Hello everyone!
I`m by no means a physicist. But I`m highly interested in the philosophical implications of the insights of physics. That`s why I need your help. I have a question - full of far-reaching consequences - concerning which I couldn`t find any helpful literature yet:
Is the world of physics consistent (in the traditional logical sense) or is it possible to find "real-life" contradictions?
When we think of a satellite surrounding earth - the satellite at the same time falls down to earth and flys off in the opposite direction. Gravitation and centrifugal force have an impact on the satellite at the same time. In fact, they work against each other, they fight each other, they pull the object in opposite directions. Only because of this contradiction the satellite is able to maintain its course around the earth, isn`t it?
So, is this a "real-life" contradiction?
QUOTE (Black Swan+Mar 7 2012, 03:12 PM)
When we think of a satellite surrounding earth - the satellite at the same time falls down to earth and flys off in the opposite direction. Gravitation and centrifugal force have an impact on the satellite at the same time. In fact, they work against each other, they fight each other, they pull the object in opposite directions. Only because of this contradiction the satellite is able to maintain its course around the earth, isn`t it?
So, is this a "real-life" contradiction?
No it more like a compromise rather than a contradiction.
Hi Swan,
Think "polarity" rather than contradiction... positive and negative charge in balance in atoms and in magnetic force... the "whatever" force making the cosmos expand and the universal law of gravitation...
Think "polarity" rather than contradiction... positive and negative charge in balance in atoms and in magnetic force... the "whatever" force making the cosmos expand and the universal law of gravitation...
This is an equilibrium of forces.
Thanks a lot for your answers!
I'm aware that the term "contradiction" is rather unconventional in this context. But let's not get into questions of language and terms and definitions too quick here. I'm interested in whats actually happening. And if what makes it happening has some kind of contradictory element to it - whatever name you may give it in the end.
In the case of a satellite: is it true to say...
1. the satellite falls down to earth and at the same time flys off in the opposite direction?
2. what makes the satellite move the way it does is an equilibrium of opposed forces?
I'm aware that the term "contradiction" is rather unconventional in this context. But let's not get into questions of language and terms and definitions too quick here. I'm interested in whats actually happening. And if what makes it happening has some kind of contradictory element to it - whatever name you may give it in the end.
In the case of a satellite: is it true to say...
1. the satellite falls down to earth and at the same time flys off in the opposite direction?
2. what makes the satellite move the way it does is an equilibrium of opposed forces?
QUOTE (Black Swan+Mar 8 2012, 12:47 AM)
Thanks a lot for your answers!
I'm aware that the term "contradiction" is rather unconventional in this context. But let's not get into questions of language and terms and definitions too quick here. I'm interested in whats actually happening. And if what makes it happening has some kind of contradictory element to it - whatever name you may give it in the end.
In the case of a satellite: is it true to say...
1. the satellite falls down to earth and at the same time flys off in the opposite direction?
2. what makes the satellite move the way it does is an equilibrium of opposed forces?
Yes it is in an orbit where the velocity and height from the Earth is such that the gravitational force equals the centrifugal force. (centrifugal or centripetal (one or the other) force.)
I'm aware that the term "contradiction" is rather unconventional in this context. But let's not get into questions of language and terms and definitions too quick here. I'm interested in whats actually happening. And if what makes it happening has some kind of contradictory element to it - whatever name you may give it in the end.
In the case of a satellite: is it true to say...
1. the satellite falls down to earth and at the same time flys off in the opposite direction?
2. what makes the satellite move the way it does is an equilibrium of opposed forces?
Yes it is in an orbit where the velocity and height from the Earth is such that the gravitational force equals the centrifugal force. (centrifugal or centripetal (one or the other) force.)
Thanks, Robittybob, for the precise description.
Now, if it's true that the satellite falls down to earth and at the same time flys off in the opposite direction... this could possibly have far-ranging implications for some of the most basic assumptions and dogmas in philosophy, such as the Law of Non-Contradiction. But to make sure I don't jump to a conclusion too hasty, there are two further questions to clarify:
1. Is the satellite an exceptional case, inasmuch as it's orbit is generated by two opposed forces which pull the object in diametrical directions? Or is this the case for all orbits of all celestial bodies? Or can we go even further and say this phenomena comes into effect in a lot or most areas of physical reality? Can you think of any other examples?
2. On the one side is the phenomena, on the other side the philosophical interpretation. What is the most appropriate interpretation? Robittybob proposed to call it a compromise. A compromise is a settlement of differences in which each side makes concessions. The purpose of a compromise is to avoid conflict. So, is it appropriate to say gravitational force and centrifugal force each make concessions in order to avoid a conflict here? Or would it be more appropriate to notice that there actually is a conflict? A constant conflict between opposed forces leading to a positive (=productive) result?
Now, if it's true that the satellite falls down to earth and at the same time flys off in the opposite direction... this could possibly have far-ranging implications for some of the most basic assumptions and dogmas in philosophy, such as the Law of Non-Contradiction. But to make sure I don't jump to a conclusion too hasty, there are two further questions to clarify:
1. Is the satellite an exceptional case, inasmuch as it's orbit is generated by two opposed forces which pull the object in diametrical directions? Or is this the case for all orbits of all celestial bodies? Or can we go even further and say this phenomena comes into effect in a lot or most areas of physical reality? Can you think of any other examples?
2. On the one side is the phenomena, on the other side the philosophical interpretation. What is the most appropriate interpretation? Robittybob proposed to call it a compromise. A compromise is a settlement of differences in which each side makes concessions. The purpose of a compromise is to avoid conflict. So, is it appropriate to say gravitational force and centrifugal force each make concessions in order to avoid a conflict here? Or would it be more appropriate to notice that there actually is a conflict? A constant conflict between opposed forces leading to a positive (=productive) result?
These are the most basic concepts of orbital dynamics.
Have you ever taken ANY physics courses? Or even basic science courses in elementary school?
Have you ever taken ANY physics courses? Or even basic science courses in elementary school?
You can't say it affects ALL orbits for when they studied the stars in orbit in their galaxy they tell me the stars were moving faster than what can be accounted for by the above compromise. That is why Dark Matter was proposed; to account for the apparent lost gravitational mass. Don't get me to explain it for I don't understand that.
The contradiction that always fascinates me is to get a satellite into a higher orbit you have to speed it up but as it settles in to the new orbit it will be slower than before. So you speed it up to slow it down. Explain that one?
The contradiction that always fascinates me is to get a satellite into a higher orbit you have to speed it up but as it settles in to the new orbit it will be slower than before. So you speed it up to slow it down. Explain that one?
Thanks AlexG for the encouragement! And for sharing your great insights with us.
In my experience, in whatever science you`re diving into: it is always "the most basic concepts" that give rise to the most complex and far-reaching problems. Why? Because they are basic. Many other things depend on them. So why not starting as naive and simple-minded as possible... in order to avoid the typical "I have studied science - I know how things work", when in reality you may know a lot of terms and pretty good explanations but have not understood what`s going on from the inside: as something that has become a part of you. It is always the hypocrite who thinks he knows who is furthest away from knowing.
Anyway, I`m interested in understanding orbits. In order to really understand you first need to know the physical facts. But only knowing facts doesn`t mean to fully understand. In a second step, based on the facts, you need to make a philosophical interpretation. This is the hardest part, as you can see in the wild discussions about the most appropriate interpretation of quantum physics.
Now, I asked the question if we should interpret the functioning of orbits as a compromise or a conflict. Which one is more appropriate?
In my experience, in whatever science you`re diving into: it is always "the most basic concepts" that give rise to the most complex and far-reaching problems. Why? Because they are basic. Many other things depend on them. So why not starting as naive and simple-minded as possible... in order to avoid the typical "I have studied science - I know how things work", when in reality you may know a lot of terms and pretty good explanations but have not understood what`s going on from the inside: as something that has become a part of you. It is always the hypocrite who thinks he knows who is furthest away from knowing.
Anyway, I`m interested in understanding orbits. In order to really understand you first need to know the physical facts. But only knowing facts doesn`t mean to fully understand. In a second step, based on the facts, you need to make a philosophical interpretation. This is the hardest part, as you can see in the wild discussions about the most appropriate interpretation of quantum physics.
Now, I asked the question if we should interpret the functioning of orbits as a compromise or a conflict. Which one is more appropriate?
QUOTE (Black Swan+Mar 8 2012, 06:28 PM)
Thanks AlexG for the encouragement! And for sharing your great insights with us.
In my experience, in whatever science you`re diving into: it is always "the most basic concepts" that give rise to the most complex and far-reaching problems. Why? Because they are basic. Many other things depend on them. So why not starting as naive and simple-minded as possible... in order to avoid the typical "I have studied science - I know how things work", when in reality you may know a lot of terms and pretty good explanations but have not understood what`s going on from the inside: as something that has become a part of you. It is always the hypocrite who thinks he knows who is furthest away from knowing.
Anyway, I`m interested in understanding orbits. In order to really understand you first need to know the physical facts. But only knowing facts doesn`t mean to fully understand. In a second step, based on the facts, you need to make a philosophical interpretation. This is the hardest part, as you can see in the wild discussions about the most appropriate interpretation of quantum physics.
Now, I asked the question if we should interpret the functioning of orbits as a compromise or a conflict. Which one is more appropriate?
What about compromise to a conflict? As the satellite said to the planet "Lets settle into this orbit but if you let go or I slow down we will have to renegotiate the distance between us"
In my experience, in whatever science you`re diving into: it is always "the most basic concepts" that give rise to the most complex and far-reaching problems. Why? Because they are basic. Many other things depend on them. So why not starting as naive and simple-minded as possible... in order to avoid the typical "I have studied science - I know how things work", when in reality you may know a lot of terms and pretty good explanations but have not understood what`s going on from the inside: as something that has become a part of you. It is always the hypocrite who thinks he knows who is furthest away from knowing.
