Is every physical theory non physical

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter jk22
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Physical Theory
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the nature of physical theories and their implications regarding the existence of a creator. Participants explore the philosophical underpinnings of scientific theories, the validity of proofs, and the relationship between science and metaphysical claims. The conversation touches on concepts from physics, philosophy, and the interpretation of evidence.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Philosophical reasoning
  • Meta-discussion

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that famous theories contain non-physical elements, citing examples like Newtonian instantaneous forces and quantum mechanics, which they claim contradict general relativity.
  • Others assert that it is impossible to prove the non-existence of a creator, emphasizing that science cannot test such claims and that belief in a creator is based on faith.
  • One participant suggests that the universe's existence itself cannot be proven, proposing a mathematical approach to the discussion.
  • Another participant challenges the validity of arguments against the existence of a creator, labeling them as logically unsound.
  • There is a contention regarding the nature of proofs, with some arguing that proofs in science differ fundamentally from those in mathematics, and that falsifiability does not equate to proof.
  • A later reply humorously suggests that the perceived universe may be a simulation, reflecting a shift in the tone of the discussion.
  • One participant expresses frustration over the philosophical nature of the discussion, suggesting it lacks scientific content and may not be suitable for the forum.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus; multiple competing views remain regarding the implications of physical theories, the nature of proofs, and the existence of a creator.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the reliance on philosophical definitions of proof and the varying interpretations of scientific theories. The discussion also reflects differing views on the intersection of science and metaphysics.

jk22
Messages
732
Reaction score
25
I noticed that famous theories have a non physical part in them :

Newtonian instantaneous forces
Quantum particles going faster than the speed of light in schroedinger mechanics.

This contradicts the maybe only physical theory that exists : general relativity.

I thought the following reasoning proves that there cannot be a creator : suppose it creates matter then the space-time would change globally instantaneously which is not physical. Hence there cannot be an act of creation. Except if spacetime is created at one point together with all the matter.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
jk22 said:
I thought the following reasoning proves that there cannot be a creator
There will never be any "proof" that there was not a creator. You cannot prove a negative. Science rejects the idea of a creator because it cannot be tested, is based on faith rather than evidence, and is unnecessary to explain the universe (and in my personal opinion is just ridiculous anyway).
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Independent and AlephNumbers
You cannot even prove that the universe exists. If you want proofs, say with maths : )
 
That would be contrary to evidence there exists some things
 
jk22 said:
That would be contrary to evidence there exists some things

But all you've done here is to show that certain things are falsifiable! You haven't proven anything! Read Popper's definition of what "science" should be.

If you really want to do this carefully and intellectually, you need to be aware what the word "proof" means, especially in logic. Otherwise, you are going to use the pedestrian definition of it, which will turn this into a vague, pointless discussion.

Zz.
 
I've seen some bad philosophy here before - which is why we banned it - but this takes the cake. The argument is "If I take a 300 year theory and an 80 year theory as examples, they are incomplete. Therefore there is no God." I'm sorry, but this is in all seriousness the worst argument I have ever heard. It is formally neither valid nor sound.
 
A proof is always falsifiable just axioms are not but they can be not admitted. Why because every step in a proof is based on faith in the axioms.
 
jk22 said:
A proof is always falsifiable just axioms are not but they can be not admitted. Why because every step in a proof is based on faith in the axioms.

But just because you can falsify something, it doesn't mean that what you had just falsified was a proof! That's my point, that what you offered was not a proof! There is no proof in science the same way there are proofs in mathematics! Or are you disputing that?

As I expected, this is going around and around in circles and nowhere fast. There's very little science content here, and it is mainly philosophy. So I don't expect this thread to survive for very long. Enjoy it while you can.

Zz.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Silicon Waffle
jk22 said:
I thought the following reasoning proves that there cannot be a creator
No, it proves that our perceived universe is just a simulation being run in a big quantum computer! Muahahahaha!
 
  • #10
Sorry, we don't argue about religion of philosophy here. This thread is closed.
 

Similar threads

Graduate Can ChatGPT Handle Complex Physics Questions Accurately?
  • · Replies 190 ·
7
Replies
190
Views
17K
Graduate Clarification regarding argument in EPR paper
  • · Replies 58 ·
2
Replies
58
Views
5K
Admissions Statement of purpose critique request (high-energy theory PhD application)
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
Graduate Looking for study group to hack on basic theory in condensed matter
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
What are some less famous equations that you must know as an undergraduate physicist?
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
5K
Graduate Game theory, quantum physics and the Bell inequality (paper)
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Undergrad Understanding Physical Processes: EM, Gravitational, Mechanical & Entropic
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Other How do physicists practically switch fields to non-adjacent subfields?
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
Graduate Exact symmetry, quantum states, and symmetric dynamics
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
Graduate What areas in physics would you like the Theory of Everything to explain?
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
5K