|
|
Post by Strewthless on Apr 9, 2021 11:53:12 GMT -5
This could rewrite much of what is known about physics. Observations on how Muons are behaving in an experiment are showing unexplained behaviours. Some scientists think they could be under the influence of a previously unknown, fifth force of nature. www.bbc.com/news/amp/56643677 |
|
|
|
Post by Ariete on Apr 9, 2021 13:06:26 GMT -5
This could rewrite much of what is known about physics. Observations on how Muons are behaving in an experiment are showing unexplained behaviours. Some scientists think they could be under the influence of a previously unknown, fifth force of nature. www.bbc.com/news/amp/56643677
|
|
|
|
Post by snj90 on Apr 9, 2021 16:38:35 GMT -5
It's surprising and counterintuitive to me how little you guys think of rewriting what we know about physics, Strewthless Ariete
While atheists will act like they've got it all figured out, some new discovery will emerge that challenges everything you thought you knew. Case in point, atheists used to like to think the universe always existed, but then redshift and the expansion of the universe were discovered. Of course, that the universe had a beginning certainly points to a First Cause. Otherwise, the universe is an effect without a cause, which is preposterous. Stephen Hawking claimed that the laws of physics will tend to cause universes to pop into existence. Yet this fallacious reasoning ignores that the laws are physics are a "thing" - and without a First Cause, are also an effect without a cause. How did the laws of physics come to exist? Why do the laws state a and not b? Well, I say there's a law-Giver for that.
And ask yourself why there are multiple laws of nature? Why wouldn't there be one? Yet, the strong and weak nuclear forces are fundamentally different from electromagnetism, which is fundamentally different from gravitation. They have not been reconciled into a unified field theory. Oh, scientists have tried that. So, from my vantage point, a fifth fundamental law of nature would further compound this problem for you. The more laws of nature you find, the more it obviously points to a law-Giver for all of them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Strewthless on Apr 9, 2021 17:20:29 GMT -5
^^^ Atheists don't have a codified set of views that unite them, other than lacking the belief in a God. To say every atheist goes along with Stephen Hawking and the big bang theory is a strawman.
|
|
|
|
Post by urania93 on Apr 10, 2021 5:45:25 GMT -5
If someone is interested, here there is the original scientific paper from which this news arose, here there is a little more understandable report from the Nature editorial and here the one from Science. It's surprising and counterintuitive to me how little you guys think of rewriting what we know about physics, razza ariete
[...]
All your reasoning seems to be based on a quite wrong assumption... Physics is not like the bible, which is immutable and only has to be trusted on the base of faith, it's more like an ensable of theories, evidences, experiments etc... which slowly changes as new evidences are found. Scientists are the first ones knowing the weaknesses and missing points of the current theories, and their job is actually to bring the those theories to their limits and to try to expand/update/modify them. Also, in general scientists tend to answer to the question: "how does nature work?" more than "why the reality is this way and not another?", that would be a metaphysical question more than anything else. However, scientists around the world, and particularly particle physicists, are cheering quite a lot for these results. It's not an everyday news to see advancements on the standard model, it's quite impressive stuff. |
|
|
|
Post by Ariete on Apr 10, 2021 10:27:56 GMT -5
And ask yourself why there are multiple laws of nature? Why wouldn't there be one?
Because nature is not autistic, and doesn't need to be black-and-white and nothing in between. Nature in general has no reason for this and that, is just is, reacting to its surroundings. You could ask as well "why are there multiple styles of art, why wouldn't there be only one", and quickly realise that it's an idiotic question to ask.
|
|
|
|
Post by snj90 on Apr 10, 2021 10:36:39 GMT -5
And ask yourself why there are multiple laws of nature? Why wouldn't there be one?
Because nature is not autistic, and doesn't need to be black-and-white and nothing in between. Nature in general has no reason for this and that, is just is, reacting to its surroundings.
Okay. So why does nature react to its surroundings in four (or five?) distinct and (most likely) irreducible ways? |
|
|
|
Post by Strewthless on Apr 10, 2021 11:03:24 GMT -5
Everything is determined by a consistent set of rules, as far as we've observed. However scientists are trying to determine how many exactly. Currently they think 4 broad laws underline everything, these seemed to explain everything we could observe, until recently when these expermients presented a problem that couldn't be explained by the existing theories. So now there's the possbility of observing a fifth law. Further down the line more may be observed.
Gravity is one of the four laws, but gravity alone can't explain everything that happens within our reality.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mörön on Apr 15, 2021 0:51:14 GMT -5
Everything is determined by a consistent set of rules, as far as we've observed. However scientists are trying to determine how many exactly. Currently they think 4 broad laws underline everything, these seemed to explain everything we could observe, until recently when these expermients presented a problem that couldn't be explained by the existing theories. So now there's the possbility of observing a fifth law. Further down the line more may be observed. Gravity is one of the four laws, but gravity alone can't explain everything that happens within our reality. And just as an aside comment, we are still trying to understand gravity. We know g = 9.8 m/s2 on the surface of this planet, at least. And maybe a few other things. On the whole though, we don't know the intricacies of gravity. Maybe one day, maybe not. |
|
|
|
Post by nei on Apr 15, 2021 7:47:26 GMT -5
And ask yourself why there are multiple laws of nature? Why wouldn't there be one? Because nature is not autistic, and doesn't need to be black-and-white and nothing in between. Nature in general has no reason for this and that, is just is, reacting to its surroundings. You could ask as well "why are there multiple styles of art, why wouldn't there be only one", and quickly realise that it's an idiotic question to ask.
Physicists don't think that question is stupid. String theory is the most well known work on answering that. The idea there's one fundamental force of physics that explains all forces is something physicists have been searching for since the 30s once quantum mechanics and general relativity is known, and there was a hope they could be intertwined. Progress has been slow, and the only true success is unifying the weak nuclear force and the electromagnetic force (19th century physicists merged Electricity, Magnetism and radiation.light). Other united theories have been proposed, beyond the reach of even an undergraduate level understanding of physics and barely testable. Possible it's untestable. . en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_field_theory |
|
|
|
Post by Babu on Apr 17, 2021 21:02:46 GMT -5
It's surprising and counterintuitive to me how little you guys think of rewriting what we know about physics, Strewthless Ariete While atheists will act like they've got it all figured out, some new discovery will emerge that challenges everything you thought you knew. Case in point, atheists used to like to think the universe always existed, but then redshift and the expansion of the universe were discovered. Of course, that the universe had a beginning certainly points to a First Cause. Otherwise, the universe is an effect without a cause, which is preposterous. Stephen Hawking claimed that the laws of physics will tend to cause universes to pop into existence. Yet this fallacious reasoning ignores that the laws are physics are a "thing" - and without a First Cause, are also an effect without a cause. How did the laws of physics come to exist? Why do the laws state a and not b? Well, I say there's a law-Giver for that. And ask yourself why there are multiple laws of nature? Why wouldn't there be one? Yet, the strong and weak nuclear forces are fundamentally different from electromagnetism, which is fundamentally different from gravitation. They have not been reconciled into a unified field theory. Oh, scientists have tried that. So, from my vantage point, a fifth fundamental law of nature would further compound this problem for you. The more laws of nature you find, the more it obviously points to a law-Giver for all of them.
This man just outsmarted stephen hawking. The "laws of physics/nature" aren't actually inherent laws lol. If we observe something happen repeatedly every time, we call it a law. We continue calling it a law until we encounter a situation where it doesn't happen like that anymore. That's how science works. We find a theory that works in every tried instance, until we find an instance where it doesn't work. Then we change/adapt the theory so that it does work in that new instance as well. Like special relativity. We never noticed special relativity until we started doing stuff with enough precision at high enough speeds. We don't know that there isn't just one single force; we just don't have sophisticated enough equipment and knowledge to find the single thing that works for everything. I've seen videos explaining why gravity isn't even a thing, just a consequence of accelerating and deccelerating through time-space. It's just that it's much easier to conceptualize things, and do math, if you compartmentalize into smaller groups. Easier to calculate the fall time of a steel ball using the gravitational constant, than to calculate its deceleration through timespace lol. |
|
|
|
Post by snj90 on Apr 18, 2021 9:56:45 GMT -5
It's surprising and counterintuitive to me how little you guys think of rewriting what we know about physics, Strewthless Ariete While atheists will act like they've got it all figured out, some new discovery will emerge that challenges everything you thought you knew. Case in point, atheists used to like to think the universe always existed, but then redshift and the expansion of the universe were discovered. Of course, that the universe had a beginning certainly points to a First Cause. Otherwise, the universe is an effect without a cause, which is preposterous. Stephen Hawking claimed that the laws of physics will tend to cause universes to pop into existence. Yet this fallacious reasoning ignores that the laws are physics are a "thing" - and without a First Cause, are also an effect without a cause. How did the laws of physics come to exist? Why do the laws state a and not b? Well, I say there's a law-Giver for that. And ask yourself why there are multiple laws of nature? Why wouldn't there be one? Yet, the strong and weak nuclear forces are fundamentally different from electromagnetism, which is fundamentally different from gravitation. They have not been reconciled into a unified field theory. Oh, scientists have tried that. So, from my vantage point, a fifth fundamental law of nature would further compound this problem for you. The more laws of nature you find, the more it obviously points to a law-Giver for all of them.
This man just outsmarted stephen hawking. The "laws of physics/nature" aren't actually inherent laws lol. If we observe something happen repeatedly every time, we call it a law. We continue calling it a law until we encounter a situation where it doesn't happen like that anymore. That's how science works. We find a theory that works in every tried instance, until we find an instance where it doesn't work. Then we change/adapt the theory so that it does work in that new instance as well. Like special relativity. We never noticed special relativity until we started doing stuff with enough precision at high enough speeds. We don't know that there isn't just one single force; we just don't have sophisticated enough equipment and knowledge to find the single thing that works for everything. I've seen videos explaining why gravity isn't even a thing, just a consequence of accelerating and deccelerating through time-space. It's just that it's much easier to conceptualize things, and do math, if you compartmentalize into smaller groups. Easier to calculate the fall time of a steel ball using the gravitational constant, than to calculate its deceleration through timespace lol.
Yes, I mentioned in the post you quoted that scientists have been trying to find a unified field theory. They've been trying for a long time, but the fundamental forces of the universe remain irreducible. And there are even more things that cannot be reduced to any fundamental physical forces of nature, such as consciousness. How do forces of nature cause distinct subjective experiences? Even if you could get a brain from blind forces of nature (which you most definitely can't), you're still a long way from actual consciousness; you only have a self-assembling computer dictating the actions of a zombie.
|
|
|
|
Post by Babu on Apr 18, 2021 10:15:51 GMT -5
This man just outsmarted stephen hawking. The "laws of physics/nature" aren't actually inherent laws lol. If we observe something happen repeatedly every time, we call it a law. We continue calling it a law until we encounter a situation where it doesn't happen like that anymore. That's how science works. We find a theory that works in every tried instance, until we find an instance where it doesn't work. Then we change/adapt the theory so that it does work in that new instance as well. Like special relativity. We never noticed special relativity until we started doing stuff with enough precision at high enough speeds. We don't know that there isn't just one single force; we just don't have sophisticated enough equipment and knowledge to find the single thing that works for everything. I've seen videos explaining why gravity isn't even a thing, just a consequence of accelerating and deccelerating through time-space. It's just that it's much easier to conceptualize things, and do math, if you compartmentalize into smaller groups. Easier to calculate the fall time of a steel ball using the gravitational constant, than to calculate its deceleration through timespace lol.
Yes, I mentioned in the post you quoted that scientists have been trying to find a unified field theory. They've been trying for a long time, but the fundamental forces of the universe remain irreducible. And there are even more things that cannot be reduced to any fundamental physical forces of nature, such as consciousness. How do forces of nature cause distinct subjective experiences? Even if you could get a brain from blind forces of nature (which you most definitely can't), you're still a long way from actual consciousness; you only have a self-assembling computer dictating the actions of a zombie.
The goal of science is literally to get closer to the answer to these question. Theists just make up an answer and put faith in it. That's literally it. We don't know what consciousness is or how it works, so we study it to try to find answers. You just make up an answer that you like and stick to that. |
|
|
|
Post by snj90 on Apr 18, 2021 10:32:07 GMT -5
Yes, I mentioned in the post you quoted that scientists have been trying to find a unified field theory. They've been trying for a long time, but the fundamental forces of the universe remain irreducible. And there are even more things that cannot be reduced to any fundamental physical forces of nature, such as consciousness. How do forces of nature cause distinct subjective experiences? Even if you could get a brain from blind forces of nature (which you most definitely can't), you're still a long way from actual consciousness; you only have a self-assembling computer dictating the actions of a zombie.
The goal of science is literally to get closer to the answer to these question. Theists just make up an answer and put faith in it. That's literally it. We don't know what consciousness is or how it works, so we study it to try to find answers. You just make up an answer that you like and stick to that. You are making up an answer and putting faith in it - i.e., the notion that all the forces of nature are reducible and compatible, even though the evidence is not in your favor. Also, you can only say what you just said if you define "science" in such a way to exclude intelligent design. Atheists usually try to do that. However, intelligent design follows from observations such as the fact that information (e.g., DNA) in our experience is only derived from an intelligent source. So intelligent design is not in conflict with "science" as a process whatsoever.
|
|
|
|
Post by Babu on Apr 18, 2021 10:45:14 GMT -5
The goal of science is literally to get closer to the answer to these question. Theists just make up an answer and put faith in it. That's literally it. We don't know what consciousness is or how it works, so we study it to try to find answers. You just make up an answer that you like and stick to that. You are making up an answer and putting faith in it - i.e., the notion that all the forces of nature are reducible and compatible, even though the evidence is not in your favor. Also, you can only say what you just said if you define "science" in such a way to exclude intelligent design. Atheists usually try to do that. However, intelligent design follows from observations such as the fact that information (e.g., DNA) in our experience is only derived from an intelligent source. So intelligent design is not in conflict with "science" as a process whatsoever.
Strawman. I've never said that all forces are reducible or compatible. Sure, there are atheists who think that they know for sure that what they know is true, but that's not scientific. It's like you're trying to pick examples of when people who "like science" have been wrong as proof that science as a concept is wrong. Science is about attempting to find out what you don't know. It's about making observations and using those observations to try to get a better understanding. The definition of theistic faith is literally to ignore observations around you and stick with what you believe or hope to be true because you have faith. Literally. Faith literally means sticking with your belief no matter how wrong it seems. |
|
|
|
Post by Ariete on Apr 18, 2021 10:47:05 GMT -5
The goal of science is literally to get closer to the answer to these question. Theists just make up an answer and put faith in it. That's literally it. We don't know what consciousness is or how it works, so we study it to try to find answers. You just make up an answer that you like and stick to that.
And about faith, if God created the universe, the flood and all other shit the bible says, why need faith and belief? What's the point? The merits of those arguments should be enough, as christian "science" supposedly "proves" god's existense. We don't need faith in chocolate ice cream, we just prove chocolate ice cream exists and that the end of it.
|
|
|
|
Post by snj90 on Apr 18, 2021 10:48:32 GMT -5
It's like asking, how did Mount Rushmore form? I think this was a joke a long time ago on Jay Leno. What's the most popular answer? Erosion. Now, folks laugh at that, but suggest the same thing in the area of the biological or physical sciences - i.e., uniform and random processes can account for such a tremendous amount of complexity, information, and design.
|
|
|
|
Post by Babu on Apr 18, 2021 11:05:05 GMT -5
It's like asking, how did Mount Rushmore form? I think this was a joke a long time ago on Jay Leno. What's the most popular answer? Erosion. Now, folks laugh at that, but suggest the same thing in the area of the biological or physical sciences - i.e., uniform and random processes can account for such a tremendous amount of complexity, information, and design. I'm pretty sure the most popular answer is dynamite, hammer and chisel, or was the erosion answer the joke? |
|
|
|
Post by snj90 on Apr 18, 2021 11:18:53 GMT -5
It's like asking, how did Mount Rushmore form? I think this was a joke a long time ago on Jay Leno. What's the most popular answer? Erosion. Now, folks laugh at that, but suggest the same thing in the area of the biological or physical sciences - i.e., uniform and random processes can account for such a tremendous amount of complexity, information, and design. I'm pretty sure the most popular answer is dynamite, hammer and chisel, or was the erosion answer the joke? Yes, that was the joke: that people responded by saying erosion. |
|
|
|
Post by Ariete on Apr 18, 2021 11:23:26 GMT -5
Yes, that was the joke: that people responded by saying erosion.
Why would anyone saying erosion? As ludicrous like if you say who created this sword, and people would answer god instead of the blacksmith.
|
|
