From: x@x.org   
      
   On 7/15/24 02:22, D wrote:   
   >   
   >   
   > 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.   
      
   Faith of course enables people to continue to believe   
   in what is true when confronted with lies.   
      
   There is much false science that is generally somewhat   
   belief.   
      
   >> Your first sentence proves and agrees with my point.   
   >   
   > You need to consider the text as a whole, not pick one sentence.   
      
   But much reasoning does derive from one one set of arguments   
   to another, and much false reasoning tends to start with   
   weak arguments, and then throw in thousands or words later   
   to 'prove' their weak arguments.  If you consider many   
   texts as a whole, they use non-arguments to try to   
   prove weak arguments by filling in a vast number of   
   words and then claim that they 'prove' something.  Much   
   text as a whole, is just gibberish fill without true meaning.   
      
   >> '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?   
      
   Birds jump off buildings in order to fly.  You are picking   
   and choosing what you think 'disproves' gravity.   
      
   >> 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.   
      
   'Peak'?  There is a lot of bias in that one.   
      
   >>>> 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?   
   >>>>   
   >>   
   >>   
      
   It is of course more difficult to disprove the existence of   
   natural law in the present age.  It is generally the flavor   
   of the modern belief systems.  Ignore birds and it is   
   difficult to disprove gravity.  People pick and choose   
   what they want to believe in.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)