless there are "rules" "telling" them what to do.

They are not all by some miracle deciding to do the same thing at once.

To negate the idea of "rules" is to live in a universe of infinite miracles.

- - - Updated - - -

Again; How does an electron know what to be?

Are you funnin' around?

It is a very serious question.

Less rhetorically it would be: How is it that two electrons share the same properties? Why would they do that?

They DON'T share the same properties. They have some shared properties, and some not shared. Position, momentum, polarisation, etc. can all be different.

You don't know the difference between property and temporary state.

Position is not a property. It is a temporary state.

The property is the ability to have position. The property is the ability to have momentum. The property is the ability to have polarity.

Charge is a property.

The fact that one electron can replace any other electron and no change will occur proves they share all essential properties.

In a glass of water electrons are jumping all over the place. Moving from one molecule to another constantly. One replacing another constantly.

This can happen because they share ALL essential properties.

While no two things share the same temporary state of position.

Enough education for now.

 

[fast]

You don't know the difference between property and temporary state.

Position is not a property. It is a temporary state.

The property is the ability to have position. The property is the ability to have momentum. The property is the ability to have polarity.

Charge is a property.

The fact that one electron can replace any other electron and no change will occur proves they share all essential properties.

In a glass of water electrons are jumping all over the place. Moving from one molecule to another constantly. One replacing another constantly.

This can happen because they share ALL essential properties.

While no two things share the same temporary state of position.

Enough education for now.

Interesting. I would have thought that if we can speak of somethings position, we can speak of the property of something. That's not to deny that position is a temporary state.

 

[fast]

I have this idea that one may respond to certain inquisitive why questions with laws of nature being the answer, as if it's a general answer to a specific question about nature where the answer isn't known: Why do these kinds of things happen? Laws of nature! It's almost as if we are personifying nature as if it's operating under it's own rules. The answer to why electrons function as they do must be derivative of facts found in nature, as they're certainly not behaving the way they do because of anything we may think or do.

I find it curious that I have not run across any examples of laws of nature. Scientific laws aplenty. It seems (and I might be jumping to conclusions) that there is a corresponding link between the laws we create (on the right) and the facts of the world to which they pertain: the left (laws of nature).

A temporary diversion to scientific laws, which are no doubt on the right, as they are created and written by man, helps me to speculate that to treat such laws like terms (moreover, like terms with referents) has laws of nature being the very referent to which such scientific laws refer ... like a counterpart shadow.

The question of whether or not nature follows such right-handed rules (accurate scientific rules) brings only language to create a barrier to understanding. If yes, it's only in the non-personified sense; otherwise, nature listens not -- and has no mental capacity to follow the man-made formulas found amongst our many examples of scientific laws.

 

[untermensche]

You don't know the difference between property and temporary state.

Position is not a property. It is a temporary state.

The property is the ability to have position. The property is the ability to have momentum. The property is the ability to have polarity.

Charge is a property.

The fact that one electron can replace any other electron and no change will occur proves they share all essential properties.

In a glass of water electrons are jumping all over the place. Moving from one molecule to another constantly. One replacing another constantly.

This can happen because they share ALL essential properties.

While no two things share the same temporary state of position.

Enough education for now.

Interesting. I would have thought that if we can speak of somethings position, we can speak of the property of something. That's not to deny that position is a temporary state.

If something is in constant motion it's property is that it is in constant motion, not one place it occupied for an instant.

You can say it, but it is ridiculous.

The property of that electron is that it is here, no here, no here,..... for your whole life.

 

[bilby]

It is not so much in knowing what the "rules" or the "laws" are.

It is only knowing they are a necessary condition for any ordered existence.

You can't have a bunch of electrons all doing the same thing unless there are "rules" "telling" them what to do.

They are not all by some miracle deciding to do the same thing at once.

To negate the idea of "rules" is to live in a universe of infinite miracles.

- - - Updated - - -

Again; How does an electron know what to be?

Are you funnin' around?

It is a very serious question.

Less rhetorically it would be: How is it that two electrons share the same properties? Why would they do that?

They DON'T share the same properties. They have some shared properties, and some not shared. Position, momentum, polarisation, etc. can all be different.

You don't know the difference between property and temporary state.

Position is not a property. It is a temporary state.

The property is the ability to have position. The property is the ability to have momentum. The property is the ability to have polarity.

Charge is a property.

The fact that one electron can replace any other electron and no change will occur proves they share all essential properties.

In a glass of water electrons are jumping all over the place. Moving from one molecule to another constantly. One replacing another constantly.

This can happen because they share ALL essential properties.

While no two things share the same temporary state of position.

Enough education for now.

So you think a temporary state is NOT a property?

