Are the laws of physics based on magic?

[dumbest man on earth]

The problem with defining EVERYTHING as being included in one universe is that it biases the conversation. What if I want to talk about hypothetical hyper-spaces, or a spirit world, or other space-times that have not been discovered yet? I can't because the word UNIVERSE only means the billions of galaxies out there, and that's it.

Mazulu, you can talk about any thing you want - but you should define each conversation and respect the confines of that conversation.
For instance if you and your friend were stranded in the side of a back country with two flat tires on the car and no spares - it would be pointless to talk of a "quantum Fluctuation to occur that would magically restore your tires to roadworthy condition"! It is true that it could be a theoretical possibility - but it will not get you back on the road and on with your journey.

Besides, Mazulu, it is not a "problem with defining EVERYTHING as being included in one universe" - the fact of the matter is that we only have this One Single Proven To Exist Universe And Everything In It.
The ideas and "hypothetical hyper-spaces, or a spirit world, or other space-times that have not been discovered yet" that you have are still only - in point of fact - contained within this one universe.

Just imagining them or believing in them or stating them or even saying "Presto, make it so!' will not in fact cause them to manifest in this One Universe or for that matter, even in the imagined "Quantum Fluctuated Universes".

Mazulu, if this subject really means that much to you, and it appears to me that it does, you should probably do some actual research on the basics of physics at a library or on an Educational Physics Site - instead of a Forum.

After all, before Carl Sagan or Albert Einstein or Edwin Hubble were able to "blaze any new frontiers", they had to at least study and fully understand the minimum basics of their field of study.

 

[dumbest man on earth]

It's not so subtly inferred, but ok. lol



BRB...throwing into the dumpster my magical beanstalk beans.


Straw man, and a silly one at that.

You not so subtly imply it. And I don't mind if you are implying it, but to say you're not is silly...



I don't presume to know what all atheists think. I'm addressing you, specifically. I actually have never made a derogatory comment about atheism on this forum, or in my offline life. I don't really get hung up on what other people believe as long as it doesn't hurt others, or infringe on the rights of others.

wegs, I was under the impression that you were addressing me, dmoe, specifically - that is why I answered your Post!
I can only state my points and views, I have no control over how you, wegs, or anyone else chooses to read them. If you, wegs, or anyone reads other meanings, or infers other meanings or perceives misconstrued subtleties in my statements...that is nothing that I have any control over.

wegs, when you asked me, dmoe, specifically : "So, why do you presume such notions, dmoe?"
I tried to answer to the best of my ability that I do not and did not assume nor presume such notions.

BTW, even though I, dmoe, do not actively practice or claim worship of any Major Religion or Deity - from my other Postings, that we both know you have read - it should be abundantly clear that I am not an Atheist!

 

[wegs]

Dmoe, I thought you are an atheist. Apologies for perhaps confusing you with another. What do you believe as it relates to the idea of or belief in "a god?"

And you did infer (and not subtly) all the rest, but ok.

 

[dumbest man on earth]

Dmoe, I thought you are an atheist. Apologies for perhaps confusing you with another. What do you believe as it relates to the idea of or belief in "a god?"

And you did infer (and not subtly) all the rest, but ok.

wegs, I will respond to your last statement, first.

I did not "infer anything" - look up the definition - only a person examining any evidence can "infer" something from that evidence, or in this case "my statements".
The evidence itself(my statements) or the person(dmoe) whom presents that evidence(my statements) - does not and cannot "infer"!

As far as an Atheist or Atheism - I can only relate the definition of the words as I know them - one definition for Atheism can be found at this link : - http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism

wegs, as for the query you pose : "What do you believe as it relates to the idea of or belief in "a god?" ".

