Originally Posted by Commander

First you said : I have blind faith because I believe in Newton's Law of gravity.

Second, you said : Universal laws aren't real because there is a "potentially infinite number for future instances" (which is totally ridiculous)

The second part isn't correctly stated. Perhaps you should re-read it. Also, if you do still think that the correctly-stated version is ridiculous, try and prove your point. You'll run into the same problems that scientists, philosophers and mathematicians have been running into for centuries now.

And now you say : "you're working in your system" (When I was talking about the system, the Universe)
And you also said that I am talking about the Universe ( now you admit that I was talking about the Universe) in my terms. (while I was talking it in terms of reality)

And here's the comedy. "Reality" is, unfortunately, most probably not your system. Your (and my, I confess) system may be a model of 'real' phenomena, indeed, it may even be the best model we've come up with so far, but it's not "reality". It's not even well-founded; now, instead of throwing the complimentary "lol u dnt beleev in gravity lol dats stoopid", I'd recommend you either try and understand my point or stop concerning yourself with the why and content yourself in your blind faith.

In the end, it comes down to "my method is better than your method". The religious may use examples of "miracles" (an interpretation of an event under a particular model) and then universally generalize to all events as a product of God's will - of course, we see two steps of irrationality there, and conclude that the idea is illogical (not 'wrong' or 'right', but merely illogical).

Now, you're arguing that a phenomenon will always happen in a manner that corresponds to your model because it's happened every time in our finite experience - it's no less illogical.

Originally Posted by Alchemist11

Uh...I hope you realize Newton's law of gravity is an empirical explanation of phenomena observed on Earth, and therefore cannot be extrapolated to be a universal truth the way you're implying it to be, right?

Newton thought it was force between bodies, while a more likely explanation is described by general relativity, where the force doesn't actually exist the way Newton thought it did, instead it's simply due to an alteration/curve in the space-time continuum.

So you "knowing" Newton's law of gravity is real sort of undermines your entire point.

Newton's law IS real and works anywhere in the universe.

Newton's understanding of gravity is wrong. Einstein had the right idea about gravity (General theory of relativity).

There is still a "force", because a mass still experiences acceleration. And um, do you know what space-time continuum is ? (Just wondering if you new what it meant)

The law still withholds. What physicists wanted to know is what caused gravity. We know the force of electromagnetism is caused by the exchange of photon between charges. And we know gluons ---> strong force. But we didn't know what made gravity, and we don't know what makes mass : mass. That's why LHC is about.

Originally Posted by Mahratta

In the end, it comes down to "my method is better than your method". The religious may use examples of "miracles" (an interpretation of an event under a particular model) and then universally generalize to all events as a product of God's will - of course, we see two steps of irrationality there, and conclude that the idea is illogical (not 'wrong' or 'right', but merely illogical).

Now, you're arguing that a phenomenon will always happen in a manner that corresponds to your model because it's happened every time in our finite experience - it's no less illogical.

OMG !!!!


If we can ****ing launch satellites into space, make computers, teleport particles, create nuclear bombs, cured diseases an so on....

It is because humans have understood some aspects of the Universe and realized that all UNIVERSAL LAWS are flawless.

Originally Posted by Commander

OMG !!!!


If we can ****ing launch satellites into space, make computers, teleport particles, create nuclear bombs, cured diseases an so on....

It is because humans have understood some aspects of the Universe and realized that all UNIVERSAL LAWS are flawless.

I don't think I'm getting through to you. I suppose it is, as you were saying, just like "arguing with a creationist". There isn't much else I can say, as you're clearly not thinking rationally. So, content yourself with your belief-paradigm - you can work in-system without understanding whether or not it works, after all.

Originally Posted by Alchemist11

Uh...I hope you realize Newton's law of gravity is an empirical explanation of phenomena observed on Earth, and therefore cannot be extrapolated to be a universal truth the way you're implying it to be, right?

This is an interesting point - so, even assuming the soundness of the scientific method (which is, of course, a ridiculous assumption - kind of like assuming that God exists, to further the creationism bit), there's problems with universal generalisation.

By the way, do you commute? If so, I think I've seen you on the GO a couple of times - I'll let you know the next time (if that's the case).

Originally Posted by Mahratta

I don't think I'm getting through to you. I suppose it is, as you were saying, just like "arguing with a creationist". There isn't much else I can say, as you're clearly not thinking rationally. So, content yourself with your belief-paradigm - you can work in-system without understanding whether or not it works, after all.

YOU SAID THAT THE UNIVERSAL LAWS ARE NOT CONSTANT.

Go back to your posts, you have clearly said that universal laws aren't constant. Arguing with you is like arguing with someone who believes that the Earth is flat. I can't speak to idiots like that. I am crying right now knowing that you are made up of the same sub-atomic particles that I am made up.

Last point ...

Taken from http://www.physicsforums.com /showthread.php?t=1083 9 (where great minds think alike)


There is no problem with induction since the Universe is consistent and united. You make it seem like one.

I rest my case.

Originally Posted by Commander

Last point ...

Taken from http://www.physicsforums.com /showthread.php?t=1083 9 (where great minds think alike)


There is no problem with induction since the Universe is consistent and united. You make it seem like one.

I rest my case.