Anyway, I`m interested in understanding orbits. In order to really understand you first need to know the physical facts. But only knowing facts doesn`t mean to fully understand. In a second step, based on the facts, you need to make a philosophical interpretation. This is the hardest part, as you can see in the wild discussions about the most appropriate interpretation of quantum physics.
Now, I asked the question if we should interpret the functioning of orbits as a compromise or a conflict. Which one is more appropriate?
What about compromise to a conflict? As the satellite said to the planet "Lets settle into this orbit but if you let go or I slow down we will have to renegotiate the distance between us"
QUOTE (Black Swan+Mar 8 2012, 01:28 PM)
Thanks AlexG for the encouragement! And for sharing your great insights with us.
So I'll take that as 'no, I've never studied any science'.
Go get a basic book on orbital mechanics and read it.
Then, if your questions are still unaswered, ask them.
But some basic education would be a good thing for you to have.
Neither. It's the laws of physics working in harmony.
So I'll take that as 'no, I've never studied any science'.
Go get a basic book on orbital mechanics and read it.
Then, if your questions are still unaswered, ask them.
But some basic education would be a good thing for you to have.
QUOTE
if we should interpret the functioning of orbits as a compromise or a conflict
Neither. It's the laws of physics working in harmony.
QUOTE (AlexG+Mar 8 2012, 07:00 PM)
Neither. It's the laws of physics working in harmony.
Compromise to a conflict results in Harmony!
QUOTE
So I'll take that as 'no, I've never studied any science'.
Wrong premises, wrong conclusion.
If you`re not interested in philosophical interpretations of physical facts, why are you wasting your time in this threat?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| So I'll take that as 'no, I've never studied any science'. |
Wrong premises, wrong conclusion.
If you`re not interested in philosophical interpretations of physical facts, why are you wasting your time in this threat?
It's the laws of physics working in harmony.
Wow. All you have to say about the question is repeating an assumption the greeks came up with 2500 years ago. You read your basic books, that`s for sure. If you had gone a little further into the history and philosophy of science you would know that this is one of the most controversial questions ever.
Is it really true to say: the universe is in harmony with itself? Is harmony the most appropriate term here? Or should we include conflict and the antagonism of opposites as major principles of all laws of physics?
QUOTE (Black Swan+Mar 9 2012, 08:06 AM)
Wrong premises, wrong conclusion.
If you`re not interested in philosophical interpretations of physical facts, why are you wasting your time in this threat?
Wow. All you have to say about the question is repeating an assumption the greeks came up with 2500 years ago. You read your basic books, that`s for sure. If you had gone a little further into the history and philosophy of science you would know that this is one of the most controversial questions ever.
Is it really true to say: the universe is in harmony with itself? Is harmony the most appropriate term here? Or should we include conflict and the antagonism of opposites as major principles of all laws of physics?
Any philosophical interpretation is bound to fail if the physical facts are not understood. From your description, this appears to be the case. Antagonism? Why would you anthropomorphize physical laws?
QUOTE
From your description, this appears to be the case.
Help me out here? In how far?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| From your description, this appears to be the case. |
Help me out here? In how far?
Antagonism? Why would you anthropomorphize physical laws?
I know, this is a huge problem when it comes to interpretations of physical laws. By interpreting we`re trying to translate mathematical formulas into everyday language. Everyday language is always anthropomorphic. "Working in harmony", "compromise", "conflict", "polarity", "laws" and even your "equilibrium of forces" - all of them have their roots in human language.
Are you trying to say we`re not allowed to make an interpretation by using everyday language?
QUOTE (Black Swan+Mar 9 2012, 08:56 AM)
Help me out here? In how far?
I know, this is a huge problem when it comes to interpretations of physical laws. By interpreting we`re trying to translate mathematical formulas into everyday language. Everyday language is always anthropomorphic. "Working in harmony", "compromise", "conflict", "polarity", "laws" and even your "equilibrium of forces" - all of them have their roots in human language.
Are you trying to say we`re not allowed to make an interpretation by using everyday language?
If the physical situation were an actual contradiction, both forces could not mutually exist. They do, and a stable orbit is actually the result of these forces working in unison to achieve a result. Without either one a stable orbit could not exist, so it is untenable to consider them contradictory.
I think the word you're looking for is anthropocentric, not anthropomorphic. Our language is necessarily anthropocentric, but this does not make everything anthropomorphic. This is a very important distinction.
Thanks synthsin75! I think I know what you mean when you distinguish between anthropocentric and anthropomorphic. But how do you distinguish clearly when it comes to interpretations of physical laws? Saying "antagonism of opposites resulting in a stable orbit" is anthropomorphic, but saying "forces working in unison to achieve a stable orbit" is only anthropocentric?
If you leave out the word "contradiction" for a second - would you go as far as saying there is no conflict involved whatsoever?
If you leave out the word "contradiction" for a second - would you go as far as saying there is no conflict involved whatsoever?
QUOTE (Black Swan+Mar 9 2012, 05:27 PM)
Thanks synthsin75! I think I know what you mean when you distinguish between anthropocentric and anthropomorphic. But how do you distinguish clearly when it comes to interpretations of physical laws? Saying "antagonism of opposites resulting in a stable orbit" is anthropomorphic, but saying "forces working in unison to achieve a stable orbit" is only anthropocentric?
If you leave out the word "contradiction" for a second - would you go as far as saying there is no conflict involved whatsoever?
One of the forces is a fictitious force. They have just made it up it is "fictional".
So if you are having a conflict with a fictitious fictional character you are the one in need of care.
So by this argument we are all idiots for we are discussing made up forces.
If you leave out the word "contradiction" for a second - would you go as far as saying there is no conflict involved whatsoever?
One of the forces is a fictitious force. They have just made it up it is "fictional".
So if you are having a conflict with a fictitious fictional character you are the one in need of care.
So by this argument we are all idiots for we are discussing made up forces.
The example you quote has NO conflict.
Conflict occurs when you have two statements and each says or implies that the other is incorrect.
In satellite case, they are both correct.
Imagine we are two little boys fighting over who will play with the new toy, They are both pulling on the toy. That is not a contradiction. If they both pull equally, the toy remains in the grasp of both of them. If one pulls very hard, he/she gets the toy.
(Sorry! I should have been sexist. She will get the toy by guile and not by force.
The earth is pulling it down and the centrifugal force is pulling it outwards and neither is winning.
A better description is that the satellite wants to fly in a straight line, rather than a circle around the earth. The gravity of the earth provides a force that is just enough to bend the straight line into a circle around the earth; such a force is known as a centripetal force. (I added this alternative version to clarify the previous contribution). But again, you have a balance between the natural law that makes something naturally want to fly in a straight line and gravity that wants it to crash into the earth. However, the satellite has been cunningly flow at a speed and height such that the two influences cancel one another out.
(I just thought 'Man is a clever animal', when I also thought 'who put the moon there?' :
)
To answer your original question. There are many contradictions in Physics, but nearer to the boundaries of our understanding. The 'Uncertainty Principle' says that electron, light waves etc are both particles and waves at the same time. There are some people who even deny that this is a contradiction. But to make it look as though it is not a contradiction, a lot of theory has been added to the 'Universal Model', And despite this additional theory, there are lots of examples where the theory and real facts contradict one another. These are real contradictions in the philosophical sense you are talking about. (I think!!!)
Conflict occurs when you have two statements and each says or implies that the other is incorrect.
In satellite case, they are both correct.
Imagine we are two little boys fighting over who will play with the new toy, They are both pulling on the toy. That is not a contradiction. If they both pull equally, the toy remains in the grasp of both of them. If one pulls very hard, he/she gets the toy.
(Sorry! I should have been sexist. She will get the toy by guile and not by force.
The earth is pulling it down and the centrifugal force is pulling it outwards and neither is winning.
A better description is that the satellite wants to fly in a straight line, rather than a circle around the earth. The gravity of the earth provides a force that is just enough to bend the straight line into a circle around the earth; such a force is known as a centripetal force. (I added this alternative version to clarify the previous contribution). But again, you have a balance between the natural law that makes something naturally want to fly in a straight line and gravity that wants it to crash into the earth. However, the satellite has been cunningly flow at a speed and height such that the two influences cancel one another out.
(I just thought 'Man is a clever animal', when I also thought 'who put the moon there?' :
)To answer your original question. There are many contradictions in Physics, but nearer to the boundaries of our understanding. The 'Uncertainty Principle' says that electron, light waves etc are both particles and waves at the same time. There are some people who even deny that this is a contradiction. But to make it look as though it is not a contradiction, a lot of theory has been added to the 'Universal Model', And despite this additional theory, there are lots of examples where the theory and real facts contradict one another. These are real contradictions in the philosophical sense you are talking about. (I think!!!)
QUOTE (Gilbert Rooke+Mar 9 2012, 06:57 PM)
The example you quote has NO conflict.
Conflict occurs when you have two statements and each says or implies that the other is incorrect.
In satellite case, they are both correct.
Imagine we are two little boys fighting over who will play with the new toy, They are both pulling on the toy. That is not a contradiction. If they both pull equally, the toy remains in the grasp of both of them. If one pulls very hard, he/she gets the toy.
(Sorry! I should have been sexist. She will get the toy by guile and not by force.
The earth is pulling it down and the centrifugal force is pulling it outwards and neither is winning.
A better description is that the satellite wants to fly in a straight line, rather than a circle around the earth. The gravity of the earth provides a force that is just enough to bend the straight line into a circle around the earth; such a force is known as a centripetal force. (I added this alternative version to clarify the previous contribution). But again, you have a balance between the natural law that makes something naturally want to fly in a straight line and gravity that wants it to crash into the earth. However, the satellite has been cunningly flow at a speed and height such that the two influences cancel one another out.