Although it is a simple enough question to ask of someone - it is not a question that should elicit a simple answer from anyone be they a Theist, Atheist, Gnostic, Agnostic, Spiritualistic or whatever or even undecided or aloof to such beliefs.

wegs, only in the interest of trying to answer your question - yet trying to be succinct and concise - let me just say that my belief could be described as very, very loosely and only partially somewhat similar to the "Gaia Theory", except on a more or less universal scale.
Not the "Gaia" of Greek Mythology - the Greek Goddess of the Earth - although the theory borrows the use of her name.
The theory is basic in that nature is more or less the creator of everything in nature and that everything is just a tiny part of a whole complex living organism - most people refer to it as a kind of an "Out There", "Off the Wall", "Loony Bin", "Crackers" type of theory or belief.

wegs, remember though, I stated, CLEARLY I HOPE, that my belief, JUST FOR THE SAKE OF BEING SUCCINCT AND CONCISE, COULD BE DESCRIBED as very, very loosely and only partially somewhat similar to that theory, only on a more or less universal scale.

Sorry wegs, but unless hours or even days were involved - I am not entirely sure that I could explain it to you and hope for full comprehension on your part without a lot of feedback and even more explanation.

Hope that little bit helped!

 

[paddoboy]

I actually have never made a derogatory comment about atheism on this forum, or in my offline life. I don't really get hung up on what other people believe as long as it doesn't hurt others, or infringe on the rights of others.

Wouldn't it be great if the whole world could accept that philosophy!
My position exactly, but I'm more a fence sitter...agnostic if you will...

 

[wegs]

wegs, I will respond to your last statement, first.

I did not "infer anything" - look up the definition - only a person examining any evidence can "infer" something from that evidence, or in this case "my statements".
The evidence itself(my statements) or the person(dmoe) whom presents that evidence(my statements) - does not and cannot "infer"!

As far as an Atheist or Atheism - I can only relate the definition of the words as I know them - one definition for Atheism can be found at this link : - http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism

wegs, as for the query you pose : "What do you believe as it relates to the idea of or belief in "a god?" ".

Although it is a simple enough question to ask of someone - it is not a question that should elicit a simple answer from anyone be they a Theist, Atheist, Gnostic, Agnostic, Spiritualistic or whatever or even undecided or aloof to such beliefs.

wegs, only in the interest of trying to answer your question - yet trying to be succinct and concise - let me just say that my belief could be described as very, very loosely and only partially somewhat similar to the "Gaia Theory", except on a more or less universal scale.
Not the "Gaia" of Greek Mythology - the Greek Goddess of the Earth - although the theory borrows the use of her name.
The theory is basic in that nature is more or less the creator of everything in nature and that everything is just a tiny part of a whole complex living organism - most people refer to it as a kind of an "Out There", "Off the Wall", "Loony Bin", "Crackers" type of theory or belief.

wegs, remember though, I stated, CLEARLY I HOPE, that my belief, JUST FOR THE SAKE OF BEING SUCCINCT AND CONCISE, COULD BE DESCRIBED as very, very loosely and only partially somewhat similar to that theory, only on a more or less universal scale.

Sorry wegs, but unless hours or even days were involved - I am not entirely sure that I could explain it to you and hope for full comprehension on your part without a lot of feedback and even more explanation.

Hope that little bit helped!

....

 

[paddoboy]

You and other men here talk to me like I'm stupid. Well, I'm not.
I will never understand why people feel the need to put someone down to make a point.

Don't take it too heart.
You will get all types on all forums.
I actually find your approach to science and life in general quite admirable, but I'm stil only a relative newbie.

 

[wegs]

Don't take it too heart.
You will get all types on all forums.
I actually find your approach to science and life in general quite admirable, but I'm stil only a relative newbie.

Thanks
You know, ppl will disagree but it is in the delivery that makes me scratch my head.
I deleted my comment to avoid sparring.
Anyway, thanks and for what it's worth, you're a gentleman in your dealings on here.
I notice stuff like that.

 

[paddoboy]

Thanks
You know, ppl will disagree but it is in the delivery that makes me scratch my head.
I deleted my comment to avoid sparring.
Anyway, thanks and for what it's worth, you're a gentleman in your dealings on here.
I notice stuff like that.

Some prefer to call me an old bastard!

The late great Carl Sagan, an Atheist, could deliver the message of science and life quite forcefully, and with genuine emotiveness without any derision or putting people down because of their beliefs.
The same could not be said of the nastiness abrasiveness and derisiveness of Richard Dawkins another self confessed Atheist.
Both Atheist but both with totally different delivery styles.
It goes without saying which one won more friends and influenced more people.

