From: nospam@example.net   
      
   On Thu, 11 Jul 2024, x wrote:   
      
   >>> And don't forget that words imply an objective/external   
   >>> reality. In fact, the degree of seeming real-ness seems   
   >>> proportional to the frequency and intensity with which   
   >>> the words are repeated.   
   >>   
   >> Haha... perhaps. To me the intensity of seeming real-ness increases the   
   >> more I try to break the laws of physics. It tends to hurt! No words   
   >> necessary. ;)   
   >   
   > Hmm.   
   >   
   > I remember reading Montesquieu where he wrote that there   
   > are 'laws of god, laws of man, and laws of nature'.   
   >   
   > Can you prove that the 'laws of physics' exist?   
      
   In physics, laws are not proven in the same way mathematical theorems   
   are proven. Laws of physics are fundamental principles that describe the   
   behavior of the physical universe based on repeated observations and   
   experiments. These laws serve as the foundation for constructing   
   theories and mathematical models to explain natural phenomena. The   
   process of establishing laws involves a combination of empirical   
   evidence, theoretical frameworks, and experimental validation.   
      
   Experimental Validation of Laws:   
      
        Laws in physics are derived from experimental observations and   
        measurements. Through controlled experiments, scientists gather data   
        to test hypotheses and theories.  The validity of a law is assessed   
        through experimentation that replicates and verifies the predicted   
        outcomes based on that law.  The number of times an experiment needs   
        to be conducted to establish a law depends on various factors such   
        as the complexity of the phenomenon, the precision of measurements,   
        and statistical significance.   
      
   Proving Laws Through Experimentation:   
      
        While laws cannot be definitively proven, they can be supported by   
        consistent experimental results. Repeated experiments that confirm   
        the predictions based on a law increase confidence in its validity.   
        Scientists aim to replicate experiments under different conditions   
        to ensure that the law holds across various scenarios.  The   
        sufficiency of experimental validation is determined by statistical   
        analysis, peer review, reproducibility, and agreement with   
        theoretical frameworks.   
      
   Proving the Second Law of Thermodynamics:   
      
        The second law of thermodynamics states that entropy tends to   
        increase over time in isolated systems. This law is based on   
        empirical observations and statistical mechanics.  Experimental   
        validation of this law involves studying heat transfer, energy   
        transformations, and system behavior to confirm that entropy   
        increases in real-world scenarios.  By conducting experiments that   
        demonstrate entropy changes in different systems and processes,   
        scientists can provide empirical support for the second law of   
        thermodynamics.   
      
   In summary, while laws of physics are not proven in an absolute sense   
   like mathematical proofs, they are validated through rigorous   
   experimentation, observation, and theoretical consistency.   
      
   > If you start generalizing about the movement of physical   
   > bodies, is it feasible that you cease to be concrete in   
   > your observations?  The second that you try to reduce them   
   > to 'laws', they cease to be real because you are no longer   
   > actually observing the physical world.   
   >   
   > How may objects that you observe in reality actually follow   
   > the paths of nice simple equations?  In reality, if you drop   
   > an object, it tends to be irregularly shaped.  That makes impart   
   > a more random force when it drops to the ground, making it   
   > careen off in less predictable directions.   
   >   
   > What about a bird when it flies in the air?  Is it obeying a   
   > nice simple equation?  Or is it moving its wings based upon   
   > what it sees or hears and its volition?  If the latter, is   
   > it actually not obeying simple 'physical laws'?  Are you   
   > rejecting reality by claiming that 'physical laws' exist?   
   >   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)