What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

A thought--For the physics experts out there (1 Viewer)

supermike80

Footballguy
Ok so. If we can move on from that. I am unbelievably, monumentally sorry I used the word "theory." I really honestly and truly didn't know it would have such a massive impact. So I changed my post.
Now to your second paragraph, since we have hopefully moved on from my guffaw. My point it no one yet understands what dark matter is. We can detect it, somewhat. But we don't know what it is. Are you saying from your chair the laws of physics that we have drawn are the absolute end all be all and there is absolutely no possible way things can interact in a different manner? Are you taking the somewhat human centric position that we know it all? Cause I don't buy that, for a hot second.
I think my previous, post that was being written before seeing yours here, addresses some of the questions you raise here about knowing it all...

On the specific issue of dark matter, you are right. We have no idea what it is. We definitely see evidence of its existence based on our current understanding of gravity. However, we have been searching fruitlessly for quite a while now. Either we are going to eventually find the source OR we are going to have to adjust our understanding of gravitation to incorporate what we see and measure. There are some who are starting to doubt the existence of dark matter. We know our theory of gravitation is at best incomplete because we can't currently reconcile it with quantum mechanics.

ETA...whatever adjustment may come in the future for our theory of gravity would not discount what we already have established. We have been using our current understanding of gravitation very effectively for long a time. There must be merit to it even if incomplete.
See and I disagree some what. It is likely we will never discover the source but at the same time, and changing our understanding is fine, but we would need a reason to do so.
I fully agree. No one is advocating that we simply make up a new theory of gravity. Any alterations that would come about would only happen because the evidence supports doing so. The objective evidence needs to be the reason. For the record, I am not ready to throw in the towel on the search for dark matter. We have evidence today of the existence of so many more fundamental particles then were ever imagined 100 years ago. It is a product of figuring out where to look and having the technology available to do so.
Absolutely the evidence needs to be provided. That makes sense. What I am asking is what if? What if we will never know. If you toss away what ou know for a minute, why can't this idea have some value?
 

Galileo

Footballguy
For a physicist, that was a strange reply. Someone cannot have a theory without evidence? That literally makes no sense at all. I apologize that you don't understand a "higher plane of existence" but, again, I think those locked in the world of physics have a tendency to believe(falsely in my opinion) that the only physics that can exist is what we can think of.

You guys use the cat analogy. The theory is that if you give a cat a book on quantum mechanics....no matter what you do, no matter how hard you try, no matter how long it takes, that cat will never understand quantum mechanics. I believe the same is true for humans. There could quite possibly be things in the universe we will never understand or know. Our intelligence level doesn't allow for it. To think the entire universe exists and lives by laws we have, is quite frankly seriously short sighted.
I sort of looked past this post originally after getting caught up in the theory discussion that overtook the thread. There is a lot to bite off here that is really a separate discussion than what was posed in the OP regarding dark matter.

I don't disagree with you at all regarding the bolded. That very well may end up being true. Even if we could eventually understand it all there is a good chance we fizzle out as a species before we do. Science/Physics does not claim to have all the answers. I am very comfortable with the idea of not knowing. I am comfortable enough with not knowing that I find no need to create answers in the realm of the supernatural to satisfy my shortcomings. However, I am very confident that the processes and methods of science (when implemented with integrity, of course) provide the path towards understanding. The reliance on objective evidence and repeatability safeguards against emotional, speculative, and biased interpretations of nature. When we uncover evidence for "new physics" that holds up to the rigors of the scientific process, I will gladly embrace it. Furthermore, the discovery of "new physics", does not negate what has already been established. It merely means new theories emerge that incorporate both the old and new.
Well, I will say, again back to the cat reference that while our physics may explain our world, I am not willing to say it holds true everywhere. I just don't believe it. As far as creating answers, it's just chit chat. There is no need to do it due to shortcomings. It is entirely possible, and I would say likely, that the "new physics" will never hold up to the rigors of the scientific process, because we just dont know how those processes work And finally, I agree with you "new physics" doesn't replace what we know. It could be just knowing more.
Let the objective evidence tell the story and leave belief out of the equation. If we are relying on belief as the basis of reasoning for anything, then it is not a matter of science.
See that in my opinion is limiting. Again, it isn't reasoning, its pondering. Since this idea can;t be tested by science, it can't be proved by science. That in itself does not make it untrue.
It also doesn't make it true. I agree that it is pondering...ideas...nothing at all wrong with that. Ideas can be wonderful and fascinating. It is possible they even lead to new ideas that can be scientifically investigated. You asked for the perspective of a physicist. A physicist should look for repeatable, supporting objective evidence before any attempt to claim confidence in the idea. This does not prevent people from having these ponderings. Ponder away...
 

supermike80

Footballguy
For a physicist, that was a strange reply. Someone cannot have a theory without evidence? That literally makes no sense at all. I apologize that you don't understand a "higher plane of existence" but, again, I think those locked in the world of physics have a tendency to believe(falsely in my opinion) that the only physics that can exist is what we can think of.

You guys use the cat analogy. The theory is that if you give a cat a book on quantum mechanics....no matter what you do, no matter how hard you try, no matter how long it takes, that cat will never understand quantum mechanics. I believe the same is true for humans. There could quite possibly be things in the universe we will never understand or know. Our intelligence level doesn't allow for it. To think the entire universe exists and lives by laws we have, is quite frankly seriously short sighted.
I sort of looked past this post originally after getting caught up in the theory discussion that overtook the thread. There is a lot to bite off here that is really a separate discussion than what was posed in the OP regarding dark matter.

I don't disagree with you at all regarding the bolded. That very well may end up being true. Even if we could eventually understand it all there is a good chance we fizzle out as a species before we do. Science/Physics does not claim to have all the answers. I am very comfortable with the idea of not knowing. I am comfortable enough with not knowing that I find no need to create answers in the realm of the supernatural to satisfy my shortcomings. However, I am very confident that the processes and methods of science (when implemented with integrity, of course) provide the path towards understanding. The reliance on objective evidence and repeatability safeguards against emotional, speculative, and biased interpretations of nature. When we uncover evidence for "new physics" that holds up to the rigors of the scientific process, I will gladly embrace it. Furthermore, the discovery of "new physics", does not negate what has already been established. It merely means new theories emerge that incorporate both the old and new.
Well, I will say, again back to the cat reference that while our physics may explain our world, I am not willing to say it holds true everywhere. I just don't believe it. As far as creating answers, it's just chit chat. There is no need to do it due to shortcomings. It is entirely possible, and I would say likely, that the "new physics" will never hold up to the rigors of the scientific process, because we just dont know how those processes work And finally, I agree with you "new physics" doesn't replace what we know. It could be just knowing more.
Let the objective evidence tell the story and leave belief out of the equation. If we are relying on belief as the basis of reasoning for anything, then it is not a matter of science.
See that in my opinion is limiting. Again, it isn't reasoning, its pondering. Since this idea can;t be tested by science, it can't be proved by science. That in itself does not make it untrue.
It also doesn't make it true. I agree that it is pondering...ideas...nothing at all wrong with that. Ideas can be wonderful and fascinating. It is possible they even lead to new ideas that can be scientifically investigated. You asked for the perspective of a physicist. A physicist should look for repeatable, supporting objective evidence before any attempt to claim confidence in the idea. This does not prevent people from having these ponderings. Ponder away...
Yeah agreed..I shouldn't have asked a physicist. Too tied up in the laws they thing the universe is governed by. That wouldn't work
 

Galileo

Footballguy
For a physicist, that was a strange reply. Someone cannot have a theory without evidence? That literally makes no sense at all. I apologize that you don't understand a "higher plane of existence" but, again, I think those locked in the world of physics have a tendency to believe(falsely in my opinion) that the only physics that can exist is what we can think of.

You guys use the cat analogy. The theory is that if you give a cat a book on quantum mechanics....no matter what you do, no matter how hard you try, no matter how long it takes, that cat will never understand quantum mechanics. I believe the same is true for humans. There could quite possibly be things in the universe we will never understand or know. Our intelligence level doesn't allow for it. To think the entire universe exists and lives by laws we have, is quite frankly seriously short sighted.
I sort of looked past this post originally after getting caught up in the theory discussion that overtook the thread. There is a lot to bite off here that is really a separate discussion than what was posed in the OP regarding dark matter.

I don't disagree with you at all regarding the bolded. That very well may end up being true. Even if we could eventually understand it all there is a good chance we fizzle out as a species before we do. Science/Physics does not claim to have all the answers. I am very comfortable with the idea of not knowing. I am comfortable enough with not knowing that I find no need to create answers in the realm of the supernatural to satisfy my shortcomings. However, I am very confident that the processes and methods of science (when implemented with integrity, of course) provide the path towards understanding. The reliance on objective evidence and repeatability safeguards against emotional, speculative, and biased interpretations of nature. When we uncover evidence for "new physics" that holds up to the rigors of the scientific process, I will gladly embrace it. Furthermore, the discovery of "new physics", does not negate what has already been established. It merely means new theories emerge that incorporate both the old and new.
Well, I will say, again back to the cat reference that while our physics may explain our world, I am not willing to say it holds true everywhere. I just don't believe it. As far as creating answers, it's just chit chat. There is no need to do it due to shortcomings. It is entirely possible, and I would say likely, that the "new physics" will never hold up to the rigors of the scientific process, because we just dont know how those processes work And finally, I agree with you "new physics" doesn't replace what we know. It could be just knowing more.
Let the objective evidence tell the story and leave belief out of the equation. If we are relying on belief as the basis of reasoning for anything, then it is not a matter of science.
See that in my opinion is limiting. Again, it isn't reasoning, its pondering. Since this idea can;t be tested by science, it can't be proved by science. That in itself does not make it untrue.
It also doesn't make it true. I agree that it is pondering...ideas...nothing at all wrong with that. Ideas can be wonderful and fascinating. It is possible they even lead to new ideas that can be scientifically investigated. You asked for the perspective of a physicist. A physicist should look for repeatable, supporting objective evidence before any attempt to claim confidence in the idea. This does not prevent people from having these ponderings. Ponder away...
Yeah agreed..I shouldn't have asked a physicist. Too tied up in the laws they thing the universe is governed by. That wouldn't work
I find it odd that you keep claiming that the physics perspective is limiting and closed minded. I think I have made it abundantly clear, that if I were presented with evidence clearly supporting a new description of some aspect of our natural world, I would embrace it and adjust my thinking to accommodate that evidence. If I were presented with evidence that clearly refuted an idea, I would reject that idea. Yes, I am "tied up in the laws" because the laws have been curated from repeatable, objective measurements of nature. I am just following the evidence, and my mind is completely open to wherever the evidence may lead.
 

supermike80

Footballguy
For a physicist, that was a strange reply. Someone cannot have a theory without evidence? That literally makes no sense at all. I apologize that you don't understand a "higher plane of existence" but, again, I think those locked in the world of physics have a tendency to believe(falsely in my opinion) that the only physics that can exist is what we can think of.

You guys use the cat analogy. The theory is that if you give a cat a book on quantum mechanics....no matter what you do, no matter how hard you try, no matter how long it takes, that cat will never understand quantum mechanics. I believe the same is true for humans. There could quite possibly be things in the universe we will never understand or know. Our intelligence level doesn't allow for it. To think the entire universe exists and lives by laws we have, is quite frankly seriously short sighted.
I sort of looked past this post originally after getting caught up in the theory discussion that overtook the thread. There is a lot to bite off here that is really a separate discussion than what was posed in the OP regarding dark matter.

I don't disagree with you at all regarding the bolded. That very well may end up being true. Even if we could eventually understand it all there is a good chance we fizzle out as a species before we do. Science/Physics does not claim to have all the answers. I am very comfortable with the idea of not knowing. I am comfortable enough with not knowing that I find no need to create answers in the realm of the supernatural to satisfy my shortcomings. However, I am very confident that the processes and methods of science (when implemented with integrity, of course) provide the path towards understanding. The reliance on objective evidence and repeatability safeguards against emotional, speculative, and biased interpretations of nature. When we uncover evidence for "new physics" that holds up to the rigors of the scientific process, I will gladly embrace it. Furthermore, the discovery of "new physics", does not negate what has already been established. It merely means new theories emerge that incorporate both the old and new.
Well, I will say, again back to the cat reference that while our physics may explain our world, I am not willing to say it holds true everywhere. I just don't believe it. As far as creating answers, it's just chit chat. There is no need to do it due to shortcomings. It is entirely possible, and I would say likely, that the "new physics" will never hold up to the rigors of the scientific process, because we just dont know how those processes work And finally, I agree with you "new physics" doesn't replace what we know. It could be just knowing more.
Let the objective evidence tell the story and leave belief out of the equation. If we are relying on belief as the basis of reasoning for anything, then it is not a matter of science.
See that in my opinion is limiting. Again, it isn't reasoning, its pondering. Since this idea can;t be tested by science, it can't be proved by science. That in itself does not make it untrue.
It also doesn't make it true. I agree that it is pondering...ideas...nothing at all wrong with that. Ideas can be wonderful and fascinating. It is possible they even lead to new ideas that can be scientifically investigated. You asked for the perspective of a physicist. A physicist should look for repeatable, supporting objective evidence before any attempt to claim confidence in the idea. This does not prevent people from having these ponderings. Ponder away...
Yeah agreed..I shouldn't have asked a physicist. Too tied up in the laws they thing the universe is governed by. That wouldn't work
I find it odd that you keep claiming that the physics perspective is limiting and closed minded. I think I have made it abundantly clear, that if I were presented with evidence clearly supporting a new description of some aspect of our natural world, I would embrace it and adjust my thinking to accommodate that evidence. If I were presented with evidence that clearly refuted an idea, I would reject that idea. Yes, I am "tied up in the laws" because the laws have been curated from repeatable, objective measurements of nature. I am just following the evidence, and my mind is completely open to wherever the evidence may lead.
Its limiting because you can only make a decision based on evidence. Seems unable to think outside of what you know from physics. That is limiting
 

Galileo

Footballguy
For a physicist, that was a strange reply. Someone cannot have a theory without evidence? That literally makes no sense at all. I apologize that you don't understand a "higher plane of existence" but, again, I think those locked in the world of physics have a tendency to believe(falsely in my opinion) that the only physics that can exist is what we can think of.

You guys use the cat analogy. The theory is that if you give a cat a book on quantum mechanics....no matter what you do, no matter how hard you try, no matter how long it takes, that cat will never understand quantum mechanics. I believe the same is true for humans. There could quite possibly be things in the universe we will never understand or know. Our intelligence level doesn't allow for it. To think the entire universe exists and lives by laws we have, is quite frankly seriously short sighted.
I sort of looked past this post originally after getting caught up in the theory discussion that overtook the thread. There is a lot to bite off here that is really a separate discussion than what was posed in the OP regarding dark matter.

I don't disagree with you at all regarding the bolded. That very well may end up being true. Even if we could eventually understand it all there is a good chance we fizzle out as a species before we do. Science/Physics does not claim to have all the answers. I am very comfortable with the idea of not knowing. I am comfortable enough with not knowing that I find no need to create answers in the realm of the supernatural to satisfy my shortcomings. However, I am very confident that the processes and methods of science (when implemented with integrity, of course) provide the path towards understanding. The reliance on objective evidence and repeatability safeguards against emotional, speculative, and biased interpretations of nature. When we uncover evidence for "new physics" that holds up to the rigors of the scientific process, I will gladly embrace it. Furthermore, the discovery of "new physics", does not negate what has already been established. It merely means new theories emerge that incorporate both the old and new.
Well, I will say, again back to the cat reference that while our physics may explain our world, I am not willing to say it holds true everywhere. I just don't believe it. As far as creating answers, it's just chit chat. There is no need to do it due to shortcomings. It is entirely possible, and I would say likely, that the "new physics" will never hold up to the rigors of the scientific process, because we just dont know how those processes work And finally, I agree with you "new physics" doesn't replace what we know. It could be just knowing more.
Let the objective evidence tell the story and leave belief out of the equation. If we are relying on belief as the basis of reasoning for anything, then it is not a matter of science.
See that in my opinion is limiting. Again, it isn't reasoning, its pondering. Since this idea can;t be tested by science, it can't be proved by science. That in itself does not make it untrue.
It also doesn't make it true. I agree that it is pondering...ideas...nothing at all wrong with that. Ideas can be wonderful and fascinating. It is possible they even lead to new ideas that can be scientifically investigated. You asked for the perspective of a physicist. A physicist should look for repeatable, supporting objective evidence before any attempt to claim confidence in the idea. This does not prevent people from having these ponderings. Ponder away...
Yeah agreed..I shouldn't have asked a physicist. Too tied up in the laws they thing the universe is governed by. That wouldn't work
I find it odd that you keep claiming that the physics perspective is limiting and closed minded. I think I have made it abundantly clear, that if I were presented with evidence clearly supporting a new description of some aspect of our natural world, I would embrace it and adjust my thinking to accommodate that evidence. If I were presented with evidence that clearly refuted an idea, I would reject that idea. Yes, I am "tied up in the laws" because the laws have been curated from repeatable, objective measurements of nature. I am just following the evidence, and my mind is completely open to wherever the evidence may lead.
Its limiting because you can only make a decision based on evidence. Seems unable to think outside of what you know from physics. That is limiting
When it comes to making claims about behaviors within the natural world, yes. I rely on evidence. Guilty as charged, and I make no apologies for that. Although, I am not really sure those are decisions as I don't have choices. However, I am about to make a decision on how best to cook my chicken for dinner tonight. Understanding the laws of thermodynamics has led to the development of several possible techniques currently at my disposal ;) .
 

supermike80

Footballguy
For a physicist, that was a strange reply. Someone cannot have a theory without evidence? That literally makes no sense at all. I apologize that you don't understand a "higher plane of existence" but, again, I think those locked in the world of physics have a tendency to believe(falsely in my opinion) that the only physics that can exist is what we can think of.

You guys use the cat analogy. The theory is that if you give a cat a book on quantum mechanics....no matter what you do, no matter how hard you try, no matter how long it takes, that cat will never understand quantum mechanics. I believe the same is true for humans. There could quite possibly be things in the universe we will never understand or know. Our intelligence level doesn't allow for it. To think the entire universe exists and lives by laws we have, is quite frankly seriously short sighted.
I sort of looked past this post originally after getting caught up in the theory discussion that overtook the thread. There is a lot to bite off here that is really a separate discussion than what was posed in the OP regarding dark matter.

I don't disagree with you at all regarding the bolded. That very well may end up being true. Even if we could eventually understand it all there is a good chance we fizzle out as a species before we do. Science/Physics does not claim to have all the answers. I am very comfortable with the idea of not knowing. I am comfortable enough with not knowing that I find no need to create answers in the realm of the supernatural to satisfy my shortcomings. However, I am very confident that the processes and methods of science (when implemented with integrity, of course) provide the path towards understanding. The reliance on objective evidence and repeatability safeguards against emotional, speculative, and biased interpretations of nature. When we uncover evidence for "new physics" that holds up to the rigors of the scientific process, I will gladly embrace it. Furthermore, the discovery of "new physics", does not negate what has already been established. It merely means new theories emerge that incorporate both the old and new.
Well, I will say, again back to the cat reference that while our physics may explain our world, I am not willing to say it holds true everywhere. I just don't believe it. As far as creating answers, it's just chit chat. There is no need to do it due to shortcomings. It is entirely possible, and I would say likely, that the "new physics" will never hold up to the rigors of the scientific process, because we just dont know how those processes work And finally, I agree with you "new physics" doesn't replace what we know. It could be just knowing more.
Let the objective evidence tell the story and leave belief out of the equation. If we are relying on belief as the basis of reasoning for anything, then it is not a matter of science.
See that in my opinion is limiting. Again, it isn't reasoning, its pondering. Since this idea can;t be tested by science, it can't be proved by science. That in itself does not make it untrue.
It also doesn't make it true. I agree that it is pondering...ideas...nothing at all wrong with that. Ideas can be wonderful and fascinating. It is possible they even lead to new ideas that can be scientifically investigated. You asked for the perspective of a physicist. A physicist should look for repeatable, supporting objective evidence before any attempt to claim confidence in the idea. This does not prevent people from having these ponderings. Ponder away...
Yeah agreed..I shouldn't have asked a physicist. Too tied up in the laws they thing the universe is governed by. That wouldn't work
I find it odd that you keep claiming that the physics perspective is limiting and closed minded. I think I have made it abundantly clear, that if I were presented with evidence clearly supporting a new description of some aspect of our natural world, I would embrace it and adjust my thinking to accommodate that evidence. If I were presented with evidence that clearly refuted an idea, I would reject that idea. Yes, I am "tied up in the laws" because the laws have been curated from repeatable, objective measurements of nature. I am just following the evidence, and my mind is completely open to wherever the evidence may lead.
Its limiting because you can only make a decision based on evidence. Seems unable to think outside of what you know from physics. That is limiting
When it comes to making claims about behaviors within the natural world, yes. I rely on evidence. Guilty as charged, and I make no apologies for that. Although, I am not really sure those are decisions as I don't have choices. However, I am about to make a decision on how best to cook my chicken for dinner tonight. Understanding the laws of thermodynamics has led to the development of several possible techniques currently at my disposal ;) .
And thus the issue. If I was looking for a physics expert to tell me whether this is possible, I would expect him to say no. that wasn't the question. You exist only in the natural world, I get that. I'm wondering if there is more than the natural world. And thats where we cannot come to an ageement. You need proof to speculate, I do not
 

Galileo

Footballguy
Specula
For a physicist, that was a strange reply. Someone cannot have a theory without evidence? That literally makes no sense at all. I apologize that you don't understand a "higher plane of existence" but, again, I think those locked in the world of physics have a tendency to believe(falsely in my opinion) that the only physics that can exist is what we can think of.

You guys use the cat analogy. The theory is that if you give a cat a book on quantum mechanics....no matter what you do, no matter how hard you try, no matter how long it takes, that cat will never understand quantum mechanics. I believe the same is true for humans. There could quite possibly be things in the universe we will never understand or know. Our intelligence level doesn't allow for it. To think the entire universe exists and lives by laws we have, is quite frankly seriously short sighted.
I sort of looked past this post originally after getting caught up in the theory discussion that overtook the thread. There is a lot to bite off here that is really a separate discussion than what was posed in the OP regarding dark matter.

I don't disagree with you at all regarding the bolded. That very well may end up being true. Even if we could eventually understand it all there is a good chance we fizzle out as a species before we do. Science/Physics does not claim to have all the answers. I am very comfortable with the idea of not knowing. I am comfortable enough with not knowing that I find no need to create answers in the realm of the supernatural to satisfy my shortcomings. However, I am very confident that the processes and methods of science (when implemented with integrity, of course) provide the path towards understanding. The reliance on objective evidence and repeatability safeguards against emotional, speculative, and biased interpretations of nature. When we uncover evidence for "new physics" that holds up to the rigors of the scientific process, I will gladly embrace it. Furthermore, the discovery of "new physics", does not negate what has already been established. It merely means new theories emerge that incorporate both the old and new.
Well, I will say, again back to the cat reference that while our physics may explain our world, I am not willing to say it holds true everywhere. I just don't believe it. As far as creating answers, it's just chit chat. There is no need to do it due to shortcomings. It is entirely possible, and I would say likely, that the "new physics" will never hold up to the rigors of the scientific process, because we just dont know how those processes work And finally, I agree with you "new physics" doesn't replace what we know. It could be just knowing more.
Let the objective evidence tell the story and leave belief out of the equation. If we are relying on belief as the basis of reasoning for anything, then it is not a matter of science.
See that in my opinion is limiting. Again, it isn't reasoning, its pondering. Since this idea can;t be tested by science, it can't be proved by science. That in itself does not make it untrue.
It also doesn't make it true. I agree that it is pondering...ideas...nothing at all wrong with that. Ideas can be wonderful and fascinating. It is possible they even lead to new ideas that can be scientifically investigated. You asked for the perspective of a physicist. A physicist should look for repeatable, supporting objective evidence before any attempt to claim confidence in the idea. This does not prevent people from having these ponderings. Ponder away...
Yeah agreed..I shouldn't have asked a physicist. Too tied up in the laws they thing the universe is governed by. That wouldn't work
I find it odd that you keep claiming that the physics perspective is limiting and closed minded. I think I have made it abundantly clear, that if I were presented with evidence clearly supporting a new description of some aspect of our natural world, I would embrace it and adjust my thinking to accommodate that evidence. If I were presented with evidence that clearly refuted an idea, I would reject that idea. Yes, I am "tied up in the laws" because the laws have been curated from repeatable, objective measurements of nature. I am just following the evidence, and my mind is completely open to wherever the evidence may lead.
Its limiting because you can only make a decision based on evidence. Seems unable to think outside of what you know from physics. That is limiting
When it comes to making claims about behaviors within the natural world, yes. I rely on evidence. Guilty as charged, and I make no apologies for that. Although, I am not really sure those are decisions as I don't have choices. However, I am about to make a decision on how best to cook my chicken for dinner tonight. Understanding the laws of thermodynamics has led to the development of several possible techniques currently at my disposal ;) .
And thus the issue. If I was looking for a physics expert to tell me whether this is possible, I would expect him to say no. that wasn't the question. You exist only in the natural world, I get that. I'm wondering if there is more than the natural world. And thats where we cannot come to an ageement. You need proof to speculate, I do not
Speculation does not require any proof whatsoever. I think that would be contrary to what speculation is. I do think making claims about the natural world requires supporting evidence. In my mind, this is not the same thing as proof. In fact I would argue science/physics can not prove anything. I can build strong supporting evidence and use it make make predictions that are put to the test. When those predictions come to fruition, it adds strength to the claim. Science/physics can disprove things, but in order to disprove something, it has to be a testable something. If you wish to believe in something beyond the natural world, go for it. I won't stop you. Those beliefs are based in faith, because something beyond the natural world is not testable in the physical realm (if it was, it wouldn't be supernatural) and thus not a question for physics to attempt to address. These things become a matter of spirituality or religion. These spiritual beliefs are every subjective though. Look around at the number of different religions that have vastly different beliefs. I can no more use physics to deny something supernatural than I can to provide evidence of something supernatural. I don't think you will find too many people in disagreement about whether a ball will fall to the ground when you let go of it. If we disagree on this, we can put it to a test and seek clarification. So yes, physics exists only in the natural world, but that doesn't inherently prohibit the existence of supernatural. It is however an impossible task to make any objective claims about the supernatural if you can not interact with it.
 

supermike80

Footballguy
Specula
For a physicist, that was a strange reply. Someone cannot have a theory without evidence? That literally makes no sense at all. I apologize that you don't understand a "higher plane of existence" but, again, I think those locked in the world of physics have a tendency to believe(falsely in my opinion) that the only physics that can exist is what we can think of.

You guys use the cat analogy. The theory is that if you give a cat a book on quantum mechanics....no matter what you do, no matter how hard you try, no matter how long it takes, that cat will never understand quantum mechanics. I believe the same is true for humans. There could quite possibly be things in the universe we will never understand or know. Our intelligence level doesn't allow for it. To think the entire universe exists and lives by laws we have, is quite frankly seriously short sighted.
I sort of looked past this post originally after getting caught up in the theory discussion that overtook the thread. There is a lot to bite off here that is really a separate discussion than what was posed in the OP regarding dark matter.

I don't disagree with you at all regarding the bolded. That very well may end up being true. Even if we could eventually understand it all there is a good chance we fizzle out as a species before we do. Science/Physics does not claim to have all the answers. I am very comfortable with the idea of not knowing. I am comfortable enough with not knowing that I find no need to create answers in the realm of the supernatural to satisfy my shortcomings. However, I am very confident that the processes and methods of science (when implemented with integrity, of course) provide the path towards understanding. The reliance on objective evidence and repeatability safeguards against emotional, speculative, and biased interpretations of nature. When we uncover evidence for "new physics" that holds up to the rigors of the scientific process, I will gladly embrace it. Furthermore, the discovery of "new physics", does not negate what has already been established. It merely means new theories emerge that incorporate both the old and new.
Well, I will say, again back to the cat reference that while our physics may explain our world, I am not willing to say it holds true everywhere. I just don't believe it. As far as creating answers, it's just chit chat. There is no need to do it due to shortcomings. It is entirely possible, and I would say likely, that the "new physics" will never hold up to the rigors of the scientific process, because we just dont know how those processes work And finally, I agree with you "new physics" doesn't replace what we know. It could be just knowing more.
Let the objective evidence tell the story and leave belief out of the equation. If we are relying on belief as the basis of reasoning for anything, then it is not a matter of science.
See that in my opinion is limiting. Again, it isn't reasoning, its pondering. Since this idea can;t be tested by science, it can't be proved by science. That in itself does not make it untrue.
It also doesn't make it true. I agree that it is pondering...ideas...nothing at all wrong with that. Ideas can be wonderful and fascinating. It is possible they even lead to new ideas that can be scientifically investigated. You asked for the perspective of a physicist. A physicist should look for repeatable, supporting objective evidence before any attempt to claim confidence in the idea. This does not prevent people from having these ponderings. Ponder away...
Yeah agreed..I shouldn't have asked a physicist. Too tied up in the laws they thing the universe is governed by. That wouldn't work
I find it odd that you keep claiming that the physics perspective is limiting and closed minded. I think I have made it abundantly clear, that if I were presented with evidence clearly supporting a new description of some aspect of our natural world, I would embrace it and adjust my thinking to accommodate that evidence. If I were presented with evidence that clearly refuted an idea, I would reject that idea. Yes, I am "tied up in the laws" because the laws have been curated from repeatable, objective measurements of nature. I am just following the evidence, and my mind is completely open to wherever the evidence may lead.
Its limiting because you can only make a decision based on evidence. Seems unable to think outside of what you know from physics. That is limiting
When it comes to making claims about behaviors within the natural world, yes. I rely on evidence. Guilty as charged, and I make no apologies for that. Although, I am not really sure those are decisions as I don't have choices. However, I am about to make a decision on how best to cook my chicken for dinner tonight. Understanding the laws of thermodynamics has led to the development of several possible techniques currently at my disposal ;) .
And thus the issue. If I was looking for a physics expert to tell me whether this is possible, I would expect him to say no. that wasn't the question. You exist only in the natural world, I get that. I'm wondering if there is more than the natural world. And thats where we cannot come to an ageement. You need proof to speculate, I do not
Speculation does not require any proof whatsoever. I think that would be contrary to what speculation is. I do think making claims about the natural world requires supporting evidence. In my mind, this is not the same thing as proof. In fact I would argue science/physics can not prove anything. I can build strong supporting evidence and use it make make predictions that are put to the test. When those predictions come to fruition, it adds strength to the claim. Science/physics can disprove things, but in order to disprove something, it has to be a testable something. If you wish to believe in something beyond the natural world, go for it. I won't stop you. Those beliefs are based in faith, because something beyond the natural world is not testable in the physical realm (if it was, it wouldn't be supernatural) and thus not a question for physics to attempt to address. These things become a matter of spirituality or religion. These spiritual beliefs are every subjective though. Look around at the number of different religions that have vastly different beliefs. I can no more use physics to deny something supernatural than I can to provide evidence of something supernatural. I don't think you will find too many people in disagreement about whether a ball will fall to the ground when you let go of it. If we disagree on this, we can put it to a test and seek clarification. So yes, physics exists only in the natural world, but that doesn't inherently prohibit the existence of supernatural. It is however an impossible task to make any objective claims about the supernatural if you can not interact with it.
You're wrong. Totally. Just because something doesn't conform to what your definitions say it should, it does not automatically become spirituality or religion.
 

GordonGekko

Footballguy
Absolutely the evidence needs to be provided. That makes sense. What I am asking is what if? What if we will never know. If you toss away what ou know for a minute, why can't this idea have some value?

Just a thought. Take a look at your screen name again. Then consider non STEMs shouldn't be held to the standard of others in the math, technology and science realm.

If someone is curious about math and science, let us encourage that curiosity. In those specific cases, educating others with a soft hand is a more practical way to win hearts and minds.
Have I done differently in this thread?

And the story of Galileo you share is indeed a sad one.





1. Does humanity have a future beyond Earth?

2. When and where do you think we will find extraterrestrial life?

6. What is the chance Homo sapiens will survive for the next 500 years?

9. Could we one day replace all of the tissues in the human body through engineering?

10. Can we avoid a “sixth extinction”?

13. Will we discover a twin Earth?

16. Will we ever figure out what dark matter is?

17. Will we get control of intractable brain diseases like schizophrenia or autism?

20. Do you think we will one day be able to predict natural disasters such as earthquakes with warning times of days or hours?


https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/20-big-questions-about-the-future-of-humanity/



*******



“If there is abundant microbial life on Mars, I suspect that we will find it within 20 years—if it is enough like our form of life. If an alien life-form differs much from what we have here on Earth, it is going to be difficult to detect. It’s also possible that any surviving Martian microbes are rare and located in places that are difficult for a robotic lander to reach. Jupiter’s moon Europa and Saturn’s moon Titan are more compelling places. Europa is a water world where more complex forms of life may have evolved. And Titan is probably the most interesting place in the solar system to look for life. It is rich in organic molecules but very cold and has no liquid water; if life exists on Titan, it will be very different from life on Earth.” - Carol E. Cleland, University of Colorado Boulder


Let's try this a different way.

Clearly you've got lots you want to say in this thread. Here are some very common scientific questions from Scientific America. Many of them lean into questions that @supermike80 is asking or are natural extensions of some things he wants to cover.

Here's a formal opportunity to share your thoughts. And in that way, SM80 can start to see your perspective on some of these issues.

As a gesture of goodwill, if you participate here, I'll do a little extra on top of what I normally do to support some local food banks during this upcoming holiday season. So it can be win/win/win for everyone.
 

Galileo

Footballguy
Specula
For a physicist, that was a strange reply. Someone cannot have a theory without evidence? That literally makes no sense at all. I apologize that you don't understand a "higher plane of existence" but, again, I think those locked in the world of physics have a tendency to believe(falsely in my opinion) that the only physics that can exist is what we can think of.

You guys use the cat analogy. The theory is that if you give a cat a book on quantum mechanics....no matter what you do, no matter how hard you try, no matter how long it takes, that cat will never understand quantum mechanics. I believe the same is true for humans. There could quite possibly be things in the universe we will never understand or know. Our intelligence level doesn't allow for it. To think the entire universe exists and lives by laws we have, is quite frankly seriously short sighted.
I sort of looked past this post originally after getting caught up in the theory discussion that overtook the thread. There is a lot to bite off here that is really a separate discussion than what was posed in the OP regarding dark matter.

I don't disagree with you at all regarding the bolded. That very well may end up being true. Even if we could eventually understand it all there is a good chance we fizzle out as a species before we do. Science/Physics does not claim to have all the answers. I am very comfortable with the idea of not knowing. I am comfortable enough with not knowing that I find no need to create answers in the realm of the supernatural to satisfy my shortcomings. However, I am very confident that the processes and methods of science (when implemented with integrity, of course) provide the path towards understanding. The reliance on objective evidence and repeatability safeguards against emotional, speculative, and biased interpretations of nature. When we uncover evidence for "new physics" that holds up to the rigors of the scientific process, I will gladly embrace it. Furthermore, the discovery of "new physics", does not negate what has already been established. It merely means new theories emerge that incorporate both the old and new.
Well, I will say, again back to the cat reference that while our physics may explain our world, I am not willing to say it holds true everywhere. I just don't believe it. As far as creating answers, it's just chit chat. There is no need to do it due to shortcomings. It is entirely possible, and I would say likely, that the "new physics" will never hold up to the rigors of the scientific process, because we just dont know how those processes work And finally, I agree with you "new physics" doesn't replace what we know. It could be just knowing more.
Let the objective evidence tell the story and leave belief out of the equation. If we are relying on belief as the basis of reasoning for anything, then it is not a matter of science.
See that in my opinion is limiting. Again, it isn't reasoning, its pondering. Since this idea can;t be tested by science, it can't be proved by science. That in itself does not make it untrue.
It also doesn't make it true. I agree that it is pondering...ideas...nothing at all wrong with that. Ideas can be wonderful and fascinating. It is possible they even lead to new ideas that can be scientifically investigated. You asked for the perspective of a physicist. A physicist should look for repeatable, supporting objective evidence before any attempt to claim confidence in the idea. This does not prevent people from having these ponderings. Ponder away...
Yeah agreed..I shouldn't have asked a physicist. Too tied up in the laws they thing the universe is governed by. That wouldn't work
I find it odd that you keep claiming that the physics perspective is limiting and closed minded. I think I have made it abundantly clear, that if I were presented with evidence clearly supporting a new description of some aspect of our natural world, I would embrace it and adjust my thinking to accommodate that evidence. If I were presented with evidence that clearly refuted an idea, I would reject that idea. Yes, I am "tied up in the laws" because the laws have been curated from repeatable, objective measurements of nature. I am just following the evidence, and my mind is completely open to wherever the evidence may lead.
Its limiting because you can only make a decision based on evidence. Seems unable to think outside of what you know from physics. That is limiting
When it comes to making claims about behaviors within the natural world, yes. I rely on evidence. Guilty as charged, and I make no apologies for that. Although, I am not really sure those are decisions as I don't have choices. However, I am about to make a decision on how best to cook my chicken for dinner tonight. Understanding the laws of thermodynamics has led to the development of several possible techniques currently at my disposal ;) .
And thus the issue. If I was looking for a physics expert to tell me whether this is possible, I would expect him to say no. that wasn't the question. You exist only in the natural world, I get that. I'm wondering if there is more than the natural world. And thats where we cannot come to an ageement. You need proof to speculate, I do not
Speculation does not require any proof whatsoever. I think that would be contrary to what speculation is. I do think making claims about the natural world requires supporting evidence. In my mind, this is not the same thing as proof. In fact I would argue science/physics can not prove anything. I can build strong supporting evidence and use it make make predictions that are put to the test. When those predictions come to fruition, it adds strength to the claim. Science/physics can disprove things, but in order to disprove something, it has to be a testable something. If you wish to believe in something beyond the natural world, go for it. I won't stop you. Those beliefs are based in faith, because something beyond the natural world is not testable in the physical realm (if it was, it wouldn't be supernatural) and thus not a question for physics to attempt to address. These things become a matter of spirituality or religion. These spiritual beliefs are every subjective though. Look around at the number of different religions that have vastly different beliefs. I can no more use physics to deny something supernatural than I can to provide evidence of something supernatural. I don't think you will find too many people in disagreement about whether a ball will fall to the ground when you let go of it. If we disagree on this, we can put it to a test and seek clarification. So yes, physics exists only in the natural world, but that doesn't inherently prohibit the existence of supernatural. It is however an impossible task to make any objective claims about the supernatural if you can not interact with it.
You're wrong. Totally. Just because something doesn't conform to what your definitions say it should, it does not automatically become spirituality or religion.
I agree. My wording is a misleading from my intent. Spirituality and religion are merely examples of things not part of the physical realm. They are things rooted in faith/belief, and thus not matters of physics. Other things like thought, consciousness, identity, metaphysical theories (I use the term loosely), etc...also are examples of things which are not matters of physical inquiry.
 
Last edited:

supermike80

Footballguy
Absolutely the evidence needs to be provided. That makes sense. What I am asking is what if? What if we will never know. If you toss away what ou know for a minute, why can't this idea have some value?

Just a thought. Take a look at your screen name again. Then consider non STEMs shouldn't be held to the standard of others in the math, technology and science realm.

If someone is curious about math and science, let us encourage that curiosity. In those specific cases, educating others with a soft hand is a more practical way to win hearts and minds.
Have I done differently in this thread?

And the story of Galileo you share is indeed a sad one.





1. Does humanity have a future beyond Earth?

2. When and where do you think we will find extraterrestrial life?

6. What is the chance Homo sapiens will survive for the next 500 years?

9. Could we one day replace all of the tissues in the human body through engineering?

10. Can we avoid a “sixth extinction”?

13. Will we discover a twin Earth?

16. Will we ever figure out what dark matter is?

17. Will we get control of intractable brain diseases like schizophrenia or autism?


20. Do you think we will one day be able to predict natural disasters such as earthquakes with warning times of days or hours?


https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/20-big-questions-about-the-future-of-humanity/



*******



“If there is abundant microbial life on Mars, I suspect that we will find it within 20 years—if it is enough like our form of life. If an alien life-form differs much from what we have here on Earth, it is going to be difficult to detect. It’s also possible that any surviving Martian microbes are rare and located in places that are difficult for a robotic lander to reach. Jupiter’s moon Europa and Saturn’s moon Titan are more compelling places. Europa is a water world where more complex forms of life may have evolved. And Titan is probably the most interesting place in the solar system to look for life. It is rich in organic molecules but very cold and has no liquid water; if life exists on Titan, it will be very different from life on Earth.” - Carol E. Cleland, University of Colorado Boulder


Let's try this a different way.

Clearly you've got lots you want to say in this thread. Here are some very common scientific questions from Scientific America. Many of them lean into questions that @supermike80 is asking or are natural extensions of some things he wants to cover.

Here's a formal opportunity to share your thoughts. And in that way, SM80 can start to see your perspective on some of these issues.

As a gesture of goodwill, if you participate here, I'll do a little extra on top of what I normally do to support some local food banks during this upcoming holiday season. So it can be win/win/win for everyone.
Absolutely ZERO of those questions have anything whatsoever to my question except #16.. We are at a roadblock here. You don't understand my question, maybe I am not phrasing it well and that's fine.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top