I think I just broke my understanding...

[Cactus]

Not that that's a bad thing, but I just wanted to cogitate out loud about this.

"Science, all science, is founded on the idea, the belief, if you will, that laws that affect A at location X, will also affect B at location Y in the same way. That laws are universal." I was taught this by my science teachers, all of them.

Yet the more I learn about Quantum Physics, the more I become unsure about this. If light behaves like a wave if we look at it one way, as particles if we do the experiment another, how can we say that whatever "laws" that govern light are the same everywhere, when they aren't even apparently the same under different methods of observation.

Indeed, I go on to read that the perceived reality of any person or measuring instrument is limited to that person/instruments perception of reality.

(To form my own crap example, we can trust our minds interpretation of our eyes in most cases, though not under the influence of hallucinogenic drugs, even though both interpretations will seem just as real as the other at the time)

I reason that it is possible for this idea of "universal laws" to still hold true, a perception of reality will always return the same result whatsoever it is looking at for two different locations in the universe.

It is also possible that such laws, if abstractly enough defined, could still define everything in the universe.

It is also very possible I've read this into completely the wrong direction

Thoughts?

 

[Complexity]

Not that that's a bad thing, but I just wanted to cogitate out loud about this.

"Science, all science, is founded on the idea, the belief, if you will, that laws that affect A at location X, will also affect B at location Y in the same way. That laws are universal." I was taught this by my science teachers, all of them.

Yet the more I learn about Quantum Physics, the more I become unsure about this. If light behaves like a wave if we look at it one way, as particles if we do the experiment another, how can we say that whatever "laws" that govern light are the same everywhere, when they aren't even apparently the same under different methods of observation.

Indeed, I go on to read that the perceived reality of any person or measuring instrument is limited to that person/instruments perception of reality.

(To form my own crap example, we can trust our minds interpretation of our eyes in most cases, though not under the influence of hallucinogenic drugs, even though both interpretations will seem just as real as the other at the time)

I reason that it is possible for this idea of "universal laws" to still hold true, a perception of reality will always return the same result whatsoever it is looking at for two different locations in the universe.

It is also possible that such laws, if abstractly enough defined, could still define everything in the universe.

It is also very possible I've read this into completely the wrong direction

Thoughts?

As far as I know, the laws of physics appear to be the same everywhere in our universe.

The dual nature of light - experiments that ask wave questions of light getting wave answers, and experiments that ask particle questions of light getting particle answers - says something about the complex nature of light and how it doesn't fit into our naive categories well, not that waves and particles are conflicting laws of nature.

 

[Manopolus]

It's all in the photons, dude.

 

[drkitten]

If light behaves like a wave if we look at it one way, as particles if we do the experiment another, how can we say that whatever "laws" that govern light are the same everywhere, when they aren't even apparently the same under different methods of observation.

Because they're different in the same way under different methods of observation.

We don't even need to go all QM to get that effect. A white piece of paper will appear red under red light and yellow under yellow light. That doesn't mean the piece of paper has changed, just that our eyes aren't a very good method for perceiving color of objects as opposed to lighting.

What would, however, be strange is if a particular shade of white looked red under red light in Australia, but blue under red light in New Zealand.

Indeed, I go on to read that the perceived reality of any person or measuring instrument is limited to that person/instruments perception of reality.

That's right. Measure with a meter stick and you'll get a different measurement than if you use a yardstick. Measure with a thirty-five inch "yardstick" and you'll get a completely different measurement, and one that can't easily reconcile with the meter stick.

Which is why scientists spend so much time replicating experiments and calibrating instruments, and why we've now defined a meter as the distance traversed in vacuum by light in 1/299792458 of a second, so that we can make sure our meter sticks are all the same length.

 

[Miss_Kitt]

Cactus -- your underlying principle of science seems odd to me. The statement that "what affects A at location X will affect B at location Y" leaves out the provision, "if A and B are substantially similar and X and Y are in similar conditions." That is, if A is ferrous and B is non-ferrous, then magnetic fields will affect them differently; but that does not violate the laws of electromanetism. If location X and location Y have different local temperatures and air pressures--or if X is in the air and Y is underwater--then even if A and B are virtually identical, there may not be the same effect.

An example of how this applies can be seen in that Newtonian laws of motion amount to relativistic descriptions of motion when the last term approaches zero. For most real-life applications, we can ignore the finer detail of relativistic changes in mass due to speed, etc. and just use the old F=ma and call it a day. When dealing with very tiny masses and/or very high speeds, however, that is not enough.

One of the basic notions of science (as I understand it) is that we know that our 'rules' are imprecise; and we can calculate the degree of imprecision. Newtonian calculations ignore things like air resistance, which works fine for figuring out where a cannon ball shot 500 yards is going to land, but not so well for sending a rocket into orbit or plotting a parachute jump. What makes science so useful is that it lets us determine what the limits of our precision are, so we can know how close the theoretical answer will be. (As an engineer, I am committed to 'close enough' being all that is important.) One of the hallmarks of pseudo-science is that there aren't any error bars.

The other point, also referenced by a poster above, is that the "Laws of Physics" (or chemistry, or whatever) are attempts to describe what is occurring in reality. When observed reality does not match up to the laws, it can mean that we are encountering things that the form or implied context of the laws are not appropriate for. For example, for most optics problems it is useful to treat light as a wave; for some other applications it is useful to treat it as a particle. Either of these models, however, is a model and not the nature of light. The nature of light is such that it has characteristics describable as if it were a particle, and also characteristics as if it were a wave.

The most common way this is explained is by saying, "the map is not the territory." In other words, just because the calculations don't describe what is happening at a particular point or in a particular situation does not mean that the entity or phenomenon ceases to exist; it just means that the limits of the model have been reached. If you are hiking and there is a stream where no stream is indicated on your map, it doesn't mean that the map is useless; and it doesn't mean that it's "wrong." It means that there is an aspect of the terrain that is not included on the map. Perhaps the stream wasn't there when the map was made; perhaps the fineness of detail on the map stops at a level above where the stream is visible. But the stream is real; and the map is valid within its context. It's important to keep in mind what the context of the map is (or was when it was drawn up).

Now if you find half a dozen large streams or a lake that aren't on the map, it may be time to question whether the map is in fact valid. I think, however, that for the basic "laws" of science we are mostly into granularity of detail and not whether it's a map drawn from hearsay or from direct observation. What is exciting about science is that if it turns out that a particular model, principle or rule really is wrong, it can be (and will be) amended or replaced as need be.

Science is about describing the observed and predicting future observable events. It is a mechanism for determining what the natural world is like within the context of, as we can observe it. Once you invent a microscope, the context expands dramatically and there is a corresponding blossoming of descriptive and predictive 'laws' of how things do what they do. When you discover DNA, the context for understanding the processes of living things expands enormously; we are just beginning to see the outlines of some new 'laws' of how living things grow, change, develop, pass on their characteristics (or don't) and interact with their environment.

Science is not a set of laws handed down from On High that are invariable; it is a way of looking at the world that lets us make useful predictions about it. Any of the tools of those predictions--the Laws of Science, as you put it--are always within a context and subject to amendment or replacement as needed to apply to another context.

Just my thoughts, Miss_Kitt

 

[Radrook]

Not that that's a bad thing, but I just wanted to cogitate out loud about this.

"Science, all science, is founded on the idea, the belief, if you will, that laws that affect A at location X, will also affect B at location Y in the same way. That laws are universal." I was taught this by my science teachers, all of them.....

Thoughts?

Doesn't that certainty require omniscience?

 

[theprestige]

Doesn't that certainty require omniscience?

Well, yes, but that's not the point.

In order to reach conclusions about distant objects, we must assume that the laws of physics that govern the behavior of those objects are the same laws that govern the behavior of nearby objects.

For example, we assume that a star tens of thousands of light-years away undergoes the same process of stellar fusion as our sun. Having made this assumption, we are able to base upon it meaningful comparisons between that distant star and our nearby one, and reach meaningful conclusions about the specific characteristics of that distant star.

If we began by assuming that the laws of physics in distant places were different from the laws of physics here at home, we would not be able to reach any kind of meaningful conclusions at all about distant objects.

For all we know (not being omniscient), gravity as we understand it doesn't exist more than seven light years from here. Perhaps the stars are guided in their courses by diligent and attentive unicorns. The speed of light might vary tremendously from place to place (assuming photons as we understand them even exist at all--perhaps EM radiation replaced by tiny magical golden monkeys in faraway regions of the universe).

But that way lies madness. So, for the sake of having a reasonable basis for making scientific inquiries about distant objects, we assume that the laws of physics we observe here at home are the same laws of physics we would observe anywhere in the universe we happened to be.

 

[Complexity]

Doesn't that certainty require omniscience?

Not at all, for we haven't asserted certainty.

The similarity of physical law across the universe is an hypothesis, one that is currently supported by all of the evidence that we have gathered. *

Scientists continue to test this hypothesis and search for supporting and contradicting evidence.

It is part of our scientific worldview, our working model of reality, as a result.

We neither need nor want any of your insane religious terms (e.g. 'omniscience') to describe our attempts to understand reality.

* To the best of my knowledge

 

[drkitten]

Doesn't that certainty require omniscience?

No. It's a working hypothesis, not a "certainty." If we find that what affects A in location X doesn't affect B in location Y, then we search for something that distinguishes A and B (or locations X and Y).

So far, we've not failed to find such differences, which is why we cling to that working hypothesis.

If we found that the laws of physics could, in fact, be bent on a whim, we'd abandon them and start studying the laws of whim. I believe that the religious types have been promising us exactly that for several thousand years and have never managed actually to demonstrate that the laws of whim are superior in any way -- or even equal -- to the laws of physics.

 

[Radrook]

Well, yes, but that's not the point.

In order to reach conclusions about distant objects, we must assume that the laws of physics that govern the behavior of those objects are the same laws that govern the behavior of nearby objects.

For example, we assume that a star tens of thousands of light-years away undergoes the same process of stellar fusion as our sun. Having made this assumption, we are able to base upon it meaningful comparisons between that distant star and our nearby one, and reach meaningful conclusions about the specific characteristics of that distant star.

If we began by assuming that the laws of physics in distant places were different from the laws of physics here at home, we would not be able to reach any kind of meaningful conclusions at all about distant objects.

For all we know (not being omniscient), gravity as we understand it doesn't exist more than seven light years from here. Perhaps the stars are guided in their courses by diligent and attentive unicorns. The speed of light might vary tremendously from place to place (assuming photons as we understand them even exist at all--perhaps EM radiation replaced by tiny magical golden monkeys in faraway regions of the universe).

But that way lies madness. So, for the sake of having a reasonable basis for making scientific inquiries about distant objects, we assume that the laws of physics we observe here at home are the same laws of physics we would observe anywhere in the universe we happened to be.

I agree that the laws oif physics should be assumed to apply to all the detectable universe. But recently, physics has begun to postulate other dimensions, and multi universes, with infinite dimensions all their own. So it's within that context that I find the adoption of certainty non-applicable and totally unrelated to our maintenance of sanity.

 

[Radrook]

No. It's a working hypothesis, not a "certainty." If we find that what affects A in location X doesn't affect B in location Y, then we search for something that distinguishes A and B (or locations X and Y).

So far, we've not failed to find such differences, which is why we cling to that working hypothesis.

If we found that the laws of physics could, in fact, be bent on a whim, we'd abandon them and start studying the laws of whim. I believe that the religious types have been promising us exactly that for several thousand years and have never managed actually to demonstrate that the laws of whim are superior in any way -- or even equal -- to the laws of physics.

I'm not suggesting that whim replace the laws of physics. Neither am I suggesting that certainty be abandoned in relation to the observable universe or even to the universe beyond the observable horizon where light as yet hasn't had the time to reach us.

However, that certainty should not be assumed to be the norm in other hypothesized dimensions. or multi-universes if they do exist. Actually, theoretical physicists don't make that unjustifiable assumption. Instead they humbly admit that laws of our detectable universe might not apply at all in those realms.

 

[six7s]

I agree that the laws oif physics should be assumed to apply to all the detectable universe. But recently, physics has begun to posulate other dimensions, and multi universes, with infinite dimensions all their own. So it's within that contex that I find the adoption of certainty non-applicable and totally unrelated to our maintenance of sanity.

Would someone who is NOT on Radrook's ignore list please copy'n'paste the following:

[QUOTE="Complexity, post: 6002905, member: 6626"][QUOTE="Radrook, post: 6002865, member: 2997"]Doesn't that [HILITE]certainty[/HILITE] require omniscience?[/QUOTE]Not at all, for [HILITE]we haven't asserted certainty[/HILITE].

The similarity of physical law across the universe is an hypothesis, one that is currently supported by all of the evidence that we have gathered. *

Scientists continue to test this hypothesis and search for supporting and contradicting evidence.

It is part of our scientific worldview, our working model of reality, as a result.

We neither need nor want any of your insane religious terms (e.g. 'omniscience') to describe our attempts to understand reality.

* To the best of my knowledge[/QUOTE]​

 

[triadboy]

The laws of physics break down at a singularity.

 

[shadron]

I sees my duty, and I does it. (I don't think I'm on his ignore list, though one can never know.)

Would someone who is NOT on Radrook's ignore list please copy'n'paste the following:

Doesn't that certainty require omniscience?

Not at all, for we haven't asserted certainty.

The similarity of physical law across the universe is an hypothesis, one that is currently supported by all of the evidence that we have gathered. *

Scientists continue to test this hypothesis and search for supporting and contradicting evidence.

It is part of our scientific worldview, our working model of reality, as a result.

We neither need nor want any of your insane religious terms (e.g. 'omniscience') to describe our attempts to understand reality.

* To the best of my knowledge

 

[Cactus]

I see that as usual my problem is an equal mix of my misunderstandings and my failure to explain things fully.

I fully agree with drkitten and Miss_Kitt and theprestige, although I realise I didn't quite explain it that way.

I needed to see Complexity's post though, I swear I forget one thing when I learn another...

 

[Complexity]

I agree that the laws oif physics should be assumed to apply to all the detectable universe. But recently, physics has begun to postulate other dimensions, and multi universes, with infinite dimensions all their own. So it's within that context that I find the adoption of certainty non-applicable and totally unrelated to our maintenance of sanity.

More than three spacial dimensions in our universe - yes.
Other universes that may have other physical laws - yes.
Infinite dimensions - no.


No one has adopted certainty other than you in your damned religious beliefs.

What the hell does 'our maintenance of sanity' have to do with anything?

 

[marplots]

(To form my own crap example, we can trust our minds interpretation of our eyes in most cases, though not under the influence of hallucinogenic drugs, even though both interpretations will seem just as real as the other at the time)

If I read you right, you are expressing a version of the 'where do I stand' problem. That is, from what perspective do I say that this experience is true and this other one a mistake? I'd first point out that the statement already implies we have a way to identify errors. Otherwise, we'd never suspect that we make mistakes at all. It is why the Matrix couldn't be perfect. Without some way of saying, "That seemed right, but it couldn't be right." the movie would have fallen flat.

The where do I stand problem just asks which type of experience should be used to validate other experiences and add verisimilitude?

One way we do it is by looking at the same thing from a different place in time. So that me-now reevaluates what me-then thought. Another is by trying to get nature (who we think does not have an agenda and doesn't lie) to comment on itself. A third is an appeal to coherency and how good a story we can make for the data stream.

So, yes. You are right about some deeply held underlying assumptions on our part. But consider a world where these assumptions 'worked' but where they were really false. How would we ever perceive a mistake had been made? If we lived in a Matrix without glitches, it would make no difference whatsoever if what we thought was going on was really false, because from every perspective above, our judgments would seem true. And the result would be the same as if they were true. It would be the case of someone impersonating a native American (my own crappy example). They do everything exactly right and the impersonation is correct in all aspects. How would it be any different if I said, truthfully, that they were just faking? If there is no place to stand to get an alternative and truthful view, the result is the same as having a correct view in the first place.

So what you need to do is catch our current model of nature in a mistake. And that is what happens in science. The data doesn't fit. There's a problem in the model-- but not just a problem, a problem that is resolved if I change the model this way, instead of that way.