RainmanTime
Super Moderator
Our senses cannot detect radio waves. Would you then conclude that radio waves are not physical?
"NEVER" is an absolutist view in a universe that is clearly based on the relative. Furthermore, seeing how "NEVER" is about as useful as "infinity", I would question this:
I question this because there is no scientist I know of dumb enough to use the word "never" when it comes to scientific discovery regarding what we know of our universe.
You seem awfully sure of yourself to claim that "every" scientist believes this. In fact, that would border on "faith" if they cannot prove it. Interesting.
And yet clearly there are things we CANNOT predict... so how can you so conclusively make this statement that they "never change" but yet when they do they are "predictable"?
I think most (note: I did not say EVERY) scientists would bristle at you accusing them of "faith" that something is true. Most scientists are a lot more careful than you are painting them here.
That is until some new bit of knowledge is discovered that helps us formulate a better predictive process. And I would think those scientists from our past who WERE able to discover means to predict something that appeared unpredictable would certainly NOT think their work was "a complete waste of time and energy".
You made a claim that systems are repeatable in an "exact" manner. I countered that with known science based on non-linear theory, namely that systems with feedback loops (the vast majority of LIVING systems) are not "reversible" (to use a term from thermodynamics which also applies to system state repeatability).
Would you like to review the definition and get back to me on that, because I have certainly NOT changed it! In fact, why don't you tell me which definition you are accusing me of changing?
Incorrect. You obviously did not read, or fully comprehend what I wrote. I clearly postulated that it has BOTH physical AND aphysical aspects.
"You are telling me...?" Have I met the final authority on all things universal? /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif So then would you also "tell me" that the concept of PHYSICAL DEGREES OF FREEDOM has absolutely NO relation or bearing on the aphysical feeling of freedom within a person's concsiousness? Is that what you are saying? Because I would think a person who is chained to a wall (i.e. a PHYSICAL restriction of his/her degrees of freedom) certainly WOULD have an impact of what their RELATIVE measurement of freedom is within their minds!
How much have you really studied science in this area? If you think this is true, then can you tell me how many degrees of freedom are inherent in the "N-body problem"? It is one that has stumped mankind.... well, forever!
And because "mental connections" happen within a PHYSICAL thing called a brain/body, then you cannot rightfully completely divorce the PHYSICAL concept of freedom from the APHYSICAL mental state that represents it! I cannot see how you can possibly argue this point, since the ONLY place we know of that mental constructs are formed are within human, PHYSICAL brains! /ttiforum/images/graemlins/confused.gif Unless, that is, you wish to postulate mental connections occurring in something aphysical, which as you have said you have no means to sense!
Again, you are incorrect. I could easily call this "one dog chain", in much the same way we define an Astronomical Unit as the distance from the sun to the earth. I HAVE, indeed, defined a physical standard. What you just don't want to admit is that, like ALL things in our universe, it is a RELATIVE standard.
Now I see your problem. As this question of yours clearly shows, you are tending to think of "freedom" as a boolean state.... you either have it or you don't. That is EXACTLY what this form of question you have posed would lead to. I am saying that freedom is RELATIVE, based on an agreed-upon standard (which can, of course, change since there are no absolutes), AND that it has BOTH physical AND aphysical elements. Furthermore, I do not believe it is a discrete state, but a continually varying quantity that can be measured in any number of different PHYSICAL ways in addition to aphysical mental states. You want to say it is "completely mental", whereas I take a more balanced approach and say it is both physical and aphysical. Is the extremist or the mutually-integrative approach generally correct, based on the past history of science?
Of course, but that is because of its RELATIVITY, not because you think it is "only" a mental, and not a physical construct.
Sorry, it can also be a measurement...by agreement amongst reasonable people. And in fact, those agreed-upon physical measurements (e.g. "one dog chain") can have a large impact on the mental construct of freedom within one's mind.
You could make the same argument for the physical distance we call a meter. Unless you are now going to descend into the nihilist view of "nothing means anything" (perhaps appropriate given our discussion of anarchy?), then why does a physical distance that we agree to call a meter exist, but measurements of a body's physical freedom do not?
Thank you, so it is both. I agree. So then that would mean this quote from you is incomplete, and could therefore be misleading in what you intended:
So it is not JUST repeatability that gives science meaning, but also predictability, as you seem to agree.
New/Improved RMT
