Are the laws of physics based on magic?

Status
Not open for further replies.
spidergoat said:
Wave functions are qualities of material objects at a quantum level. Physical constants are descriptions of how materials act, they are abstractions.
Click to expand...

Abstractions are the opposite of material. Would you care to offer a defninition for what you mean by: material?
 
Mazulu at it again.

Get an education, kid. It would save you the embarrassment.

Abstractions are the opposite of material.
Click to expand...

What don't you understand about that? It's like asking someone to give you a handful of angry. It's a behavior, not a thing.
 
Balerion said:
Mazulu at it again.

Get an education, kid. It would save you the embarrassment.

What don't you understand about that? It's like asking someone to give you a handful of angry. It's a behavior, not a thing.
Click to expand...
What about a fist full of anger! That would be a thing that might knock some sense into you!
(I stood up and practiced it a couple of times.)
 
Balerion said:
Mazulu at it again. Get an education, kid. It would save you the embarrassment. What don't you understand about that? It's like asking someone to give you a handful of angry. It's a behavior, not a thing.
Click to expand...
Technically, anger is a biochemical reaction in the biological body, so it is a thing. So maybe you should get an education.
 
Time is NOT a material substance, yet it's part of reality. Everything is built around time, including the space-time continuum, chemical reactions, everything. Time is a great example of something that is not material, yet it still exists. There are plenty of other examples of parts of reality that are not material.

I suppose someone might expect physics constants and the laws of physics to somehow be beyond the realm of time because those things never change. But here we're just speculating.
 
Magical Realist said:
Materials change because they are in time. And without time material wouldn't exist.
Click to expand...
It's an interesting thought. All material that we know of is subject to time. The only things that are not subject to time are are the physics constants. The laws of physics are built into time, yet the laws of physics are themselves immutable and never change. F=ma will be correct forever.
 
Mazulu said:
Time is NOT a material substance, yet it's part of reality. Everything is built around time, including the space-time continuum, chemical reactions, everything. Time is a great example of something that is not material, yet it still exists. There are plenty of other examples of parts of reality that are not material.

I suppose someone might expect physics constants and the laws of physics to somehow be beyond the realm of time because those things never change. But here we're just speculating.
Click to expand...
But there is no objective time. There is no absolute reference frame for time, is there?
 
Mazulu said:
It's an interesting thought. All material that we know of is subject to time. The only things that are not subject to time are are the physics constants. The laws of physics are built into time, yet the laws of physics are themselves immutable and never change. F=ma will be correct forever.
Click to expand...

They are not subject to time. They act, and we call that time. The laws of physics do break down at the beginning of the big bang, so even they aren't eternal.
 
spidergoat said:
But there is no objective time. There is no absolute reference frame for time, is there?
Click to expand...

I assume that the space-time continuum is what introduces time. If there are other space-times out there, they have there own time. Some say that the spirit world is beyond space and time, but it probably gets regular updates from births and deaths, a form of time stamping. I'm not offering proof, I'm just postulating.
 
Are they all in the same time? No? Then time is relative to the material's reference frame, an attribute of that particular material object.
Click to expand...

Time is a dimension, namely the 4th one of the spacetime continuum. So no, it isn't just an attribute of material objects.
 
Write4U said:
And therefore God!!! Excellent analysis.
Click to expand...
Well, your sarcasm is probably correct. Scientists make computer models about the big bang; they use computers (machines) made from the physical world. There was a time when the physical world was not here. That was before the big bang. Since there were no computers then, and in fact there was NOTHING! So, were did the singularity/big bang come from?

Physicists say (we don't know yet), but it really does become a faith issue. When it comes to matters beyond the physical universe, do you put your trust in science? Or do you put your trust in God? Or some third option...
 
Mazulu said:
Well, your sarcasm is probably correct. Scientists make computer models about the big bang; they use computers (machines) made from the physical world. There was a time when the physical world was not here. That was before the big bang. Since there were no computers then, and in fact there was NOTHING! So, were did the singularity/big bang come from?

Physicists say (we don't know yet), but it really does become a faith issue. When it comes to matters beyond the physical universe, do you put your trust in science? Or do you put your trust in God? Or some third option...
Click to expand...

You say "I don't know" rather than making something up. If someone ask you for the answer to a math problem that you don't understand is it better to say "I don't know" or to say 153?
 
Seattle said:
You say "I don't know" rather than making something else. If someone ask you for the answer to a math problem that you don't understand is it better to say "I don't know" or to say 153?
Click to expand...
That's how you get zero points for the problem/question. If you don't know, but you try to come up with something, you'll at least get some partial credit.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top