Post Reply
Page 47 of 76  •  Prev 1 ... 45 46 47 48 49 ... 76 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Hatcher's Proof of the Existence of God
3 years ago  ::  Apr 05, 2012 - 1:12PM #461
Lilwabbit
Posts: 2,903

Apr 5, 2012 -- 10:40AM, Ken wrote:


Physical laws have no effect on mass-energy.




The law of conservation of mass and the related law of conservation of energy have significant effect on mass-energy.


The laws of physics (including the ones just mentioned) are extra-spatiotemporal and causally affect the entire universe irrespective of location in space or time. They do not represent interactions between mass-energy phenomena but rather they determine the behaviour of all mass-energy without any time-delay.


The online Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has a good entry on causal determinism which pretty much represents the commonplace view on causality and physical laws among physicists. It is often in fact the philosophers and skeptically-minded lay conversationalists who seriously advance the idea that laws of physics have no objective reality and represent mere empirical generalizations. In short, most physicists regard physical laws as representative of unseen and objective law-giving (nomological) structures which "govern" the universe much like the traffic police governs traffic (cf. Tim Maudlin's highly illustrative book The Metaphysics Within Physics).

"All things have I willed for you, and you too, for your own sake."
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 05, 2012 - 1:54PM #462
jesus2point3
Posts: 248

Apr 5, 2012 -- 10:00AM, Lilwabbit wrote:


Howdy Jesus2,


Thank you for your kind contribution and your constructive spirit.


Apr 5, 2012 -- 8:43AM, jesus2point3 wrote:


I must respectully disagree. Time is inherently necessary when using the word 'precede', whether it be a physical or conceptual reality.



That is your claim, but can you prove that time is logically necessary for precedence? For instance, if it is reasonable to ask "what caused time?", then it is equally reasonable, at least logically, to discuss time-independent causality. i.e. the cause of time itself.


Time is necessary for logic in and of itself. There is no reason without time. Precedence is a statement of time.


In reality there is no difference between the statements 'If A precedes B" and "If B follows A", when you understand what the truth is. A and B are the objects and precede/follow are the verbs that denote action - which takes place in time. One means to come before, and the other means to come after. Without time there is no before or after.


Apr 5, 2012 -- 10:00AM, Lilwabbit wrote:


As to empirical evidence, physics is rife with examples of time-independent causalities. The observed effects of physical laws on mass-energy are well-established and represent, logically, a causality where the cause precedes an effect. And what's more, it does it without any time-delay.


For instance the expansion of the sun is an observed effect which is preceded, in a time-independent manner, by several causes. Namely, Newton's laws of motion and laws of thermodynamics.


Once again, the expansion of the sun takes place in time. Can you observe the expansion of the sun in a photograph? If I show you a picture of the sun on the horizon, will you assume it is moving up or down? What reason can you give me for either assumption based on the image alone?

Apr 5, 2012 -- 10:00AM, Lilwabbit wrote:


Energy-dispersal from the fusion of atomic nuclei within the sun is caused by the universal tendency of energy-transfer in the direction of colder bodies -- i.e. the second law of thermodynamics. Only the sun's gravity keeps the energy from running off too far towards too cold bodies. However, since constant entropy (energy-dispersal) occurs, the sun keeps slowly degenerating towards disorder even though outwardly some stages in its "evolution" may in fact appear more ordered than previous stages. What is crucial to understand here is that there is no known time-delay between the objective universal law of energy-transfer in the direction of colder bodies, and the wild motion of hydrogen nuclei seeking cooler bodies within the sun. It is a time-independent causality between physical laws and physical bodies. Now, some would object by advancing the widely rejected notion (by physicists) that physical laws are nothing but mere descriptions of observable trends that just happen to be amazingly universal (i.e. they just happen to apply to physical bodies of all sizes in all places and at all times in the universe). This is logically possible but highly unlikely. Hence it is not seriously considered by the rank and file of recognized physicists. Most physicists agree that the second law is not just a description of the behaviour of physical bodies. It is not merely a description of the behaviour of the nuclei of which the sun is composed. It is an objective universal law in the universe affecting, among billions of other things, also the nuclei of which the sun if composed. The laws of thermodynamics affect all systems that are larger than sub-atomic, despite their time and place in the universe.