(I just thought 'Man is a clever animal', when I also thought 'who put the moon there?' : )
To answer your original question. There are many contradictions in Physics, but nearer to the boundaries of our understanding. The 'Uncertainty Principle' says that electron, light waves etc are both particles and waves at the same time. There are some people who even deny that this is a contradiction. But to make it look as though it is not a contradiction, a lot of theory has been added to the 'Universal Model', And despite this additional theory, there are lots of examples where the theory and real facts contradict one another. These are real contradictions in the philosophical sense you are talking about. (I think!!!)
So are there 3 forces and not just two for you mention gravitational, centrifugal and centripetal forces?
Conflict occurs when you have two statements and each says or implies that the other is incorrect.
In satellite case, they are both correct.
Imagine we are two little boys fighting over who will play with the new toy, They are both pulling on the toy. That is not a contradiction. If they both pull equally, the toy remains in the grasp of both of them. If one pulls very hard, he/she gets the toy.
(Sorry! I should have been sexist. She will get the toy by guile and not by force.
The earth is pulling it down and the centrifugal force is pulling it outwards and neither is winning.
A better description is that the satellite wants to fly in a straight line, rather than a circle around the earth. The gravity of the earth provides a force that is just enough to bend the straight line into a circle around the earth; such a force is known as a centripetal force. (I added this alternative version to clarify the previous contribution). But again, you have a balance between the natural law that makes something naturally want to fly in a straight line and gravity that wants it to crash into the earth. However, the satellite has been cunningly flow at a speed and height such that the two influences cancel one another out.
(I just thought 'Man is a clever animal', when I also thought 'who put the moon there?' :
)To answer your original question. There are many contradictions in Physics, but nearer to the boundaries of our understanding. The 'Uncertainty Principle' says that electron, light waves etc are both particles and waves at the same time. There are some people who even deny that this is a contradiction. But to make it look as though it is not a contradiction, a lot of theory has been added to the 'Universal Model', And despite this additional theory, there are lots of examples where the theory and real facts contradict one another. These are real contradictions in the philosophical sense you are talking about. (I think!!!)
So are there 3 forces and not just two for you mention gravitational, centrifugal and centripetal forces?
Welcome to the discussion, Gilbert... well founded and helpful opinion!
I have only two objections.
1.
What you define as conflict: isn`t that rather a special case of conflict? As far as I know, "two statements which say or imply that the other is incorrect" is exactly the definition of an antinomy, not conflict in general (at least, that`s how Kant uses the term in his critique of pure reason). Conflict - as we use the term in everyday life, science, politics, economics, philosophy, etc. - is much more comprehensive.
So, how to define conflict without disregarding possible meanings of the term? Rather difficult task!
2.
What you define as conflict: isn`t that rather a special case of conflict? As far as I know, "two statements which say or imply that the other is incorrect" is exactly the definition of an antinomy, not conflict in general (at least, that`s how Kant uses the term in his critique of pure reason). Conflict - as we use the term in everyday life, science, politics, economics, philosophy, etc. - is much more comprehensive.
So, how to define conflict without disregarding possible meanings of the term? Rather difficult task!
2.
Imagine we are two little boys fighting over who will play with the new toy, They are both pulling on the toy... If they both pull equally, the toy remains in the grasp of both of them.
Two boys fighting over a toy. Both pull equally, the toy remains in the grasp of both of them:
Isn`t that exactly how you would describe a conflict???
Interestingly, the scientists you quote: Albert Einstein and Niels Bohr, but no less Werner Heisenberg, Wolfgang Pauli, Max Planck, Erwin Schroedinger, Max Born, even Newton... they all were highly interested in the philosophical interpretations of their theories and physics in general. As you can read in their autobiographies and essays, they literally fought for an adequate expression of the physical findings. For them, to some degree discussions about semantics was a necessary part of understanding. They would have laughed about your ignorance!
And shaken their heads in disgust of your ignorance of any kind of physical science.
And shaken their heads in disgust of your ignorance of any kind of physical science.
they all were highly interested in the philosophical interpretations of their theories and physics in general
Yes, but the point is, they had actual predictive theories to interpret, whereas you simply have word salad.
And shaken their heads in disgust of your ignorance of any kind of physical science.
Hey Alex, seems like we`re sitting in the same boat. We may learn from each other. At least, I would like to learn from you. Honestly, I would be grateful if you could explain where exactly I ignore physical facts. (Please, don`t just repeat: "there is no conflict because all the universe is in sweet harmony". That is neither an explanation, nor a physical fact. It is an assumption and a semantic interpretation you take for granted without giving reasons.)
I have only two objections.
1.
QUOTE
Conflict occurs when you have two statements and each says or implies that the other is incorrect.
What you define as conflict: isn`t that rather a special case of conflict? As far as I know, "two statements which say or imply that the other is incorrect" is exactly the definition of an antinomy, not conflict in general (at least, that`s how Kant uses the term in his critique of pure reason). Conflict - as we use the term in everyday life, science, politics, economics, philosophy, etc. - is much more comprehensive.
So, how to define conflict without disregarding possible meanings of the term? Rather difficult task!
2.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Conflict occurs when you have two statements and each says or implies that the other is incorrect. |
What you define as conflict: isn`t that rather a special case of conflict? As far as I know, "two statements which say or imply that the other is incorrect" is exactly the definition of an antinomy, not conflict in general (at least, that`s how Kant uses the term in his critique of pure reason). Conflict - as we use the term in everyday life, science, politics, economics, philosophy, etc. - is much more comprehensive.
So, how to define conflict without disregarding possible meanings of the term? Rather difficult task!
2.
Imagine we are two little boys fighting over who will play with the new toy, They are both pulling on the toy... If they both pull equally, the toy remains in the grasp of both of them.
Two boys fighting over a toy. Both pull equally, the toy remains in the grasp of both of them:
Isn`t that exactly how you would describe a conflict???
This is a thread on semantics, not physical science of any kind.
QUOTE (AlexG+Mar 10 2012, 12:13 AM)
This is a thread on semantics, not physical science of any kind.
How do you distinguish between centrifugal and centripetal forces?
How do you distinguish between centrifugal and centripetal forces?
QUOTE (Black Swan+Mar 9 2012, 11:27 AM)
Thanks synthsin75! I think I know what you mean when you distinguish between anthropocentric and anthropomorphic. But how do you distinguish clearly when it comes to interpretations of physical laws? Saying "antagonism of opposites resulting in a stable orbit" is anthropomorphic, but saying "forces working in unison to achieve a stable orbit" is only anthropocentric?
If you leave out the word "contradiction" for a second - would you go as far as saying there is no conflict involved whatsoever?
"Antagonism" isn't generally used in physics as it is in subjects like biology or medicine, and thus can seem to imply something more than perhaps intended. Different forces act on a body independently, they do not actually interfere with, or oppose, each other directly.
Neither is "contradiction" used as you have. This would seem to imply a paradox, of which very few, if any, are more than merely apparent.
Yes, I would say there is no "conflict". Merely the degrees to which different forces affect a body.
If you leave out the word "contradiction" for a second - would you go as far as saying there is no conflict involved whatsoever?
"Antagonism" isn't generally used in physics as it is in subjects like biology or medicine, and thus can seem to imply something more than perhaps intended. Different forces act on a body independently, they do not actually interfere with, or oppose, each other directly.
Neither is "contradiction" used as you have. This would seem to imply a paradox, of which very few, if any, are more than merely apparent.
Yes, I would say there is no "conflict". Merely the degrees to which different forces affect a body.
QUOTE
This is a thread on semantics, not physical science of any kind.
Interestingly, the scientists you quote: Albert Einstein and Niels Bohr, but no less Werner Heisenberg, Wolfgang Pauli, Max Planck, Erwin Schroedinger, Max Born, even Newton... they all were highly interested in the philosophical interpretations of their theories and physics in general. As you can read in their autobiographies and essays, they literally fought for an adequate expression of the physical findings. For them, to some degree discussions about semantics was a necessary part of understanding. They would have laughed about your ignorance!
synthsin75, you say there is no conflict involved whatsoever, merely the degrees to which different forces affect a body... would you then reject Gilberts analogy of the two boys fighting over a toy as being inappropriate? And if so, why?
QUOTE (Black Swan+Mar 11 2012, 08:06 AM)
synthsin75, you say there is no conflict involved whatsoever, merely the degrees to which different forces affect a body... would you then reject Gilberts analogy of the two boys fighting over a toy as being inappropriate? And if so, why?
Gilbert's analogy is overly anthropomorphic. Forces of nature do not "fight". Forces act on a body, and if one is greater than another it merely has a greater effect. Perpendicular motions are independent of one another. http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/vectors/u3l1g.cfm If the forces still act as if each is unhindered, there can be no conflict or contradiction.
Gilbert's analogy is overly anthropomorphic. Forces of nature do not "fight". Forces act on a body, and if one is greater than another it merely has a greater effect. Perpendicular motions are independent of one another. http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/vectors/u3l1g.cfm If the forces still act as if each is unhindered, there can be no conflict or contradiction.
QUOTE
They would have laughed about your ignorance!
And shaken their heads in disgust of your ignorance of any kind of physical science.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| They would have laughed about your ignorance! |
And shaken their heads in disgust of your ignorance of any kind of physical science.
they all were highly interested in the philosophical interpretations of their theories and physics in general
Yes, but the point is, they had actual predictive theories to interpret, whereas you simply have word salad.
QUOTE (AlexG+Mar 11 2012, 04:12 PM)
And shaken their heads in disgust of your ignorance of any kind of physical science.
Hey Alex, seems like we`re sitting in the same boat. We may learn from each other. At least, I would like to learn from you. Honestly, I would be grateful if you could explain where exactly I ignore physical facts. (Please, don`t just repeat: "there is no conflict because all the universe is in sweet harmony". That is neither an explanation, nor a physical fact. It is an assumption and a semantic interpretation you take for granted without giving reasons.)
