Re: Creationists declare war over the brain

Curt Welch wrote:

Well, I'm not sure what you are talking about then. To me, "physical laws"
are stuff like F=ma which are formal mathematical predictions about how the
universe works. Though I do believe in strong forms of reduction, which
means all (or at least most) of the complex behaviors we witness can most
likely be reduced, and explained, in terms of these sorts of laws, they
represent only the tiniest fraction of what we know, and what we can
predict about the universe.

I predict that if I stand up and look behind my monitor, I will see lots of
wires, and good collection of dust, and hole in my desk top that allows a
bunch of those wires to go under the desk. What exactly are the "physical
laws" you talk about which allow me to make that prediction? To me, the
term "physical laws" has nothing to do with how I made that highly accurate
prediction. I did not use F=ma or or any of the other physical laws I know
about to predict what would happen when I stood up and looked down behind
my monitor.

The physical laws, are a few things I learned in some physics classes long
long ago. I've learned millions and millions of things about how the
universe works which allows me to keep my self alive as I interact with it,
and the physical laws I learned are only a tiny subset of all the things I
know about the universe.

So, like I said in another message. I really have no clue what you are
trying try say. Your use of the words "physical laws" doesn't make any
sense to me yet.

Well then obviously I wasn't precise enough.
I was aiming at these 'laws of nature', implicit in scientific thought.
Like I googled and wrote in reply to Wolf,

1. Existence. There exists a physical world separate and distinct from our minds that is comprehensible through our senses. We expect in addition that it is governed by certain generalities called the “laws of nature.”

.... and we are trying to discover these laws of nature.

I say implicit, for these are 'self-evident thruths'; not to be discussed, for denial leads nowhere. We could argue our entire lives and never get to measure anything... I mean, why budhists didnt invent scientific revolution?;)

Of course, laws of our sciences are just approximations.

I have to admit I'm quite surpised I need to explain this:)

Regards...
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Getting out of this world?
    ... if for no other reason to avoid others' mistakes. ... 'real world' and our universe is unimaginably magical since their ... Calling what they've got 'physical laws' is just not appropriate. ... Doesn't matter for this. ...
    (rec.arts.sf.science)
  • Re: Many-Worlds again
    ... I have to carp about the phrase "violations of physical laws"! ... But in a different anti-particle universe, the fundamental constant might apply to the anti-particle instead. ... at a distance of 4 billion light years we are looking 4 billion years into the past. ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: Getting out of this world?
    ... 'universe' and other details so as to avoid inaccuracy in the real- ... Also it's considered good form to leave this sort of discussion ... Cutting-edge physics suggests that matter sustains ... Statements that miss the 'no matter, no physical laws'? ...
    (rec.arts.sf.science)
  • Re: (OT) Japans next first lady says she rode spaceship
    ... believes in past lives. ... Everything non-contradictory (or merely resolvably contradictory) ... from and thus subject to physical laws, and physical laws can vary from ... universe to universe. ...
    (rec.arts.anime.misc)
  • Futures, getting to grips with scientific variables
    ... physical laws are not the same in different locations. ... A. The End of science? ... Simple spatial rules, such as those of Conway's Game of Life, ... A. Life within the laws of the Universe. ...
    (soc.culture.romanian)