Philosophy Now Forum

If you can say when chaos occurs, isn't that predictable? (also this article says that the weather is inherently unpredictable):

http://gizmodo.com/physicists-discover- ... 1728094449

PhilX

Physicists have always been slow to appreciate the bloody obvious, Phil. That ALL naturally occurring systems are chaotically determined is common knowledge in every science EXCEPT physics, which is why the current models of physics make no fucking sense.

Obvious Leo wrote:Physicists have always been slow to appreciate the bloody obvious, Phil. That ALL naturally occurring systems are chaotically determined is common knowledge in every science EXCEPT physics, which is why the current models of physics make no fucking sense.

Why do you think physicists are that way? Money? Follow the leader? Don't they have minds?

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote: Why do you think physicists are that way?

Because that's the way physics was invented by Newton. Physics proceeds from the a priori assumption that the behaviour of matter and energy in the universe is determined by a suite of laws known as "the laws of physics". This assumption is false because there are no such laws.

Obvious Leo wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote: Why do you think physicists are that way?

Because that's the way physics was invented by Newton. Physics proceeds from the a priori assumption that the behaviour of matter and energy in the universe is determined by a suite of laws known as "the laws of physics". This assumption is false because there are no such laws.

What would you say is the basis of physics if it is known?

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote:
What would you say is the basis of physics if it is known?

I don't understand the question, Phil? If what is known? Physics simply models the behaviour of matter and energy on the assumption that this behaviour is predetermined by laws. Newton assumed that the universe is the way it is because that's the way it was planned to be and physics continues to proceed according to this assumption.

Obvious Leo wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:
What would you say is the basis of physics if it is known?

I don't understand the question, Phil? If what is known? Physics simply models the behaviour of matter and energy on the assumption that this behaviour is predetermined by laws. Newton assumed that the universe is the way it is because that's the way it was planned to be and physics continues to proceed according to this assumption.

If the basis of physics is known. You're saying there are no laws of physics, but then you go on to say physics is modelled on the behavior of matter and energy being predetermined by laws. So again I ask, what is the basis of physics? What are its assumptions?

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote:So again I ask, what is the basis of physics? What are its assumptions?

I already answered this question here.

Obvious Leo wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote: Why do you think physicists are that way?

Because that's the way physics was invented by Newton. Physics proceeds from the a priori assumption that the behaviour of matter and energy in the universe is determined by a suite of laws known as "the laws of physics". This assumption is false because there are no such laws.

Obvious Leo wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:So again I ask, what is the basis of physics? What are its assumptions?

I already answered this question here.

Obvious Leo wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote: Why do you think physicists are that way?

Because that's the way physics was invented by Newton. Physics proceeds from the a priori assumption that the behaviour of matter and energy in the universe is determined by a suite of laws known as "the laws of physics". This assumption is false because there are no such laws.

If there are no such laws, then what is the basis?

PhilX

Physics is about model-building. Physicists observe patterns of order in the behaviour of matter and energy in the universe and they MODEL this orderly behaviour. That's all that physics does because that's all that physics was ever designed to do. That this observed order is part of a divine plan is not something which is suggested by the evidence but rather a reductionist assumption which is built into the methodology.

Is the standard model of physics a law? If you say it isn't, then it can change. And if it is, then it can predict with 100℅ accuracy.

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote:Is the standard model of physics a law?

I presume this is a rhetorical question because I've never heard of a physicist who claimed that the SM was in any sense a physical law. There aren't even many left who still reckon it's a very good model but it's still a useful tool for making predictions.

Philosophy Explorer wrote:And if it is, then it can predict with 100℅ accuracy.

None of the current models of physics can make predictions that are 100% precise in their accuracy and no future models of physics will ever be able to do this either, even in principle. Even Newton knew that the motion of every single physical entity in the universe MUST casually influence the motion of every other and this indisputable FACT is impossible to model, other than probabilistically.