I don't see how you can rest your case - firstly, even if the forumers' views agreed with your own, it doesn't make your argument valid. The argument by popular consensus holds up in politics - not so much in logic. Secondly, perhaps you ought to read the poll choice-descriptions and the forumers' posts more closely, since there's some interesting points being brought up - which, predictably enough, agree with my viewpoint, not yours. Phoenixtoth and NateTG have interesting posts on the first page alone...

Also, a note to those who aren't Commander and may be reading this for some reason or another - doesn't this remind you of "there is no problem with creationism because God is alive and loving. You make it seem like one".

Originally Posted by Commander

There is no problem with induction since the Universe is consistent and united. You make it seem like one.

Originally Posted by Mahratta

This is an interesting point - so, even assuming the soundness of the scientific method (which is, of course, a ridiculous assumption - kind of like assuming that God exists, to further the creationism bit), there's problems with universal generalisation.

By the way, do you commute? If so, I think I've seen you on the GO a couple of times - I'll let you know the next time (if that's the case).

Yeah, I'd say it's pretty evident in real life too, not just scientific series (EDIT: theories*...I guess my mind is on sequences and series) - since it fits here, I can relate it to solving math problems. Learning a general 'routine' or 'set of steps to follow' may work for the few examples someone tries, but without understanding the underlying principles, the person is prone to screwing up when they're given an example that is not solvable using the regular set of steps.

And yeah, I've seen you around, I'll say hi next time ^_^

Originally Posted by Mahratta

I don't see how you can rest your case - firstly, even if the forumers' views agreed with your own, it doesn't make your argument valid. The argument by popular consensus holds up in politics - not so much in logic. Secondly, perhaps you ought to read the poll choice-descriptions and the forumers' posts more closely, since there's some interesting points being brought up - which, predictably enough, agree with my viewpoint, not yours. Phoenixtoth and NateTG have interesting posts on the first page alone...

Yeah umm, most of the "forumers" do physics at "at least" a graduate level.


The fact that you don't believe that Laws of physics are constant means you are delusional.

I am sorry but I can't respect someone like you on an intellectual level.

What you are saying is that because laws of physics are inductive (when they aren't) means that our "system" is wrong and can be changed.

First, laws of physics aren't determined by just observation. They are determined by experiments. Doing an experiment is trying to recreate a universal phenomena.

It's like you wake up from a bad sleep and you realize you have blood on your face. There could be many explanations. The scientific way would be to do "experiments" to know the truth about what happened. In science, we don't just observed, we TEST.

Originally Posted by Alchemist11

Uh...I hope you realize Newton's law of gravity is an empirical explanation of phenomena observed on Earth, and therefore cannot be extrapolated to be a universal truth the way you're implying it to be, right?

Newton's Law of gravity has been re-proved by phenomena in outer-space.


Can I speak to people who actually took basic physics courses ???

ANYONE ?

Originally Posted by Commander

Yeah umm, most of the "forumers" do physics at "at least" a graduate level.

Great, a combination of the 'argument by authority' and 'the argument by consensus'. Unfortunately, those aren't valid logical rules of inference in any systems I'm familiar with.

I am sorry but I can't respect someone like you on an intellectual level.

That's fine by me. I'm not sure whether that's a good thing or merely a triviality.

What you are saying is that because laws of physics are inductive (when they aren't) means that our "system" is wrong and can be changed.

Please, this is just downright incorrect. You clearly don't understand the scientific method. Come back when you do.

It's like you wake up from a bad sleep and you realize you have blood on your face. There could be many explanations. The scientific way would be to do "experiments" to know the truth about what happened. In science, we don't just observed, we TEST.

I don't think that anyone "does just observed", actually.

Originally Posted by Commander

Newton's Law of gravity has been re-proved by phenomena in outer-space.


Can I speak to people who actually took basic physics courses ???

ANYONE ?

LOL @ "proving" a scientific theory. Yeah, I'm sure they "re-proved" it, right when they stated that time can't be dilated or altered in any way because 1 second = 1 second, no matter where you are.

EDIT: And before you prove yourself wrong by mentioning how 1s does not always equal 1s depending on your position, my sentence was sarcasm.

Originally Posted by Alchemist11

LOL @ "proving" a scientific theory. Yeah, I'm sure they "re-proved" it, right when they stated that time can't be dilated or altered in any way because 1 second = 1 second, no matter where you are.

1 second = 1 second.

In physics, a theory is a proven hypothesis. A law is an undeniable fact. Now a theory can be disproven but Newton's law of gravity is a LAW.

Time dilation has to do with frame of references... Omg... There's courses about those stuff and I am explaining it to idiots...


@Maharatta

You want to now what the scientific method is ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b240PGCMwV0

Alright, I've had enough of this. You can cling to your pop-science if you wish, I'm not going to stop you. As you said yourself, arguing with a creationist is pointless - in exactly the same manner, arguing with you is rather pointless. There's no way for me to talk sense if you're blinded by your faith in the illogical.

Anyway, all the best.

You're illogical. You're the one who believes in the "problem with induction" when physical laws aren't even thought of inductively.

Illogical one is someone like you who said that I didn't know the scientific method when I just showed you what it really is (explained by feynmann)

You don't even believe in Newton's law of gravity. You said laws of physics aren't constant when they are. You were happy when Alchemist gave a retarded explanation of the general theory of relativity when he doesn't understand the link between Einstein's explanation and Newton's Law of gravity.

And there is so many more retarded things you've said.