I would like to hear what Gilbert himself has to say in defense of his analogy. For me it is not completely lost yet. It`s anthropomorphic, no question about that. And it may lead falsely to the equation of kids having a conflict and the forces having a conflict. Gilberts analogy only works if you see the conflict within the toy - and correspondingly the conflict within the orbit of the satellite. Still the comparison is misleading in some respects: apparently, there is no positive result concerning the toy.
But the more interesting aspect lies herein:
If the forces still act as if each is unhindered, there can be no conflict or contradiction.
This, to me, is the most fascinating part about satellites and their orbits - and the reason why I considered the terms conflict or contradictions in the first place. The forces don`t alter each other. Yet, they alter the motion of the object. And they alter it in contradictory ways.
On the one hand, you are absolutely right. The forces act independently of each other. They don`t "destroy" each other in any way. Both "do their job" as if the counterpart wouldn`t exist. Thus, no conflict.
But on the other hand, the counterpart does exist. If it wouldn`t, the motion of the satellite would be very different. In fact, the orbit wouldn`t be possible at all. It is only possible because the satellite "wants" to fly in a straight line, whereas simultaneously gravity pulls it down to earth. The forces - opposed to each other - coexist. That is what the conclusion "the forces act as if each is unhindered" implies, right? But do they only coexist? Is there no relationship between them whatsoever? I don`t think so. There is a relationship; they share the same reference-point. The reference-point is the orbit of the object. Both forces are connected within the orbit. To be more accurate: the orbit is the two opposed forces acting at the same time as if unhindered. You may call that balance, as mik and Gilbert proposed refering to the whole of the orbit. But isn`t that confusing result with process. The result, apparently, is a magical balance. But the process which generates the balance is a constant tension within the object; a tension between two forces. Though the forces act as if each is unhindered they hinder each other to carry out the result they naturally would produce if the counterpart wouldn`t exist.
But why, after all, do I suggest to use the term conflict? Because a conflict is the expression of opposing interests. The natural interest of the satellite is to fly in a straight line (=away from earth). The natural interest of gravity is to bring the satellite down to earth. Thus, what creates the orbit is a simultaneity of opposing interests. And that is: a conflict.
But the more interesting aspect lies herein:
QUOTE (synthsin75+Mar 11 2012, 03:59 PM)
If the forces still act as if each is unhindered, there can be no conflict or contradiction.
This, to me, is the most fascinating part about satellites and their orbits - and the reason why I considered the terms conflict or contradictions in the first place. The forces don`t alter each other. Yet, they alter the motion of the object. And they alter it in contradictory ways.
On the one hand, you are absolutely right. The forces act independently of each other. They don`t "destroy" each other in any way. Both "do their job" as if the counterpart wouldn`t exist. Thus, no conflict.
But on the other hand, the counterpart does exist. If it wouldn`t, the motion of the satellite would be very different. In fact, the orbit wouldn`t be possible at all. It is only possible because the satellite "wants" to fly in a straight line, whereas simultaneously gravity pulls it down to earth. The forces - opposed to each other - coexist. That is what the conclusion "the forces act as if each is unhindered" implies, right? But do they only coexist? Is there no relationship between them whatsoever? I don`t think so. There is a relationship; they share the same reference-point. The reference-point is the orbit of the object. Both forces are connected within the orbit. To be more accurate: the orbit is the two opposed forces acting at the same time as if unhindered. You may call that balance, as mik and Gilbert proposed refering to the whole of the orbit. But isn`t that confusing result with process. The result, apparently, is a magical balance. But the process which generates the balance is a constant tension within the object; a tension between two forces. Though the forces act as if each is unhindered they hinder each other to carry out the result they naturally would produce if the counterpart wouldn`t exist.
But why, after all, do I suggest to use the term conflict? Because a conflict is the expression of opposing interests. The natural interest of the satellite is to fly in a straight line (=away from earth). The natural interest of gravity is to bring the satellite down to earth. Thus, what creates the orbit is a simultaneity of opposing interests. And that is: a conflict.
QUOTE (Black Swan+Mar 12 2012, 08:00 AM)
This, to me, is the most fascinating part about satellites and their orbits - and the reason why I considered the terms conflict or contradictions in the first place. The forces don`t alter each other. Yet, they alter the motion of the object. And they alter it in contradictory ways.
...
Though the forces act as if each is unhindered they hinder each other to carry out the result they naturally would produce if the counterpart wouldn`t exist.
But why, after all, do I suggest to use the term conflict? Because a conflict is the expression of opposing interests. The natural interest of the satellite is to fly in a straight line (=away from earth). The natural interest of gravity is to bring the satellite down to earth. Thus, what creates the orbit is a simultaneity of opposing interests. And that is: a conflict.
First, the natural tendency of an orbiting satellite is to fly off at a tangent, not directly away from the center of gravity of the Earth. So these forces cannot be seen to be in direct opposition. The satellite merely wants to continue in a straight line, as if it were flying past the Earth. The satellite's speed is unaltered by gravity, but its velocity is accelerated as the centripetal force of gravity constantly changes its vector direction.
So the horizontal speed of the satellite remains unaltered, and so does the vertical acceleration of gravity.
Second, a stable orbit only exists where the body is far enough from the gravity source (gravity decreasing by the square of the distance from the mass) AND the tangent speed is great enough. Closer to the mass, or at a lessor speed, the speed of the orbiting body does not cover an equal amount of distance as it falls. Further from the mass, or at greater speed, it covers more distance than it falls, and moves in an ever-increasing spiral away from the mass (depending on speed).
...
Though the forces act as if each is unhindered they hinder each other to carry out the result they naturally would produce if the counterpart wouldn`t exist.
But why, after all, do I suggest to use the term conflict? Because a conflict is the expression of opposing interests. The natural interest of the satellite is to fly in a straight line (=away from earth). The natural interest of gravity is to bring the satellite down to earth. Thus, what creates the orbit is a simultaneity of opposing interests. And that is: a conflict.
First, the natural tendency of an orbiting satellite is to fly off at a tangent, not directly away from the center of gravity of the Earth. So these forces cannot be seen to be in direct opposition. The satellite merely wants to continue in a straight line, as if it were flying past the Earth. The satellite's speed is unaltered by gravity, but its velocity is accelerated as the centripetal force of gravity constantly changes its vector direction.
So the horizontal speed of the satellite remains unaltered, and so does the vertical acceleration of gravity.
Second, a stable orbit only exists where the body is far enough from the gravity source (gravity decreasing by the square of the distance from the mass) AND the tangent speed is great enough. Closer to the mass, or at a lessor speed, the speed of the orbiting body does not cover an equal amount of distance as it falls. Further from the mass, or at greater speed, it covers more distance than it falls, and moves in an ever-increasing spiral away from the mass (depending on speed).
QUOTE (synthsin75+Mar 12 2012, 02:48 PM)
So these forces cannot be seen to be in direct opposition.
In order to speak of a pair of opposites you need to have a shared reference-point which defines each side as opposed to the other. it`s not enough to measure the geometrical angle. In this case the reference-point is the orbit, that is: the satellite in a circular motion around earth. If look from the perspective of the orbit they are in diametrical opposition: The satellite wants to break out of the circular motion outwards to the same degree (of force) as gravitation wants to pull it out of the circular motion inwards. If it wouldn`t be to the same degree the orbit wouldn`t be possible. Thus, the two forces are in direct opposition.
Even if this wouldn`t be the case we could still speak of a conflict. You don`t need diametrical opposition of interests to make a conflict, do you? Whatever degree of opposition - as long as it`s not not opposed whatsoever -, it can produce a conflict.
My main thesis was: the satellite falls down to earth and at the same time flys away from earth.
I don`t see how any of the arguments provided so far come close to disprove the validity of the sentence above. But that might just be my disability of seeing it. I`m still open to new arguments or clarifications of the old ones.
In order to speak of a pair of opposites you need to have a shared reference-point which defines each side as opposed to the other. it`s not enough to measure the geometrical angle. In this case the reference-point is the orbit, that is: the satellite in a circular motion around earth. If look from the perspective of the orbit they are in diametrical opposition: The satellite wants to break out of the circular motion outwards to the same degree (of force) as gravitation wants to pull it out of the circular motion inwards. If it wouldn`t be to the same degree the orbit wouldn`t be possible. Thus, the two forces are in direct opposition.
Even if this wouldn`t be the case we could still speak of a conflict. You don`t need diametrical opposition of interests to make a conflict, do you? Whatever degree of opposition - as long as it`s not not opposed whatsoever -, it can produce a conflict.
My main thesis was: the satellite falls down to earth and at the same time flys away from earth.
I don`t see how any of the arguments provided so far come close to disprove the validity of the sentence above. But that might just be my disability of seeing it. I`m still open to new arguments or clarifications of the old ones.
QUOTE (Black Swan+Mar 17 2012, 09:46 AM)
My main thesis was: the satellite falls down to earth and at the same time flys away from earth.
I don`t see how any of the arguments provided so far come close to disprove the validity of the sentence above. But that might just be my disability of seeing it. I`m still open to new arguments or clarifications of the old ones.
No one disputed that statement, other than perhaps its naivety. It is only when you insist that this physical scenario is somehow contradictory that you are definitely wrong. You may need to do more than a superficial study of physics to grasp the answers already given.
I don`t see how any of the arguments provided so far come close to disprove the validity of the sentence above. But that might just be my disability of seeing it. I`m still open to new arguments or clarifications of the old ones.
No one disputed that statement, other than perhaps its naivety. It is only when you insist that this physical scenario is somehow contradictory that you are definitely wrong. You may need to do more than a superficial study of physics to grasp the answers already given.
