[Play_Dough]

Originally Posted by dleviwing

edited....
IMO fundamental matter must behave the same at that level as it does at levels we can observe and measure; the true laws of physics must remain valid in both the macro and micro realms of reality.

That may be reasonable to embrace as a hypothesis, however, science has discovered otherwise.
As yet, we still do not know if 'gravity' or other electromagnetic forces operate within the atom.
Quantum physics has discovered that on 'quantum levels' the 'boilerplated' rules of physics do not apply.

It seems that the applicable laws of physics are only applicable until there is a 'change of state' (i.e., from macro to quantum). Or, more simply put, water has certain 'operating parameters' determined by temperature (water, ice, steam). At each stage (water, ice, steam) the applicable laws change according to the change of state. The physics for water are quite different from the physics for steam. Also the physics for objects at rest (geometry) are different from the physics for objects in motion (calculus/quantum physics).

The whole notion (opinion) of the observer influencing the observation seems to be an 'unspoken law' of physics. Why? Because 'mainstream science' examines subjective experiences and 'documents' (verb) its consistent results as 'consensus reality'. This 'consensus reality' approach has the 100% of human experience distilled into (about)
less than (my estimation) 2% of 'data that can be verified' and which then gets into the encyclopedias; and that 2% is continually updated to correct previous errors.

As a result of this 'consensus reality' stuff (opinion) we have scientists who use technology in order to bypass (somewhat) 'observer influence'.

Perhaps if there is a major flaw in the entire scientific approach it is in believing that there are fundamental and unvariable 'truths' that compose the 'immutable laws' of physics.

Of course, all of this scientific speculation is without complete knowledge of the origin or the complete abilities of 'consciousness'.

Perhaps the key question is, 'does consciousness affect reality'?
The quick answer is yes. My thoughts can (and do) produce movement of my body through 4 dimensional space/time (mind over matter). So can my beliefs or psychological origination-point affect 'reality' without my even knowing it?

The question, as I have posed it, demands 'yes' for an answer.
(Repeat) Science is quietly aware of this and subjects any 'scientific discovery' to a bevy of tests by other scientists to see if the same results/observations can be attained.
In other words, science attempts to eliminate 'subjectivity' from its processes.

Metaphysics, a branch of philosophy, believes that true 'causal' events can be invisible and have their roots in consciousness. Without this 'fact-of-life' there would be much less need for the 'scientific method' because everyone would have the same experience of the same phenomena.

As such, our scientific 'reality' is and has always been constructed by 'consensus'... a process that filters out subjectivity in order to discern the 'laws of physics'.

I can see the mainstream scientist, at a Super Bowl game, telling the crowd that it makes no difference to 'root' for your favorite team (or player) because it will not affect the outcome of the game.
True? I don't think so. There is something inherent (in us) that believes that we can influence 'reality' by our intention and 'will'. That, it seems, is the fundamental essence of being human..... to transcend nature by the use of will.
.

[dleviwing]

Hi Play_Dough;
I hate to pop your bubble but the physics of water is the same whether it is in the form of solid, liquid, or gas. It’s based on the physics of thermodynamics which has its roots in the physical motions of the molecules. That field of physics can also be applied to the fundamental particles of atomic structure.

Now, if you would read my statement again and realize that I said “THE TRUE LAWS OF PHYSICS” must remain valid in both the macro and micro realms of reality; I did NOT say these laws of physics are currently KNOWN; at least they are not recognized yet. The fact that the laws you are referring to do not seem to work at all realms of reality would suggest that they are at best incomplete; some of them are flat out wrong but the math may prove to be useful.

As for the rest of your post, it seems you have not as yet realized that science is based entirely on empirical date (data derived through measurement). Though many interpret hypotheses or theories as being science, they are not; that’s why they are called “theoretical physics” and not “theoretical science”. These fields of physics along with mathematics are the tools that lead to the science of experimentation; a “theoretical physicist” is NOT necessarily a scientist; a “mathematician” is NOT necessarily a scientist. A scientist may have these skills but these skills do not make them scientist unless they also perform the rigors of experimentation.

You seem to be confused as to what it means when we say the act of observation influences the results of the experiment. This simply means that the act of testing (observation) require us to use some form of data collection that influences the state of what is being measured. Using a laser to measure the distance to the moon has no measurable influence such as pushing the moon further away, but using a laser to measure the atomic or subatomic dimensions will have a significant influence on these dimensions. Quantum physics is based on our ability to measure these dimensions using statistical methodology; this also means that we cannot say we are absolutely or 100% certain of the data; thus probability and uncertainty. Even the presence of the scientist himself may influence such small finite measurements. Some scientist hype the fact of that uncertainty to mean anything is possible within that small realm to the degree that even the laws of physics may be different within those small realms of Quantum Uncertainty. That’s pure BS hype to sell a book or attempt to promote a worthless theory (string theory).

If you learn more of the science fields you would not be so gullible to these hyped up claims and would not make such obvious errors in your comments. Some ToeQuest members have recommended the book “The Trouble With Physics” as an excellent read; the first 5 or 6 chapters should help you get a better understanding of what real science is.

Originally Posted by Play_Dough

Metaphysics, a branch of philosophy, believes that true 'causal' events can be invisible and have their roots in consciousness. Without this 'fact-of-life' there would be much less need for the 'scientific method' because everyone would have the same experience of the same phenomena.

This is called RELIGION; the oldest money making business in history; it tops the oldest profession.