As to the actual physical expansion of the sun, it results from the gradual loss of hydrostatic equilibrium resulting from the above-described process. The thermonuclear fusion of hydrogen nuclei into helium reduces the sun's gravitational pull on this layer covering the core. Hydrostatic equilibrium as well as its loss are directly caused by Newton's laws of motion acting in conjunction with the laws of thermodynamics upon the sun in its gravitational field. Both sets of laws causally affect the sun in a perfectly time-independent manner. Both sets of laws precede their effects without any time-delay.


Kind regards,


LilWabbit


Newtons 'laws of motion' are time dependent in & of themselves. He did not  gain knowledge of these laws from observing a photograph. His observations took place in time.


Is the glass half full or half empty? One cannot truthfully answer that question without knowing the condition of the glass before the observation has been taken. In reality all one can truthfully say is that the glass has a certain quantity of liquid, and a certain quantity of atmosphere. Everything else is opinion.


You know what they say about opinions, do you not?


I thank you for your time & consideration in this matter.


With an Everlasting Love,
Now & Forever Always,
virtually yours . . . 


Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 05, 2012 - 1:55PM #463
amcolph
Posts: 17,692

Apr 5, 2012 -- 1:12PM, Lilwabbit wrote:


Apr 5, 2012 -- 10:40AM, Ken wrote:


Physical laws have no effect on mass-energy.




The law of conservation of mass and the related law of conservation of energy have significant effect on mass-energy.


The laws of physics (including the ones just mentioned) are extra-spatiotemporal and causally affect the entire universe irrespective of location in space or time. They do not represent interactions between mass-energy phenomena but rather they determine the behaviour of all mass-energy without any time-delay.


The online Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has a good entry on causal determinism which pretty much represents the commonplace view on causality and physical laws among physicists. It is often in fact the philosophers and skeptically-minded lay conversationalists who seriously advance the idea that laws of physics have no objective reality and represent mere empirical generalizations. In short, most physicists regard physical laws as representative of unseen and objective law-giving (nomological) structures which "govern" the universe much like the traffic police governs traffic (cf. Tim Maudlin's highly illustrative book The Metaphysics Within Physics).




From your link:


"In both of these general areas there is no agreement over whether (causal) determinism is true (or even whether it can be known true or false), and what the import for human agency would be in either case."

This post contains no advertisements or solicitations.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 05, 2012 - 2:05PM #464
Ken
Posts: 33,859

Apr 5, 2012 -- 1:12PM, Lilwabbit wrote:


Apr 5, 2012 -- 10:40AM, Ken wrote:


Physical laws have no effect on mass-energy.




The law of conservation of mass and the related law of conservation of energy have significant effect on mass-energy.


The laws of physics (including the ones just mentioned) are extra-spatiotemporal and causally affect the entire universe irrespective of location in space or time. They do not represent interactions between mass-energy phenomena but rather they determine the behaviour of all mass-energy without any time-delay.



Utterly false. Physical laws are human descriptions of how natural phenomena are observed to behave. The observed behavior precedes the formulation of the law. What conceivable warrant could one have for claiming that the law determines the behavior?

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 05, 2012 - 2:06PM #465
Lilwabbit
Posts: 2,903

Apr 5, 2012 -- 1:55PM, amcolph wrote:


Apr 5, 2012 -- 1:12PM, Lilwabbit wrote:


Apr 5, 2012 -- 10:40AM, Ken wrote:


Physical laws have no effect on mass-energy.




The law of conservation of mass and the related law of conservation of energy have significant effect on mass-energy.


The laws of physics (including the ones just mentioned) are extra-spatiotemporal and causally affect the entire universe irrespective of location in space or time. They do not represent interactions between mass-energy phenomena but rather they determine the behaviour of all mass-energy without any time-delay.