QUOTE (synthsin75+Mar 17 2012, 09:14 PM)
No one disputed that statement, other than perhaps its naivety. It is only when you insist that this physical scenario is somehow contradictory that you are definitely wrong.
In other words, you agree with AlexG about the most appropriate interpretation being harmony?
In other words, you agree with AlexG about the most appropriate interpretation being harmony?
While I'm still interested if everyone here shares AlexGs and synthsin75s opinion, we may, in the meantime, ask if there any other examples related to the topic.
synthsin75 stated:
"This would seem to imply a paradox, of which very few, if any, are more than merely apparent."
If I'm not mistaken, there is a giant difference between "very few" and "if any" when it comes to the question if there are paradoxes in the physical world. If there would be only one example which can't be solved by traditional logic - it would be sufficient to knock the logic of Aristotle off its feet; after all, it claims to be universally applicable.
So, what would be the "very few"?
Of course we could dive into quantum physics any time here. I wonder if that's what you've been thinking about...
synthsin75 stated:
"This would seem to imply a paradox, of which very few, if any, are more than merely apparent."
If I'm not mistaken, there is a giant difference between "very few" and "if any" when it comes to the question if there are paradoxes in the physical world. If there would be only one example which can't be solved by traditional logic - it would be sufficient to knock the logic of Aristotle off its feet; after all, it claims to be universally applicable.
So, what would be the "very few"?
Of course we could dive into quantum physics any time here. I wonder if that's what you've been thinking about...
There are no known actual paradoxes in physics, although there are always things we don't fully understand.
...simplistic - and orthodox, if not dogmatic - answer to a difficult question.
It seems like you define paradox the same way you defined contradiction above: as something that cannot exist.
Black Swan, If you ever studied the basics of physics you'd know, that a satellite moving along a circular orbit is affected by only one force, i.e. gravitational force that imparts to the satellite an acceleration in full accordance with the second Newton's law. There's no other force involved.
"No actual paradox" is equivalent to being merely "seemingly contradictory".
There is a significant difference between "No actual paradox" and "seemingly contradictory".
If someone says: "there seems to be a contradiction", he implies that he doesn`t know if there is a contradiction. It could turn out to be no contradiction. But it could just as well turn out to be a contradiction that is true while being a contradiction.
When you say: "there is no actual paradox", you seem to imply that the second option (the contradiction turns out to be a contradiction) is not an actual option. And that is, if I`m not mistaken, dogmatic. Though you don`t know the whole of reality you insist that there can never be a true contradiction. That`s why it seemed to me that you define (actual) paradoxes and contradictions simply as something that cannot exist. Do you?
In other words, when you speak of paradoxes you should not use the term merely "seemingly contradictory". A paradox is the case if there seems to be a meaningful contradiction. If there really is - you don`t know yet. But it is possible.
An important question arises here: What exactly is the difference between a paradox and a contradiction? And what is a contradiction at all? No one has given a good definition yet...
In physics "inertia" and "force" are completely different concepts:
In physics "inertia" and "force" are completely different concepts:
Force is a quantitative description of the interaction between two physical bodies, such as an object and its environment.
Any "force" imparts an acceleration to a body.
Inertia is just a property of a mass.
Once again, if you still don't catch on, I'll put it this way:
Inertia cannot impart any acceleration to a body, whereas a force applied to a body always makes the body accelerate.
As you can see Inertia cannot be counted as a Force.
Inertia cannot impart any acceleration to a body, whereas a force applied to a body always makes the body accelerate.
As you can see Inertia cannot be counted as a Force.
Thanks again. In how far does your objection shed a different light on the discussion above? Does it vitiate the statement: "the satellite falls down to earth and at the same time flys away from earth"?
You wouldn`t go as far as claiming that the inertia of the satellite plays no role in creating the orbit whatsoever, would you?
This statement is abject nonsense. I don't see any point arguing over absurdities like this, it's neither science nor philosophy.
It seems like you define paradox the same way you defined contradiction above: as something that cannot exist.
QUOTE (synthsin75+Mar 9 2012, 05:07 PM)
If the physical situation were an actual contradiction, both forces could not mutually exist.
Of course, if something is something that cannot exist, it cannot exist. No discussion about that.
A much better definition and the one most scientists and philosophers agree on:
A paradox is a seemingly contradictory statement that may nonetheless be true. And it is a statement contrary to received opinion.
If we take this understanding as common ground, we find more than one paradox in the physical world. To give you only two examples...
1. The Mpemba effect: the observation that warmer water sometimes freezes faster than colder water. Though it is an observation contrary to received opinion, it has been verified all around the world. (http://www.desy.de/user/projects/Physics/General/hot_water.html)
2. Strange relationship between quarks and space: "We have experimental knowledge of their behavior down to distances of 10^-16 centimeters. If we try to penetrate to even greater precision, the various forces blend together to a unified ur-force; on this scale the quarks and the space that surrounds them are no longer separable." (Henning Genz: Nothingness, The science of empty space.)
Of course, if something is something that cannot exist, it cannot exist. No discussion about that.
A much better definition and the one most scientists and philosophers agree on:
A paradox is a seemingly contradictory statement that may nonetheless be true. And it is a statement contrary to received opinion.
If we take this understanding as common ground, we find more than one paradox in the physical world. To give you only two examples...
1. The Mpemba effect: the observation that warmer water sometimes freezes faster than colder water. Though it is an observation contrary to received opinion, it has been verified all around the world. (http://www.desy.de/user/projects/Physics/General/hot_water.html)
2. Strange relationship between quarks and space: "We have experimental knowledge of their behavior down to distances of 10^-16 centimeters. If we try to penetrate to even greater precision, the various forces blend together to a unified ur-force; on this scale the quarks and the space that surrounds them are no longer separable." (Henning Genz: Nothingness, The science of empty space.)
QUOTE
The satellite wants to break out of the circular motion outwards to the same degree (of force) as gravitation wants to pull it out of the circular motion inwards. If it wouldn`t be to the same degree the orbit wouldn`t be possible. Thus, the two forces are in direct opposition.
Black Swan, If you ever studied the basics of physics you'd know, that a satellite moving along a circular orbit is affected by only one force, i.e. gravitational force that imparts to the satellite an acceleration in full accordance with the second Newton's law. There's no other force involved.
QUOTE (Black Swan+Mar 19 2012, 06:55 AM)
A much better definition and the one most scientists and philosophers agree on:
A paradox is a seemingly contradictory statement that may nonetheless be true. And it is a statement contrary to received opinion.
And what part of what I actually said about paradox is any different?
"There are no known actual paradoxes in physics, although there are always things we don't fully understand. "
"No actual paradox" is equivalent to being merely "seemingly contradictory".
Seems you've corrected your own erroneous statement of any actual contradiction.
A paradox is a seemingly contradictory statement that may nonetheless be true. And it is a statement contrary to received opinion.
And what part of what I actually said about paradox is any different?
"There are no known actual paradoxes in physics, although there are always things we don't fully understand. "
"No actual paradox" is equivalent to being merely "seemingly contradictory".
Seems you've corrected your own erroneous statement of any actual contradiction.
QUOTE (Schrödinger's cat+Mar 20 2012, 05:57 PM)
Black Swan, If you ever studied the basics of physics you'd know, that a satellite moving along a circular orbit is affected by only one force, i.e. gravitational force that imparts to the satellite an acceleration in full accordance with the second Newton's law. There's no other force involved.
Thanks for sharing your opinion. Are you saying...
1. the inertia of the satellite doesn`t exist,
2. the inertia of the satellite (which makes it want to travel in a straight line) cannot be counted as a force,
3. or the inertia of the satellite plays no role in creating the orbit whatsoever.
(It would help to know how you define a "force"!)
Thanks for sharing your opinion. Are you saying...
1. the inertia of the satellite doesn`t exist,
2. the inertia of the satellite (which makes it want to travel in a straight line) cannot be counted as a force,
3. or the inertia of the satellite plays no role in creating the orbit whatsoever.
(It would help to know how you define a "force"!)
QUOTE (synthsin75+Mar 21 2012, 03:22 AM)
"No actual paradox" is equivalent to being merely "seemingly contradictory".
There is a significant difference between "No actual paradox" and "seemingly contradictory".
If someone says: "there seems to be a contradiction", he implies that he doesn`t know if there is a contradiction. It could turn out to be no contradiction. But it could just as well turn out to be a contradiction that is true while being a contradiction.
When you say: "there is no actual paradox", you seem to imply that the second option (the contradiction turns out to be a contradiction) is not an actual option. And that is, if I`m not mistaken, dogmatic. Though you don`t know the whole of reality you insist that there can never be a true contradiction. That`s why it seemed to me that you define (actual) paradoxes and contradictions simply as something that cannot exist. Do you?
In other words, when you speak of paradoxes you should not use the term merely "seemingly contradictory". A paradox is the case if there seems to be a meaningful contradiction. If there really is - you don`t know yet. But it is possible.
An important question arises here: What exactly is the difference between a paradox and a contradiction? And what is a contradiction at all? No one has given a good definition yet...
QUOTE (Black Swan+Mar 21 2012, 06:52 AM)
There is a significant difference between "No actual paradox" and "seemingly contradictory".
If someone says: "there seems to be a contradiction", he implies that he doesn`t know if there is a contradiction. It could turn out to be no contradiction. But it could just as well turn out to be a contradiction that is true while being a contradiction.
When you say: "there is no actual paradox", you seem to imply that the second option (the contradiction turns out to be a contradiction) is not an actual option. And that is, if I`m not mistaken, dogmatic. Though you don`t know the whole of reality you insist that there can never be a true contradiction. That`s why it seemed to me that you define (actual) paradoxes and contradictions simply as something that cannot exist. Do you?
