Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
they can not be 'said' nor 'shown', nor can the scientific method be used to verify them as if someone were to buy several copies of the morning paper to assure himself that what it said was true.
"All actions have an equal and opposite reaction" - I don't understand how one might be able to disagree with that?
depends what is meant by the laws of physics innit, whether you are talking about nature or the human construct 'the laws of physics'.
'the laws of physics' is nonsense
were we to try and define them, it would have to be in factual terms (facts of course being contingent)
Like 'the rules of ethics', they thus lose their justificatory power in the act of justification
of what one cannot speak, one must pass over in silence
...actually I'll just leave you to it.
that was my point - that 'the laws of physics' as a phrase is often used as shorthand for how nature actually works i.e. some [probably] unattainable holy grail of the scientific community.
but what it really means - in my opinion - is the various relationships and equations and so forth that hold in all cases so far investigated, but could well be shown to be incorrect, or not complete, in the future
they are not contingent, they are not a state of affairs that can be intelligibly proposed and intelligibly denied
in terms of the scientific method, imagine someone being taught the sequence "+2". He is taught 2, 4, 6, 8 etc and continues until he reaches 1000, then continues 1004, 1008 etc
how could we say that he was not following the sequence?
(a) well exactly. the laws of physics are only unattainable to you because you are defining them as meaning as being something which couldn't exist
(b) not sure what your point with the numbers is but i'm assuming it was a critique of the inductive methods as proposed by the logical positivists. well done, but it's not 1910 anymore !!
okay, 1940s or w/e
facts are valueless - being contingent they stand equally in relation as possible states of affairs.
The will's choice between contingent facts can represent at most an ethical attitude in terms of punishment/reward; represent at best a reaction to new states of affairs which places them in categories of harmony with this or discord with that
he that understands me will come to realise that all of my propositions are nonsense
he who seeks to respond to the world by arranging it into theories and doctrines is confused
But not so long ago everyone insisted there couldn't be a world with equal rights, a world with universal suffrage or a world without absolute monarchist rule. All these things were proven wrong and who's to say that, with a bit more effort and belief, gravity couldn't be the same? You just have to believe a little...
or you'll ruin it for everyone
Amusing premise, quickly becomes insufferable.
I endorse this opinion and will take it on board when considering opportunities for future threads.
who have disobeyed the laws of relativity.
Thank you for your patience.
posting every day on a message board and picking on a 19 year old