Are the laws of physics based on magic?

[wegs]

I thought you had a very insightful perspective in the Creation Theory thread, Mazulu. (But, perhaps I'm biased as to the topic that was being discussed)

This thread doesn't belong in the cess pool; don't be mean, guys.

It seems better suited for the Pseudoscience section though, than this one...so, just ask a mod to move it for you, Mazulu.

(I posted a thread in alternative theory section about how there is a new theory that the Big Bang might have been merely a ''phase change,'' as opposed to an ''explosion.'' Interesting idea, I didn't think it belonged in this secton, because it is ...well, an alternative theory.)

 

[common_sense_seeker]

You're willing to believe in a mathematical concept that has no common sense element to it rather than a particle which can be thought of and modeled in a normal way?

 

[Mazulu]

I thought you had a very insightful perspective in the Creation Theory thread, Mazulu. (But, perhaps I'm biased as to the topic that was being discussed)

This thread doesn't belong in the cess pool; don't be mean, guys.

It seems better suited for the Pseudoscience section though, than this one...so, just ask a mod to move it for you, Mazulu.

(I posted a thread in alternative theory section about how there is a new theory that the Big Bang might have been merely a ''phase change,'' as opposed to an ''explosion.'' Interesting idea, I didn't think it belonged in this secton, because it is ...well, an alternative theory.)

Moderator, please move my thread to Pseudoscience. Thanks.

 

[dumbest man on earth]

Mazulu, again you are correct - my cesspool idea was a little too strong - my bad!

 

[Mazulu]

Mazulu, again you are correct - my cesspool idea was a little too strong - my bad!

Thanks. I can stop crying now.:bawl:

 

[common_sense_seeker]

Moderator, please move my thread to Pseudoscience. Thanks.

Seconded. "Space-time geometry" IS pseudoscience!

 

[wellwisher]

The reverse is true, in that magic is based on science and engineering. If we wanted to levitate our lovely assistant, and appear to defy the laws of gravity, we need to know various areas of science and engineering to understand the physics so we can design and build the trick. We also need to know human nature, so we can distract and focus the audience, so they can't see the ropes and pulleys. People will pay good money to be entertained and their imaginations induced.

One magic trick is the assumption that our particle accelerators help us create the origins of matter. If we think about the BB, which is the standard theory, doesn't the universe begin with extreme gravitational pressure, while accelerators use low gravitational pressure? To make this trick work, we need to distract the audience so they do not notice the rope and pulley.

Math is a useful device for helping magic tricks; modern game engines. With game engines, such as in computer games, you can assume anything and the math engine will allow the game to generate this physics. In this trick we will use math (game engine) to levitate our lovely assistant.

For example, say the trick is to show the audience that gravity was due to the repulsion of matter by space. This trick the repulsion will appear to cause matter to clump to avoid space; gravity. Although this is magic and only an illusion, I will need math rope and pulleys such as the reverse of the existing equations. Instead of attraction, I reverse it so the math look like repulsion. Now my lovely assistant is flying around the stage held up only with math that nobody can see as wrong since it is consistent.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

Q. Are the laws of physics based on magic?
A. No.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

Seconded. "Space-time geometry" IS pseudoscience!

Moderator. Please move common sense seeker to pseudoscience.

 

[common_sense_seeker]

Moderator. Please move common sense seeker to pseudoscience.

lol. Good one!

 

[Magical Realist]

The laws of physics are not based on magic. They are based on math. Thus given a proper understanding of the math you CAN understand why they are the way they are. They aren't just due to a bunch of arbitrary unknowns, which would be the definition of magic.

 

[wegs]

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.

 

[Yazata]

Anything unexplained could be thought of as magic.

The Penguin Dictionary of Religions begins its article on magic by defining it as, "Ritual activity intended to produce results without using the recognized causal processes of the physical world".

That raises the question: Recognized by whom? I guess that Arthur Clarke's remark about any sufficiently advanced science being indistinguishable from magic is based on the idea that sciences more advanced than our own will know about and be able to manipulate causal processes that we currently know nothing about. And similarly, the procedures necessary to manipulate those processes might look like ritual activity to somebody who doesn't understand their purpose.

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.