In other words, when you speak of paradoxes you should not use the term merely "seemingly contradictory". A paradox is the case if there seems to be a meaningful contradiction. If there really is - you don`t know yet. But it is possible.
An important question arises here: What exactly is the difference between a paradox and a contradiction? And what is a contradiction at all? No one has given a good definition yet...
Wrong. "Seems contradictory" means "appears contradictory". The apparency of contradiction/paradox can still exist, even when the actuality is fully known to be logically consistent. The only supposed "significant difference" is that you are conflating apparency and actuality. Just because something appears one way doesn't necessarily make it so, as human perception is very limited and highly fallible.
Nothing dogmatic about it. The entire track record of the success of physics has been due to the fact that everything has been found to be logically consistent. If the kinds of actual contradiction and paradox you assume existed then we'd have to wonder how physics has been so successful in a world that is not logically consistent. And it's merely a straw man to say that I "insist that there can never be a true contradiction". I never say any such thing. I said "there is no actual paradox", which simply means we do not know of any presently. And since your supposed contradiction is something we currently know quite well, it is safe to say there is no contradiction/paradox.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox
Accounting for the success of the sciences, it is fairly safe to assume the universe is logically consistent. This seems to be born out empirically, so there's no impelling reason to believe otherwise. If an actual paradox did indeed exist then we'd be completely stumped as to why science has made the progress it has, since any universe that wasn't logically consistent in one aspect couldn't reasonably be expected to be in all others.
To assume actual paradox without verification is not science. That is, at best, a form of superstition, where you just assume some demon arbitrarily acted.
Considering it was you who brought up this whole "contradiction" thing, it would fall to you to define what you meant.
If someone says: "there seems to be a contradiction", he implies that he doesn`t know if there is a contradiction. It could turn out to be no contradiction. But it could just as well turn out to be a contradiction that is true while being a contradiction.
When you say: "there is no actual paradox", you seem to imply that the second option (the contradiction turns out to be a contradiction) is not an actual option. And that is, if I`m not mistaken, dogmatic. Though you don`t know the whole of reality you insist that there can never be a true contradiction. That`s why it seemed to me that you define (actual) paradoxes and contradictions simply as something that cannot exist. Do you?
In other words, when you speak of paradoxes you should not use the term merely "seemingly contradictory". A paradox is the case if there seems to be a meaningful contradiction. If there really is - you don`t know yet. But it is possible.
An important question arises here: What exactly is the difference between a paradox and a contradiction? And what is a contradiction at all? No one has given a good definition yet...
Wrong. "Seems contradictory" means "appears contradictory". The apparency of contradiction/paradox can still exist, even when the actuality is fully known to be logically consistent. The only supposed "significant difference" is that you are conflating apparency and actuality. Just because something appears one way doesn't necessarily make it so, as human perception is very limited and highly fallible.
Nothing dogmatic about it. The entire track record of the success of physics has been due to the fact that everything has been found to be logically consistent. If the kinds of actual contradiction and paradox you assume existed then we'd have to wonder how physics has been so successful in a world that is not logically consistent. And it's merely a straw man to say that I "insist that there can never be a true contradiction". I never say any such thing. I said "there is no actual paradox", which simply means we do not know of any presently. And since your supposed contradiction is something we currently know quite well, it is safe to say there is no contradiction/paradox.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox
QUOTE
A paradox is a logical statement or group of statements that lead to a contradiction or a situation which (if true) defies logic or reason, similar to circular reasoning.
Accounting for the success of the sciences, it is fairly safe to assume the universe is logically consistent. This seems to be born out empirically, so there's no impelling reason to believe otherwise. If an actual paradox did indeed exist then we'd be completely stumped as to why science has made the progress it has, since any universe that wasn't logically consistent in one aspect couldn't reasonably be expected to be in all others.
To assume actual paradox without verification is not science. That is, at best, a form of superstition, where you just assume some demon arbitrarily acted.
Considering it was you who brought up this whole "contradiction" thing, it would fall to you to define what you meant.
QUOTE
1. the inertia of the satellite doesn`t exist,
2. the inertia of the satellite (which makes it want to travel in a straight line) cannot be counted as a force,
3. or the inertia of the satellite plays no role in creating the orbit whatsoever.
(It would help to know how you define a "force"!)
2. the inertia of the satellite (which makes it want to travel in a straight line) cannot be counted as a force,
3. or the inertia of the satellite plays no role in creating the orbit whatsoever.
(It would help to know how you define a "force"!)
In physics "inertia" and "force" are completely different concepts:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 1. the inertia of the satellite doesn`t exist, 2. the inertia of the satellite (which makes it want to travel in a straight line) cannot be counted as a force, 3. or the inertia of the satellite plays no role in creating the orbit whatsoever. (It would help to know how you define a "force"!) |
In physics "inertia" and "force" are completely different concepts:
Force is a quantitative description of the interaction between two physical bodies, such as an object and its environment.
QUOTE
Inertia is the name for the tendency of an object in motion to remain in motion, or an object at rest to remain at rest, unless acted upon by a force.
Any "force" imparts an acceleration to a body.
Inertia is just a property of a mass.
Once again, if you still don't catch on, I'll put it this way:
Inertia cannot impart any acceleration to a body, whereas a force applied to a body always makes the body accelerate.
As you can see Inertia cannot be counted as a Force.
QUOTE (Schrödinger's cat+Mar 21 2012, 05:44 PM)
Inertia cannot impart any acceleration to a body, whereas a force applied to a body always makes the body accelerate.
As you can see Inertia cannot be counted as a Force.
Thanks again. In how far does your objection shed a different light on the discussion above? Does it vitiate the statement: "the satellite falls down to earth and at the same time flys away from earth"?
You wouldn`t go as far as claiming that the inertia of the satellite plays no role in creating the orbit whatsoever, would you?
QUOTE (synthsin75+Mar 21 2012, 01:54 PM)
Wrong. "Seems contradictory" means "appears contradictory". The apparency of contradiction/paradox can still exist, even when the actuality is fully known to be logically consistent. The only supposed "significant difference" is that you are conflating apparency and actuality. Just because something appears one way doesn't necessarily make it so, as human perception is very limited and highly fallible.
I fully agree with your point - as representing one option. But if it would be the only option, why would we call M. C. Eschers graphics paradoxical? Why Rene Magrittes paintings? Why is the following sentence a paradox: "This sentence is false"? -- We call these examples paradoxes because there is a (more or less meaningful) contradiction. No matter how hard we try, no matter how good our explanation, the contradictory does not disappear. That is not to say there is any wrong with your interpretation. It just doesn`t capture the full complexity of a paradox.
The miss-understanding between us might come from different cultural backgrounds. Whereas you (I assume) are influenced by the english tradition, I am also influenced by the german tradition, wherein we find greater willingness to consider valid contradictions: in philosophy (e.g. Meister Eckhart, Novalis, Hegel, Nietzsche) and Science (e.g. Heisenberg, Schroedinger). This willingness - combined with a strong aim of avoiding contradictions - might be the reason why the theory of relativity and quantum physics were born in Germany to the main part. But what is more important here: it might also be the reason why germans distinguish clearly between paradox and contradiction. Interestingly, the different ways of defining "paradox" are even inherent in wikipedia, as can be seen by comparing the german and the english entry on paradox. Anyway, here is how I think we should clear up the terms:
The main difference between "paradox" and "contradiction" is that the latter is mainly a technical term, whereas paradox always involves human emotions. That`s why contradictions contain one conflict, and paradoxes always two conflicts.
CONTRADICTION... designates the relationship between two components, which - applying to the same reference-point and only in appliance to this reference-point - inevitable cause a conflict. (Thus all contradictions are conflicts, but it`s not the case that all conflicts are contradictions; not all conflicts involve a third component: a reference point which the two components apply to.)
PARADOX... is an issue or statement which we consider to be impossible and absurd due to the fact that there seems to be a meaningful contradiction. Thus, there is a twofold conflict. First, the issue or statement involves a contradiction which marks a conflict in itself. Second, the contradiction somehow seems meaningful, which inevitable causes an emotional conflict in us. --- There are three ways of interpreting the conflict which a paradox evokes in us: 1. The emotional conflict points to the fact that the issue or statement is indeed impossible and absurd; it is no more than a good illusion and has no significance whatsoever. 2. The emotional conflict is based on a lack of knowledge and understanding; the issue or statement has significance, but there is no actual contradiction involved (it merely appears to be contradictory). 3. The emotional conflict results from the incapacity of the ordinary mind to think and understand an actual contradiction; the issue or statement has significance, and there is an actual contradiction involved.
- - - - - - - -
Now, the question is: are there actual contradictions in the physical world? The resounding answer here is: NO! Nevertheless, I was led to the question by a more "universal" approach. That is, in general (not only in physics), it would be smart to distinguish between "productive contradictions" and "non-productive contradictions".
A non-productive contradiction would be two boys fighting over a toy; both claim it to be theirs: neither wins because they are equal in strength.
A productive contradiction would be two scientists claiming to have the right answer to a physical problem; their answers contradict each other; they have a discussion for years about who is right; no matter who "wins", or if there is a third and better answer - the contradiction and dispute widens their understanding of the problem.
It is in this second sense that I wondered if contradictions (as a cause for change and progress) are not only important and productive in human affairs (democracy, philosophy, science, economy, relationships, growth of personality and character), but also in "physical creations". Isn't a productive tension between (more or less) opposed tendencies essential to many phenomena in physics?
I fully agree with your point - as representing one option. But if it would be the only option, why would we call M. C. Eschers graphics paradoxical? Why Rene Magrittes paintings? Why is the following sentence a paradox: "This sentence is false"? -- We call these examples paradoxes because there is a (more or less meaningful) contradiction. No matter how hard we try, no matter how good our explanation, the contradictory does not disappear. That is not to say there is any wrong with your interpretation. It just doesn`t capture the full complexity of a paradox.
