Jump to content
Science Forums

Difference between laws of reality and laws of nature/science


sciman55
 Share

Recommended Posts

What are the differences between the laws of nature/science and reality? What are some examples of those laws?

About the laws of nature/science, there are many and you can find them in a good physics reference book. However, about the laws of reality.The law of the senses, sight, hearing, smell, taste, and touch are the laws of reality but only, and I repeat only, to the individual experiencing the information gathered by these five senses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I need to ponder this question awhile... Laws of Reality would imply we could deterministically answer the

question, "What is Reality ?" Or more simply, "What is Real ?" These are philosophical questions.

Physics answers with what do you observe (as in physical evidence). I ask, "is there more ?" :o :o

 

Maddog

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I need to ponder this question awhile... Laws of Reality would imply we could deterministically answer the

question, "What is Reality ?" Or more simply, "What is Real ?" These are philosophical questions.

Physics answers with what do you observe (as in physical evidence). I ask, "is there more ?" :o :o

 

Maddog

THe notion that everything we think only exists in our minds as ideas is an archaic philosophy called idealism which originated in Germany during the time of Kant and co.

 

My opinion is that there is one fundamental reality, which is a unified whole represented by a single law. However, we can view the fundamental reality from many different perspectives. One, through our naked eye. Another would be the quantum view of reality. These are just a manifestation of the true nature of reality viewed from a certain way of observatoin.

 

Scientific laws are not the laws of reality. They are laws that describe our understanding of reality from our relative view of it. The holistic law of reality might be similar to what is called monism (go figure at wiki).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

there is something i often use in my sig

according to the laws of physics a bumble bee cannot fly

but our reality (or their) is different isn't it ?

i'm sure there are other similar 'issues'

 

Actually, this is just urban folklore..no scientists has ever claimed that bumble bees cannot fly..if you trace the statement back to its origin, you will see that a flight machine constructed in the proportions of a bumble bee cannot fly. It is a fallacy to deduce from this that the bumble bee cannot fly. (one simple moment to ponder: bumble bees has mobile wings, all our flight machines have steady wings)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kant was not a scientist.
Have you read at least a bit of his "Critique of pure reason"?

 

In it he was aiming at the metaphysical foundations of natural philosophy, inspired in particular by Newton's "Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica" and related important works on the subject. Kant's work was very much respected by many of the greatest natural philosophers, even in the past century and now, although 'natural philosophers' have come to be known more simply as 'physicists'.

 

THe notion that everything we think only exists in our minds as ideas is an archaic philosophy called idealism which originated in Germany during the time of Kant and co.
I don't see Kant as being, strictly, an idealist. I believe the school ensued from his thoughts about phenomena vs. noumena, but misinterpreted. Kant's very talk of noumena, imv, marks his belief in a reality.

 

Scientific laws are not the laws of reality. They are laws that describe our understanding of reality from our relative view of it.
This is a bit more in line with Kant's thoughts.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

(one simple moment to ponder: bumble bees has mobile wings, all our flight machines have steady wings)
Including helicopters and autogyros? What is your definition of "our flight machines"?

 

If a bumble bee can fly, then according to the laws of physics a bumble bee can fly. Unless you adopt a wierd definition of the laws of physics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a bumble bee can fly, then according to the laws of physics a bumble bee can fly. Unless you adopt a wierd definition of the laws of physics.

well, isn't this the perfect thread to say you might be wrong

bumble bee is too small, and her wings are not as adequate as birdwings for example

this is exactly what the author of this topic had in mind, there are laws of (our known) science that contradict 'reality'

 

According to the laws of quasi steady-state aerodynamics, insects cannot produce enough lift pressure to fly. The mechanism whereby they achieve flight must involve unsteady flows interacting with the dynamically changing wing surfaces. Insects represent some of the most versatile and maneuverable of all flying machines. Many of them can hover, turn in their own length, decelerate rapidly, role over, loop, and even land upside down on a ceiling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kant was not a scientist.
Certainly true. But I think this is fundamentally a philosophical argument, not a scientific one.

 

I don't know the context ot that Kant quote, but I think this is generally the discussion of epistemology. The question is whether we actually can "know" anything, versus percieve that we know.

 

You might note that this argument is tied closely to determinism. That is, a determinist might argure that our perceptions of ourselves (and our world) are all causal, and hence that perceptions themselves are not "real". If one were to hold to that position, it pretty much erases any value of the scientific method, since our perceptions cannot be trusted.

 

An interesting conundrum, really. Naturalism-oriented determinists are often the strongest supporters of the scientific method, even though that philosophical stand provides the weakest support for the validity of the data.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well, isn't this the perfect thread to say you might be wrong

bumble bee is too small, and her wings are not as adequate as birdwings for example

this is exactly what the author of this topic had in mind, there are laws of (our known) science that contradict 'reality'

 

According to the laws of quasi steady-state aerodynamics, insects cannot produce enough lift pressure to fly. The mechanism whereby they achieve flight must involve unsteady flows interacting with the dynamically changing wing surfaces. Insects represent some of the most versatile and maneuverable of all flying machines. Many of them can hover, turn in their own length, decelerate rapidly, role over, loop, and even land upside down on a ceiling.

 

The reality is bumble bees fly, and I submit that this is also a physical reality. We just don't understand the physical laws well enough yet to explain this phenomenon properly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

would it be correct to say that laws of reality is noumena and laws of nature(as we perceive it) is phenomena?

 

You might note that this argument is tied closely to determinism. That is, a determinist might argure that our perceptions of ourselves (and our world) are all causal, and hence that perceptions themselves are not "real". If one were to hold to that position, it pretty much erases any value of the scientific method, since our perceptions cannot be trusted.
yes. The philosophy of idealism is incompatible with materialism and determinism. However, idealism says that there is no fundamental reality (am i right?), these notions of realities only exists as ideas in our minds. IMO, though our perceptions do not represent the true nature of reality, those perceptions come from quantum fields of differing densities. Thus, i disagree with idealism, though I also disagree with materialism and determinism.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

well, isn't this the perfect thread to say you might be wrong

bumble bee is too small, and her wings are not as adequate as birdwings for example

this is exactly what the author of this topic had in mind, there are laws of (our known) science that contradict 'reality'

 

According to the laws of quasi steady-state aerodynamics, insects cannot produce enough lift pressure to fly. The mechanism whereby they achieve flight must involve unsteady flows interacting with the dynamically changing wing surfaces. Insects represent some of the most versatile and maneuverable of all flying machines. Many of them can hover, turn in their own length, decelerate rapidly, role over, loop, and even land upside down on a ceiling.

Paradox, this is not the perfect thread to say I might be wrong. Any thread is good enough, providing your argument holds up but your argument doesn't.

 

The laws of quasi steady-state aerodynamics are not the laws of physics, only a restricted part of them. It makes no sense even to say that this restricted part is contradicted, they simply don't apply and for a blithering obvious reason too: how on Earth or in Heaven could a flight machine that uses rapidly flapping wings be correctly described by quasi steady-state aerodynamics? The fluid flow clearly won't be laminar or anything like it.

 

Applying the least appropriate of phyisics laws isn't an excuse to say that the laws of phyisics are violated and I find that kind of argument nothing but facetious. Being facetious with the pretence of teaching the general public about Science is more than facetious though. It is downright wrong, unethical. Unfortunately it couldn't be banned outside of a totalitarian regime but nevertheless I strongly disapprove of it.

 

There are laws of (our known) science according to which, if you thrust a fluid one way, thereby changing its momentum, you are applying a force to it and hence the opposite force will be applied to you. This can be accomplished by many tecniques, ranging from farting to the most sophisticated jet engines and rockets. Laminar flow or turbulent, F = ma still applies. Swimming is another example, facilitated by the greater density of water. Just like a diamond kite is a crude fixed wing, lacking the profile that gives the best effieciency, insect wings are also less efficient and must be flapped very vigorously but they don't contradict the laws of physics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...