Yes, I agree with that. It might be possible, with some so-called 'theory of everything' or something, to reduce the multiplicity of observed physical principles to implications and manifestations of some smaller underlying set. But there's always going to be something that's simply given, that simply is. That's the fundamental mystery, I guess.

But science is in an awkward position. Scientists do not believe in magic. Yet the physics constants and the general framework of the laws of physics appear to work as if by magic.

That might be so if we redefine 'magic' to mean anything we can't currently explain. That would make 'magic' essentially a synonym for 'unknown'.

My point is that physics exists as if by magic.

There's probably going to be a residuum, some set of absolutely basic facts about how the universe behaves, that's likely to always be inexplicable. (The alternative would be an infinite regress, of principles explained by principles explained by...)

Is there any hope that science might beyond to weild this kind of magic in ways that can change the laws of physics or physics constants?

It's conceivable. But doing that would presumably require the use of unknown principles that are even more fundamental than our observed laws of physics. That would only push the problem back a step.

My expectation is that the universe will probably always be mysterious and inexplicable at its fundamental axiomatic core, no matter how advanced science becomes.

 

[Yazata]

Incorrect, conservation laws are based on rigorous principle.

That only seems to push Mazulu's problem back a step. If we can successfully explain A in terms of B, we're faced with explaining B.

Namely, Noether's theorem guarantees that for every symmetry respected by a Lagrangian, a conserved quantity results (this principle has uses outside of physics, too).

But aren't your explanatory principles basically mathematical descriptions of what appear to be formal structures in the observed data? Mazulu's issue is more philosophical than that. He's wondering why these kind of structures exist in the first place. What explains them? Maybe we can derive some of them from principles that physics believes are even more fundamental, but at some point we would seem to arrive at the edge of human knowledge, at something that's still unexplained. (The alternative would seem to be either be an infinite regress or circularity.)

Physics doesn't care about predicting how the world "really is" (although it does that quite well), it's about predicting experimental results in a coherent manner.

Supposing for the sake of argument that physicists are all instrumentalists (I think that's false), then wouldn't that basically concede Mazulu's point?

If science is only about ordering and anticipating observations, and isn't about describing the real world or explaining why it is the way it is, then wouldn't the provenence of our observations and of the mathematical structure that we discover in them, be mysterious, simply by definition?

 

[Mazulu]

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.

I don't mean "magic" in the trickery sense, I mean "magic" to mean the exercise of higher principles or powers. In my view, God(or a godlike being) can use "spirit" to enforce a set of laws or commands. I am positing that the laws of physics are enforced by spirit (an invisible something mistaken to be nothingness) that is commanded to enforce such laws of physics. It's sort of like commanding a police officer to enforce traffic laws, only it's not a policeman, it is spirit; in the case of our universe, this spirit is recognized as the space-time continuum, which is itself an invisible nothingness.

 

[wegs]

I don't mean "magic" in the trickery sense, I mean "magic" to mean the exercise of higher principles or powers. In my view, God(or a godlike being) can use "spirit" to enforce a set of laws or commands. I am positing that the laws of physics are enforced by spirit (an invisible something mistaken to be nothingness) that is commanded to enforce such laws of physics. It's sort of like commanding a police officer to enforce traffic laws, only it's not a policeman, it is spirit; in the case of our universe, this spirit is recognized as the space-time continuum, which is itself an invisible nothingness.

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

 

[Yazata]

I don't mean "magic" in the trickery sense, I mean "magic" to mean the exercise of higher principles or powers.

'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.

In my view, God(or a godlike being) can use "spirit" to enforce a set of laws or commands.

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.

 

[gmilam]

I don't mean "magic" in the trickery sense, I mean "magic" to mean the exercise of higher principles or powers. In my view, God(or a godlike being) can use "spirit" to enforce a set of laws or commands. I am positing that the laws of physics are enforced by spirit (an invisible something mistaken to be nothingness) that is commanded to enforce such laws of physics. It's sort of like commanding a police officer to enforce traffic laws, only it's not a policeman, it is spirit; in the case of our universe, this spirit is recognized as the space-time continuum, which is itself an invisible nothingness.

Spirit? Definition please...

 

[wegs]

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.

 

[Mazulu]

Spirit? Definition please...

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.