 

[Mazulu]

Mazulu, you can talk about any thing you want - but you should define each conversation and respect the confines of that conversation.
For instance if you and your friend were stranded in the side of a back country with two flat tires on the car and no spares - it would be pointless to talk of a "quantum Fluctuation to occur that would magically restore your tires to roadworthy condition"! It is true that it could be a theoretical possibility - but it will not get you back on the road and on with your journey.

Besides, Mazulu, it is not a "problem with defining EVERYTHING as being included in one universe" - the fact of the matter is that we only have this One Single Proven To Exist Universe And Everything In It.
The ideas and "hypothetical hyper-spaces, or a spirit world, or other space-times that have not been discovered yet" that you have are still only - in point of fact - contained within this one universe.

Just imagining them or believing in them or stating them or even saying "Presto, make it so!' will not in fact cause them to manifest in this One Universe or for that matter, even in the imagined "Quantum Fluctuated Universes".

Mazulu, if this subject really means that much to you, and it appears to me that it does, you should probably do some actual research on the basics of physics at a library or on an Educational Physics Site - instead of a Forum.

After all, before Carl Sagan or Albert Einstein or Edwin Hubble were able to "blaze any new frontiers", they had to at least study and fully understand the minimum basics of their field of study.

Sorry for not staying within a defined conversation. I have adult ADD.

I have noticed that some particles in the standard model or more stable then other particles. Photons are very stable. Protons are actually quarks (hadrons) glued together with gluons (mesons); the up quarks are very stable, the down quarks are less stable, all of the other quarks are very unstable. There is this characteristic of particle stability and lifetime that seems to permeate particle physics.

Then, there is this idea that the big bang was caused by a quantum fluctuation. Since our unvierse and its laws are very stable, the universe will last forever (until possibly another quantum fluctuation occurs and brings forth an even more stable universe and set of physics laws.

My point is that I am noticing that the mechanisms that determine universe stability and particle stability are unknown to us. If there are hidden mechanisms that control the stability of things like particles and universes, then it may be possible (someday) to discover them and manipulate them. What would happen if scientists could change the stablity of certain particles? Would some kind of new engineering field would arise. Just some thoughts.

 

[wegs]

Some prefer to call me an old bastard!

The late great Carl Sagan, an Atheist, could deliver the message of science and life quite forcefully, and with genuine emotiveness without any derision or putting people down because of their beliefs.
The same could not be said of the nastiness abrasiveness and derisiveness of Richard Dawkins another self confessed Atheist.
Both Atheist but both with totally different delivery styles.
It goes without saying which one won more friends and influenced more people.

Carl Sagan was an awesome man! And you are right. Brilliant and a class act! If there is a heaven, I know he'll be there and it would be great to hang with him.
Lol

 

[Write4U]

IMO, there is nothing mysterious about the workings of the universe. The universe works by certain Mathematical Principles and equations which are deemed Universal Constants (applicable in all instances), but which are not causal in and of themselves.

Another, but logical (not necessarily mathematical) Universal Constant is contained in "Cause and Effect".

So already by theses two principles we can say that a Causality with specific properties and potentials will result in an Effect of specific properties, by the logical and mathematical equations of the process.

E = Mc^2 is mathematical constant which defines the connection of energy with matter. It is an expression of the logical Universal Constant of Potential.

I haven't read the whole thread, but responding to the title, this may be of interest in context.

David Bohm (reknowned physicist) calls the Wholeness of our universe as a Holomovement, and proposes that Thought is just another part of this process.

