... there is no velocity at all. Everything just is (Parmedides). Light does not move, you do not move, I do not move. We are just static world lines in an existent 4D spacetime.What I bolded above is incoherent. So the rest of the argument falls apart. Why would it be incoherent? It could be nonsense, it could be true, you can disagree with it, but why incoherent? As I amended in a subsequent post: "It is an incoherent stance from which to operate in the world as we perceive it."
I agree with Tim on his last sentence.I do too.
I also agree there is a danger in semantics, but we are stuck with it due to the variety of phonetic languages and their inherent limitations. The most often used term in describing nature is from the "point of the observer", which of course is a metaphor itself. We can only "speak" allegorically, unless we use the universal language of mathematics which removes the subjective element but requires in-depth knowledge of mathematics.Yes, it might be nearly impossible to speak about reality without metaphors, or you must express yourself very clumsy ('if a system is in a certain state then its followup state will have less energy', instead of 'the system strives to lower its energy'; or something like that). In general physicists don't have to bother about it, they know what is meant and normally are not in danger of anthropomorphising nature. But when people turn 'metaphysical' they must realise this anthropomorphic character of such language. It is not too difficult, but in certain cases the spell of the language is strong, as we see here with the free will problem. There is no way that the laws of nature force us to do something, the laws of nature just describe what I am doing. Once you really see this, the appeal of thinking that 'it is obvious that determinism contradicts free will' evaporates. You say the laws of nature cannot force us to do something, and I agree. Laws of nature are not causal in themselves. However laws of nature (the way things seem to work) do proscibe HOW some things must be done. A square peg will fit in a square hole, but not in a round hole. This why I believe that natural laws are both "permissive" (for some things) and 'resrictive" (for other things).
... when people turn 'metaphysical' they must realise this anthropomorphic character of such language. It is not too difficult, but in certain cases the spell of the language is strong, as we see here with the free will problem. There is no way that the laws of nature force us to do something, the laws of nature just describe what I am doing. Once you really see this, the appeal of thinking that 'it is obvious that determinism contradicts free will' evaporates.Again, if you're trying to avoid anthropomorphic language, why even say that the laws of nature "describe"? The laws of nature don't actually describe. The laws of nature are concepts that we have conceived of/discovered, that we might use to describe or to invent or to make predictions, etc. Our understanding of the laws of nature seem to provide a good conceptual framework regarding the parameters in which we operate. In regards to the "free will" issue, I go back to the semantics of "freedom" itself, which inherently implies that there is something to be "free" from. If not, then everything, (including nothing) would be possible. Since that doesn't make a lick of sense, we move on from that. But I think that we can, accurately and un-anthropomorphizingly, say that our understanding of the laws of nature, can be useful in our describing the parameters in which we are able to make decisions that are in accordance (or not) with our "will".
Again, if you're trying to avoid anthropomorphic language, why even say that the laws of nature "describe"? The laws of nature don't actually describe. The laws of nature are concepts that we have conceived of/discovered, that we might use to describe or to invent or to make predictions, etc..Formally you are right, but for the moment it was important to me to show that we should be careful using anthropomorphisms in the domain of laws of nature. And as I said, it is ok to use anthropomorphic language, as long as you are aware of it, and do not draw any conclusions that are based on it.
Our understanding of the laws of nature seem to provide a good conceptual framework regarding the parameters in which we operate. In regards to the "free will" issue, I go back to the semantics of "freedom" itself, which inherently implies that there is something to be "free" from. If not, then everything, (including nothing) would be possible. Since that doesn't make a lick of sense, we move on from that. But I think that we can, accurately and un-anthropomorphizingly, say that our understanding of the laws of nature, can be useful in our describing the parameters in which we are able to make decisions that are in accordance (or not) with our "will".I am afraid I don't get your point. Do you have some example?
GdB, if you think past regularities must continue because they couldn't change, you are a type of necessitarian re natural laws. And this is your solution to the problem of induction. You don't expect past regularities to change because you think you are justified in thinking they can't.No, not justified that they can't. But a fantasy about laws of nature changing is no ground to think they really could, if we know they did not change for 13.6 billion years.
What does it even mean to say regularities which have been stable for 13.6 billion years could not change? They could change meaning it's logically possible. So what restricts the logically possible from being actually?Physics is not logic, Stephen. It is logically possible that matter suddenly becomes a repulsive force. It is impossible that gravity is repulsive and attractive at the same time. But logically possible does not mean that I must reckon with the possibility that the laws of nature can change in any moment. The reason not to reckon with the possibility that past regularities can change at any moment is because you have reason to believe that they can't . And you say they can't because you say there is no chance that they will. You believe they can't just like I do.
The reason not to reckon with the possibility that past regularities can change at any moment is because you have reason to believe that they can't . And you say they can't because you say there is no chance that they will. You believe they can't just like I do.I think they can't because they did not change since 13.6 billion years. Full stop.
I think they can't because they did not change since 13.6 billion years. Full stop.Which is meaningless.
I agree with Tim on his last sentence.I do too.
I also agree there is a danger in semantics, but we are stuck with it due to the variety of phonetic languages and their inherent limitations. The most often used term in describing nature is from the "point of the observer", which of course is a metaphor itself. We can only "speak" allegorically, unless we use the universal language of mathematics which removes the subjective element but requires in-depth knowledge of mathematics.Yes, it might be nearly impossible to speak about reality without metaphors, or you must express yourself very clumsy ('if a system is in a certain state then its followup state will have less energy', instead of 'the system strives to lower its energy'; or something like that). In general physicists don't have to bother about it, they know what is meant and normally are not in danger of anthropomorphising nature. But when people turn 'metaphysical' they must realise this anthropomorphic character of such language. It is not too difficult, but in certain cases the spell of the language is strong, as we see here with the free will problem. There is no way that the laws of nature force us to do something, the laws of nature just describe what I am doing. Once you really see this, the appeal of thinking that 'it is obvious that determinism contradicts free will' evaporates. You say the laws of nature cannot force us to do something, and I agree. We can sicken. We can die. Laws of nature are not causal in themselves. However laws of nature (the way things seem to work) do proscibe HOW some things must be done. A square peg will fit in a square hole, but not in a round hole. This why I believe that natural laws are both "permissive" (for some things) and 'resrictive" (for other things). Is sickness and death permissive or restrictive? LL
Again, if you're trying to avoid anthropomorphic language, why even say that the laws of nature "describe"? The laws of nature don't actually describe. The laws of nature are concepts that we have conceived of/discovered, that we might use to describe or to invent or to make predictions, etc..Formally you are right, but for the moment it was important to me to show that we should be careful using anthropomorphisms in the domain of laws of nature. And as I said, it is ok to use anthropomorphic language, as long as you are aware of it, and do not draw any conclusions that are based on it.
Our understanding of the laws of nature seem to provide a good conceptual framework regarding the parameters in which we operate. In regards to the "free will" issue, I go back to the semantics of "freedom" itself, which inherently implies that there is something to be "free" from. If not, then everything, (including nothing) would be possible. Since that doesn't make a lick of sense, we move on from that. But I think that we can, accurately and un-anthropomorphizingly, say that our understanding of the laws of nature, can be useful in our describing the parameters in which we are able to make decisions that are in accordance (or not) with our "will".I am afraid I don't get your point. Do you have some example? Okay, using your favorite subject and something that happened last night as an example: A traffic cop with a handgun shoots and kills two men (armed with AK 47's and body armor) thereby saving his own life and an accompanying unarmed security guard and probably saving the lives of many other civilians. The traffic cop acted in accordance with his compatibilist free will. (I am assuming that his actions were in accord with his belief system and personal wishes.) His action (as is every action that occurs and has occurred, as far as we know) was also in accordance with natural laws. But our concept of natural laws did not kill the two would-be murderers. The traffic cop killed them.
LoisL, Is sickness and death permissive or restrictive?Let me qualify my use of the terms "permissive" and "restrictive" as implaccable natural conditions and not in any way sentient decisions. I would call the ability to live "permissive by natural selection", but there are natural laws, such as inherent in DNA coding, which restrict the life-span of living things. Thus, IMO, sickness (old age) and death are natural built-in restrictions of complex organisms, such as mammals.. Interestingly, there are alien environments on earth, with conditions which would be fatal to all surface or shallow ocean life. However these conditions are host to hundreds of organisms which thrive in these environments. It is thought that these organisms may have been part of earliest life on earth. Life around deep ocean sulphur vents is completely alien to mammals and more closely associated with plants than animals (intermediate species?). http://ocean.si.edu/ocean-videos/hydrothermal-vent-creatures Similarly, natural law permits the use of copper as an oxygen carrier in the blood instead of iron, called, Hemocyanins (also spelled haemocyanins).
they are proteins that transport oxygen throughout the bodies of some invertebrate animals. These metalloproteins contain two copper atoms that reversibly bind a single oxygen molecule (O2). They are second only to hemoglobin in frequency of use as an oxygen transport molecule. Unlike the hemoglobin in red blood cells found in vertebrates, hemocyanins are not bound to blood cells but are instead suspended directly in the hemolymph. Oxygenation causes a color change between the colorless Cu(I) deoxygenated form and the blue Cu(II) oxygenated formhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemocyanin
To thrive, we humans need oxygen, and temperatures below about 40°C (104°F). Remove the oxygen or increase the temperature, and we don't survive long. But at the bottom of the ocean, some creatures actually prefer hot, low oxygen environments. Around deep-sea hydrothermal vents, temperatures often exceed 50°C (122°F). Fluids emitted by vents can also be acidic (pH 4.5 or less) and oxygen-poor. Despite these challenging conditions, many kinds of microbes grow on and in the rocks and mineral deposits around vents. But scientists only know about most deep-sea microbes by examining genetic material found in rock or vent fluid samples: up to now, it has proven impossible to grow most of these tiny creatures in the lab. So we don't know what they look like, how they cope with their environment, or how they interact with other species. Now a team of researchers led by Anna Louise Reysenbach of Portland State University (OR) has managed to culture a type of microbe whose genetic material has previously been detected in a variety of samples. The researchers collected sulfide deposits from vents in the East Pacific and South Pacific, and scraped off the iron- or sulfur- rich surface layers. They then incubated some of these scrapings at 70°C (158°F), while experimentally varying the pH, potential sources of nutrients and other conditions. They hit on a combination that some of the microbes liked, and for the first time ever, were able to get them to survive and reproduce in the lab. The researchers are now looking forward to investigating how these microbes cope with environments that would kill most terrestrial forms of life.http://venturedeepocean.org/life/discoveries.php#pirguis_etal_06science From my perspective, this seems to indicate that nature grants (implaccable) permissions for some organisms, as well as places (implaccable) restrictions on other organisms.
As far as the other line of contention in this thread, as far as we know, natural laws have not changed. Can they? We don’t know. As Pec suggested earlier, might they have changed in ways that we could not perceive? We don’t know.
Until they obviously change, or until we have the capacity to recognize previously undetectable changes, why does it matter?
As far as the other line of contention in this thread, as far as we know, natural laws have not changed. Can they? We don't know. As Pec suggested earlier, might they have changed in ways that we could not perceive? We don't know. Until they obviously change, or until we have the capacity to recognize previously undetectable changes, why does it matter?I would not be surprised if there are several unknown laws of nature. As long as we have scientific mysteries, we canot say that we have discovered all natural laws. But why would it be necessary for a natural law to change? If one law is not applicable, another will be. I should like to think that natural laws are conditionally applicable. A specific natural laws may not be applicable in one instance, but applicable in other instances. Thus the same law may be restrictive under some conditions, but permissive under other conditions. I cited water (HO2) as having three possible states (gaseous state, liquid state, solid state) each state answering to different natural laws. Thus the term "conditional permissions and restrictions".
As far as the other line of contention in this thread, as far as we know, natural laws have not changed. Can they? We don't know. As Pec suggested earlier, might they have changed in ways that we could not perceive? We don't know. Until they obviously change, or until we have the capacity to recognize previously undetectable changes, why does it matter?I would not be surprised if there are several unknown laws of nature. As long as we have scientific mysteries, we canot say that we have discovered all natural laws. I should like to think that natural laws are conditional. A specific natural laws may not be applicable in one instance, but applicable in other instances. Thus the same law may be restrictive under some conditions, but permissive under other conditions. I cited water (HO2) as having three possible states (gaseous state, liquid state, solid state) each state answering to different natural laws. Thus the term "conditional permissions and restrictions". Write, you are a deep thinker. I bet you can envision several moves ahead, when playing chess. Me, I'm more of a strategy guy. But to (part of) your points, sure, there may be laws of nature that we have not yet conceived of or discovered. And I guess you're saying that breaking down how we think of laws of nature could be of some utility. But, I think that, we shouldn't present laws of nature in such a way that it is easy for someone to think of laws of nature as a sort of god-like entity, e.g., that permits or restricts. I am not sure of the best terminology that would avoid that liability, and I don't feel like coming up with it. But I bet you can.
As far as the other line of contention in this thread, as far as we know, natural laws have not changed. Can they? We don't know. As Pec suggested earlier, might they have changed in ways that we could not perceive? We don't know. Until they obviously change, or until we have the capacity to recognize previously undetectable changes, why does it matter?I would not be surprised if there are several unknown laws of nature. As long as we have scientific mysteries, we canot say that we have discovered all natural laws. I should like to think that natural laws are conditional. A specific natural laws may not be applicable in one instance, but applicable in other instances. Thus the same law may be restrictive under some conditions, but permissive under other conditions. I cited water (HO2) as having three possible states (gaseous state, liquid state, solid state) each state answering to different natural laws. Thus the term "conditional permissions and restrictions". Write, you are a deep thinker. I bet you can envision several moves ahead, when playing chess. Me, I'm more of a strategy guy. But to (part of) your points, sure, there may be laws of nature that we have not yet conceived of or discovered. And I guess you're saying that breaking down how we think of laws of nature could be of some utility. But, I think that, we shouldn't present laws of nature in such a way that it is easy for someone to think of laws of nature as a sort of god-like entity, e.g., that permits or restricts. I am not sure of the best terminology that would avoid that liability, and I don't feel like coming up with it. But I bet you can. Thank you, I am honored. And I do love chess. I always identified positively with your posts. Seems we have a very compatible world view. I don't know if this is sufficient, but it came to mind in context of using terminology such as "permission" and "restriction". A supermarket has two identical one way doors, one labeled "Entrance" which permits ingress, but restricts egress, the other labeled "Exit", which permits egress but restricts ingress. I know that we purposely place these doors to function one way or the other, but similar conditions can surely be found in nature, without any sentient interference or guidance. I am not entirely satisfied with this example, but in principle this is what I meant by "one way" doors possessing non-sentient conditional permissions and restrictions. Perhaps "time" is such a natural one way door, which permits an evolutionary chronology (time-line) of events to occur into the future, but restricts the same evolutionary chronologyy (time-line) from going back into the past. On the contrary, if it could be done, reversing the time-line would result in the disassembly of the original chronology, IMO. OTOH, During the "inflationary epoch", it seems that this occurred in a completely permissive a priori condition which allowed for FTL expansion. If I undestand Einstein, if natural restrictive laws of "c" were already functional, this would have resulted in an immediate implosion (disassembly) back to its original state. But apparently, the restrictive natural laws such as "c" emerged (due to the cooling chaotic state) within the expanding universe. I would not call this a change in existing natural laws, but the emergence of heretofore unused potentials. Again, to me this translates into, "naturally occurrintg conditional permissive and restrictive laws". I am really interested in hearing responses to this proposition. Hehe, "hearing" text is one of those confusing semantic metaphors.... :-)
As far as the other line of contention in this thread, as far as we know, natural laws have not changed. Can they? We don't know. As Pec suggested earlier, might they have changed in ways that we could not perceive? We don't know. Until they obviously change, or until we have the capacity to recognize previously undetectable changes, why does it matter?I would not be surprised if there are several unknown laws of nature. As long as we have scientific mysteries, we canot say that we have discovered all natural laws. I should like to think that natural laws are conditional. A specific natural laws may not be applicable in one instance, but applicable in other instances. Thus the same law may be restrictive under some conditions, but permissive under other conditions. I cited water (HO2) as having three possible states (gaseous state, liquid state, solid state) each state answering to different natural laws. Thus the term "conditional permissions and restrictions". Write, you are a deep thinker. I bet you can envision several moves ahead, when playing chess. Me, I'm more of a strategy guy. But to (part of) your points, sure, there may be laws of nature that we have not yet conceived of or discovered. And I guess you're saying that breaking down how we think of laws of nature could be of some utility. But, I think that, we shouldn't present laws of nature in such a way that it is easy for someone to think of laws of nature as a sort of god-like entity, e.g., that permits or restricts. I am not sure of the best terminology that would avoid that liability, and I don't feel like coming up with it. But I bet you can. Thank you, I am honored. And I do love chess. I always identified positively with your posts. Seems we have a very compatible world view. I don't know if this is sufficient, but it came to mind in context of using terminology such as "permission" and "restriction". A supermarket has two identical one way doors, one labeled "Entrance" which permits ingress, but restricts egress, the other labeled "Exit", which permits egress but restricts ingress. I know that we purposely place these doors to function one way or the other, but similar conditions can surely be found in nature, without any sentient interference or guidance. I am not entirely satisfied with this example, but in principle this is what I meant by "one way" doors possessing non-sentient conditional permissions and restrictions. Perhaps "time" is such a natural one way door, which permits an evolutionary chronology (time-line) of events to occur into the future, but restricts the same evolutionary chronologyy (time-line) from going back into the past. On the contrary, if it could be done, reversing the time-line would result in the disassembly of the original chronology, IMO. OTOH, During the "inflationary epoch", it seems that this occurred in a completely permissive a priori condition which allowed for FTL expansion. If I undestand Einstein, if natural restrictive laws of "c" were already functional, this would have resulted in an immediate implosion (disassembly) back to its original state. But apparently, the restrictive natural laws such as "c" emerged (due to the cooling chaotic state) within the expanding universe. I would not call this a change in existing natural laws, but the emergence of heretofore unused potentials. Again, to me this translates into, "naturally occurrintg conditional permissive and restrictive laws". I am really interested in hearing responses to this proposition. Hehe, "hearing" text is one of those confusing semantic metaphors.... :-) 2 points that come to mind, first during the superluminal expansion it was my understanding that matter was not moving faster than light through space but space was expanding and carrying matter with it. It seems that space itself is not restricted by the speed limit of c. The other thing that your comment reminded me of was the BBC series "Red Dwarf" in the episode "Backwards", where the ship had traveled so far into the future that the universe had started to contract and time was running backwards.
I bet you can envision several moves ahead, when playing chess. Me, I'm more of a strategy guy.And I do love chess. I used to play chess, and on another forum I have been labeled as the "TR Chess champion", based on one game that I won by default. On another forum I resigned a game because my grandchildren kept wanting to "Play Chess" with my set, but they made up their own rules.
As far as the other line of contention in this thread, as far as we know, natural laws have not changed. Can they? We don't know. As Pec suggested earlier, might they have changed in ways that we could not perceive? We don't know. Until they obviously change, or until we have the capacity to recognize previously undetectable changes, why does it matter?I would not be surprised if there are several unknown laws of nature. As long as we have scientific mysteries, we canot say that we have discovered all natural laws. I should like to think that natural laws are conditional. A specific natural laws may not be applicable in one instance, but applicable in other instances. Thus the same law may be restrictive under some conditions, but permissive under other conditions. I cited water (HO2) as having three possible states (gaseous state, liquid state, solid state) each state answering to different natural laws. Thus the term "conditional permissions and restrictions". Write, you are a deep thinker. I bet you can envision several moves ahead, when playing chess. Me, I'm more of a strategy guy. But to (part of) your points, sure, there may be laws of nature that we have not yet conceived of or discovered. And I guess you're saying that breaking down how we think of laws of nature could be of some utility. But, I think that, we shouldn't present laws of nature in such a way that it is easy for someone to think of laws of nature as a sort of god-like entity, e.g., that permits or restricts. I am not sure of the best terminology that would avoid that liability, and I don't feel like coming up with it. But I bet you can. Thank you, I am honored. And I do love chess. I always identified positively with your posts. Seems we have a very compatible world view. I don't know if this is sufficient, but it came to mind in context of using terminology such as "permission" and "restriction". A supermarket has two identical one way doors, one labeled "Entrance" which permits ingress, but restricts egress, the other labeled "Exit", which permits egress but restricts ingress. I know that we purposely place these doors to function one way or the other, but similar conditions can surely be found in nature, without any sentient interference or guidance. I am not entirely satisfied with this example, but in principle this is what I meant by "one way" doors possessing non-sentient conditional permissions and restrictions. Perhaps "time" is such a natural one way door, which permits an evolutionary chronology (time-line) of events to occur into the future, but restricts the same evolutionary chronologyy (time-line) from going back into the past. On the contrary, if it could be done, reversing the time-line would result in the disassembly of the original chronology, IMO. OTOH, During the "inflationary epoch", it seems that this occurred in a completely permissive a priori condition which allowed for FTL expansion. If I undestand Einstein, if natural restrictive laws of "c" were already functional, this would have resulted in an immediate implosion (disassembly) back to its original state. But apparently, the restrictive natural laws such as "c" emerged (due to the cooling chaotic state) within the expanding universe. I would not call this a change in existing natural laws, but the emergence of heretofore unused potentials. Again, to me this translates into, "naturally occurrintg conditional permissive and restrictive laws". I am really interested in hearing responses to this proposition. Hehe, "hearing" text is one of those confusing semantic metaphors.... :-) 2 points that come to mind, first during the superluminal expansion it was my understanding that matter was not moving faster than light through space but space was expanding and carrying matter with it. It seems that space itself is not restricted by the speed limit of c. That was the point. The limitation of "c" was not in effect yet at that time. It emerged along with the formation of particles, which were non-existent prior to that time. The symmetry breaking epoch? I am on thin ice here, but I believe that Tachyons are exempt from the restriction of "c" and do not exist in our dimensional reality. Perhaps as yet unknown natural laws permit or restrict their movemen as well..
The other thing that your comment reminded me of was the BBC series "Red Dwarf" in the episode "Backwards", where the ship had traveled so far into the future that the universe had started to contract and time was running backwards.I'm sure this was in relation to Einstein's time reversal @ FTL, which might loosely (poetic liberty) be used to account for the hypothetical contraction of the universe. And if the author was a physicist (such as Asimov) this would confirm that during inflation there were no restrictive laws of nature yet. Else timereversal would cause the immediate contraction to the initial causality. Perhaps an infinite number of tries eventually resulted in the right configuration of spacetime to allow the natural laws (as we know them) to emerge and allow for the orderly chronology of events that we are able to observe.
I bet you can envision several moves ahead, when playing chess. Me, I'm more of a strategy guy.And I do love chess. I used to play chess, and on another forum I have been labeled as the "TR Chess champion", based on one game that I won by default. On another forum I resigned a game because my grandchildren kept wanting to "Play Chess" with my set, but they made up their own rules. I don't play chess much anymore , but on a whim played a level 5 game against the computer recently and was still able to beat the program. In Holland I was a club member and used to play regularly. But my greatest game was against my HS math teacher. I was the only student ever to force a draw against him. In his defense it must be said that he was playing 10 boards simultaneously and won the other 9. p.s. Queens Gambit is my favorite opening. It trades a pawn for positional advantage, very early in the game.
You say the laws of nature cannot force us to do something, and I agree. Laws of nature are not causal in themselves.Exactly. Laws of nature describe how the regularities of the objects under observation behave, i.e. along which pathways causality works for these objects.
However laws of nature (the way things seem to work) do proscibe HOW some things must be done. A square peg will fit in a square hole, but not in a round hole.I do not quite understand you here. HOW some things must be done? By whom? To who?
deleted for duplication