Is Physics the Ultimate Authority?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Wishbone
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Physics
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the nature of physics and its laws, questioning whether these laws are absolute or merely descriptive models of observed phenomena. Participants explore the implications of breaking these laws and the logic behind their validity, touching on philosophical aspects of scientific inquiry.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that physics consists of descriptions or models of observed events, questioning the necessity for these models to be absolute.
  • Others argue that scientific laws are based on inductive reasoning from repeated observations, suggesting that while laws may change, they are generally reliable until proven otherwise.
  • A participant challenges the idea that laws of physics cannot be broken, stating that there is nothing in the observable universe preventing such violations.
  • Some contributors emphasize that laws are not absolute rules but rather observations expressed mathematically, which may not account for all possible phenomena.
  • There is a discussion about the burden of proof regarding the breakability of physical laws, with some asserting that proving laws are breakable is logically impossible.
  • One participant introduces the idea that the existence of fundamental laws of physics may depend on an underlying mathematical structure that perfectly describes the universe.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views, with no consensus on whether the laws of physics are absolute or merely descriptive. The discussion remains unresolved, with competing perspectives on the nature and validity of these laws.

Contextual Notes

Some statements reflect uncertainty regarding the definitions of laws versus descriptions in physics, and there are unresolved questions about the implications of breaking these laws.

  • #31
To Orion

Once the brain learns something and accepts it as a fact, it is extremely difficult for you to unlearn and reinterpret what is happening.

Given a simple example
If u would ask any given human to identify the color blue, they would all mostly say yes I see that color is it called blue.

The brain is seeing blue because of sub-atomic particles which make up a certain specific pattern which creates this certain pattern of light which the brain has been thought to identify as the color blue.

however if we ask let's say someone that we call "color blind" to identify the same color he/she will call it a totally different color, he might call it RED, why ? ...is that person really "color blind”? According to us he is...he’s not identifying the colors correctly, correct?

or is it simply because at some early age he wasn’t taught how to identify colors ?, the answer is we will never know the truth, simply because colors can't really be identified, there seems to be a law that says what colors are what...but where does that law really exist ?

In the mind? Or in the physical world?

u see the color blind person some where along the line his / her brain didn’t accept the normal way the majority of the people define colors, the brain incoherently assigned a different color pattern to sub-atomic structures reflecting transecting light into color.

And the book I would suggest reading.. To you is

Hypnosis - theory, practice and application
written by psychologist - Raphael H. Rhodes

this book gives detailed examples of how the use of hypnosis can be applied and HAS been applied for the use of altering known physical laws by alterations made directly on how the brain interoperates physical stimulus.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Agent C.I said:
now it is known that certain "retarded" people can actually deify the natural laws around them...for instances there was a retarded person who could actually clime up and down walls, his brain wasn’t able to comprehend he wasn’t able to accomplish this, so that limitation didn’t exist for him and through the way his brain interpreted the situation, he was able to defy the law of gravity...thus allowing him to walk up and down walls and ceilings...

Where did you hear this? I can't believe anyone else hasn't asked this yet. Can you produce any evidence of this?
 
  • #33
Okay, this has gone far enough.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 99 ·
4
Replies
99
Views
8K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
598
  • · Replies 190 ·
7
Replies
190
Views
17K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
821
  • · Replies 58 ·
2
Replies
58
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 90 ·
4
Replies
90
Views
6K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K