The miss-understanding between us might come from different cultural backgrounds. Whereas you (I assume) are influenced by the english tradition, I am also influenced by the german tradition, wherein we find greater willingness to consider valid contradictions: in philosophy (e.g. Meister Eckhart, Novalis, Hegel, Nietzsche) and Science (e.g. Heisenberg, Schroedinger). This willingness - combined with a strong aim of avoiding contradictions - might be the reason why the theory of relativity and quantum physics were born in Germany to the main part. But what is more important here: it might also be the reason why germans distinguish clearly between paradox and contradiction. Interestingly, the different ways of defining "paradox" are even inherent in wikipedia, as can be seen by comparing the german and the english entry on paradox. Anyway, here is how I think we should clear up the terms:
The main difference between "paradox" and "contradiction" is that the latter is mainly a technical term, whereas paradox always involves human emotions. That`s why contradictions contain one conflict, and paradoxes always two conflicts.
CONTRADICTION... designates the relationship between two components, which - applying to the same reference-point and only in appliance to this reference-point - inevitable cause a conflict. (Thus all contradictions are conflicts, but it`s not the case that all conflicts are contradictions; not all conflicts involve a third component: a reference point which the two components apply to.)
PARADOX... is an issue or statement which we consider to be impossible and absurd due to the fact that there seems to be a meaningful contradiction. Thus, there is a twofold conflict. First, the issue or statement involves a contradiction which marks a conflict in itself. Second, the contradiction somehow seems meaningful, which inevitable causes an emotional conflict in us. --- There are three ways of interpreting the conflict which a paradox evokes in us: 1. The emotional conflict points to the fact that the issue or statement is indeed impossible and absurd; it is no more than a good illusion and has no significance whatsoever. 2. The emotional conflict is based on a lack of knowledge and understanding; the issue or statement has significance, but there is no actual contradiction involved (it merely appears to be contradictory). 3. The emotional conflict results from the incapacity of the ordinary mind to think and understand an actual contradiction; the issue or statement has significance, and there is an actual contradiction involved.
- - - - - - - -
Now, the question is: are there actual contradictions in the physical world? The resounding answer here is: NO! Nevertheless, I was led to the question by a more "universal" approach. That is, in general (not only in physics), it would be smart to distinguish between "productive contradictions" and "non-productive contradictions".
A non-productive contradiction would be two boys fighting over a toy; both claim it to be theirs: neither wins because they are equal in strength.
A productive contradiction would be two scientists claiming to have the right answer to a physical problem; their answers contradict each other; they have a discussion for years about who is right; no matter who "wins", or if there is a third and better answer - the contradiction and dispute widens their understanding of the problem.
It is in this second sense that I wondered if contradictions (as a cause for change and progress) are not only important and productive in human affairs (democracy, philosophy, science, economy, relationships, growth of personality and character), but also in "physical creations". Isn't a productive tension between (more or less) opposed tendencies essential to many phenomena in physics?
You're just aimlessly conflating everything under the sun with science. Give it a rest.
QUOTE (Black Swan+Mar 18 2012, 12:57 AM)
In other words, you agree with AlexG about the most appropriate interpretation being harmony?
I don't know if Harmony would be the right word for a tug-a-war. I guess you could say harmony occurs from the interaction of opposing ( opposing is really not a very descriptive word for what goes on) forces . The thing is it does not account for dissonance. Dissonance occurs and yet the forces interact . Course is there really such a thing as dissonance or harmony or would it be just different levels off of unison. The same old thing can get quite boring.
So if not opposing forces then what? So for me it is easier to think about it as one movement . Like the left hand and the right hand throwing a basket ball. Your left hand does not think about what the right hand is doing but rather it is one motion of the whole body. Hence forth we have a projectile moving in a forced direction
My first word salad at your lovely site
Kisses
I don't know if Harmony would be the right word for a tug-a-war. I guess you could say harmony occurs from the interaction of opposing ( opposing is really not a very descriptive word for what goes on) forces . The thing is it does not account for dissonance. Dissonance occurs and yet the forces interact . Course is there really such a thing as dissonance or harmony or would it be just different levels off of unison. The same old thing can get quite boring.
So if not opposing forces then what? So for me it is easier to think about it as one movement . Like the left hand and the right hand throwing a basket ball. Your left hand does not think about what the right hand is doing but rather it is one motion of the whole body. Hence forth we have a projectile moving in a forced direction
My first word salad at your lovely site
Kisses
QUOTE
Thanks again. In how far does your objection shed a different light on the discussion above? Does it vitiate the statement: "the satellite falls down to earth and at the same time flys away from earth"?
This statement is abject nonsense. I don't see any point arguing over absurdities like this, it's neither science nor philosophy.
QUOTE (synthsin75+Mar 23 2012, 03:01 PM)
You're just aimlessly conflating everything under the sun with science. Give it a rest.
Right out of the textbook "Arguing for Idiots": If you`re too tired or mindless to give a proper argument, become insulting and rude, or bring forth an over generalized statement that cannot be disproved. All in all, a simple "Nonsense!" will do. It never fails. Well done, boys.
QUOTE
This statement is abject nonsense. I don't see any point arguing over absurdities like this, it's neither science nor philosophy.
Right out of the textbook "Arguing for Idiots": If you`re too tired or mindless to give a proper argument, become insulting and rude, or bring forth an over generalized statement that cannot be disproved. All in all, a simple "Nonsense!" will do. It never fails. Well done, boys.
As you prove once more, the law of non-contradiction more than anything is a holy doctrine; it means to the scientific mind what the resurrection of Jesus means to the christian mind. It must not be challenged! In my view, someone who claims to be a scientific person but is not ready to question the very foundation on which the scientific skyscraper is built on is no better than someone only believing in Jesus because his parents have told him to do so.
Here are three more examples. At least we should consider if there is a contradictory element involved.
1. What is a surface? The concept of something being a surface of something is basic to our understanding of the world. It refers to a border and warrants the possiblity to speak of a self-contained object. But what is a surface? Is it something? If so, how big is it? Or is it nothing at all? Does it belong to the object? Or does it also belong to the space enclosing the object?
2. If you stand right on the doorway of a house, one arm and leg slightly outside, the other arm and leg slightly inside: where are you? Inside or outside? I`m not asking, where is your arm, where is your leg. The question is, where are you as an indivisible being?
3. Finally, the question of all questions: Is the mind nothing but a physical object? Or is the world nothing but a fiction of the mind?
If you know, as you claim, that "everything has been found to be logically consistent", you ought to be able to answer these questions.
Here are three more examples. At least we should consider if there is a contradictory element involved.
1. What is a surface? The concept of something being a surface of something is basic to our understanding of the world. It refers to a border and warrants the possiblity to speak of a self-contained object. But what is a surface? Is it something? If so, how big is it? Or is it nothing at all? Does it belong to the object? Or does it also belong to the space enclosing the object?
2. If you stand right on the doorway of a house, one arm and leg slightly outside, the other arm and leg slightly inside: where are you? Inside or outside? I`m not asking, where is your arm, where is your leg. The question is, where are you as an indivisible being?
3. Finally, the question of all questions: Is the mind nothing but a physical object? Or is the world nothing but a fiction of the mind?
If you know, as you claim, that "everything has been found to be logically consistent", you ought to be able to answer these questions.
You apparently don't understand what the domain of applicability is in a field of science, nor do you differentiate between the common usage of words like "paradox" and "contradiction" and what their precise meaning is when used in a physics context.
QUOTE (synthsin75+Mar 28 2012, 02:38 PM)
You apparently don't understand what the domain of applicability is in a field of science, nor do you differentiate between the common usage of words like "paradox" and "contradiction" and what their precise meaning is when used in a physics context.
Now you`re suprising me! You seem to have thought more about the topic than anyone I know or read of. For until now I did not come across anyone who claimed that we should make a significant difference between the terms used in daily life and in a physical context. All I know, indeed, is that "paradox" and "contradiction" are important terms and that our understanding of them should be applicable to all domains of culture.
So, what is the precise meaning when used in physics? And why should we rupture the terms at all? And where is the connection to the examples given above? You`re not saying the question, "what is a surface?", does not belong to the domain of science, are you? If so, I shall be surprised once more.
Now you`re suprising me! You seem to have thought more about the topic than anyone I know or read of. For until now I did not come across anyone who claimed that we should make a significant difference between the terms used in daily life and in a physical context. All I know, indeed, is that "paradox" and "contradiction" are important terms and that our understanding of them should be applicable to all domains of culture.
So, what is the precise meaning when used in physics? And why should we rupture the terms at all? And where is the connection to the examples given above? You`re not saying the question, "what is a surface?", does not belong to the domain of science, are you? If so, I shall be surprised once more.
QUOTE (Black Swan+Mar 29 2012, 02:54 AM)
So, what is the precise meaning when used in physics? And why should we rupture the terms at all? And where is the connection to the examples given above? You`re not saying the question, "what is a surface?", does not belong to the domain of science, are you? If so, I shall be surprised once more.
I don`t understand you anymore. That is exactly the definition I have given above. The only difference being that I have included human emotion as a key aspect of paradoxes and have made the three options more clearly.
"(merely) seemingly contradictory" and "perhaps true (perhaps not)"
=== my first option: the issue or statement is indeed impossible and absurd; it is no more than a good illusion and has no significance whatsoever.
"(merely) seemingly contradictory" and "perhaps true"
=== my second option: lack of knowledge and understanding; the issue or statement has significance, but there is no actual contradiction involved (it merely appears to be contradictory).
"seemingly contradictory", "opposed to common sense" and "perhaps true"
=== my third option: incapacity of the ordinary mind to think and understand an actual contradiction; the issue or statement has significance, and there is an actual contradiction involved.
