Are the laws of physics based on magic?

[Mazulu]

'Higher' in what sense? I can understand 'unknown'. I can even understand 'more fundamental'. But you seem to be veering off in a religious direction here.

Higher could also mean unknown or more fundamental.

I don't think that it's very helpful when we start imagining speculative beings to fill in the void of what we don't know. We should just admit that at the present time some things remain mysterious. Maybe we will learn more in the future, or maybe not.

Actually I disagree. I think it is very helpful to use imagination or even mysticism to explore things we don't understand. It is a set of placeholders that the mind can easily grasp, manipulate and compare to known things (like physics).

 

[Mazulu]

This is why this was better suited for the ''Pseudoscience'' section, Mazulu.
When science can't back up your ideas/assertions (science will never be able to prove 'God,' for example), best to post in Pseudoscience.

Moderator, please move this thread to pseudoscience.

 

[C C]

It was Carl Sagan who said, "Any technology sufficiently advanced looks like magic", or something like that. Anything unexplained could be thought of as magic. There are plenty of magicians who can pretend to do magic. But what about the laws of physics? The laws of physics, like the physics constants, do not have any known cause or reason to be what they are.

However, they aren't principles of a metaphysical doctrine and thus lack immutable definitions as to what they are [primarily as in broad classification, not their specific purposes / formulations]. They're inferred from empirical circumstances and thus are contingent and can be revised, eliminated, or assimilated under newer concepts in the future, explained or left unexplained; open-ended.

But IF they were treated as something more than regularities derived from generalizations... Then these global principles would not be based on "magic", but instead would be magic itself. In the sense of having no further explanation or being items not subsumed under the idea of everything requiring a reason, cause, etc. The latter which we humans idiotically treat as more fundamental than existence itself when asking absurdities like: "Why is there something rather than nothing?" [as if that reason underlying the "why?", its effectiveness already implied, would not be a member of "something"].

The whole point of positing the hypothesis of a "real" nomological stratum that would be prior to or responsible for producing and governing a universe [conditions for a reality], should be to put an end to the need for any more "reasons, causes, etc". Accordingly it can't be treated as some place filled with more objects (laws, etc regarded as spatiotemporal entities) -- it must be significantly different than what it explains, to escape another broad duplication of the latter ("things residing in a place") and thus avoid introducing yet another realm that itself requires further explanation, an endless receding...

 

[gmilam]

Something that is invisible, undetectable and thought not to exist, but produces an effect. I am borrowing a term from esoteric mysticism. I have to do this in order to call your attention to things that are invisible, undetectable and thought not to exist, like the space-time continuum, wave-functions, etc.

Get back with me when you have something a little more... coherent.

 

[Mazulu]

However, they aren't principles of a metaphysical doctrine and thus lack immutable definitions as to what they are [primarily as in broad classification, not their specific purposes / formulations]. They're inferred from empirical circumstances and thus are contingent and can be revised, eliminated, or assimilated under newer concepts in the future, explained or left unexplained; open-ended.

But IF they were treated as something more than regularities derived from generalizations... Then these global principles would not be based on "magic", but instead would be magic itself. In the sense of having no further explanation or being items not subsumed under the idea of everything requiring a reason, cause, etc. The latter which we humans idiotically treat as more fundamental than existence itself when asking absurdities like: "Why is there something rather than nothing?" [as if that reason underlying the "why?", its effectiveness already implied, would not be a member of "something"].

The whole point of positing the hypothesis of a "real" nomological stratum that would be prior to or responsible for producing and governing a universe [conditions for a reality], should be to put an end to the need for any more "reasons, causes, etc". Accordingly it can't be treated as some place filled with more objects (laws, etc regarded as spatiotemporal entities) -- it must be significantly different than what it explains, to escape another broad duplication of the latter ("things residing in a place") and thus avoid introducing yet another realm that itself requires further explanation, an endless receding...

It is my deepest hope that the scientific community will get to see new physical phenomena that can change physics constants in some controllable way. I can only peer out into the darkness from our physics cage and long for something more. I dream of a machine or a device that will permit a physics upgrade that will let us do things that are impossible or unfeasible now. I wait for the day that the physics cage door will open and let the humans out to wander the galaxy.

 

[Magical Realist]

I fantasize the day that Cern will be redesigned into a gigantic pentagram in which hyperdimensional denizens like Cthulhu will be invoked to unleash their maddening horror on our physical universe. If only we hadn't discovered THOSE equations!

 

[Mazulu]

I fantasize the day that Cern will be redesigned into a gigantic pentagram in which hyperdimensional denizens like Cthulhu will be invoked to unleash their maddening horror on our physical universe. If only we hadn't discovered THOSE equations!

:thumbsup: You mean the equations scrawled in the Necronomicon.

 

[Magical Realist]

:thumbsup: You mean the equations scrawled in the Necronomicon.

 

[dumbest man on earth]

@wegs

wegs, by reading this : "Magic is based on illusion and trickery. There isn't any 'science' behind it at all. Or random methodology. By design, it's intended to fool people to believing something is real through illusion." .

and also this : "Ah! I see. But then let's call it spirituality...not "magic." ".

Thought I might link you to this : http://www.magicexhibit.org/illusions/illusions.html

From the link - quote - "As the Magician's Apprentice, visitors enter a "backstage" environment and explore, through hands-on exhibits and video, how physical science, psychology and math are made magical with the art of performance. Visitors see how these concepts work in their lives as well as in the world of magic." - unquote

Is the ^^above^^ what you refer to as "magic" - or do you mean "magic" as in the practice of "Voodoo" or "White" or "Black" witchcraft ?

I was not really sure...because the discussion seemed to veer a little...

 

[Mazulu]

If there was a way to change physics constants or even to upgrade the laws of physics at some location (a laboratory for example), it would require access to unfathomable qualities of nature. Everything that we know about physics is about energy, momentum, spin, distance, time, mass, charge, space-time geometry, etc, etc. But the laws of physics and its constants are out of reach. Imagine a scenario in which we had discovered that we were a computer simulation, that we had discovered bits and registers, but we couldn't access the program and change it. Only instead of bits and registers, our laws of physics are laws that we have no access to. But what if we did? Or what if we could add to the laws of physics some additional relationships? For example, what if we could add a physics upgrade to the laws of physics that allowed us to convert dark matter into usable fermions and bosons? If some space alien came down to visit us and could do these things, it would be magic to us. I think it might be useful to kick this can around the block, to think about some of these issues. if we're like, then some day these issues might be useful to have considered.

 

[Mazulu]

@wegs

wegs, by reading this : "Magic is based on illusion and trickery. There isn't any 'science' behind it at all. Or random methodology. By design, it's intended to fool people to believing something is real through illusion." .

and also this : "Ah! I see. But then let's call it spirituality...not "magic." ".

Thought I might link you to this : http://www.magicexhibit.org/illusions/illusions.html

From the link - quote - "As the Magician's Apprentice, visitors enter a "backstage" environment and explore, through hands-on exhibits and video, how physical science, psychology and math are made magical with the art of performance. Visitors see how these concepts work in their lives as well as in the world of magic." - unquote

Is the ^^above^^ what you refer to as "magic" - or do you mean "magic" as in the practice of "Voodoo" or "White" or "Black" witchcraft ?

I was not really sure...because the discussion seemed to veer a little...

I'm not talking about illusions. I'm talking about gaining access to the laws of physics themselves and augmenting them or altering them in a laboratory setting.

 

[dumbest man on earth]

I'm not talking about illusions. I'm talking about gaining access to the laws of physics themselves and augmenting them or altering them in a laboratory setting.

Mazulu, that Post was for - @wegs - referencing wegs' Posts #32 & #36 - sorry about any confusion I caused.

 

[Robittybob1]

Mazulu, that Post was for - @wegs - referencing wegs' Posts #32 & #36 - sorry about any confusion I caused.

It is a public forum though.

 

[wegs]

@wegs

wegs, by reading this : "Magic is based on illusion and trickery. There isn't any 'science' behind it at all. Or random methodology. By design, it's intended to fool people to believing something is real through illusion." .

and also this : "Ah! I see. But then let's call it spirituality...not "magic." ".

Thought I might link you to this : http://www.magicexhibit.org/illusions/illusions.html

From the link - quote - "As the Magician's Apprentice, visitors enter a "backstage" environment and explore, through hands-on exhibits and video, how physical science, psychology and math are made magical with the art of performance. Visitors see how these concepts work in their lives as well as in the world of magic." - unquote

Is the ^^above^^ what you refer to as "magic" - or do you mean "magic" as in the practice of "Voodoo" or "White" or "Black" witchcraft ?

I was not really sure...because the discussion seemed to veer a little...

Magic meaning, trickery, illusions, etc. Not voodoo/witchcraft, per se, no.

Spirituality is not magic. Believing in God is not ‘magical thinking,’ however, some here might accuse me of such…praying to a ‘magic man’ in the sky. Hehe

Hope that clears up ‘’my’’ definition of magic.

Regardless, spirituality cannot be proven through physics. If you believe in God, then you believe God was the ‘creator’ of the laws of physics—those of which man would eventually discover. But, I digress because honestly this topic doesn't belong in the general science section. It's not something that science can prove, and I respect that there are other areas here to discuss these types of alternative or spiritual 'ideas.'

@ Mazulu--Have you read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternity_of_the_world ? You will enjoy it, me thinks. It's about how Aristotle argued that matter...is eternal. Check it out.

 

[Mazulu]

Mazulu, that Post was for - @wegs - referencing wegs' Posts #32 & #36 - sorry about any confusion I caused.

I am happy to communicate my thoughts clearly at every opportunity.

I suspect that the moderators have more pressing issues, like the forum being hacked, to move my thread to pseudoscience. And what I have to say is my opinion, not based on science. But as we stare as the hard reality that the physics constants and the laws of physics are built upon phenomena completely unknown to science, then I do not believe there is good reason to entertain atheist paradigms. Why should a spiritual God, a Holy spirit, or anything divine visit upon those who gleefully disparage the sacred? There are plenty of people, including myself, who have been afforded such a blessing. But as those limited minds mistake the consequences of Cosmic Laws to be the complete reality, then they are missing an opportunity to be healed by the true sacred reality, the awesome nature of God. I reject atheism and I reject all of the cynicism and negativity that goes with it.

 

[dumbest man on earth]

@Mazulu

@Robittybob1

@wegs

Sorry, my bad!

 

[wegs]

I am happy to communicate my thoughts clearly at every opportunity.

I suspect that the moderators have more pressing issues, like the forum being hacked, to move my thread to pseudoscience. And what I have to say is my opinion, not based on science. But as we stare as the hard reality that the physics constants and the laws of physics are built upon phenomena completely unknown to science, then I do not believe there is good reason to entertain atheist paradigms. Why should a spiritual God, a Holy spirit, or anything divine visit upon those who gleefully disparage the sacred? There are plenty of people, including myself, who have been afforded such a blessing. But as those limited minds mistake the consequences of Cosmic Laws to be the complete reality, then they are missing an opportunity to be healed by the true sacred reality, the awesome nature of God. I reject atheism and I reject all of the cynicism and negativity that goes with it.

Your ideas are not based on science, so it would be naturally confusing for folks coming into the section, seeing this thread, then.

Check out the link I sent to you…the idea is pretty interesting. (‘’matter is eternal.’’) Kinda goes to what you’re getting at here, I think.

@Mazulu

@Robittybob1

@wegs

Sorry, my bad!

You're fine; no worries!

 

[Mazulu]

Magic meaning, trickery, illusions, etc. Not voodoo/witchcraft, per se, no.

Spirituality is not magic. Believing in God is not ‘magical thinking,’ however, some here might accuse me of such…praying to a ‘magic man’ in the sky. Hehe

Hope that clears up ‘’my’’ definition of magic.

Regardless, spirituality cannot be proven through physics. If you believe in God, then you believe God was the ‘creator’ of the laws of physics—those of which man would eventually discover. But, I digress because honestly this topic doesn't belong in the general science section. It's not something that science can prove, and I respect that there are other areas here to discuss these types of alternative or spiritual 'ideas.'

@ Mazulu--Have you read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternity_of_the_world ? You will enjoy it, me thinks. It's about how Aristotle argued that matter...is eternal. Check it out.

Hi wegs,
I've grown tired of titillating my mental faculties with logic, mathematics and endless arguments that move me away from the sacredness of Creation. But others should feel free to do so if they wish. I am truly tired of seeing the skeptics and atheists trample those things that we consider sacred. In that sense, the benefits of technology do not justify the feelings of meaninglessness. Nevertheless, the skeptics and atheists have the upper hand right now, and spiritual bliss is considered a form of insanity by scientific authorities. As to the issue of whether or not an eternal universe existed before the big bang, I believe that something did exist, something that is beyond our ability to measure or understand within our current physics models.

 

[river]

The laws of physics are based on a timeless truth

They will never change

Magic however is based on timeless learning

Hence the laws of physics are not based on magic but based on doctrine

 

[Mazulu]

Your ideas are not based on science, so it would be naturally confusing for folks coming into the section, seeing this thread, then.

Actually my ideas are inspired by the basic infrastructure of science, solutions to differential equations, physics constants, observed laws of nature. But creative extrapolations from observations about science are still pseudoscience.

Check out the link I sent to you…the idea is pretty interesting. (‘’matter is eternal.’’) Kinda goes to what you’re getting at here, I think.

I think matter (particles of the Standard Model) owes its existence to the space-time continuum. But the space-time continuum probably owes its existence, its choice of physics constants and laws of physics to unknown phenomena. This same unknown phenomena is what is eternal.