Stuff changes. A particle has a charge of -1/3e and a rest mass of ~4.8MeV, splits into two bits, one with a charge of +2/3e and a rest mass of ~2.3MeV, and the other with a charge of -1e and a rest mass of ~80.385GeV. The more massive part then splits again into two parts, one without charge or rest mass, and the other having a charge of -1e and a rest mass of 0.511MeV. It then goes on to absorb and emit any number of particles with neither rest mass nor charge. So, given all these changes to mass and charge, why are those 'Properties' and not 'Temporary states'? Is it solely to make you feel super confident that you know all there is to know; or do you have a real reason for making this arbitrary distinction. (Don't bother answering that, it's a rhetorical question).

It is purely a mater of convention for us to declare that when some particles combine or separate, (for example a photon and an electron) the electron is considered to be 'unchanged', but when others do (for example and electron and an electron anti-neutrino) the electron is considered to be a whole new kind of particle. We do this for our convenience; because those naming conventions are useful to us. They don't define what electrons must do; They simply act as labels to hang on particles that say 'here be an electron'.

And by the way, the two electrons in an atom of neutral Helium do share the 'temporary state' of position, (to do so they must have opposite half-integer spins); and any number bosons can occupy the same position (insofar as position is meaningful in quantum mechanics) so we can add that to the VERY long list of things about which you are both mistaken and unwarrantably smug.

You clearly have NOT had enough education for now - but that seems to be more a matter of your remarkable resistance to education than to any failing on the part of those who have tried to improve your lot.

 

[bilby]

Interesting. I would have thought that if we can speak of somethings position, we can speak of the property of something. That's not to deny that position is a temporary state.

If something is in constant motion it's property is that it is in constant motion, not one place it occupied for an instant.

You can say it, but it is ridiculous.

The property of that electron is that it is here, no here, no here,..... for your whole life.

Oh dear.

I had forgotten that you have no clue about the dimensional nature of time. That's a MAJOR handicap to your ability to understand just how wrong you are here, and/or why.

 

[untermensche]

So you think a temporary state is NOT a property?

No it isn't and only an idiot would think it was.

A property is not a temporary position in space. And nothing in your hand waving you think is a response refutes this.

Of course if something has the property of being able to have position it must be somewhere.

But where it is is just a matter of chance.

To think it is some "property" is laughable.

 

[untermensche]

If something is in constant motion it's property is that it is in constant motion, not one place it occupied for an instant.

You can say it, but it is ridiculous.

The property of that electron is that it is here, no here, no here,..... for your whole life.

Oh dear.

I had forgotten that you have no clue about the dimensional nature of time. That's a MAJOR handicap to your ability to understand just how wrong you are here, and/or why.

Man this is third rate.

You're going to try to escape your nonsense with talk of something you know nothing about. Time.

 

[fromderinside]

untermenche waves white flag. Again.

What is the dimensional nature of time?

naive observers explanation. http://www.ws5.com/spacetime/

Capsule:

"This new reality was that space and time, as physical constructs, have to be combined into a new mathematical/physical entity called 'space-time', because the equations of relativity show that both the space and time coordinates of any event must get mixed together by the mathematics, in order to accurately describe what we see. Because space consists of 3 dimensions, and time is 1-dimensional, space-time must, therefore, be a 4-dimensional object. It is believed to be a 'continuum' because so far as we know, there are no missing points in space or instants in time, and both can be subdivided without any apparent limit in size or duration. So, physicists now routinely consider our world to be embedded in this 4-dimensional Space-Time continuum, and all events, places, moments in history, actions and so on are described in terms of their location in Space-Time.

More interesting and speculative: http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/9109005.pdf

Useful description of space time physics?

One would like to have a useful description of the space time physics describedby the amplitudes we have found – perhaps a simple action principle for the tachyon andmassive degrees of freedom. As discussed above, this should be different from the existingstring field theories [6], [7], [8]. In particular, it would be interesting to incorporate thepartial decoupling of V(−) and understand whether there are new symmetries (perhapsrelated to those of [53], [54]) which are responsible for this. Of course, such a formulationwould be useful to study gravitational back reaction and other issues in this theory.

Anyway. Enjoy. Try to see your way clear of points and stuff.

 

[bilby]

Oh dear.

I had forgotten that you have no clue about the dimensional nature of time. That's a MAJOR handicap to your ability to understand just how wrong you are here, and/or why.

Man this is third rate.

You're going to try to escape your nonsense with talk of something you know nothing about. Time.

Your ignorance is not evidence of the ignorance of others.

I know you refuse to believe it, but there exist people who know things that you do not.

Understanding that is the key to learning.

A working knowledge of the language in which you are communicating is also helpful; if you want to use your own personal unique meaning for a word, then that's OK, but you need to explain how you are using it first. Clearly you are not using the word "property" in its usual sense; equally clearly you have no intention of trying to explain what you mean by it, or why you want to redefine its meaning in this context.

