What qualifies as science?

Although all human thought proceeds by metaphor, not all metaphors are equivalent - the metaphorical "force" of physics is not in the same category, not the same kind of thing, as the metaphorical "force" of psychological states. Using the word "gravity" in different references and contexts can also mean using it at different, or even multiple (poetry), logical levels, for example. If you lose track of that, you stop making sense.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I agree, of course I should have qualified my use of the word gravity in that context. Was sloppy of me.

But you posed a profound question earlier, which gets to the heart of the matter on the abstract philosophical level of natural imperatives.

In the physical world we know that gravity has a distinct physical imperative which can be measured through the interaction of physical/mathematical variables, i.e. causal symmetry breaking of the natural symmetry of spacetime which affects the behavior of physical objects.
In chemistry we have chirality, which deals not so much with the symmetry of spacetime, but with the symmetry of right and left handedness of molecules and the permittive and restrictive imperative which allows only the joining of left handed molecules with right handed molecules and vice versa, but forbids like handed molecules from joining.
In EM a similar phenomenon is found magnetism, the attraction between positive and negative poles and the repulsion of like charged poles.

These physical behaviors can be quantified and qualified through mathematical equations.

But to me, your question seems to address a deeper, more philosophical aspect of what governs imperatives (of all kinds).

Which led me to ask myself, what other forms of symmetry seeking can exist and can apply to everything in nature? Can we ask if the tendency to move in the direction of greatest satisfaction is a natural and universal imperative which would govern all other forms of imperatives?

So I looked up synonyms to the word gravity and in Websters there is a host of abstract, more philosophical applications of the word gravity.
But on second thought these still would not respond to your question, so now I wonder if we can generalize it to the word attraction.

And here Websters definitions seemed to shed some light on the subject of what governs imperatives in both physical behavioral expressions and philosophical causal imperatives of movement in the direction of greatest satisfaction .

So, can movement in the direction of greatest satisfaction be an inherent natural property or potential, an imperative which governs all natural forms of attraction and symmetry, including both physically and philosophically (such as in sentient beings)?

Might this also apply to the concepts of free will v. determinism?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You hit the nail on the head. This confusing of different senses of terms, and then drawing unwarranted conclusions from the confusion, is exactly the problem.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Which hopefully I have at least partially corrected, before your condemnation, by further explaining my train of thought in context of all previous posts on this subject.

 

I bet you can't keep it up for more than about 3 posts, though. Most of your posts seem to be riddled with this disease, much though I wish it were otherwise.

 

Is that why you make no contribution to the discussion, which I though was going along just fine with Iceaura.

He pointed out a semantic problem and I tried to correct it, accompanied by an apology for using sloppy wording.

Then you come along with a sledge hammer and beat me over the head time and time again. I could call your need to continue issuing such gratuitous ad hominems as a mental disease on your part.

Is this why you hesitate to commit yourself to making positive statements on a subject? Fear of being caught in a semantic error and have someone make you look like a fool?

I know my limitations in the area of scientific verbiage and have repeatedly asked for a certain indulgence as English is my second language to begin with, but you just refuse to accept them and instead accuse me of purposely trying to confuse the reader, in order to gain an advantage in a discussion, which you apparently seem to interpret as an argument, where one is a winner and the other is a loser.
I am here to learn and regardless of your attempts to shut me up, I'll continue as long as the discussion is fruitful to my knowledge and hopefully in some respects to the reader. No one is forcing you to read my posts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order to salvage the discussion from becoming a back and forth mud slinging, I'd like to address this
@ Iceaura,
I did some more reading and my searches keep leading me back to Bohmian mechanics, specifically his perspective of an Implicate or enfolded Order which eventually is causal to becoming Explicated or unfolded in reality.
I ran across this little clip which addresses the mechanics of the Pilot Wave Theory as compared to the Copenhagen Interpretation, which I found interesting and informative.

 

Correction;

and

Reading back, I should have used the word psychologically instead of philosophically, in both instances.

Hence my follow-up question re free will v determinism.....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

That seems to remove the literary concept of 'metaphor' from its origional context, turning it into a much broader explanatory principle.

But isn't the argument with Write4U about whether mathematics is a human conceptual construction? (Invented rather than discovered.) If we argue that it's invented, wouldn't that argument reduce mathematics to a 'psychological state' in some respect (in much the same way that our idea of a fictional character in a novel arguably only has psychological reality)?

So what are we supposed to make of the mathematics that theoretical physicists fill chalkboards with? Isn't theoretical physics equally a human conceptual construction? And if that's so, what justifies astrophysicists applying their principles of mathematical physics to astrophysical events a million light years away?

What is it that connects physics as a human-created conceptual apparatus with the physical reality that it's supposedly saying very important things about? What justifies the widespread idea that the theoretical physics allows us to better understand the observed physical events? Why do we expect nature to proceed in accordance with our theoretical expectations to the point that we start to believe that things can't happen any other way?

Isn't that effectively attributing 'force' to psychological states? (Unless there's something else taking place.)

 

The term is "literary", the concept is universal. "Force", for example, was (and often remains) metaphorical as used in physics, politics, military analysis, etc.

It always was a fundamental explanatory principle, in other words, - in my view, more accurately so than "analogy" (currently the encountered term). Look at the etymologies.
Look at the etymology of "explanatory".