The online Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has a good entry on causal determinism which pretty much represents the commonplace view on causality and physical laws among physicists. It is often in fact the philosophers and skeptically-minded lay conversationalists who seriously advance the idea that laws of physics have no objective reality and represent mere empirical generalizations. In short, most physicists regard physical laws as representative of unseen and objective law-giving (nomological) structures which "govern" the universe much like the traffic police governs traffic (cf. Tim Maudlin's highly illustrative book The Metaphysics Within Physics).




From your link:


"In both of these general areas there is no agreement over whether (causal) determinism is true (or even whether it can be known true or false), and what the import for human agency would be in either case."



From my link:


"In the physical sciences, the assumption that there are fundamental, exceptionless laws of nature, and that they have some strong sort of modal force, usually goes unquestioned. Indeed, talk of laws“governing” and so on is so commonplace that it takes an effort of will to see it as metaphorical."

"All things have I willed for you, and you too, for your own sake."
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 05, 2012 - 2:10PM #466
jesus2point3
Posts: 248

Apr 5, 2012 -- 10:40AM, Ken wrote:


Physical laws have no effect on mass-energy.



In reality, do 'Physical laws' matter in this discussion?

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 05, 2012 - 2:12PM #467
Lilwabbit
Posts: 2,903

Apr 5, 2012 -- 2:05PM, Ken wrote:


Apr 5, 2012 -- 1:12PM, Lilwabbit wrote:


Apr 5, 2012 -- 10:40AM, Ken wrote:


Physical laws have no effect on mass-energy.




The law of conservation of mass and the related law of conservation of energy have significant effect on mass-energy.


The laws of physics (including the ones just mentioned) are extra-spatiotemporal and causally affect the entire universe irrespective of location in space or time. They do not represent interactions between mass-energy phenomena but rather they determine the behaviour of all mass-energy without any time-delay.



Utterly false. Physical laws are human descriptions of how natural phenomena are observed to behave. The observed behavior precedes the formulation of the law.



The formulation of the law is an inductive generalization based on a set of observations. It is assumed to apply in billions of locations in time and space which have never been observed nor will ever be directly observed. Due to these repetitive patterns, an objective law governing the universe is safely assumed, sorry.

"All things have I willed for you, and you too, for your own sake."
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 05, 2012 - 2:13PM #468
Ken
Posts: 33,859

Apr 5, 2012 -- 2:06PM, Lilwabbit wrote:

From my link:


"In the physical sciences, the assumption that there are fundamental, exceptionless laws of nature, and that they have some strong sort of modal force, usually goes unquestioned. Indeed, talk of laws“governing” and so on is so commonplace that it takes an effort of will to see it as metaphorical."



It is commonplace because it is convenient. If it is anything more than that, it is unjustified.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 05, 2012 - 2:15PM #469
amcolph
Posts: 17,692

Apr 5, 2012 -- 2:06PM, Lilwabbit wrote:


 


From my link:


"In the physical sciences, the assumption that there are fundamental, exceptionless laws of nature, and that they have some strong sort of modal force, usually goes unquestioned. Indeed, talk of laws“governing” and so on is so commonplace that it takes an effort of will to see it as metaphorical."




As a working assumption for practical scientists there is nothing wrong with it.


As a metaphysical proposition it is questionable and not to be taken as self-evident.

This post contains no advertisements or solicitations.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 05, 2012 - 2:16PM #470
Lilwabbit
Posts: 2,903

Apr 5, 2012 -- 2:10PM, jesus2point3 wrote:


Apr 5, 2012 -- 10:40AM, Ken wrote:


Physical laws have no effect on mass-energy.



In reality, do 'Physical laws' matter in this discussion?




Not really. Good point. What matters is that causality cannot be logically proven to require time. But it can be claimed to, just as you have done. However, brute fact statements can't be expected to be accepted without proof. The statement "entity G caused time" is a logical one. It is a proposition that necessarily contains a time-independent causality. Please disprove it as illogical. If you cannot, then causality does not logically require time.


Kind regards,


LilWabbit

"All things have I willed for you, and you too, for your own sake."
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 47 of 76  •  Prev 1 ... 45 46 47 48 49 ... 76 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook