[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/sci/ - Science & Math

[Advertise on 4chan]


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.


[Advertise on 4chan]


What ARE the laws of nature?
>>
you already know it
>>
>>12367415
>Law One: Jews control absolutely everything.
Every other law is simply a derivative from that fact.
>>
>>12367415
Forms that proceed from the superessential non-being of God.
>>
File: sm.png (24 KB, 837x455)
24 KB
24 KB PNG
>>12367415
>>
>>12367415

U=e/s
>>
>>12367415
Our attempts at making sense of how reality works as far as we are able to tell
>>
File: images.jpg (7 KB, 224x225)
7 KB
7 KB JPG
I mean what are laws of nature by themselves - what are they? Spooky
>>
>>12367482
the nature
>>
>>12367482
Which laws are you talking about? If you can't answer that you simply don't understand what you are asking in the first place.
>>
>>12367482
They're Plato's Forms. Ideas in the mind of God.
>>
>>12367415
>>12367482
They're just the patterns which energy and matter most comfortably assume.

I presume the laws of nature change as time goes on.
>>
>>12367505
Fundamental laws and constants that physical nature obeys. Maths, physics, chemistry etc. Who made these rules, why do they exist, and why do they stay consistant and not vary with time or distance.
>>
>>12367573
>most comfortably assume.
What is the comfort law then, why does a comfort law exist, why do things tend towards comfy and not uncomfy?
>>
>>12367575
>why do they stay consistant and not vary with time or distance

They do vary. Spacetime distorts at extremes, eg, black holes, ya mom's asscrack, etc.
>>
>>12367415
\[\frac{\sqrt{C_{min}}}{\pi}\]
>>
>>12367584
Comfort in this context would be "the path of least resistance".

The path of least resistance would just be the most natural, efficient, movement pattern of energy and matter.

>why don't they tend to umcomfy
They may do, at certain conditions. Energy behaving "uncomforably" could be the big bang, and also the end of the universe.
>>
>>12367591
So in one moment light can not escape a Black Hole because the gravitational force is greater than C, but in another moment C and G change to allow light to escape, then the next moment C and G change again to new figures so that light can not escape, then in a new moment C and G change to completely different figures that allow light to escape, and so on changing from each moment to the next because laws and constants aren't constant through time?
>>
>>12367575
The Laws we have written only define the arithmetic rules that give results that match with observations we make for some particular system state or regime.

For example Newtons equations of motion work for slow speeds and flat geometries but special relativity works at all speeds while general relativity works for all speeds and all geometries however we know the GR is not applicable in the most extreme scenarios such as inside black holes and early in the big bang. None of those equations define the universe. The universe *is* and we simply try our best to describe it with the tools we have.

As for why the fundamental physical constants have the values they do that is still an outstanding question we have no answer for.
>>
>>12367620
In the case of a black hole, it's heat and pressure/gravity that causes the erratic behaviour of subatoms and spacetime.
>>
>>12367612
So you have the following laws you need to account for laws at all
>objects take paths and not randomly teleport
>resistance to objects is effective
>natural - circular synonym for laws
>efficiency as an efficient cause, why do things tend towards efficiency and not inefficiency or be agnostic to what is efficienct or inefficient
>movement patterns, another law or rule, why a pattern at all, why not random, why this pattern and not another pattern
>movement, why move and not teleport from one place to another

You'll forever be stuck in circular logic if you define laws in terms of other laws.
>>
File: Max_stirner.jpg (11 KB, 200x237)
11 KB
11 KB JPG
>>12367415
>Laws
There are no laws.
>>
>>12367623
>The universe *is*
That doesn't explain why or how the universe has laws and constants, why and how is the universe consistant and not inconsistant, why and how there are laws, why and how there is order and structure that is effective.

Retreat into an instrumental theory of laws doesn't seem satisfactory. What is the ontology of laws?
>>
>>12367644
But all those things stay constant and obey the same laws. Black holes don't flash on and off leaking light because the laws that permit black holes stay the same.
>>
>>12367671
Explain physical consistancy without resorting to occasionalism. Why does the apple always fall to Earth and not float to Alpha Centauri.
>>
>>12367676
Generally; but how matter behaves inside the black holes in unknown.

That they behave in observable patterns is merely speculation at this point, until we somehow manage to see inside one (if seeing inside one is even philosophically possible.)
>>
>>12367672
> That doesn't explain why or how the universe has laws and constants
Correct. They is why we have physics to try and answer those questions.
>>
>>12367427
I bet you a Jew wrote that law
>>
>>12367688
We know they stay black, don't we? So G and C stay constant.
>>
>>12367702
At the event horizons, at least.
>>
>>12367708
The event horizon itself is a product of G and C, if the event horizon stays in being then G and C have to be constant. If G and C changed then the event horizon itself would disappear and reappear.
>>
>>12367754
That's what I said.
>>
>>12367769
C and G have to be constant throughout the blackhole otherwise no event horizon exists and light will escape from what was, under different constants, inside the old event horizon.
>>
>>12367787
G could get higher and higher the closer you get to the centre of the black hole, C could get lower and lower.
>>
>>12367834
But if it changed to most other values then it would allow light to escape, correct? You can have some new laws that apply within a black hole if you like, but there have to be laws and constants that are consistant (even in new second order consistency). If G and C can change outside of laws, and become inconsistant, then the event horizon will cease to be from moment to moment, and the black hole would emit light.
>>
>>12367866
>But if it changed to most other values then it would allow light to escape, correct?
Not correct.

>the event horizon will cease to be from moment to moment, and the black hole would emit light.
Also not correct.

To add to my post; G and C could be at their highest nearer the event horizon, and the centre of a black hole could experience less pressures than the surface.
>>
>>12367415
Fuck you nigger
>>
>>12368121
>>
>>12367889
You're not understanding the scope of the problem. If the G and C are not consistent in time, that is they can be any value from moment to moment, then for most values the black hole would no longer be a black hole.

In the first moment G and C are the same values they are now, the black hole traps light. In the next moment C is a million times higher, G is a million times weaker, the black hole is no longer a black hole and light is emitted. In the next moment C is two million times weaker and G is two million times stronger, the light is no longer emitted by the black hole (and lots of things around the universe collapse into black holes.)

Therefore beyond event horizons we can infer from the continued existence of the event horizon that laws are constant (perhaps new laws emerge that modify other normal constants, but it still obeys laws consistently).
>>
>>12367427
>Law Zero: a rightard will think about Jews constantly and mention them in a thread
>>
>>12368121
>nigger
Why the racism?
>>
>>12367482
There are no laws, only nature
>>
>>12367462
>U=e/s

Based
>>
>>12367449
Faggot theory
>>
File: G grid.png (2 KB, 512x512)
2 KB
2 KB PNG
>>12367415
spacetime is comprised of a grid of discrete, equidistant points. when energy moves through the system, it does so from point to point, in a set amount of time.

when points become entangled, you end up with mass particles as seen in my pic. energy must flow to the point that follows, regardless of where it may have moved, which can result in a modified direction vector, a process that we know of as gravity. it takes a very large amount of entangled points to great a visible warping effect, which is why it is a weak force

if the energy wave hits the entangled point, it can get trapped inside, in a sort of quantum loop, and become heat energy.
>>
>>12369147
Tell me more about your pic. Can you run some sort of simulation that emulates it?

Also do you elementary particles are similar to patterns of energy like you can get in some cellular automaton models. For example “a glider” in conway’s game of life.
>>
>>12369167
Also do you think*
>>
>>12369167

>conways game of life
yes, 100%, but using different rules. I even believe that particles themselves could have "evolved" via game of life style interactions. my basic idea was that when a point moves, all other points will also shift, in an attempt to maintain as much equidistance as possible between all points, which itself causes MORE points to shift, ad infinitum until the point shifts hit something that absorbs the energy. I think that if I'm even partially right that this could be what photon waves consist of.
>>
>>12369167
>Tell me more about your pic

Seconded...
>>
>>12369147
>grid of discrete, equidistant points

I disagree with this but I think if you continue following this train of logic you will amaze yourself. I would strongly argue for indiscrete and relative distance, but you can still simulate this using computation automata.
>>
File: nuclear-logo-1550704.jpg (141 KB, 1009x1300)
141 KB
141 KB JPG
>>12369167

Based. Something I realized... the central shape is basically the nuclear logo. Was hiding in plane sight. Those mother fuckers know. Of course they do.
>>
>>12369167
>>12369231

Also, a company called Cerebas (think that is spelled right) unveiled a cellular automaton chip yesterday. Its the fastest chip ever by 200x. The chip literally is a von neumann automaton. Literally. And guess what the equation of each node is?

Y = X / B

U = Y

X = E

B = S

U = E / S
>>
>>12369167
>>12369242

A completely new class of microchip designed specifically for fluid dynamics. Simultaneous. Literally a von neumann grid. We are living in the future. This chip is going to change everything. Picture is from their paper and is the literal diagram of how the chip operates.
>>
>>12369249

Which is all to say, Optimum shit.
>>
Thermodynamics and classical mechanics
>>
>>12368839
Tautology, your using nature as a synonym for laws. Sole the ontological problem of laws.
>>
>>12367415
the most fundamental one is that belle makes my pp hard
everything else is superficial
>>
>>12367573
>I presume the laws of nature change as time goes on.
Yes
Its not static
Hence why you can't rely on old dogma
>>
Nature doesn't have laws. What we have are laws about nature developed from our experience of it. Nature itself is just chaos and it is not obligated to always and at all points be consistent with some laws.
>>
>>12369598
Its taking a still frame of a wave in motion.
Some behaviors will trend for some "time", others will change more rapidly.
Imo it's all subject to change. I think "the constants" are a cope
>>
>>12369598
>t. lazy occasionalist
Answer this>>12367681
And this>>12368737
>>
>>12369603
Why when I throw a ball does it travel in front of me instead of teleporting all over the universe? Why is motion predictable, consistent, and obey the rules of mechanics?
>>
>>12369605
Could be our minimal frame of reference.
-Could- a mango tree randomly bare striped fruit? Idk.
>>
>>12369610
Its a trending behavior
I don't just mean this in a language semantics sense, but "constant" is really just relative to both our perception physically, and our perception through the amount of data we've harvested thus far.

If the ball acted that way, then it stands to reason that anything with the same properties that govern why a ball would do that, would also begin to act that way. It depends what properties that ball is bound to.

As it stands, this is a trending, stable behavior of the universe relative to our observation or understanding.
But personally I think it's sort of a contract that's upheld with respect to other laws or "interests" of the universe.
>>
>>12369605
>Why does the apple always fall to Earth and not float to Alpha Centauri.
because the mass of the Earth pulls the apple inward. Like I said, we have laws about nature that are consistent with our experience of it.
>>12368737
this post is just full of unfalsifiable leaps in logic and doesn't deserve a response
You seem to think that either it's all consistent everywhere, or it's all random everywhere, but that's a false dichotomy. A chaotic system is not one that is so well behaved.
>t. lazy occasionalist
don't make needless assumptions about my philosophical positions either, focus on what I say and not what you think I believe
>>
>>12369625
Why is there a trending law then? Your universe still has laws it obeys.
>>
>>12369632
>Like I said, we have laws about nature that are consistent with our experience of it.
We have a language that expresses it relative to our human sense perception and a very short amount of time studying it

Physics and natural law aren't exactly the same thing. Physics just basically a niche language that attempts to explain it, but it's not the only thing that expresses natural laws.
>>
>>12369638
What do you mean?
Its a current behavior that allows for certain things to exist.
Consider your relationship with this word "law" and see if the thoughts change if you replace it with something like "current behavior"
>>
>>12369639
Sure, I don't disagree with that. I went with physics because that seems like the topic of the thread.
With more time studying it we can develop a richer language for expressing laws, we fill in more and more of the chaotic picture that is reality.
>>
>>12367482
They are theoretical constructs to explain structured processes.
Like you nut in a womb. Than she will get pregnant or not. If she doesnt, she doesnt get a baby. If she is pregnangt than a child will grow in her. If the child is healthy and she is healthy than she will birth a baby.
You can describe this as the law of childbirth. It is no entity, but a process that will happenin this series of events.
>>
>>12367415
Essentially fundamental assumptions of nature prior to Newton. After that we prefer to call it theories.
>>
>>12369598
>Nature doesn't have laws. What we have are laws about nature developed from our experience of it. Nature itself is just chaos and it is not obligated to always and at all points be consistent with some laws.

Is that what they are teaching you at the fundamentalist fascist dark age evangelical cults now?

You realize the only reason why you would be taught something as false and backward as that is to literally enslave you, right?
>>
>>12370969
>fascist
You don't know what this word means
>>
>>12370973
>You don't know what this word means

Oh, I do, friend. There is a reason why fascism walks with a flag AND Bible.

Fascism, being a governing system devoid of logic, requires submission to illogical and therefore their adherence to faith alone.

Are you the one who posted that nature has no laws? That is literally what the church used to teach as they burning scientists at the stake during the dark ages. If that is where fundies are leading their flock I would hardly be surprised. But so be it. Maybe the fundie can be the livestock of the future, i.e. Onions Green, such a stupid and helpless people that they are only good for their meat.
>>
>>12370999
>fascism walks with a flag AND Bible.
You aware Mussolini was an atheist right? Fascist italy was against christianity, same for Nazi germany.
>>
>>12370973
>>fascist

Also here is a fun fact about fascism. The word was invented by Mussolini and derives from "fascismo" i.e. "bundle of sticks". Mussolini said, "one stick is weak, but a bundle is strong, we are fascists".

In English "bundle of sticks" translates to FAGGOT. Google it.

Fascists = Faggots.

The ideology of fascism did not even exist for the full duration of Musselini and Hitlers short, pathetic and meaningless lives.

Fascism failed because it was not optimum.
>>
>>12369598
Retard, if nature was just chaos then nothing at all would exist.
>>
>>12371012
>You aware Mussolini was an atheist right? Fascist italy was against christianity, same for Nazi germany

Mussolini was an atheist, but he gave more and more power to the Church as he realized what the Church actually is, since he went into fascism niave to the Churches real purpose and power.

The correct solution is not to bend to the Church whatsoever, but to understand what the Church really is.

A true optimum authoritarian leader must fully understand religion and science, since religion is not what most people think it is. S/he must be the head of the Church and the head of science. Only then can there be real unity. The current evangelical Church does not understand science. The current secular leadership does not understand religion.
>>
>>12367620
Not really, a better example is at or moments after the big bang, the laws of physics were literally different at that time eg the strong and weak nuclear force were the same thing ect.
>>
>>12367688
You don't need to see inside, mathematically we should be able to figure out what is happening. We are reaching limits of what we can verify we need to do away with this notion that things need to "verified".
>>
>>12370999
>Fascism, being a governing system
already wrong
>>
>>12371018
>Faggots
faggot doesn't have homophobic connotation in these areas where it's used, if you were implying fascism=gay or something equally retarded
>>
>>12371116
Because they're subject to consistent laws:
>at X temperature and pressure electro-magnetism and the weak force become the electro-week force
That's an additional law that is consistent all the time and will come into effect at any time when it's conditions are met.

If it were not consistent, then the temperature and pressure that forces united at would change. One moment electro-weak unity could only occur at the temperatures and pressure of the early universe, the next moment electro-weak unity occurs at room temperature on Earth. The next moment it occurs at the surface temperature of the moon outside of sunlight, etc.

But it doesn't, the law stays constant and consistent. The law conditions for electro-weak unity don't change.
>>
>>12370999
>Fascism, being a governing system devoid of logic, requires submission to illogical and therefore their adherence to faith alone.
Braindead post. Why strawman so unintelligently? Start with Giovanni Gentile and Giambattista Vico.
>>
>>12371018
It's a Roman symbol and custom used throughout the West, especially by republics and police forces. The US uses it everywhere. If you graduated your mind beyond HuffPo comment sections levels and become historically literate you would know this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fasces
>>
>>12369612
Laws have to be ontological to explain consistency, they can't be merely descriptive. Laws are a special type of cause that act in every moment on every thing, limited only by the conditions and nature of the law itself (the conditions and nature functioning as laws themselves).
>>
>>12371309
Sure but that's just how things are currently behaving
Also, who knows what happens when you plant the seed that these things can be altered. That's it's not so much a "law" but a current happening. This word law attributes so much empiricism
>>
>>12367482
>I mean what are laws of nature by themselves - what are they? Spooky
no one understands
math is a language stemming from human's mind and physics is based on it. none of the current laws are absolute, all are just better and more accurate approximations.
we are at a limit though. I think the next step is integrating some AI and making some 'effective theories' with loose connection to real structures - those are almost certainly not found in those terms within infinite series
>>
>>12371331
We can know empirical laws are ontological laws because they don't change from moment to moment, black holes don't flash on and off, apples don't fall up, then fall down, etc. The same law is always acting as a cause (subject to its own conditions) at all times.

A condition may act as a secondary law that acts on laws, e.g. a temperature condition on electro-weak unity and separation, but it's still a law acting as a cause at all times, and not changing from moment to moment. Whenever the temperature (and other) conditions are met for electro-weak unity then electro-weak unity occurs.

Laws are atemporal causes that act at all times (subject to non-temporal conditions, i.e. secondary laws, that act at all times).
>>
>>12371375
>We can know empirical laws are ontological laws because they don't change from moment to moment, black holes don't flash on and off, apples don't fall up, then fall down, etc.
You can only ever comment on this from a state of "now", though.
We see a trending behavior that has maintained a trajectory, but we don't know what is subject to change, even if at completely random.


>Laws are atemporal causes that act at all times
"A behavior is currently happening"

We don't know what's subject to change and we don't know if we can do things that can change the current behavior
>>
>>12371357
>math is a language stemming from human's mind and physics is based on it. none of the current laws are absolute, all are just better and more accurate approximations
Laws are discovered outside the mind, not invented by it. Laws are a transcendental condition for any experience and necessarily prior to mind, how would a mind function without consistent rules? Laws are ontologically real and prescriptive, not descriptive.
>>
>>12371387
We can observe all nows that exist/ed in our past light cone and know that laws are atemporal within those observations.

>We don't know what's subject to change and we don't know if we can do things that can change the current behavior
We can know what is subject to temporal change and what is not by exposing the laws to temporality: observing the law in time as time acts (or does not act) upon it. If laws were subject to temporality they would vary from moment to moment.

The hypothetical possibility of future variance you postulate can't be caused by temporality itself, it would have to be caused by will (or something similar to will). A theory of occasionallism where cause and effect are consistant only because God/universe wills it to be, perhaps out of habit or a divine inertia, but that will, and the laws that will puts into effect, can change in the future.

C is 299792458 km/s only because God/universe wills it to be, but if God/universes will changed it could become any value.
>>
>>12367415
OP = F + A + 2G + O + T
/thread
>>
>>12367415
Being tracked by a starving beast

Looking for its daily feast

A predator on the verge of death

Close to its last breath

Getting close to its last breath
>>
>>12367462
Unfathomably based.
>>
>>12371146
>if you were implying fascism=gay or something equally retarded

No. I don't give a fuck if you want to bone dudes. I call fascists faggots because they are WEAK. Fascism is a cult of personality.

Jesus Christ was wise to know that true power is in teaching an algorithm, a way of being that can survive immortaly. Weak pathetic fascists like Trump, Hitler and Mussolini are only as strong as their meat. Meat is weak. Ideas are immortal.
>>
>>12372427
>saying hitler didnt have strong ideals
lmao
>>
>>12372431

Hitler was a little bitch who killed himself and Jews are more powerful now than ever.
>>
>>12372427
>I call fascists faggots because they are WEAK. Fascism is a cult of personality.
fascism is the literal personification of chickenhawk warmongering
their entire "ideology" had nothing to do with government systems
they were people who thought war and war alone brought the most out of human development and energy
>>
>>12372442
>they were people who thought war and war alone brought the most out of human development and energy

Well at least they got at least one thing right. Competition is the foundation of all reality, or more specifically: optimization.
>>
>>12372434
suicide is extremely based and is exactly why its demonized so heavily in society
>>
>>12372448
that was pretty much the entire premise of their "ideology"
Nationalists used fascism as a vehicle for their ambitions. They're not the same thing nor are they mutually exclusive.

Competition and battle are only half the coin.
Symbiosis, union, "dancing" is the anthesis. The oscillation between the two keep the paradox in motion.
>>
>>12372450
>suicide is extremely based and is exactly why its demonized so heavily in society

Very few situations were suicide is based. I struggle to understand how Hitler's suicide was based.
>>
>>12372485
Because he would have been severely and excruciatingly tortured from brainwashed morons if he had been captured alived. Or, if you think they're civilized, locked up in a cell, paraded around maybe and then made an example of in high court. Slightly more honorable but also extremely droll and he would have been made a fool of for having legitimate beliefs and a love of his people. Instead you can deny the enemy the satisfaction of moving you around like a piece of a property and take your own life. If reincarnation is real he's around somewhere watching the aftermath of his loss, maybe in its own way a form a torture or even schadenfraude to show that he was right and what he was fighting for was righteous.
>>
>>12372485
>I struggle to understand how Hitler's suicide was based.

Ok ok ok so he did clear a little more living space for his chosen "blood", he built roads... killing himself removed a bargaining chip.

Guess, what? Democracy - true Greece
- won.
>>
File: yfw.gif (1.25 MB, 235x240)
1.25 MB
1.25 MB GIF
>>
>>12367415
nobody knows
>>
>>12367415
Fractal Randomness
>>
>>12367415
as much energy out as you can get for the least energy in. EROI is the only rule of nature.
>>
>>12372442
Unserious midwit post. Start with Giovanni Gentile.
>>
File: tenor.gif (1.04 MB, 500x280)
1.04 MB
1.04 MB GIF
>>12367415
Chaos and order must rebalance one way or another.
>>
>>12367415
Miles Mathis is probably closest to the truth.
>>
>>12373164
>I let capeshit movie memes determine my worldview
>>
>>12371397
>Laws are discovered outside the mind, not invented by it. Laws are a transcendental condition for any experience and necessarily prior to mind, how would a mind function without consistent rules? Laws are ontologically real and prescriptive, not descriptive.
> he doesn't understand anything
This post is one of the best proofs that unless you study some philosophy, you are a shit scientist.
Everything which you perceive goes through the whole mental gymnastics which you brain provides. You don't see any 'laws', you only see some events of which your brain has to make sense of. Math is created the same way any other language is created.



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.