2007-08-10 05:53:47 · 13 answers · asked by TRV 3 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
icarus62- you are confusing the mind with the universe.
2007-08-10 05:58:07 · update #1
The laws of logic are conceptual realities. They only exist in the mind and they do not describe physical behavior of things, since behavior is action and laws of logic are not descriptions of action, but of truth.
2007-08-10 05:59:13 · update #2
wrdsmth495- the scientific method is a circular argumentation because the scientific method is dependent upon logic; that is, reasoned thought applied to observations.
2007-08-10 06:01:55 · update #3
Just as before, no one answered the question that was asked.
The key word here is 'absolute' - they exist whether they are observed or not. We don't define them, they define us.
2007-08-10 06:03:29 · answer #1 · answered by G 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Exactly what laws are you talking about? The laws of motion have been observed and measured for centuries. They are correct. Light has never been shown to travel faster than the speed of light.
Science is adaptable. If something came along and could be proven (I will say again, PROVEN) that violate the laws, then science will change the law. However, to question the laws based on the argument that somewhere or somehow, they may be broken is absurd. If you question a law of science then design an experinement to test the law under the circumstances you think it can be broken under. If you find the law does not hold up then publish your findings so others can duplicate your experiment and confirm your results. After that, science may change the law or append to it.
Science is not a matter of debate. Yes, there are areas where people are uncertain, however, it will not be decided by who gives the best debate. It will be decided by who gives the best experiment results.
2007-08-10 14:23:32 · answer #2 · answered by A.Mercer 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The laws of physics are derived as inductive inferences based on observation. For example, we've seen that every time we drop something in a vacuum on Earth it accelerates at the same rate. From that we infer that every time we drop something in a vacuum on Earth it will experience the same acceleration.
The "absolute"-ness of the laws is a convenient way of saying that the laws have thus far made perfect predictions in all cases.
My point is that all laws are derived using the inductive assumption (this includes laws of logic). The inductive assumption essentially says if X has always occurred given a set of circumstances Y, it is reasonable to assume that X always will occur given the set of circumstances Y.
Essentially, the inductive assumption is equivalent to the belief that the universe operates according to a set of natural laws. We use the inductive assumption to understand those laws.
2007-08-12 17:05:39 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
This is why the scientific method was developed.
Even observations from great distances can prove or disprove things. But, until things can be reliably proved over and over again, no absolute scientific law can be applied.
Naturally, this is difficult to accomplish from massive distances...
However, science continues to observe, record data, and use whatever technology is available to progressively learn what can be learned about the universe we live it.
It's still better than saying "god did it" and closing the book to any new thoughts, isn't it?
2007-08-10 12:59:10 · answer #4 · answered by wrdsmth495 4 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Laws are a matter of observation. We observe how the universe of matter, energy and motion works, and derive laws from it.
2007-08-10 12:56:30 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Observation and extrapolation?
I know you want us to say 'you can't', but in fact, that is how our understanding of the universe HAS been constructed. And at present we are only a step away from extrapolating the Truth.
Maybe that's what God is waiting for?
2007-08-10 12:58:43 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Many are artifacts of geometry. For instance, the inverse square law (which affects lots of phenomena) is because we are comparing the surface areas of spheres with different diameters. Other laws come about through adjusting coefficients to fit with our observations and our choice of units, and even then they are often still the result of geometry (witness how often pi shows up in physics).
2007-08-10 12:57:26 · answer #7 · answered by Minh 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
How can matter and energy exist without absolute, conceptual abstract power?
2007-08-10 12:56:34 · answer #8 · answered by L.C. 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The nature of scientific theory is that it's intended to be constantly tested against available evidence.
Naturally, scientists, hungry for new knowledge, will withhold judgement and opinion-forming until the new evidence has been examined.
No doubt they'll welcome any new information that allows them to test earlier versions of their theories.
Yeah. Right.
2007-08-10 13:19:10 · answer #9 · answered by Jack P 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
yes. like the law of gravity.
perhaps the universe of matter/energy is a product of laws.
perhaps they are just patterns within it.
2007-08-10 12:58:11 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