What is Physics?

[altonhare]

Alton,
You are now becoming pathetic. Have you not a thought of your own you could use? Or, put another way, have you never had a thought? Why does it require motion?

Of course I think. I have also had a thought. The question is, can an object/entity think (have a thought) without the object/entity itself to do the thinking/have the thought?

Can <entity X> have a thought without <entity X>? Can there be a thought (or any verb) without the object having the thought (verbing)?

Do you have thoughts when you (object/entity) don't exist?

[junglelord]

Alton your mindset is your prision. Your ability to open your mind, say to stillness, is something you could learn.
Your very scared of speaking. Your idea that words are real but numbers are not is again a prision of your own making.
Physics is the study of objects. Thats fine, I understand it, I do not need you to define object, and I really do not care what your definition is.

When people talk, just use your mind. If your mind cannot understand what the other person is relating, then your not connecting. Its not words, its consciouness. Again the idea of deep mediation, which is probably foreign to you as your in love with your dictionary, but when you enter stillness and nothing, when your mind is totally quiet, then you will understand. I know for a fact you cannot make your mind quiet. This is one way to develop your brain past words.
Words are the creation of the universe, and you make that very clear, but your a product of the Tower of Babel.
In the end, your constant quest for definition, without seeing it foryourself is getting pathetic.

Your in love with Bill, like a cult figure. Your cultapersonality worship of everything Bill is pathetic.
That idea that its exclusive to anything and everything is again a cult mentality.
You do realize that, don't you?

No one is 100% right....not even Bill.

[altonhare]

Your idea that words are real but numbers are not

Name a single instance where I have stated this.

Again the idea of deep mediation, which is probably foreign to you as your in love with your dictionary, but when you enter stillness and nothing, when your mind is totally quiet, then you will understand. I know for a fact you cannot make your mind quiet.

You're wrong, I often close my eyes and quiet my mind and just let whatever comes, come.

No one is 100% right....not even Bill.

Bill's wrong, light is not a rope, it's a chain.

[Grey Cloud]

Alton,
I agree with JL. You don't listen to what people say, instead you concentrate on how they say it and consequently get bogged down in the first detail you come across. Listen to what is being said, not how it is said. Cut yourself and the rest of us some slack. Failing that change career track and take up law - you'd be good at it.

[altonhare]

Alton,
I agree with JL. You don't listen to what people say, instead you concentrate on how they say it and consequently get bogged down in the first detail you come across. Listen to what is being said, not how it is said. Cut yourself and the rest of us some slack. Failing that change career track and take up law - you'd be good at it.

Are you saying something can have a thought without something?

[Grey Cloud]

Alton,
Your original question was:

Can someone illustrate a verb without an object for me?

I offered 'thought' which is a verb. By your defintion of object 'thought' is not an object. That which has had the thought may well be an object but the thought itself is not.

[altonhare]

Alton,
Your original question was:

Can someone illustrate a verb without an object for me?

I offered 'thought' which is a verb. By your defintion of object 'thought' is not an object. That which has had the thought may well be an object but the thought itself is not.

My point is that there can be no thought without the object thinking.

Of course verbs are not objects, a verb is what an object does. To talk about and study actions such as thoughts, running, jumping, it would be useful to first identity (or at least hypothesize) the object involved.

So no, thought is not an object. Neither is any other verb.

[junglelord]

Semantic circle jerk.


Alton there is no hope for you.

[altonhare]

Alton,
Your original question was:

Can someone illustrate a verb without an object for me?

I offered 'thought' which is a verb. By your defintion of object 'thought' is not an object. That which has had the thought may well be an object but the thought itself is not.

My point is that there can be no thought without the object thinking.

Of course verbs are not objects, a verb is what an object does. To talk about and study actions such as thoughts, running, jumping, it would be useful to first identity (or at least hypothesize) the object involved.

So no, thought is not an object. Neither is any other verb.

I understand that you answered my original question by placing a verb on the screen without an object next to it. This is a trivial answer. Of course anyone can say the word "running" or type "thought" on a page. You didn't honestly think I was asking if it's possible to put a verb down without a noun next to it?

I want to know if you can show me an action without also showing the thing acting. That's why I replied to your answer that I simply saw a series of symbols "t-h-o-u-g-h-t". I agree that words and language are a barrier. That's why I used the word "illustrate", I just want to know if someone can show me i.e. with pictures, an action without the thing acting.

The reason I harp on this, while having tomatoes and shoes thrown at me, is that GaryN (and others) claim that there are no objects in science, only actions. Others claim that there are no objects at all, only actions. But how can we have actions without that which is acting? Does GaryN really believe that I can have a thought without myself? That a ball can roll even when there's no ball? A grasshopper jumps even when there's no grasshopper? Atoms collide without atoms in the first place? What kind of sense does that make? Even the claim "Everything is interaction" or "Everything is verbs" invokes "thing" which is "object". This is saying every object is what it does, everything is what it does! Still further "everything is not a thing", an explicit contradiction.

[Grey Cloud]

Alton,
You wrote:

This is saying every object is what it does, everything is what it does!

Correct. Any words (nouns, verbs or whatever) we (humans, Martians or whoever), assign to a thing are merely a matter of our convenience, a way of categorising, classifying, or describing the thing. They do not address the essence of a thing but only some aspect of the thing as it relates to us, i.e. those doing the labelling.
It's all a question of perspective. Science is obsessed with detail, it is forever slicing, dicing, smashing, splitting, reducing - all in order to unlock the secrets of the Universe. Some of us prefer to observe the world and view it in the round, the whole, and then attempt to join dots, to make connections, to discover the relationships between the parts.
So what a thing does is what a thing is. It doesn't really matter whether a thing is hot or cold, large or small, solid or liquid, here or there. There is only one thing - the Universe (Cosmos, creation, god, mind - more labels). We are not part of it; we are it. Just as a planet or pigeon is.
The clues are everywhere - in the everyday mundane world and in your own head. All that is is required are the eyes to see and the ears to hear.
In the 'What is Time' thread, StevenO wrote:

The universe is movement. And the appropriate movements give objects.

Instead of worrying about definitions of words, just try thinking about the 'physical' world with that as a basic hypothesis. Think about things: water, air, atoms, galaxies, anything at all, in relation to Steven's statement. Consider Steven's stement as a seed. Plant it in your mind and see if you can make it grow. I'm not saying it will be easy for you as you are you but when I say think, I don't mean analyse it for 5 minutes. Suck it and see.

[Edit] The operative word in Steven's quote is 'movement'. Contemplate upon all that the word implies - motion, dynamism, vibration, change, flux, etc, etc.

[altonhare]

I'm responding quickly to a few things, but I'll think on what you (and StevenO) said for a while and get back to that. I have no problem with a lot of what you said. What I did have a problem with I'll think about longer, excpet one particular.

So what a thing does is what a thing is.

I'm pretty sure you said, elsewhere, the exact opposite? 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. This is waxing a bit philosophical but w/e.

While I'm dwelling on the idea that you, me, and this table are all the Universe, all the same thing, I'll ask if anyone in this forum thinks physics is the study of objects?

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Alton,

I'm pretty sure you said, elsewhere, the exact opposite?

I think I know what you mean but I can't remember where or when I said it. If I recall correctly (no guarantee) I took that stance for the sake of the debate we were having at the time, i.e. in order not to 'spook' you and derail that debate. It was some sort of compromise on my part or something.
There is no need to get back to me or Steven after you have had a think. I suggested it only as an alternative way of looking things. It's not just a simple matter of do it this way or do it that way. Steven's way involves a lot of science but mine doesn't, yet nevertheless we seem to have arrived a similar place, at least on this issue. Steven doesn't have your answers and I don't have your answers; only you have your answers.

Re physics and the study of objects. Fine and dandy, I have no problem with that per se. As I recall you define an object as something which has shape and location. Fine again, but put that next to Steven's statement about movement - shapes and locations change. Everything flows - as Heraclitus said 'you can't step into the same river twice'. Now, everyone gets the point about the flowing water but the river itself is changing, albeit minutely, in terms of both shape and location.

[altonhare]

Steven doesn't have your answers and I don't have your answers; only you have your answers.

Exactly, which is why I don't buy beach front property until I see it .

I agree with everything you said in the 2nd paragraph.

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.

As far as science (physics in particular) is concerned, the first thing you do is point to the river. Now you can talk about it changing and flowing (or whatever you wanna talk about). The opposite is to put the cart before the horse, to borrow a phrase you often use.

If a language has no words defined as nouns, then the nouns are implicit. For instance I may look at you and say "Ain't dead yet?" and the implied noun/object is, of course, you. For a scientific theory it's essential that the objects are explicit so everybody knows what the presenter is talking about. We don't need language for this, if your language lacks nouns you just point. If the person is blind you put the thing in their hand. If they can't feel anything at all this becomes a real challenge . In any event, the goal in science is that nobody is assuming the presenter is implying X when the presenter is really implying Y.

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 and, when it's over, the playwright says "and this is what I get out of it (my conclusion)". Then each person in the audience can decide to believe or disbelieve the theory, agree or disagree with the conclusions. The skeptics can then run their own play, and again each individual in the audience decides.

[junglelord]

You said yourself physics is about objects...
yet your wrapped up in words.


You seem to have no connection to your claim.
You act like physics is a dictionary.

[bboyer]

... excpet one particular.

So what a thing does is what a thing is.

I'm pretty sure you said, elsewhere, the exact opposite? 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. This is waxing a bit philosophical but w/e.

I suggest that any difficulty with accepting this statement may be primarily due to a conditioned upbringing/education with a particular language structure. For example the English language grammatical (and accordingly, also English logical) convention of structuring sentences (hence, thought) as Subject | Verb | Object (predicate). I wonder if multi-linguists or people conditioned (raised, or grown ) within other cultural language structures have this inflexibility of seeing objects as essentially distinct from the holistic (internal-external) environmental motions or events that define, and are, the objects themselves.