What Do We Know For Certain?

[mjv1121]

(First of all, I would like to avoid any philosophical skulduggery that leverages the doubt of our fundamental existence. For sure we do not know the precise nature of our "consciousness". Also, perhaps we are living a matrix-like existence inside an alien supercomputer, maybe we are a dream within a dream within a dream. All quite possible, but all unprovable and all irrelevant to this discussion. We must assume that we exist as individual humans, on a planet, in a solar system, in a galaxy, in a galaxy cluster, in the universe.)

I wish to compile a list of concepts/facts that could be considered as reliable starting points for the building of fundamental theories. That is to say a list of what we know, and not including what we think we know. I would suggest that the most important items on such a list, would be concepts that are self-evident.

What We Know To Be True:

1) A body will remain at rest or in uniform motion unless acted upon by an external force. This might also be summarised as all effects must have a cause.
2) All actions have an equal and opposite reaction.
3) Momentum cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be transferred. This might also be summarised as the conservation of momentum and by extension, the conservation of energy.
4) Force can only be created (or conveyed) by collision. This might also be stated as force is the act of collision, or as, action or force at a distance is not possible.
5) Anything that can affect the physical universe must be considered to be physical. This might also be stated as anything physical constitutes a form of matter.


That should do for starters. Any disagreements about 1)-5) ? Any additional suggestions for inclusion?

Michael

[webolife]

Well, I would say that you have started from an entirely philosophical position, as I believe every scientific discussion does, whether or not the "scientists" acknowledge this. Some of my thoughts:
1. Newton's inertia is an idealized formulation that does not actually occur anywhere in the universe, ie. all materials move in curved paths, but interestingly "light" is strictly rectilinear. I don't buy Reimannian space, but if Newton's inertia is correct, then I see that all materials are being acted upon by an "outside force", which calls into question...
2,3. All interactions/collisions can be said to balance momentum, eg. kinetic energy is conserved, but you have failed to address the cause of entropy, ie. why some "usable" [what does this mean?] energy is observed to be lost in every interaction.
4. Force is the result of collisions of particles? But what got the particles started in the first place, and how do gravitational forces act across a tremendous distance [millions of kms] to alter the direction of bodies in space?
5. So I don't necessarily buy that whatever physically acts on matter must be itself matter. Played with too many magnets, and studied too much astronomy to accept that.

So now where does that leave us?

[moses]

..., ie. all materials move in curved paths, but interestingly "light" is strictly rectilinear.
webo

I think that light being rectilinear is just a theory, as the universe is filled with electric fields and electric fields can bend light, so we do not know that it is the nature of light to travel in straight lines, and light moves in curves in the universe, and hence parallax errors could be large.
Mo

[mjv1121]

moses,

electric fields can bend light

Is this your opinion or can you point me in the direction of any evidence?

I was under the impression that light is not affected by magnetic fields, electric fields or gravitational fields (I presume that most here are happy enough to dismiss Einsteinian gravitational effects on light).

Also, as web said, most people would say that light travels in straight lines - again are your "curved paths" your personal theory or is there some body of research that we have all overlooked?

Michael

[mjv1121]

webolife,

If 1, 2 and 3 cannot be accepted as self-evident, then there is no hope whatsoever. Whether or not we can provide an observable experiment were there are no external forces operating is besides the point; surely you can admit that much.

I am happy enough to make an addition to the list, since you brought the subject up - see 6.

With regards to 4 and 5. I suspected that they might be a tad more contentious. However, I specifically did not define it as the "collision of particles", even though by a rather simple logical path, it is unavoidable that all substance must be particulate.

I am amazed that you should mention magnets (and gravity) as support for magic. That we are unable to observe the magnet's "mediating" particles is of no consequence. 4) and 5) are proved beyond any doubt by 1) - every effect must have a cause. If there is no invisible matter causing the interactions of magnets then we might by necessity fall back to some kind of multi-dimensional force signalling, although I suspect Occam's Razor would be rather disappointed with such a ridiculous decision. Surely magic and gods can be avoided by accepting the obvious: there is something there even though we cannot see it. I welcome your further comments.

What We Know To Be True:

1) A body will remain at rest or in uniform motion unless acted upon by an external force. This might also be summarised as all effects must have a cause.
2) All actions have an equal and opposite reaction.
3) Momentum cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be transferred. This might also be summarised as the conservation of momentum and by extension, the conservation of energy.
4) Force can only be created (or conveyed) by collision. This might also be stated as force is the act of collision, or as, action or force at a distance is not possible.
5) Anything that can affect the physical universe must be considered to be physical. This might also be stated as anything physical constitutes a form of matter.
6) The entropy of an isolated system never decreases.

Michael

[tayga]

4) Force can only be created (or conveyed) by collision. This might also be stated as force is the act of collision, or as, action or force at a distance is not possible.

So, you're assuming that every interaction has a corresponding gauge boson? Is this a justifiable assumption. do we really KNOW this at all?

[mjv1121]

tayga,

So, you're assuming that every interaction has a corresponding gauge boson? Is this a justifiable assumption. do we really KNOW this at all?

Actually, I was assuming that the universe is real. In which case SR is false and anything that relies on SR is also at the very least, flawed.

What is it that you assume these "gauge bosons" to be doing?

By what mechanism you assert/suggest that force is conveyed?

Michael

[tayga]

By what mechanism you assert/suggest that force is conveyed?

I don't suggest anything, I don't know but I do suspect that SR is BS.

You were stating things we know for certain. If I understood you correctly, you think that magnetic, electrostatic and gravitational attraction are all caused by collision?

How do you justify your certainty?

[mjv1121]

tayga,

...you think that magnetic, electrostatic and gravitational attraction are all caused by collision?

How do you justify your certainty?

ALL EFFECTS MUST HAVE A CAUSE

If you can find ANY truth or truism or fact that is more self-evident than this I would be desperate to know it.

If you can provide ANY possible or plausible explanation for the generation of force other than by direct collision, I would be desperate to know it.

What We Know To Be True:

1) A body will remain at rest or in uniform motion unless acted upon by an external force. This might also be summarised as all effects must have a cause. This also serves as proof that action at a distance is not possible.
2) All actions have an equal and opposite reaction.
3) Momentum cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be transferred. This might also be summarised as the conservation of momentum and by extension, the conservation of energy.
4) Force can only be created (or conveyed) by collision. This might also be stated as force is the act of collision, or as, action or force at a distance is not possible.
5) Anything that can affect the physical universe must be considered to be physical. This might also be stated as anything physical constitutes a form of matter.
6) The entropy of an isolated system never decreases.


Michael

[Sparky]

If i were an angel, i would not be here posting, but, being the other, i will post....

3) Momentum cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be transferred. This might also be summarised as the conservation of momentum and by extension, the conservation of energy.

this may be observed in the macro world, and possibly in the micro world as we know it, but at the atomic level and below, momentum seems to be created somehow with each new atom, photon , and whatever else there is that is born with momentum...am i not seeing something that is obvious?...like, if it moves, something moved it.

[mjv1121]

Sparky,

am i not seeing something that is obvious?...like, if it moves, something moved it.

if it moves, something moved it.

= Momentum cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be transferred.

= All actions have an equal and opposite reaction.

= all effects must have a cause.

Michael

[phyllotaxis]

Allow me to return to the premise of a priori and causality.

I believe it is useful to solidify the entire structure that thought and the resulting conclusions are built upon with a clear and focused analysis of the process itself. The habitual wandering from this set of truths is what has carried science and progress so far astray, as I think most in here might agree.

One of my favorite authors, Ludwig von Mises, discusses the topic in great detail.
A short excerpt follows. The remainder can be found here:http://mises.org/daily/5158#part1

Causality

Even the natural sciences must take recourse to a priori categories. Considering observed experiences scientifically useful at all for discovering causal laws itself rests on what Mises called an "aprioristic assumption."

Experience is necessarily of past events. It can be resorted to for the prediction of future events only with the aid of the assumption that an invariable uniformity prevails in the concatenation and succession of natural phenomena.

Only with this aprioristic assumption can one infer "from regularity observed in the past to the same regularity in future events."[12]

Furthermore, as David Hume pointed out in his famous discussion of the "problem of induction," if you say that we can know that prior regularity predicts subsequent regularity, because it has reliably done so in the past, then that is simply begging the question (committing the logical fallacy of assuming that which is to be proved). That would be assuming that a prior regularity ("prior regularity predicting subsequent regularity in the past") predicts a subsequent regularity ("prior regularity predicting subsequent regularity in the future"), which is exactly what one is trying to prove in the first place.[13]

The "category of causality" is our inbuilt conception that past regularity predicts future regularity. That conception is a prerequisite to all reasoning regarding cause and effect in the natural world. As Mises wrote, agreeing with Hume, there is no deductive proof that past regularity predicts future regularity.

There is no deductive demonstration possible of the principle of causality and of the ampliative inference of imperfect induction; there is only recourse to the no less indemonstrable statement that there is a strict regularity in the conjunction of all natural phenomena. If we were not to refer to this uniformity, all the statements of the natural sciences would appear to be hasty generalizations.[14]

However, there is no other imaginable way of making sense of the material world without assuming that past regularity predicts future regularity. Without taking recourse to the category of causality, the physical universe around us would be a meaningless jumble of sensations.

Not only the natural sciences but everyday life would be impossible without our inbuilt conception that past regularity does indeed predict future regularity. Without it, we would never have developed agriculture, because we would have no reason to infer from past seasonal cycles that similar seasonal cycles might occur in the future. Without it, we would never even avoid contact with flame, because we would have no reason to infer from past contact the pain and damage we would incur from future contact.

In a world without causality and regularity of phenomena there would be no field for human reasoning and human action. Such a world would be a chaos in which man would be at a loss to find any orientation and guidance. Man is not even capable of imagining the conditions of such a chaotic universe.

From the very beginning, we must accept the reality that all we know may be an aberration on some scale.
We can't know that the "laws" that we experience are universal. We can't know that they are immutable. We can't know anything other that we witness what we do, and that it is so now.


Not to throw a monkey wrench or anything. But the fact must be stated.
I enjoy this thread.

[webolife]

MJV
It is not "lost" or "magic" that things in motion must have been moved...
This becomes an obviously cyclical logical dilemma. You start with objects moving and "forcing" other objects to move, without explaining initial cause. I start with the universal unified force/pressure field as being the initial cause of things moving. The only thing we "know for certain" is the present and real universe; we observe it through colored filters and lenses, literally and philosophically, so everything else must be based on our interpretation of what we see. Don't get me wrong -- I believe in a very real universe -- but I am not philosophically the materialist and objectivist that you are. I have no problem considering the possibility that the natural realm has a supernatural cause. Actually it only makes sense in the light of the fact that you must either posit or ignore "first" cause. What other choice is there? No first cause? To me that is a logical violation of your objectivist "causation" definition, so you must ignore the possibility. And that is your philosophical choice, not an element of the "what we know for certain" list.

[mjv1121]

phyllotaxis,

Only with this aprioristic assumption can one infer "from regularity observed in the past to the same regularity in future events."

Agreed, and as such I will not in include in the list the well known law of physics: "It has rained for the three days therefore it will probably rain tomorrow". This type of reasoning, as discussed by Mises, is not what I am attempting to resolve in this thread.

We can't know that the "laws" that we experience are universal. We can't know that they are immutable.

Immutable laws are exactly the set of laws which I am attempting to list.

Michael

[Oracle_911]

tayga,

So, you're assuming that every interaction has a corresponding gauge boson? Is this a justifiable assumption. do we really KNOW this at all?

Actually, I was assuming that the universe is real. In which case SR is false and anything that relies on SR is also at the very least, flawed.

What is it that you assume these "gauge bosons" to be doing?

By what mechanism you assert/suggest that force is conveyed?

Michael

In the past i read a book about LASERs, there was a capitol about modulation of light by E fields.