All laws in science are based upon explanations of observations. All explanations are theoretical. Therefore laws are theories.
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Who is really the 'personality' that calls himself 'Inertial' ??!!
Next: A new theory suggests atmospheric answer to the continuing paradox of why early Earth wasn�t icy
From: Sir Frederick Martin on 5 Jun 2010 12:42 On Sat, 5 Jun 2010 09:14:03 -0700 (PDT), Ed <edgarsv(a)att.net> wrote: >On Jun 4, 10:15�pm, Sir Frederick Martin <mmcne...(a)fuzzysys.com> >wrote: >> >> The question remains, as to why there is a situation at all? >> The mystery goes on.- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > >What kind of answer could there be to the question "why is there a >situation?" "Why" questions imply a causal chain: "why is the sky >blue?"; "Because molecules in the air scatter blue light from the sun >more than they scatter red light." "Why are there air molecules?" >And so forth and so on. > >If there is a beginning to the causal chain then there is some event >or condition that has no prior cause (because it is the beginning). >Because there is no prior cause, there is no meaningful "why" >associated with it. But the question may still be ask, and I have read enough Sci-Fi, and attended enough religions, to ask the question. I agree "why" and causality may not be appropriate, but I have no other epistemological or verbal tools. Mystery inside mystery is still mystery.
From: Desertphile on 6 Jun 2010 08:39
On Sat, 5 Jun 2010 18:59:54 -0700 (PDT), Immortalist <reanimater_2000(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > All laws in science are based upon explanations of observations. All > explanations are theoretical. Therefore laws are theories. No. -- http://desertphile.org Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water "Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz |