The World As I See It

  • Thread starter LogicalAtheist
  • Start date

LogicalAtheist

HIERACHY OF SYSTEMS IN OUR UNIVERSE

Here is the world of truth as I have come to understand it.

1. Logic - The essence of rules of THIS existance. So raw and hardwired, there's almost nothing to say of logic in itself.

2. Math - When one chooses to use units to describe THIS existance, we get math. In and of itself it is the backbone of science. To explain something in science using math is an honor, as 2 + 2 always equals 4. There is no room for question

3. Physics - When applying math to the mass (and none mass) of the universe, we get physics. It is considered the HARDEST science.

4. Chemistry - If one takes physics (and the math that comes with it) and applies it particularly to atoms in terms of joining atoms to form elements, we get chemistry.

5. Biology - When one upgrades the parts of chemistry to the level of molecules that are involved in life, we get Biology. The third of the hard sciences.

Beyond this point is a bit open for ideas

6. Ecology - When one takes biology and speaks of it on the level of a population of interacting organisms, we get this wonderful science.

So, here's an example. We could speak of the interactions of the cow bird and the oropendola, on terms of their ecological interactions. But, could we not explain this in many more words in terms of their molecules, and how they're proteins are written to so such things?

Then could we not take this further and explain it on a elementary level, rather than a molecular level.

We could go further, and describe the entire physics of every interaction which causes these organisms to do a particular relation. This would take an enourmous amount of information, but could be done.

So you see, each number can be described in incredible detail by the lower numbers. An amazing system!

NOTE: Surely some of this beyond the three hardcore sciences is open for debate. My point isn't to say this is truly the ultimate formula, but to share the way I see things, based on my education.

Thanks for listening!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
754
0
Re: HIERACHY OF SYSTEMS IN OUR UNIVERSE

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Here is the world of truth as I have come to understand it.

1. Logic - The essence of rules of THIS existance. So raw and hardwired, there's almost nothing to say of logic in itself.

2. Math - When one chooses to use units to describe THIS existance, we get math. In and of itself it is the backbone of science. To explain something in science using math is an honor, as 2 + 2 always equals 4. There is no room for question

3. Physics - When applying math to the mass (and none mass) of the universe, we get physics. It is considered the HARDEST science.

4. Chemistry - If one takes physics (and the math that comes with it) and applies it particularly to atoms in terms of joining atoms to form elements, we get chemistry.

5. Biology - When one upgrades the parts of chemistry to the level of molecules that are involved in life, we get Biology. The third of the hard sciences.

Beyond this point is a bit open for ideas

6. Ecology - When one takes biology and speaks of it on the level of a population of interacting organisms, we get this wonderful science.

So, here's an example. We could speak of the interactions of the cow bird and the oropendola, on terms of their ecological interactions. But, could we not explain this in many more words in terms of their molecules, and how they're proteins are written to so such things?

Then could we not take this further and explain it on a elementary level, rather than a molecular level.

We could go further, and describe the entire physics of every interaction which causes these organisms to do a particular relation. This would take an enourmous amount of information, but could be done.

So you see, each number can be described in incredible detail by the lower numbers. An amazing system!

NOTE: Surely some of this beyond the three hardcore sciences is open for debate. My point isn't to say this is truly the ultimate formula, but to share the way I see things, based on my education.

Thanks for listening!
Please give your definition of "hard".

Heirarchy is relative. With all matters interrelated and interdependant on each other... one "system" hardly governs the other. This is because without any one individual element of the above mentioned "systems", the others would collapse. That is what relativity is all about... it has nothing to do with "heirarchy"... it has to do with dynamics and synergistics.

In my view, that is.

"Words can only complicate the task"
Collective Soul
 

LogicalAtheist

Yeah yeah, dude you put "faith" into astrology. How could I even let what you say go into my brain!

Furthermore, you missed the entire point. Relax, you're wrong.
 

ahrkron

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
735
1
Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Yeah yeah, dude you put "faith" into astrology. How could I even let what you say go into my brain!
Furthermore, you missed the entire point. Relax, you're wrong.
Just saying "you're wrong", or "why should I listen to you?" does not contribute anything to your own thread.

Also, you did not address any of quantumcarl's comments.

Try to make your posts constructive. It has no use to just clutter a thread with posts saying "I'm right, you're not".
 

LogicalAtheist

Re: Re: HIERACHY OF SYSTEMS IN OUR UNIVERSE

Originally posted by quantumcarl
Please give your definition of "hard".

Heirarchy is relative. With all matters interrelated and interdependant on each other... one "system" hardly governs the other. This is because without any one individual element of the above mentioned "systems", the others would collapse. That is what relativity is all about... it has nothing to do with "heirarchy"... it has to do with dynamics and synergistics.

In my view, that is.

"Words can only complicate the task"
Collective Soul
Ok, then.

1. Definition of hard? It's widely considered that the 3 sciences are the hard sciences. Physics Chemistry Biology. I hardly think it's appropriate to ask what the hard sciences are.

2. Hierarchy isn't relative. It's a hierarchy. One creates a hierarchy and there it is. This isn't light speed here, it's a viewpoint

3. Certain sciences do govern other sciences. I made this strikingly clear in my statement, and it's also widely considered so in the sci com. Physics can indeed explain everything my its very nature and definition. However when one chooses to focus on a particular part of the universe, one can use a new set of laws presupposing certain physical laws. All chemical equations presuppose the truth of physics prinicpals. Likewise, Biological theories and perhaps equations also presuppose certain chem and physics truths.

4. Saying that any of the systems in the hierarchy would, if removed, collapse the others is completely untrue, and furthermore easily disprovable. Biology is the study of life. When no life existed in the universe, or IF it didn't, physical and chemical laws would still hold up. That was simple wasn't it?

5. Thus your justication for said claim that hierarchy is relative is ruined.

6. Have a nice day!
 

enigma

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
1,738
9
Re: Re: Re: HIERACHY OF SYSTEMS IN OUR UNIVERSE

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
1. Definition of hard? It's widely considered that the 3 sciences are the hard sciences. Physics Chemistry Biology. I hardly think it's appropriate to ask what the hard sciences are.
Oi.

Or you could just stop beating around the bush and explain that:

Hard sciences are those which are based on quantifiable, reproducable data.

e.g. Mix X amount of chemical A with Y amount of chemical B, and get P amount of chemical C and Q amount of chemical D. Each and every time.
e.g. 2 Pull a spring back with a block of known mass and known firing angle and the block will travel the same distance each time.

'Soft' sciences are those which are based on fluctuating data.

e.g. studying caribou populations and how they interact with predator populations. There is still lots to learn from it, but math models will usually not be able to predict exact values - only general trends.
 
204
1
LogicalAtheist said:
3. Certain sciences do govern other sciences.
.
.
.
4. Saying that any of the systems in the hierarchy would, if removed, collapse the others is completely untrue,
I don't understand how both of these statements can both be true at the same time. If a science governs another science, wouldn't it's removal collapse the other science it governs?

Personally I think it boils down to a poor choice of wording. I'd change (3) to say, certain sciences prescribes other sciences, i.e. physics prescribes chemistry, or chemistry prescribes biology. (You could substitue "is a prerequisite for" instead of "prescribes" if you prefer.)
I have to completely disagree with (4) however; would chemistry work the way it does if there were no strong nuclear force?
 

LogicalAtheist

Originally posted by J-Man
I don't understand how both of these statements can both be true at the same time. If a science governs another science, wouldn't it's removal collapse the other science it governs?
Ugh. No, the two statements make perfect sense. You're only looking at them in one direction.

LogicalAtheist said:
3. Certain sciences do govern other sciences.
4. Saying that any of the systems in the hierarchy would, if removed, collapse the others is completely untrue.

Let me reexplain since you didn't read this correctly. In my example the hierarchy goes like this:

1. Logic
2. Math
3. Physics
4. Chemistry
5. Biology

Certain science do govern others. Each numbered item is governed by the one above it. Understood?

If you remove physics you do lose everything BELOW IT. But you failed to realize that if you remove biology, nothing above biology happens.

Because Physics is in fact all other science.

So, my words were spoken flawlessly, you merely did not look at it in both directions.
 

drag

Science Advisor
1,055
0
Re: HIERACHY OF SYSTEMS IN OUR UNIVERSE

Greetings !

Isn't this a philosophical thread ?
Anyway:
Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
1. Logic - The essence of rules of THIS existance.
So raw and hardwired, there's almost nothing to
say of logic in itself.
Really ? I see...
Could you purhaps, please, still bother to tell
us all the main things on this issue (to the
unenlightened amongst us :wink:) ?

Thanks !

Live long and prosper.
 
204
1
Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Ugh. No, the two statements make perfect sense. You're only looking at them in one direction.

LogicalAtheist said:
3. Certain sciences do govern other sciences.
4. Saying that any of the systems in the hierarchy would, if removed, collapse the others is completely untrue.
Let me reexplain since you didn't read this correctly. In my example the hierarchy goes like this:

1. Logic
2. Math
3. Physics
4. Chemistry
5. Biology

Certain science do govern others. Each numbered item is governed by the one above it. Understood?
I understand what you mean by this.

If you remove physics you do lose everything BELOW IT. But you failed to realize that if you remove biology, nothing above biology happens.
I think you meant "... if you remove biology, nothing happens to the items above biology.", certainly physics still happens without biology, right? (you also said: "Biology is the study of life. When no life existed in the universe, or IF it didn't, physical and chemical laws would still hold up.") If you meant it as you typed it, it further reinforces the idea that the removal of one collapses the others.

To paraphrase, physics governs chemistry and both physics and chemistry govern biology; if physics is removed (I mean all the physical laws/properties don't exist) you lose chemistry and biology (meaning all chemical/biological laws/properties won't exist).

But what I don't understand is how losing chemistry and biology is different from the collapse of chemistry and biology. I'm thinking losing a science is the same as collapsing a science.

Because Physics is in fact all other science.

So, my words were spoken flawlessly, you merely did not look at it in both directions.
(It was obviously not "flawlessly" or your post would have immediately conveyed your precise meaning to any who read it. But that's beside the point.)
The direction is irrelevent. I need a definition for "remove", "lose" and "collapse". I am of the opinion that they mean pretty much the same thing in this context. I don't need a cut-n-paste from the dictionary, just what you mean when you use the terms, or how they differ.
 
754
0
Re: Re: Re: HIERACHY OF SYSTEMS IN OUR UNIVERSE

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Ok, then.

1. Definition of hard? It's widely considered that the 3 sciences are the hard sciences. Physics Chemistry Biology. I hardly think it's appropriate to ask what the hard sciences are.

2. Hierarchy isn't relative. It's a hierarchy. One creates a hierarchy and there it is. This isn't light speed here, it's a viewpoint

3. Certain sciences do govern other sciences. I made this strikingly clear in my statement, and it's also widely considered so in the sci com. Physics can indeed explain everything my its very nature and definition. However when one chooses to focus on a particular part of the universe, one can use a new set of laws presupposing certain physical laws. All chemical equations presuppose the truth of physics prinicpals. Likewise, Biological theories and perhaps equations also presuppose certain chem and physics truths.

4. Saying that any of the systems in the hierarchy would, if removed, collapse the others is completely untrue, and furthermore easily disprovable. Biology is the study of life. When no life existed in the universe, or IF it didn't, physical and chemical laws would still hold up. That was simple wasn't it?

5. Thus your justication for said claim that hierarchy is relative is ruined.

6. Have a nice day!
Let me point out that without biology there would be no observation of the other sciences... therefore, other sciences really rely on biology to be observable...

in which case...

heirarchy is relative as are most other states.
 

LogicalAtheist

Re: Re: Re: Re: HIERACHY OF SYSTEMS IN OUR UNIVERSE

Originally posted by quantumcarl
Let me point out that without biology there would be no observation of the other sciences... therefore, other sciences really rely on biology to be observable...

in which case...

heirarchy is relative as are most other states.
No, this claim is packed with flaws.

Biology is the study of life. At point in time there was no life, thus no biology, and the other systems held up (chemistry, physics, math, logic).

Did you not stop a second to realize your error?

My hierarchy concept is simple, it's not possible to ruin it. Each item requires only the ones ABOVE it, NOT BELOW IT.

Come on now, I shouldn't have to point things like this out!
 
754
0
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: HIERACHY OF SYSTEMS IN OUR UNIVERSE

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
No, this claim is packed with flaws.

Biology is the study of life. At point in time there was no life, thus no biology, and the other systems held up (chemistry, physics, math, logic).

Did you not stop a second to realize your error?

My hierarchy concept is simple, it's not possible to ruin it. Each item requires only the ones ABOVE it, NOT BELOW IT.

Come on now, I shouldn't have to point things like this out!
Let me put it this way:

Without the Biological System there would be absolutly no way to tell if the other systems of physics and chemistry were "holding out" or not... therefore...the observation and the qualification of physics and chemistry are wholely dependant on there being a life or "biological systems"...

thusly... moreover... futhermore... these systems and their place in any ficticious heirarchy remains relative to whether or not they are observed.

Although, I cannot disagree with one of your statements, which was raised long ago by FZ+ and myself, and goes like this:

"All Physics, All The Time".
 

LogicalAtheist

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: HIERACHY OF SYSTEMS IN OUR UNIVERSE

Originally posted by quantumcarl
Let me put it this way:

Without the Biological System there would be absolutly no way to tell if the other systems of physics and chemistry were "holding out" or not... therefore...
Absolutely and totally incorrect. How many times must I say that physics and chemistry are correct when Biology is totally disregarded? Did you even read my posts 5 times?!?

Biology does not exist in MOST space at MOST times...

Physics and chemistry aer fine.

Thus everything after your "therefore" is based on false claims.
 
754
0
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: HIERACHY OF SYSTEMS IN OUR UNIVERSE

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Absolutely and totally incorrect. How many times must I say that physics and chemistry are correct when Biology is totally disregarded? Did you even read my posts 5 times?!?

Biology does not exist in MOST space at MOST times...

Physics and chemistry aer fine.

Thus everything after your "therefore" is based on false claims.
You assume physics and chemistry are "fine" or actually exist without a biological system... but, you cannot prove it. You cannot observe Physics or Chemistry with out your own Biological System.

In order to prove that Physics and Chemistry exist somewhere beyond the Biological System, the biological system must be removed from this task. When the Biological System is out of the picture... then there is absolutely no way to prove that Physics and Chemistry exist.........

Therefore, what I've said is true... in this context... the observations and qualifications of the sciences of Physics and Chemistry are completely interdependant on the presence of a Biological System.

This is what Anthropomorphism is all about. XCept its Biopomorphism.
 

FZ+

1,550
2
LA: I think you have committed the key subjectivist fallacy here. You have conceptualised as absolute a division between physics, chemistry and biology that objectively does not exist. What is biological and what is not?
 

LogicalAtheist

OMG OMG OMG.

Why is it some people here love to try to nitpick every wording?

Of course physics and chemistry are independant of biology, come on people!

Have you not observed the physics of gravitation of other planets around the sun? It has NOTHING to do with life.

Have you not observed a chemical reaction? It has NOTHING TO DO WITH LIFE.

Why is it that this cannot so easily be seen?

Yeeesh, I'm disappointed!
 

FZ+

1,550
2
But didn't we all accept that "life" does not objectively exist as a concept?
Biology has nothing to do with life!:wink: It has to do with the study of systems which the studier considers as living. Someone could conclude all chemical processes are life-like processes.

Subjectivist fallacy. Tut tut tut.
 

LogicalAtheist

Originally posted by FZ+
But didn't we all accept that "life" does not objectively exist as a concept?
Biology has nothing to do with life!:wink: It has to do with the study of systems which the studier considers as living. Someone could conclude all chemical processes are life-like processes.

Subjectivist fallacy. Tut tut tut.

FZ - I guess you don't know what the subjectivist fallacy is.

And no one with a sense would condlude that.

The definition of Biology is the study of life. SImple as that, humans invented this study, so we define it.

Learn.
 
110
0
Re: HIERACHY OF SYSTEMS IN OUR UNIVERSE

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Here is the world of truth as I have come to understand it.

1. Logic - The essence of rules of THIS existance. So raw and hardwired, there's almost nothing to say of logic in itself.

2. Math - When one chooses to use units to describe THIS existance, we get math. In and of itself it is the backbone of science. To explain something in science using math is an honor, as 2 + 2 always equals 4. There is no room for question

3. Physics - When applying math to the mass (and none mass) of the universe, we get physics. It is considered the HARDEST science.

4. Chemistry - If one takes physics (and the math that comes with it) and applies it particularly to atoms in terms of joining atoms to form elements, we get chemistry.

5. Biology - When one upgrades the parts of chemistry to the level of molecules that are involved in life, we get Biology. The third of the hard sciences.

Beyond this point is a bit open for ideas

Thanks for listening!
i absolutely agree!my own conceptions begin with physics however.i am a little "wooly" about how we get the laws of maths (2+2=4 etc.)are derived in the first place,the formal language of logic as well as what exactly does mathematics aims to do(apart from serving as the backbone of other sciences).some illumination is welcome.the definition you give for chemistry is a bit unconvincing made up as it is of such ill-defined terms as "joining"-anyway chemistry is not finished with the formations of elements is it?we have compounds,complex organic compounds which is the gateway of of biology.anyway can you unambiguously define life?my own hierarchy goes a bit like this:
1)logic with mathematics as a subset.i shall not try to define it as i am not fully conversant with their basics(which does not begin with memorising the rules 2+2=4 as many no doubt think)these comprise of the set of methods by which one obtains, analyses and interprets incoming information to understand whatever one wishes to know.if information is adequate then the application of logic>maths will give us the same conclusion no matter who applies it or how many times it is applied.
then comes the field of conclusions(read laws)we derive by applying 1.now since available info is about the universe we live in all laws derived by logical analysis concern entities residing in this universe.i shall compartmentalise the laws by ground first approach.suppose A is the set of laws which are followed by all entities in the universe.THIS IS PHYSICS.now a subset of these entities are elements and compounds.the set of laws followed by elements and compounds only, when they interact with each other is CHEMISTRY.interaction between elements form molecules which again interact with each other to form new molecules etc.all this is chemistry.now a system of mutually interacting molecules which tends to consistently decrease the entropy within itself is a subset of the entities over which chemistry works.the laws that are followed by this subset and not anything else constitutes BIOLOGY.thus we see,PHYSICS>CHEMISTRY>BIOLOGY.none is independant of each other.but the hierarchy exists nonetheless.
jman and you were quibbling needlessly.what you mean by removal j man means by collapse.
yes Qcarl if there were no intelligence in the universe there would be nobody to "discover" these laws and hence nobody to state whether there exists a universe even.but universe is simply there irrespective of any entity within it which can say 'yes it's there all right"!but that's the domain of philosophy.not relevant in this thread.
 
Last edited:

LogicalAtheist

Re: Re: HIERACHY OF SYSTEMS IN OUR UNIVERSE

Sounds good to me!

I actually consider logic to be a subset of math. Because most of logic can be expressed mathematically. Also, there is a bit of logic that can't such as fallacies etc... however to me these are just guidelines for writing "logical" arguments etc...

The concept of claims and premises works well in science. But I would just consider this a writing guide, nothing unique.

So actually logic might just be within math, because logic is the parameters of the universe but math can certainly describe these easily.


Originally posted by sage
i absolutely agree!my own conceptions begin with physics however.i am a little "wooly" about how we get the laws of maths (2+2=4 etc.)are derived in the first place,the formal language of logic as well as what exactly does mathematics aims to do(apart from serving as the backbone of other sciences).some illumination is welcome.the definition you give for chemistry is a bit unconvincing made up as it is of such ill-defined terms as "joining"-anyway chemistry is not finished with the formations of elements is it?we have compounds,complex organic compounds which is the gateway of of biology.anyway can you unambiguously define life?my own hierarchy goes a bit like this:
1)logic with mathematics as a subset.i shall not try to define it as i am not fully conversant with their basics(which does not begin with memorising the rules 2+2=4 as many no doubt think)these comprise of the set of methods by which one obtains, analyses and interprets incoming information to understand whatever one wishes to know.if information is adequate then the application of logic>maths will give us the same conclusion no matter who applies it or how many times it is applied.
then comes the field of conclusions(read laws)we derive by applying 1.now since available info is about the universe we live in all laws derived by logical analysis concern entities residing in this universe.i shall compartmentalise the laws by ground first approach.suppose A is the set of laws which are followed by all entities in the universe.THIS IS PHYSICS.now a subset of these entities are elements and compounds.the set of laws followed by elements and compounds only, when they interact with each other is CHEMISTRY.interaction between elements form molecules which again interact with each other to form new molecules etc.all this is chemistry.now a system of mutually interacting molecules which tends to consistently decrease the entropy within itself is a subset of the entities over which chemistry works.the laws that are followed by this subset and not anything else constitutes BIOLOGY.thus we see,PHYSICS>CHEMISTRY>BIOLOGY.none is independant of each other.but the hierarchy exists nonetheless.
jman and you were quibbling needlessly.what you mean by removal j man means by collapse.
yes Qcarl if there were no intelligence in the universe there would be nobody to "discover" these laws and hence nobody to state whether there exists a universe even.but universe is simply there irrespective of any entity within it which can say 'yes it's there all right"!but that's the domain of philosophy.not relevant in this thread.
 

FZ+

1,550
2
Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
FZ - I guess you don't know what the subjectivist fallacy is.

And no one with a sense would condlude that.

The definition of Biology is the study of life. SImple as that, humans invented this study, so we define it.

Learn.
I get the feeling that ironically, your definition of the subjectivist fallacy is in itself a subjectivist fallacy - an imposition of personal subjective definitions as expressions of objective reality.

You see, IMHO, this view of the world can only extend to you, and your definitions of life etc that imply the above hierachy. Since you have defined life etc to be derivatives of physics, and physics to be derivatives of mathematics etc, it is of course logical that this hierachy develops. However, you cannot then say that this hierachy is objective "fact" as you suggest. It is however particular to your personal view of these things. Hell, I agree with your system in most part. But... it is not universal. That's the point.
 
1,037
1
quantumcarl:

Your statement that "thusly... moreover... futhermore... these systems and their place in any ficticious heirarchy remains relative to whether or not they are observed" is extremely anthropocentric. It is equivalent to claiming that a tree can't fall if nobody is there to observe it. The study of physics and chemistry would not exist without sentient beings, but the phenomena surely would (and did) exist without us.

LogicalAthiest:

I would not consider logic to be a subset of math, but the other way around. Math is a subset of logic. Logic provides the framework that is necessary to develop and justify mathematical principles.

So your hierarchy was fine as you originally enumerated it, but all it says is that one field of study provides the foundation for the next, and so on...

That does not justify your conclusion that this hierarchy somehow proves that the universe is completely deterministic.
We could go further, and describe the entire physics of every interaction which causes these organisms to do a particular relation. This would take an enourmous amount of information, but could be done.
Absolutely not! Physics does not tell us what every electron, every atom, even every molecule, will do. It only tells us the relative probabilities of the various things they might do. So when you get up to the level of complexity of the interaction of two biological organisms, you could never predict the exact outcome of the interaction even if it were possible to isolate your subjects from all outside influences (which in itself is impossible).

(By the way, what is the Superimposition Error?)
 
754
0
Originally posted by gnome
quantumcarl:

Your statement that "thusly... moreover... futhermore... these systems and their place in any ficticious heirarchy remains relative to whether or not they are observed" is extremely anthropocentric. It is equivalent to claiming that a tree can't fall if nobody is there to observe it. The study of physics and chemistry would not exist without sentient beings, but the phenomena surely would (and did) exist without us.
Firstly, I'll admit that I am of the camp which believes there is a noise in the forest when a tree falls... even if I don't hear it.

However... my conclusion, in this case of "if a tree falls...", is, as FZ+ calls it, a "subjective fallacy". I have no way to prove to you that a tree has fallen if I don't (have a biological system to) go and gather the data that supports my assumption.

This also applys to what you have written above... you say:

"the phenomena (of physics and chemistry) surely would (and did) exist without us."....... and I say......... you can not prove it without the use of a biological system... also known as "life". There's no way.

And, for now, it is my considered opinion...

now that we have come this far on such a mundane subject (which belongs in the Philosophy Area, by my calculations)

that Biological Systems are the actual foundation of any perceived heirarchy amoung the sciences... because it is by way of biological processes that these sciences were perceived, conceived, were observed and were recorded.
 
Last edited:

Related Threads for: The World As I See It

Replies
11
Views
3K
Replies
43
Views
16K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • Posted
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
39
Views
5K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
25
Views
5K

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving

Hot Threads

Top