What is Physics?

[altonhare]

I suggest that any difficulty with accepting this statement may be primarily due to a conditioned upbringing/education with a particular language structure.

I argued that this has nothing to do with language. If there are no nouns in your sentence then the listener assumes one or more. Have you had a thought when you weren't around arc-us? Do you think anyone has? Has "nothing" (not an object, a non-object) ever ran or moved?

have this inflexibility of seeing objects as essentially distinct from the holistic (internal-external) environmental motions or events

The motions, interactions, etc. are how WE as humans characterize a thing. We see a ball bounce and characterize it as elastic, bouncy, etc. The ball is not, itself 'a' bouncing or 'a' elastic. The ball bounces. The ball is itself and interacts in accordance with its identity (whatever defines it).The ball doesn't need to EVER bounce to still be a bouncy ball. A human may never know the ball is bouncy/elastic if s/he never sees it bounce, but that does not change the ball's inherent nature. Whether it ever bounced or not, does not change its structure/shape/identity that defines it as bouncy, nor does it mean the ball will not bounce once it does hit the road.

It's not a matter of seeing one as distinct from the other, that's the wrong way to look at it. There simply cannot be a motion without that which is moving. It makes no sense. Again if someone disagrees, show me an example of something that is not a thing that performs an action. If they claim to see/imagine an action without a thing, but can't show me, they're bluffing.

[bboyer]

For whatever reason, Alton, you have completely missed the point; which is that the thing (noun) - any thing - while it can be viewed as a static thing can also be viewed as a dynamic thing which is thing-ing (as a verbal). It is literally impossible to isolate a thing from the inherent internal and external thing-ing which is part of its holistic environment. You, I am suggesting, choose to selectively see contradiction in the statement (where in fact I assert there is none) due to conditioned upbringing in your cultural context of how your language (and, hence, thinking pattern) is structured. Noun > | Verb | > Noun. Subject > | Verb | > Object. Where noun and verb can only be scientifically studied or considered from the viewpoint of a noun/object being discretely separate from its verb/action that gives it meaning. A viewpoint perhaps convenient for some purposes, but you seem to be ... locked into that singularity of viewpoint, or irrevocably and inflexibly married to it. In our language, we have the noun word/static-concept, "apple;" we do not have a verbal/dynamic-concept "apple-ing." In my view the dynamic "apple-ing" is closer to the truth of the matter than the static, "apple." So that "apple trees" (static nouns) in fact "apple" (dynamic verbal). Just like Earth peoples (amongst other "things").

If you'd just take a moment to reflect upon it for its own merits, I don't think you would ask short-sighted, irrelevant questions like, "Have you had a thought when you weren't around arc-us? Do you think anyone has? Has "nothing" (not an object, a non-object) ever ran or moved?" or make superfluous statements such as, "Again if someone disagrees, show me an example of something that is not a thing that performs an action. If they claim to see/imagine an action without a thing, but can't show me, they're bluffing." Questions and statements with which I actually have no argument at all; a position which you apparently perceive as contradictory. But they are non-sequitur to the point being raised that the essence of any temporal object is its motion in context with the continuity of all motions that define and transact with it and all the other environmental or systemic motions (and ALL objects are temporal, changing, moving within-and-without). Sheesh.

[junglelord]

I suggest that any difficulty with accepting this statement may be primarily due to a conditioned upbringing/education with a particular language structure.

I argued that this has nothing to do with language. If there are no nouns in your sentence then the listener assumes one or more. Have you had a thought when you weren't around arc-us? Do you think anyone has? Has "nothing" (not an object, a non-object) ever ran or moved?

have this inflexibility of seeing objects as essentially distinct from the holistic (internal-external) environmental motions or events

For whatever reason, Alton, you have completely missed the point; which is that the thing (noun) - any thing - while it can be viewed as a static thing can also be viewed as a dynamic thing which is thing-ing (as a verbal). It is literally impossible to isolate a thing from the inherent internal and external thing-ing which is part of its holistic environment. You, I am suggesting, choose to selectively see contradiction in the statement (where in fact I assert there is none) due to conditioned upbringing in your cultural context of how your language (and, hence, thinking pattern) is structured.

Alton said I argued that this has nothing to do with language.
You should have stopped right there.
You broke your own logic by going right back to your conditioning dictionary.
If this has nothing to do with language, then your crazy, as you have been a revolving dictionary of random questions everytime someone makes sense, which is insane, a vortex of defintions when language has nothing to do with it....

[altonhare]

If you'd just take a moment to reflect upon it for its own merits, I don't think you would ask short-sighted, irrelevant questions like..

.

Well, I'm not sure we actually disagree at this point, since you said you had no problem with any of the things I said.

For whatever reason, Alton, you have completely missed the point; which is that the thing (noun) - any thing - while it can be viewed as a static thing can also be viewed as a dynamic thing which is thing-ing (as a verbal).

"Appling" or "thinging" seems, to me, to be just another way of saying "apple existing" or "thing existing". Which means it's just doing whatever it does because of its nature/identity.

In any event, back to this thread, everyone agrees that physics is the study of objects, even if not ALL the time, at least some of the time? And everyone seems to agree that, to explain or demonstrate a theory of what X does, we must first point to X? i.e. we point to the river and then talk about the river changing and flowing, "rivering" all we want.

[bboyer]

In any event, back to this thread, everyone agrees that physics is the study of objects, even if not ALL the time, at least some of the time? And everyone seems to agree that, to explain or demonstrate a theory of what X does, we must first point to X? i.e. we point to the river and then talk about the river changing and flowing, "rivering" all we want.

I'm all for the spirit of independent-thinking and the ability to work out definitions on one's own but what's wrong with this one from the holy book of American-Heritage:

Physics: "The science of matter and energy and of interactions between the two" (notice the conjunction "and"). "The study of the natural or material world and phenomena" Ethymology: From Latin physica, from Greek (ta) phusika, from neuter pl. of phusikos, of nature, from phusis, nature.

All right. Matter and energy are too vague or imprecise so to converse with you we must use the more exacting terms object and motion, or change, or whatever as the verbal aspect. Fine. But then why are you insistent on the linear sequence of noticing the object FIRST? You're still missing the point and it isn't just an off-topic diversion as in your prefix, "In any event, back to this thread ...". We can as easily point to the flowing and the whirl-pooling, the splashing and the gurgling, and then talk about THE river. But that is just as cockeyed. It is pointless to give one a priority over the other when they are quite implicit in EACH OTHER as a SIMULTANEOUS occurrence or arising. Why is it important that we FIRST acknowledge the situational object-entity for our attention and study vs the motion/change that is indispensable partner in the forming of said object-entity? Or, for that matter, FIRST acknowledge a motion?

The holy book I quoted says physics (aka of nature) is both.

But, go ahead. Over-anaylize it. Ride roughshod over it. Ignore it. Patronize me. Making nothing of it. Make me feel cheap.... (just kidding)

[junglelord]

I am amazed at how smart you are arc when you claim you find things I say hard to understand.
I could never explain Alton to Alton, the way you just did....but I know that your correct.

Alton, I want you to know I am just kidding too....I say your nuts like Whinne the Pooh says to Tigger.

[bboyer]

I am amazed at how smart you are arc when you claim you find things I say hard to understand.
I could never explain Alton to Alton, the way you just did....but I know that your correct.

Alton, I want you to know I am just kidding too....I say your nuts like Whinne the Pooh says to Tigger.

He drives my thinking nuts sometimes. Just like you do. But when all is said and done I really do appreciate you both. (And even Plasmatic - hey, "chief"). I agree with much of what all of you have to say. Some of it grates like fingernails on chalkboard. But no matter how much you guys sometimes irritate my mind I am overall grateful for it in the sense that it gives me pause for reflection upon the frustration and my own lack of clarity, and to get my own thoughts and emotional duckies in a row about just what it is that is getting my goat about the things being written. While I thank you for the compliment, I know I am not smart but have a passable intellect. Mostly, I am a slow and simpleminded plodder-alonger that has somewhat of a lifelong love affair going with sophia and honest inquiry.

Apologies, more than anyone needed or cared to know I'm sure.

[bboyer]

It's not a matter of seeing one as distinct from the other, that's the wrong way to look at it. There simply cannot be a motion without that which is moving. It makes no sense. Again if someone disagrees, show me an example of something that is not a thing that performs an action. If they claim to see/imagine an action without a thing, but can't show me, they're bluffing.

OK, but your statements below do make it clear you were looking at it this way, do they not?

"In a theory of physics, as I've said, the shapes (objects) are the stars of the play. They come on stage first, before the play starts. Then they do their thing...."

Note the action of "come on" (action) stage (state or place of being). And "shapes (objects) are the stars" ... ever notice that "be" (and its conjugates) is a verb?

"It seems to me that the "thingness" of things has nothing to do with their actions, but everything to do with the thing itself. The actions are a result of the what the thing itself is."

From the top quote box, it can as easily be said that, "There simply cannot be an object without a motion (vibrating, spinning, rotating, going, coming, condensing, contracting, evaporating, expanding, orbiting, appearing, disappearing, birthing, dying, etc, etc ... in other words becoming or changing). It makes no sense. Again if someone disagrees, show me an example of an object that is not moving. If they claim to see/imagine an object without a motion, but can't show me, they're bluffing." Makes as much or as little sense. It is as important or as trite.

If you're going to be strictly scientific in this, then answers like my house, the tv, the lamp, blah blah blah don't cut it because if an object is resting relative to the Earth, by scientific standards it is at least in macro scale motion with the Earth around the sun, not to mention it's own micro scale internal motions. Unless, of course, you cohabit the extra dimensional worlds with Kevin and Lizzie as they perceive them to be.

After looking at all this, thanks to your persistence, I would have to retract my agreement that there are no objects, only events. Just as I would not agree that there are no events, only objects. Both would be unobtainable extremes or absolutes. Nor would I agree that one must perforce precede the other in some linear sequencing. Objects and actions are simultaneous co-arisings.

I can see where the focus on one aspect or the other would be appropriate for some given study depending on what the goal or purpose of the study would be. But if there is anything axiomatic about the discussion, for me it would be that ascribing any type of linear sequence to the material appearance or (scientific and philosophic) importance of object over change is very fundamentally flawed and mistaken. Being-and-doing is a simultaneous becoming (cycle of change). And, again, even "being" is a verb form expressing motion action, or change.

Okay, I think I'm finished with this.

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Arc-us,
You wrote:

I agree with much of what all of you have to say. Some of it grates like fingernails on chalkboard. But no matter how much you guys sometimes irritate my mind I am overall grateful for it in the sense that it gives me pause for reflection upon the frustration and my own lack of clarity, and to get my own thoughts and emotional duckies in a rowabout just what it is that is getting mygoatabout the things being written.

Mixed metaphors surely old boy?
Sorry, couldn't resist.
Standard Disclaimer: It's the voices in my head what make me do it.

On a more serious note, you make an excellent point. I was round at friends last night and the same topic came up, that of getting ones own thoughts in order etc. My idea of hell is the comfort-zone where everyone agrees with everyone else and eternity is spent in mutual backslapping.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teMlv3ripSM

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Alton,
You wrote:

There is a fine, but important, distinction in what you said and what Steve said (imo). Steve said that there are NO objects in science, only events. You said that shapes (objects) and their respective locations change. The latter I can agree with, the former makes no sense to me.

This distinction may be the result of me compromising again. (I can't speak for Steven but...) As I have said elsewhere, I view that which you (and others) call the physical world as the world of maya, i.e. I don't subscribe to a physical world as such and view the Universe as entirely mental (All is Mind). Steven says there are no objects in science, I say there are no (physiical) objects at all, but for the sake of this dialogue I am willing to leave out this aspect. If this this thread was about metaphysics then I would probably prefix words such as 'shape', 'location', 'object', etc with 'apparent'. Basically I am trying to find some middle-ground (or no-man's land? ) where we can engage in meaningful dialogue without becoming bogged down in semantics.

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Alton,
You wrote,

The motions, interactions, etc. are how WE as humans characterize a thing. We see a ball bounce and characterize it as elastic, bouncy, etc. The ball is not, itself 'a' bouncing or 'a' elastic. The ball bounces. The ball is itself and interacts in accordance with its identity (whatever defines it).The ball doesn't need to EVER bounce to still be a bouncy ball. A human may never know the ball is bouncy/elastic if s/he never sees it bounce, but that does not change the ball's inherent nature. Whether it ever bounced or not, does not change its structure/shape/identity that defines it as bouncy, nor does it mean the ball will not bounce once it does hit the road.
It's not a matter of seeing one as distinct from the other, that's the wrong way to look at it. There simply cannot be a motion without that which is moving. It makes no sense. Again if someone disagrees, show me an example of something that is not a thing that performs an action. If they claim to see/imagine an action without a thing, but can't show me, they're bluffing

This is an example of what I meant about the difference between sticking labels on something and describing the essence of a thing. Words such as 'bounce', 'elastic', 'spherical', etc apply to lots of other things which are not balls. It would be more accurate to describe a ball as something which belongs to the class of things which can bounce, or are elastic, etc. There are also numerous types of ball. The word 'ball' also applies to a type of formal dance gig.
The, e.g. basketball is a particular manifestation of the concepts 'bounce' et al. These concepts can (and do) exist independently of the basketball. In fact the concepts can exist without any physical balls. [No jokes please, I'm British]

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Alton,
You wrote,

Appling" or "thinging" seems, to me, to be just another way of saying "apple existing" or "thing existing". Which means it's just doing whatever it does because of its nature/identity.

I would argue that your 'apple existing' says nothing, it is static. 'Appling' implies that the object is doing something (at the very least it is already existing), it is dynamic.
You are a human being. You are not a Vulcan existent (despite the rumours ).

[bboyer]

Hi Arc-us,
You wrote:

I agree with much of what all of you have to say. Some of it grates like fingernails on chalkboard. But no matter how much you guys sometimes irritate my mind I am overall grateful for it in the sense that it gives me pause for reflection upon the frustration and my own lack of clarity, and to get my own thoughts and emotional duckies in a rowabout just what it is that is getting mygoatabout the things being written.

Mixed metaphors surely old boy?
Sorry, couldn't resist.
Standard Disclaimer: It's the voices in my head what make me do it.

Blimey, GC. I'd offer you a position as my editor but I'm afraid the hours and pay as existents would suck.

Now if you really subscribed to the view of everything being mind then there should be no problem with the aspect of emotional ducks in the classroom and an old goat's reaction to grating fingernails. Besides, cut a burgeoning codger some slack. The old grey mule ain't what she useta' be.

However, in the interest of great, wordy literatchur and poetics, I give you:

"I agree with much of what all of you have to say. Some of it ruffles my feathers. But no matter how much you guys sometimes make me feel like my thoughts are paddling furiously against the currents within my mind, I am overall grateful for it in the sense that it gives me pause for reflection upon the frustration and my own lack of clarity, and to get my own thoughts and emotional duckies in a row about just what I'm flapping about over the things being written."



p.s. what a great Monty Python skit. one of my favorites. not that it has anything to do with these forums.

expanded version
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3HaRFBSq9k

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Arc-us,
I never 'misunderestimate' you, as the man said.
You wrote:

what a great Monty Python skit. one of my favorites.

No it isn't. (You set 'em up, I'll knock 'em down).

[bboyer]

You wrote:

what a great Monty Python skit. one of my favorites.

No it isn't.