Can it be true that physics is the only true science?

Thank you for your attention

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I don't quite understand what you mean. Could you expand?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No. Thanks for asking...

-Shifty Russian
www.SexSlash.com ... Crazy sex news site!

 

Hardly.

If I may ask, just picking two rather than asking about all of them, why do you doubt chemistry and biology?

 

Well, if I may be so bold in answering, I personally think that physics (and then only proper theoretical physics - not deeply mathematical/statistical physics, of which there is much) is the only *pure* science.

This is not to say that chemistry and biology aren't sciences, merely that they amalgamate concepts from a far wider field than does theoretical physics.

 

Really? Then let's just come down to chemistry alone. Why do you say it "amalgamates concepts from a far wider field than does theoretical physics?"

And I believe you are confusing applied physics and theoretical physics. It's the latter that's heavily into mathematics!

 

hey, so what is your definition of the word science?, from how im looking at it simply the definition of the word implies that it dosent just apply to a single field of research (although it is broad).


peace

 

Erm, yes =) I meant applied physics. That's what happens when you haven't had coffee in the morning. I think I must have been trying to finish my sentence when I started it or something.

As for chemistry, it's perhaps a more 'pure' science than biology - not least because the number of topics that fall under the umbrella of 'biology' is just enormous: all the way from animal behaviour, general concepts of natural selection, and epidemiology to enzyme catalysis, protein folding, and the more biochemical stuff. I'd say that chemistry is less 'pure' than physics (and let's be clear here; I'm not saying 'purity' is necessarily a good thing, I'm just commenting on the way the subjects work) because of the huge overlap between what you might want to call physics at one end of chemistry and what you might want to call biology at another.

I suppose you could argue that physics is at the core of chemistry (stuff like statistical physico-chemistry and thermodynamics). Equally, you could argue that chemistry, and by association physics, is at the core of biology.

The scope of that last point of course depends entirely on whether you believe we'll eventually be able to explain concepts like "common sense", "consciousness", and perception of "free will" in terms of biochemical processes. I personally believe we will, and so see physics as at the core of most, if not all, science.

Further to that I suppose you *could* say that maths is at the heart of physics. In my opinion, however, this is a bit like saying that english (the language) is at the heart of Britain ... a bit contrived and somewhat meaningless.

 

The answer is no.
Physics can be effectively reduced to mathematics.

 

Mathematics is the images drawn on the cave walls. It is not the study of reality. It is the study of the images.

 

Agreed.

 

i recommend you'll look at POST-quantum physics as theorized by Jack Sarfatti. he at least is trying to include consciousness. i know modern physics does also as in observer and experiemnt, but NOT as in SUBJECTIIVE consciousness as having volition througout reality. ie quantum 'MECHANICS'

also checkout Professor of PHilosophy, HCistian de Quincey http://www.deepspirit.com who is taclking te centuries-old scientific 'problem of 'mind/body'...and 'the Hard Problem' in cognivive science (David Chalmers)

and keep in mind psychdelic research

basically 'frontier science' is opening te question about consciousness and how matter/energy is sentient "all the way down" (de Quincey)

tis is an interdisciplinary inquiry that involves mythology. For the same 'problem' applies throughout patrirchal mythology, East and West.

 

Physics can't be the "true" science since the world is not physical. The right science for reality would be a science of consciousness.

 

This is a ridiculous thread. If physics is the true science then what do you call mathematics? To me Physics is a branch of science. At some point in my life time science was reduced to deductive reasoning alone, what about the observation part? The theoritical part? The orientations? The Nomenclatures of the many worlds? Logic itself isn't even universal unless there is an absolute rule, which is why quantum physics is riddled with more contradictions than a foreign ambassador politician. Without economic science for example most physists wouldn't know which way to turn.

 

wekll dude, its precisely CAUSEof modern physics you got all them space agey gadgets round you!......and it has been THEmost revolutionary development in science.......so errrr

what is missing is all about consciousness. its being looked into

 

I think physics is at the base of most other sciences--physics dictates chemistry, which in turn sets the laws for biology and then psychology, and so forth. But mathematics is our sole insight into physics, so I'd say that if there has to be one true science, then it's gonna be mathematics.

Also, the only reason that we have both applied and theoretical physics is because we don't know everything--hence theories. Ideally, these separate branches should be united. Maybe in a thousand years when computers are powerful enough to solve all the mysteries of the universe. Hmmm, I guess computer science is the one true science then.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I think the first true intellectual achievement by man was the realization of value, not in quantity but in quality. As in observations and philosophy. The idea of good and evil were also developed from this ideas. Most of our achievements today are through ancient philosphical views or observation and many early mathematicians were philosophists. Its hard to say which science is true science but to be safe all beckons on observation.

 

@ the thread question..."Can it be true that physics is the only true science?"

no way, first of all i dont belive physics is a 'true science', for one fundamental reason, assumptions.In physics its always telling you to assume this, or assume that, like when calculating acceleration of a car, or the braking distance, it says, and i quote "Assume no air resistance"!! I mean what the fuck?? Everyone KNOWS that your gonna have air resistance, therefore what eva your answer is, it may be correct in the exam, but it sure as fuck aint correct in 'real life', which makes me a bit sceptical on the whole damn thing.

 

"Assume no air resistance"

uhh, that's what they tell you in school, not the scientific community.