From: x@x.org   
      
   On 7/13/24 04:24, D wrote:   
   >   
   >   
   > 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.   
      
   Yea there is a lot of belief system embedded in the esoteric   
   faiths of modern science.   
      
   Your first sentence proves and agrees with my point.   
      
   'While laws cannot be definitively proven'.   
      
   I will go with that.   
      
   Of course everyone has different ideas about what proof is,   
   so maybe not.   
      
   >   
   >> 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)