David Pratt

In Bohm's view, all the separate objects, entities, structures, and events in the visible or explicate world around us are relatively autonomous, stable, and temporary "subtotalities" derived from a deeper, implicate order of unbroken wholeness. Bohm gives the analogy of a flowing stream:
On this stream, one may see an ever-changing pattern of vortices, ripples, waves, splashes, etc., which evidently have no independent existence as such. Rather, they are abstracted from the flowing movement, arising and vanishing in the total process of the flow. Such transitory subsistence as may be possessed by these abstracted forms implies only a relative independence or autonomy of behaviour, rather than absolutely independent existence as ultimate substances. (David Bohm, Wholeness and the Implicate Order, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, Boston, 1980, p. 48.)
We must learn to view everything as part of "Undivided Wholeness in Flowing Movement."

http://www.theosophy-nw.org/theosnw/science/prat-boh.htm

and I found this review also interesting to contemplate:

The Explicate Order, weakest of all energy systems, resonates out of and is an expression of an infinitely more powerful order of energy called the Implicate order. The Implicate is the precursor of the Explicate, the dreamlike vision or the ideal presentation of that which is to become manifest as a physical object. The Implicate order implies within it all physical universes. However, it resonates from an energy field which is yet greater, the realm of pure potential. It is pure potential because nothing is implied within it; implications form in the implicate order and then express themselves in the explicate order. Bohm goes on to postulate a final state of infinite [zero point] energy which he calls the realm of insight intelligence. The creative process springs from this realm. Energy is generated there, gathers its pure potential, and implies within its eventual expression as the explicate order.' Will Keepin, David Bohm, Noetic Science Journal

An excellent and provocative review of Bohm's work is linked below.

http://www.vision.net.au/~apaterson/science/david_bohm.htm#CONTENTS:

 

[dumbest man on earth]

@wegs

wegs, did not see your Post prior to your deleting it. I went for tests soon after Posting #124 - did not get back to computer until maybe 30 minutes ago.

Sorry that you think I talk to you like you are stupid. It is not my intention - I talk like I talk - I type like I type - I talk and type the same to everybody.

Just to clear the issue up - I do not believe nor think you to be "stupid" - I do not presume nor assume to know you in that respect. At any rate I do not have the right to think that of anybody, unless they have went out of their way to consistently prove their "stupidity" to me - at which time I have no problem with directly asking them if they are indeed "stupid"!

To the best of my recollection, I have never asked that of you, and seriously doubt that I ever will!
Do not get me wrong, I may not think of you as an Albert Einstein - but at the same time, there are quite a few Posters on these Forums, including myself, that would not meet that ranking.

wegs, as I have tried to tell you before, we are different people - and we are inhibited in true back and forth communication of thoughts by the plain fact the we only relate to each other over this Forum. I do not have a problem with that - when I feel that I am not comprehending what another Poster is saying - I Post and ask for clarification - that does not always go well, but...meh...what am I to do.

In the same way you misconstrued my status as an Atheist, could it be at all possible that you may, and I repeat may, have possibly been mistaken that I talked to you like I thought you were stupid?

wegs, have I ever failed to at least try to answer any questions you have asked of me? I've been in and out of this ICU for the past few weeks now, but I have tried to keep up.

I feel truly awful that you feel as you do - but honestly there is nothing at all that I can do to change that other than apologize profusely and go on with my so called life.

My son and a couple of the nurses read some of these Posts and laugh - sometimes the nurses tell me that I should not put up with some of the "ruder" Posts - but they all seem to agree that the person they know and the person some Posters "describe" me as are not nearly the same person.
My son just laughs and says that him and I often refer to me worse than that! He's a great kid and will turn 29 years young in about a month, on our birthday. He is quite a bit like me in a lot of ways, except he is good looking, gets that from his mother...but I digress...

wegs, again, sorry

 

[paddoboy]

After all, before Carl Sagan or Albert Einstein or Edwin Hubble were able to "blaze any new frontiers", they had to at least study and fully understand the minimum basics of their field of study.

Sure they did, as did/does every astronomer/physicist wannabe, but only a hand full, the exceptional ones with all the qualities that I have described, manage to make a name for themselves.

 

[Mazulu]

By the way, I can prove that God created the universe. According to science, God is nothingness; also according to science, the big bang came out of nothingness. Therefore, the universe was created by God (according to science).

 

[dumbest man on earth]

By the way, I can prove that God created the universe. According to science, God is nothingness; also according to science, the big bang came out of nothingness. Therefore, the universe was created by God (according to science).

Mazulu, I must call - "Epic Fail" - to your : " I can prove..." - theory!

What "Proof" do you offer of the concrete validity of "the Big Bang Theory"?

Heck, Mazulu, no "proof" has been offered for any "Theory of Gravity" even though, so far nothing has ever fallen "up" or "away from" the source of any "Gravitational Field", without the application of some other greater force!

So...again...I, dmoe, must call - "Epic Fail".

 

[Mazulu]

Mazulu, I must call - "Epic Fail" - to your : " I can prove..." - theory!

What "Proof" do you offer of the concrete validity of "the Big Bang Theory"?

Heck, Mazulu, no "proof" has been offered for any "Theory of Gravity" even though, so far nothing has ever fallen "up" or "away from" the source of any "Gravitational Field", without the application of some other greater force!

So...again...I, dmoe, must call - "Epic Fail".

No no! I have an army of a million physicists and cosmologists who will back me up when I say that the universe (our known space-time) was born as a big bang, with no known cause.

And there actually is an anti-gravity in the universe. It pushes galaxies apart and is quantified by the Hubble constant.

So, in-your-face! Ha!

 

[dumbest man on earth]

No no! I have an army of a million physicists and cosmologists who will back me up when I say that the universe (our known space-time) was born as a big bang, with no known cause.

And there actually is an anti-gravity in the universe. It pushes galaxies apart and is quantified by the Hubble constant.

So, in-your-face! Ha!

Mazulu, so "Theory" equals "Fact"?

Please produce an actual Peer Reviewed Published quote from just one of your self proclaimed "army of a million physicists and cosmologists" wherein they state and produce accepted proof that "Theory Equals Fact"!

Mazulu, whatever your puerile and inane "So, in-your-face! Ha!" remark was supposed to signify - please withhold it until if and when you are able to Post the proof that I asked for in the sentence immediately ^^above^^.

Mazulu, until that time I, dmoe, humbly and respectfully request that you suffer whatever delusions you may harbor within yourself, privately. I am fairly certain that not everyone who may read these Posts are interested in any personal delusions that are suffered by any Poster!

Mazulu, is it at all possible that you now proceed to "Go look that up in you Funk & Wagnalls!"

 

[Cheezle]

No no! I have an army of a million physicists and cosmologists who will back me up when I say that the universe (our known space-time) was born as a big bang, with no known cause.

No, you fail. If time did not exist before the big bang, then there was not even a question of cause. Causation requires time. No time, no cause.

And there actually is an anti-gravity in the universe. It pushes galaxies apart and is quantified by the Hubble constant.

So, in-your-face! Ha!

Wrong again. The distance between galaxies is increasing, but there is no acceleration involved. Galaxies are not experiencing acceleration. So the galaxies are not being pushed apart. Push being the operative word. There is no push. There might be something you could call anti-gravity, but it isn't what you are referring to. Gravity is acceleration with no necessary change in distance. Anti-gravity (if you want to call Hubble expansion that) is change in distance with no necessary acceleration. Notice the relationship. Your notions of gravity are way off.

 

[paddoboy]

By the way, I can prove that God created the universe. According to science, God is nothingness; also according to science, the big bang came out of nothingness. Therefore, the universe was created by God (according to science).

Hi Mazula....
The first thing you should know with regards to science and scientific theories, is that there is no 100% proof......Any theory can be updated, modified and/or changed according data from new observations....All scientific theories can be falsified!
Secondly, the "nothingness"that we often here that existed before the BB, is actually nothing we can understand at this time.
Scientific understanding of the BB actually start at 10-43 seconds after the initial event, with the evolution/bringing into being of space and time "AS WE KNOW THEM"
What in all likelyhood existed before was space and time in a configuration that we are not familiar with.

What you are doing, and you are entitled to do that if you wish, is putting science's lack of understanding and Information re the BB and prior to it, down to the work of God.
What science is seeking to do, is actually understand and model that epoch with a testable theory.
If and when they do, they may just be pushing back the limits of our understanding to a lower level.
Remember that science has come a long way from beliefs such as a flat Earth, to a geocentric Universe and to Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden.


It's also worth noting that the evidence for the BB/Inflationary model of Universal evolution is so strong that even the Catholic church accepts it.
They also accept the theory of evolution of life on Earth.
But the limits of understanding of both theories, are then put down to the work of God by the church.