From: nospam@example.net   
      
     This message is in MIME format.  The first part should be readable text,   
     while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools.   
      
   On Sun, 14 Jul 2024, x wrote:   
      
   > 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.   
      
   Science is a method not a faith.   
      
   > Your first sentence proves and agrees with my point.   
      
   You need to consider the text as a whole, not pick one sentence.   
      
   > 'While laws cannot be definitively proven'.   
   >   
   > I will go with that.   
      
   Note the world definitely. If you do not believe the law of gravity to be   
   proven, why don't you jump off a building? Or is your "faith" weak?   
      
   > Of course everyone has different ideas about what proof is,   
   > so maybe not.   
      
   Actually no. If you read what is written, you can deduce that proof is   
   trivial and is part of why science has propeled civilization to its   
   current peak.   
      
   >>   
   >>> 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)