In which case not all "psychological states" are equivalent, or of the same kind.

 

But is that not the same argument as saying not all "physical states" are of the same kind?

If we can say there are different forces, does that not simply mean that these are different expressions of the general concept of "force". Is it not the mathematical functions involved which determine the type or kind of force employed in both physics and psychology?

Is the general concept of "deterministic movement in the direction of greatest satisfaction" not equivalent to the general concept of "force"?

p.s. I'm sorry for not using [preview] more often, before posting. I realize this has created some problems in the past. I'll try to resist the urge to hastily post a thought, before refining it.

 

It's not my argument - I was just taking the quoted post to its logical implication.

The word is a metaphor, in its common usage. That was my point.

Metaphorically, some have used it like that - note that in that sentence "movement" and "direction" and "deterministic" have meanings much different than they have when employed by physicists, say.

 

I understand the separation between hard science and philosophy.

But, I try to find "common denominators" rather than individual properties or expressions.
This is why fundamentally I see the word "potential" as a fundamental common denominator, universally applicable to every thing or event. Potential can exist in the abstract as well as in physical reality.

And I agree there are different types of potential, but fundamentally does it not mean "that which may become expressed in realty"? Keyword; may.

IOW, although all expressed things or events are preceded by potential, not all potential becomes expressed and remains a latency, an unused latent ability.
Can we not say then that potential is a universal common denominator?

 

. A definition of electric potential: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_potential

 

What does a light switch do, other than control the electrical potential to light a lamp.

When you switch to "off", the circuit is broken, but the potential remains in a latent (restricted) state.
Switch to "on" frees the latent potential energy to become expressed and flow through the filament toward the ground.

Energy is the expressed energetic of a prior existing potential from the "implicate" (enfolded) state to an explicate (unfolded) state.

You indicated one of several types of potential, from the greater group of potentials. But it still has a common denominator with all other types of potential. It can exist as a latent ability or in an expressed state.

Consider this: If the word potential can be used in many definitions, can we not make a case that all these definitions of the same word have a fundamental abstract property in common?

 

I distinctly remember our discussion about this. Perhaps you should refer back to post #341-#357 to refresh your memory.

Here's one of the relevant portions:

 

I remember and I agree. But if one single word can be translated into a host of seemingly disparate properties, there still must be an underlying common denominator. A inherent property common to all these expressions.

If Potential = 15 definitions then these 15 definitions also = Potential

The same principle holds for the term home.

What is the common denominator in all these definitions? Surely not 4 walls and a roof?

 

deleted for duplication

 

It's common, yes, but why must there be? It's possible for two completely different words to be written the same way after many years. Why can't there can be one word with two meanings with completely different etymologies, and thus unrelated meanings?

You are dangerously close to a fallacy of equivocation, so be careful.

Off the top of my head: "gay". It has two quite different meanings; please explain what they have in common.

 

Metaphor. That's how poets git 'er done.

Energetic is an adjective.
Only some of the things referred to - metaphorically - as "energy" can be "expressed". Only some of the things referred to - metaphorically - as "potential", can be "expressed". Your definition of "energy" conflicts with the physicist's definition.

It controls the path of current flow, not the potential. Electrical potential is not what lights most lamps. See link in 473.

The potential wasn't latent, and it didn't go anywhere. And why are you bringing in "energy", now using "potential" as an adjective?

Probably not. What you might be able to do is find a reasonably well definable cloud of references and meanings from which every use of the word draws a selection - and to which every usage of the word contributes.

Recommended: "Surfaces and Essences" by Hofstadter and Sander. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7711871-surfaces-and-essences

Those guys chose "analogy" as their foundation term in English, I think "metaphor" works better, but the book works as written.

 

I am not disputing that each definition of the word has a different application, but that each application of the word has a fundamental abstract common denominator, in context of "that which may become reality".
Bohm proposed an hierarchical state of pure Potential from which an Implicate (enfolded) order emerges, which may become Explicated in our reality.

But I am not trying to equivocate how potential becomes expressed, just that all expressions in reality (including the formation of the universe) are preceded by potential, i.e. not an equivocation, but a common denominator of all things, regardless how they are individually expressed.

Oh, that's an easy one, though it has nothing to do with science.....difference.

In essence the word gay is a gender-neutral complimentary expression. Do we see being carefree, happy, bright, and showy, as a detriment or an asset to one's personality?

The LGBT community voluntarily adopted the word to describe their lifestyle from a non-sexual perspective, and there is no doubt that homosexuals know how to throw a bright and showy party, where people can be carefree and happy. I have been to several gay parties and those parties always lived up to the original definition.

The prejudicial negative sexual connotation was an invention by miserable, unimaginative straight people, obsessed with sexual conservatism. They hesitate to use the term homo-sexual and unwittingly use the word gay in the wrong context. In fact it is a contradiction to say, "look at that unhappy gay person". But that's linguistics for you.

But if you are planning an impressive straight wedding who do you hire, a "gay" wedding planner. Many fashion designers are homosexual, as are hairdressers, and because most of them I knew personally, I can attest that most of them were artistically creative with a gay flair, but always respected my sexual orientation without prejudice.