Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on February 17, 2015, 09:39:20 PMI'm not sure I understand what you mean by 'positive' laws.Something moves a certain way because a law demands it to--as opposed to something moving a certain way because it can't move any other way.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by 'positive' laws.
Quote from: Dustin' on February 17, 2015, 09:31:10 PMThe idea that the laws of physics are ultimately, fundamentally derived from the notion that contradiction cannot exist (contradiction being a sentimental, mathematical representation of the unified theory) changes not the laws themselves but rather how they exist; the laws of physics describe actions that cannot happen, not actions that must happen. In this sense, we can make sense of how a universe could come from nothing: there is simply no contradiction in the spawn of a universe. In fact, we actually witness how particles spawn and disappear from nothing all the time. The best application of negative laws of physics are actually in quantum physics. The behavior of electrons indicates multiple paths the electrons can take. Unlike larger objects in which there is a threshold of only one possibility (all others unable to happen due to a contradiction), subatomic particles have a threshold of many possibilities.Because negative laws of physics assume much less than positive laws of physics (in the sense that there's no need of a platonic heaven of physical laws), I think this is a better, and possibly, more apt way to understand the universe. Obviously, and I think I've beaten this point to death, I'm no expert, so I need more input on this idea. Should I bother to tinker with it or is it logically flawed in some way? Turkey is the only person who's been kind enough to contribute some input in another thread on the same topic, but I'd like yeah know... maybe at least one other opinion? What if this turns out to be correct and physicists adopt this idea one idea? (hopeful thinking = not going to fucking happen, I know). Still, please give me some input here, thanks.LOL
The idea that the laws of physics are ultimately, fundamentally derived from the notion that contradiction cannot exist (contradiction being a sentimental, mathematical representation of the unified theory) changes not the laws themselves but rather how they exist; the laws of physics describe actions that cannot happen, not actions that must happen. In this sense, we can make sense of how a universe could come from nothing: there is simply no contradiction in the spawn of a universe. In fact, we actually witness how particles spawn and disappear from nothing all the time. The best application of negative laws of physics are actually in quantum physics. The behavior of electrons indicates multiple paths the electrons can take. Unlike larger objects in which there is a threshold of only one possibility (all others unable to happen due to a contradiction), subatomic particles have a threshold of many possibilities.Because negative laws of physics assume much less than positive laws of physics (in the sense that there's no need of a platonic heaven of physical laws), I think this is a better, and possibly, more apt way to understand the universe. Obviously, and I think I've beaten this point to death, I'm no expert, so I need more input on this idea. Should I bother to tinker with it or is it logically flawed in some way? Turkey is the only person who's been kind enough to contribute some input in another thread on the same topic, but I'd like yeah know... maybe at least one other opinion? What if this turns out to be correct and physicists adopt this idea one idea? (hopeful thinking = not going to fucking happen, I know). Still, please give me some input here, thanks.
Quote from: Dustin' on February 21, 2015, 05:42:36 PMQuote from: SexyBarracuda on February 20, 2015, 01:38:19 PMI think I get the point that you're trying to get across, however I don't understand how that might be more consistent than the other of way of conceiving them. For example laws like the conservation of energy can be reformulated in this negative way and still say the same thing. In fact according to David Deutsch(which some people may call a kook, but is nevertheless one of the god fathers of quantum computing) all laws are essentially statements that tell us what is impossible.You also may want to look into Charles Sanders Pierce who hypothesized that natural laws may change according to a type of selection effect similar to biology.I get that it pretty much makes no difference 99.99% of the time, but there are times when it does make a difference.LOL
Quote from: SexyBarracuda on February 20, 2015, 01:38:19 PMI think I get the point that you're trying to get across, however I don't understand how that might be more consistent than the other of way of conceiving them. For example laws like the conservation of energy can be reformulated in this negative way and still say the same thing. In fact according to David Deutsch(which some people may call a kook, but is nevertheless one of the god fathers of quantum computing) all laws are essentially statements that tell us what is impossible.You also may want to look into Charles Sanders Pierce who hypothesized that natural laws may change according to a type of selection effect similar to biology.I get that it pretty much makes no difference 99.99% of the time, but there are times when it does make a difference.
I think I get the point that you're trying to get across, however I don't understand how that might be more consistent than the other of way of conceiving them. For example laws like the conservation of energy can be reformulated in this negative way and still say the same thing. In fact according to David Deutsch(which some people may call a kook, but is nevertheless one of the god fathers of quantum computing) all laws are essentially statements that tell us what is impossible.You also may want to look into Charles Sanders Pierce who hypothesized that natural laws may change according to a type of selection effect similar to biology.
Negative laws of physics assume less; help answer a universe from nothing