You don`t need to repeat that the third option is not an actual option for you. But in accordance with the german tradition I say: As long as you can`t solve or fully explain a contradiction, you just don`t know if there is an actual contradiction. It might be, it might not. You just don`t know.
QUOTE (Merriam-Webster+)
paradox
1 : a tenet contrary to received opinion
2 a : a statement that is seemingly contradictory or opposed to common sense and yet is perhaps true
b : a self-contradictory statement that at first seems true
c : an argument that apparently derives self-contradictory conclusions by valid deduction from acceptable premises
3 : one (as a person, situation, or action) having seemingly contradictory qualities or phases
Of the several definitions, only one usually applies to any given case. I've emphasized the one applicable to science in general. There are many terms, such as theory, hypothesis, etc., that have more precise meanings when used in the context of physics. More rigorous subjects require more precise terms. Simple as that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface_science
1 : a tenet contrary to received opinion
2 a : a statement that is seemingly contradictory or opposed to common sense and yet is perhaps true
b : a self-contradictory statement that at first seems true
c : an argument that apparently derives self-contradictory conclusions by valid deduction from acceptable premises
3 : one (as a person, situation, or action) having seemingly contradictory qualities or phases
Of the several definitions, only one usually applies to any given case. I've emphasized the one applicable to science in general. There are many terms, such as theory, hypothesis, etc., that have more precise meanings when used in the context of physics. More rigorous subjects require more precise terms. Simple as that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface_science
QUOTE
a statement that is seemingly contradictory or opposed to common sense and yet is perhaps true
I don`t understand you anymore. That is exactly the definition I have given above. The only difference being that I have included human emotion as a key aspect of paradoxes and have made the three options more clearly.
"(merely) seemingly contradictory" and "perhaps true (perhaps not)"
=== my first option: the issue or statement is indeed impossible and absurd; it is no more than a good illusion and has no significance whatsoever.
"(merely) seemingly contradictory" and "perhaps true"
=== my second option: lack of knowledge and understanding; the issue or statement has significance, but there is no actual contradiction involved (it merely appears to be contradictory).
"seemingly contradictory", "opposed to common sense" and "perhaps true"
=== my third option: incapacity of the ordinary mind to think and understand an actual contradiction; the issue or statement has significance, and there is an actual contradiction involved.
You don`t need to repeat that the third option is not an actual option for you. But in accordance with the german tradition I say: As long as you can`t solve or fully explain a contradiction, you just don`t know if there is an actual contradiction. It might be, it might not. You just don`t know.
IMO this tread should rightly be moved away from PHYSICS and to New Theories.
The OP says, Is the world of physics consistent (in the traditional logical sense) or is it possible to find "real-life" contradictions?
IMO the world of pysics is NOT consistent, if PHYSIC is referring to the concept of EXISTING, or as it is being referred to / Real Life.
This implicate that the world of physics contain contradictions or paradoxes. I see no good resons for making any differentation between contradiction and paradox.
Physics is about how we human beings (human mind) DEFINE and EXPLAIN universe or cosmos, about how cosmos by human mind (including our senses), is being translated into this vivid impression of Real Life. As far as I am concerned and kowledgable about, any and all assumptions about reality (existence) breaks down at a certain point. Physics has not as yet demonstrated any consistent theory about existence. Likewise mathematics IMO breaks down when it comes to infinite. Which is a logical coneseqence of the former.
I like this tread and how it is being argued by the OP, and the question about existense is being well put by Black Swan when asking about definition of a surface (or is the mind nothing but a physical object).
I like to think that Universe or cosmos is consistent, but HOW human mind define explain and understand the perceiving of cosmos is not consistent. We have no consistent metaphors for the perceiving act.
A key question is about das ding an sich, the question about how to define a metaphor that is consistent in order to define and explain a physical existence, in terms of a 3D changing reality.
Imminent in this context is the question about finiteness and continuity, respectively / as put forward by Bohm as the Changing Wholeness.
The question about how to understand and define surface (particle) is a question that involve the paradox of infinite and discretion, and involve the question about existence of infinitesimal, and this a deep paradox. Perhaps the mother of all physical paradoxes.
I have been proposing the metaphor of Object of Sameness as the understanding and defining and explaining metaphor to be used as origin condition, to be used as the most fundamental metaphor in how to build a consistent physical theory, and at the same time accepting that the metaphor itself is a paradox.
This can also be expressed in the insight that perceiving (of a physical reality / real life) requires discreteness. So we end up where we started, namely that physical world / real life, is inconsistent in a philosophical context.
The OP says, Is the world of physics consistent (in the traditional logical sense) or is it possible to find "real-life" contradictions?
IMO the world of pysics is NOT consistent, if PHYSIC is referring to the concept of EXISTING, or as it is being referred to / Real Life.
This implicate that the world of physics contain contradictions or paradoxes. I see no good resons for making any differentation between contradiction and paradox.
Physics is about how we human beings (human mind) DEFINE and EXPLAIN universe or cosmos, about how cosmos by human mind (including our senses), is being translated into this vivid impression of Real Life. As far as I am concerned and kowledgable about, any and all assumptions about reality (existence) breaks down at a certain point. Physics has not as yet demonstrated any consistent theory about existence. Likewise mathematics IMO breaks down when it comes to infinite. Which is a logical coneseqence of the former.
I like this tread and how it is being argued by the OP, and the question about existense is being well put by Black Swan when asking about definition of a surface (or is the mind nothing but a physical object).
I like to think that Universe or cosmos is consistent, but HOW human mind define explain and understand the perceiving of cosmos is not consistent. We have no consistent metaphors for the perceiving act.
A key question is about das ding an sich, the question about how to define a metaphor that is consistent in order to define and explain a physical existence, in terms of a 3D changing reality.
Imminent in this context is the question about finiteness and continuity, respectively / as put forward by Bohm as the Changing Wholeness.
The question about how to understand and define surface (particle) is a question that involve the paradox of infinite and discretion, and involve the question about existence of infinitesimal, and this a deep paradox. Perhaps the mother of all physical paradoxes.
I have been proposing the metaphor of Object of Sameness as the understanding and defining and explaining metaphor to be used as origin condition, to be used as the most fundamental metaphor in how to build a consistent physical theory, and at the same time accepting that the metaphor itself is a paradox.
This can also be expressed in the insight that perceiving (of a physical reality / real life) requires discreteness. So we end up where we started, namely that physical world / real life, is inconsistent in a philosophical context.
QUOTE (niels+Apr 6 2012, 09:35 AM)
Imminent in this context is the question about finiteness and continuity, respectively / as put forward by Bohm as the Changing Wholeness.
The question about how to understand and define surface (particle) is a question that involve the paradox of infinite and discretion, and involve the question about existence of infinitesimal, and this a deep paradox. Perhaps the mother of all physical paradoxes.
Thanks a lot for your comment, Niels.
I agree with you, our topic is closely related to the philosophical/physical inquiries of David Bohm. I like his writings a lot. But it hasn`t sunk in that deep yet that I'd be able to share his opinions here. Maybe you can...
What you say about the existence of infinitesimal is very important. It touches the core of the problem of surfaces. Unfortunately, I can`t find any helpful books which connect infinitesimal and surfaces. Do you have any recommendations? I also would like to hear your opinion in a more extended way.
By the way, if we'd take a close look at one of those classical magnets, we might find another example. Imagine a magnet like this one:
http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-sto...d-image10702887
Right at the point where the red part and the blue part touch each other: is it plus or minus? neither plus nor minus? or is it both, plus and minus?
The question about how to understand and define surface (particle) is a question that involve the paradox of infinite and discretion, and involve the question about existence of infinitesimal, and this a deep paradox. Perhaps the mother of all physical paradoxes.
Thanks a lot for your comment, Niels.
I agree with you, our topic is closely related to the philosophical/physical inquiries of David Bohm. I like his writings a lot. But it hasn`t sunk in that deep yet that I'd be able to share his opinions here. Maybe you can...
What you say about the existence of infinitesimal is very important. It touches the core of the problem of surfaces. Unfortunately, I can`t find any helpful books which connect infinitesimal and surfaces. Do you have any recommendations? I also would like to hear your opinion in a more extended way.
By the way, if we'd take a close look at one of those classical magnets, we might find another example. Imagine a magnet like this one:
http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-sto...d-image10702887
Right at the point where the red part and the blue part touch each other: is it plus or minus? neither plus nor minus? or is it both, plus and minus?
QUOTE (niels+Apr 6 2012, 03:35 AM)
This can also be expressed in the insight that perceiving (of a physical reality / real life) requires discreteness. So we end up where we started, namely that physical world / real life, is inconsistent in a philosophical context.
Bukh continuing to promulgate philosophy over science with his sock puppet account.
Bukh continuing to promulgate philosophy over science with his sock puppet account.
QUOTE (synthsin75+Apr 28 2012, 02:56 PM)
Bukh continuing to promulgate philosophy over science with his sock puppet account.
I have to admit, I didn`t understand all niels said. But at least he contributed an interesting point to the question of surfaces (whereas you just gave us the link to the wikipage). For indeed, if we try to understand what a surface is, we have to confront ourselves with the infinitely small. And this is related to the new example given above. When it comes to a classical magnet we reach a point where it becomes difficult to say if plus and minus are still excluding each other, abolishing each other, or somehow coexist in the same space at the same time. What is your opinion about it?
I have to admit, I didn`t understand all niels said. But at least he contributed an interesting point to the question of surfaces (whereas you just gave us the link to the wikipage). For indeed, if we try to understand what a surface is, we have to confront ourselves with the infinitely small. And this is related to the new example given above. When it comes to a classical magnet we reach a point where it becomes difficult to say if plus and minus are still excluding each other, abolishing each other, or somehow coexist in the same space at the same time. What is your opinion about it?
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.