Go Back   Physics Help Forum > Physics Forums > Philosophy of Physics

Philosophy of Physics Philosophy of Physics Forum - Philosophical questions about our universe

Like Tree9Likes
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old Jul 2nd 2018, 01:59 PM   #11
Forum Admin
 
topsquark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: On the dance floor, baby!
Posts: 2,466
Moved to Philosophy of Physics Forum.

-Dan
studiot likes this.
__________________
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

See the forum rules here.
topsquark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 2nd 2018, 02:41 PM   #12
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Gervais, OR
Posts: 4
I guess what Iím getting at is that thought is as tangible as anything else that has been proven as tangible. (ex. dark matter) The character James Bond is simply a concept and cannot initiate a reaction in any manner. Thought cannot be a simple concept or a philosophy, as in metaphysics. A concept cannot do anything by itself but a thought can cause a synapse to fire in the brain, thus triggering the following reaction that causes movement. If I am wrong then our own thoughts could not come up with new ideas. To say that this belongs in metaphysics is no different than saying that our original thoughts are no different than the character. Metaphysics and philosophy do not cover the physical action created by new, ever changing thoughts. It is extremely illogical to say that information or input alone causes physical action or to say that actions of our body that arenít automatic simply create themselves.
JMRiordan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 2nd 2018, 05:21 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
Woody's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: England
Posts: 642
Free Will

This is once again touching on the topic of free will
and how our personal thoughts and intentions can influence what happens.

Physics, as it currently stands, does not allow much scope for free-will
indeed at its extreme it describes a static 4 dimensional universe.
The illusion of change is purely due to our conciousness moving through the time dimension.

I personally find this interpretation unacceptably sterile,
I can't reconcile my own experience of conciousness with this pre-determined fixed course of existence.

However, it is difficult to see a mechanism within Physics whereby thought can become a causal factor.
__________________
~\o/~
Woody is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 2nd 2018, 06:55 PM   #14
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Xinhui Guangdong Province China
Posts: 118
...

Hello,JMTiordan, you can PREDICT substance by its interaction with anything containing a measurable value. Oz93666's suggetion is good.Mass...charge...etc are physical terminology and physical quantity. Stand firmly on the basic,keep on thinking, try to use math to represent thought,please.
Imagination and prediction often be accused in history of physics. And history goes ahead.
htam9876 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 3rd 2018, 06:08 AM   #15
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Somerset, England
Posts: 995
Originally Posted by JMRiordan View Post
I guess what Iím getting at is that thought is as tangible as anything else that has been proven as tangible. (ex. dark matter) The character James Bond is simply a concept and cannot initiate a reaction in any manner. Thought cannot be a simple concept or a philosophy, as in metaphysics. A concept cannot do anything by itself but a thought can cause a synapse to fire in the brain, thus triggering the following reaction that causes movement. If I am wrong then our own thoughts could not come up with new ideas. To say that this belongs in metaphysics is no different than saying that our original thoughts are no different than the character. Metaphysics and philosophy do not cover the physical action created by new, ever changing thoughts. It is extremely illogical to say that information or input alone causes physical action or to say that actions of our body that arenít automatic simply create themselves.
Thank you for your reply and attempting to cover my points, but note that you seem to have attributed point to me that were not mine.

However what you say shows thoughtfulness, even though you are 'new to Physics'.

You have, however, misunderstood the difference between Metaphysics and Physics.

As you rightly say, Physics quantifies, ie it can tell you how to measure the charge on an electron and its mass.
Further it relates those quantities/properties to those of other Physics objects and to other physics properties such as the force developed due to the mass or charge or mass.

But it does not explore why the charge or mass have that particular number and not some other, either almost the same or vastly different.

Exploring the why question is defined, not by me personally but by convention, as belonging to a subject called metaphysics and included here under 'Philosophy of Physics'.

One of the reasons/ problems for the separation is that consideration of why presupposes there is a why or some purpose and leads down the path to questions of creationism, or other belief systems.

Scientists have to be prepared to say

I don't know (there is not enough of this in my opinion)
but this is how I found/measured it

We can then justifiably say we think this because we observe it

not

We believe this because we like it or it tastes good or this is the way it should be.

As regards the issue of phenomena, I suggest you tone down such positively emphatic declarations until you have some more study/experience under your belt.

You mention thought and information.

There is a phenomenon known as an emergent system. Here something entirely new happens at a certain level of complexity/configuration and does not even partly happen until that certain level is reached as the sytem develops.

In discussion it is always good to give examples so I would encourage you to do this as well. And also to respond to the examples provided by others, as I have to yours.

So I'm glad you liked James Bond.

Now how about the substance of a hole?
Many things with substance are impossible without them.

Two more examples for consideration.

Does a shadow have substance, again it has physically real effects.

An arch structure is an example of an emergent system.
topsquark likes this.
studiot is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

  Physics Help Forum > Physics Forums > Philosophy of Physics

Tags
defining, substance



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Physics Forum Discussions
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Watch the biggest mistake we make in defining acceleration StudyMadeEasy Kinematics and Dynamics 0 Feb 17th 2017 01:23 PM
defining entropy with heat instead of work? tabby123 Advanced Thermodynamics 2 Feb 24th 2016 12:19 AM
Half life of substance ling233 Nuclear and Particle Physics 3 Oct 22nd 2014 08:16 AM
please help in defining disturbance eason123deng Waves and Sound 0 Jan 5th 2011 10:12 AM
Calculate the net charge on a substance consisting of a combination of 7.8 1013 prot Ace Electricity and Magnetism 1 Feb 5th 2010 11:57 PM


Facebook Twitter Google+ RSS Feed