You are not competent to debate. You are even less competent to debate this topic. Perhaps you should stick to Political Discussions, where an appallingly low intellectual standard, and an impervious commitment to dogma in the face of reality, are expected, if not actually admired.

I am done. Feel free to have the last word.

 

[untermensche]

untermenche waves white flag. Again.

What is the dimensional nature of time?

naive observers explanation. http://www.ws5.com/spacetime/

Capsule:



More interesting and speculative: http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/9109005.pdf

Useful description of space time physics?

One would like to have a useful description of the space time physics describedby the amplitudes we have found – perhaps a simple action principle for the tachyon andmassive degrees of freedom. As discussed above, this should be different from the existingstring field theories [6], [7], [8]. In particular, it would be interesting to incorporate thepartial decoupling of V(−) and understand whether there are new symmetries (perhapsrelated to those of [53], [54]) which are responsible for this. Of course, such a formulationwould be useful to study gravitational back reaction and other issues in this theory.

Anyway. Enjoy. Try to see your way clear of points and stuff.

Of course, change the subject entirely, why not?

I am aware that time can be modeled. But the model in no way explains what time is.

And none of this has anything to do with the absurd notion that position is a property of an electron.

It's position is the RESULT of the properties of the electron, and the properties of things nearby.

It is not a property OF the electron.

 

[fromderinside]

untermenche waves white flag. Again.

What is the dimensional nature of time?

naive observers explanation. http://www.ws5.com/spacetime/

Capsule:



More interesting and speculative: http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/9109005.pdf

Useful description of space time physics?



Anyway. Enjoy. Try to see your way clear of points and stuff.

Of course, change the subject entirely, why not?

I am aware that time can be modeled. But the model in no way explains what time is.

And none of this has anything to do with the absurd notion that position is a property of an electron.

It's position is the RESULT of the properties of the electron, and the properties of things nearby.

It is not a property OF the electron.

bibly finished that one quite nicely. bye-ee

 

[fast]

And none of this has anything to do with the absurd notion that position is a property of an electron.

It's position is the RESULT of the properties of the electron, and the properties of things nearby.

It is not a property OF the electron.

I'm following you when you accentuate, "of." What I suspect is that you are operating with a narrower scope of what it means to say of something that it is a property. The broader scope (not being used by you), I would think, includes position, whereas your narrower scope excludes it.

To illustrate, consider the moon at a particular snapshot point in time and space compared to a different point. The properties that change (in this instance) are not considered by you to be properties OF the moon. For instance, that it has craters is a property. However, although it has location in both instances, they are not the same locations and therefore the actual properties of having a particular position does not carry forward from one snapshot in time and space to the next.

To me, and in accord with the broader scope, I figure if we can say something true about something at any point, it is a property, and change as that may happen, like the changing coordinates with a jumbo jet in flight, the position at a given point is a property at a given point. For whatever reason, because there is a constant flux with certain properties, instead of acquiescing to an admission that there are certain properties that change, you deny that it is a property at all.

 

[untermensche]

Of course, change the subject entirely, why not?

I am aware that time can be modeled. But the model in no way explains what time is.

And none of this has anything to do with the absurd notion that position is a property of an electron.

It's position is the RESULT of the properties of the electron, and the properties of things nearby.

It is not a property OF the electron.

bibly finished that one quite nicely. bye-ee

He didn't finish a thing. The idea that position is a property OF the electron as opposed to a temporary state of the electron DUE TO it's properties is laughable.

Really laughable.

It takes a certain training to not be able to think like that.

 

[untermensche]

And none of this has anything to do with the absurd notion that position is a property of an electron.

It's position is the RESULT of the properties of the electron, and the properties of things nearby.

It is not a property OF the electron.

I'm following you when you accentuate, "of." What I suspect is that you are operating with a narrower scope of what it means to say of something that it is a property. The broader scope (not being used by you), I would think, includes position, whereas your narrower scope excludes it.

To illustrate, consider the moon at a particular snapshot point in time and space compared to a different point. The properties that change (in this instance) are not considered by you to be properties OF the moon. For instance, that it has craters is a property. However, although it has location in both instances, they are not the same locations and therefore the actual properties of having a particular position does not carry forward from one snapshot in time and space to the next.

To me, and in accord with the broader scope, I figure if we can say something true about something at any point, it is a property, and change as that may happen, like the changing coordinates with a jumbo jet in flight, the position at a given point is a property at a given point. For whatever reason, because there is a constant flux with certain properties, instead of acquiescing to an admission that there are certain properties that change, you deny that it is a property at all.

Of course an electron has to be somewhere.

And where it is depends on the properties of the electron and the properties of things that could effect the position of the electron.

It's position is PURELY consequence, and fleeting, not a thing in itself to be possessed as a property.

Whereas a crater doesn't move around. If you have a fixed location then that location can be considered a property.

But if you are in constant motion your motion is the property, not any particular location along the way.