Moral Mechanics

[Resha Caner]

The gist of it is that how things are is not a basis for how things ought to be. We don't derive our morality from how nature operates.

Mmm. Not a fan of Hume. I'm not advocating some kind of naturalism, but neither do I like how subjective this approach makes ethics. How do "we" want things to be? I consider what some people want to be very immoral.

If the speed of light can change willy nilly then it has obvious implications in electrical engineering, nuclear engineering, etc. The very physical properties of molecules would change if you changed the laws of physics as required by YEC's.

I thought maybe you meant that creationist objections to certain aspects of geology would affect the use of geology in industries such as petroleum. IMO geology is more an art than a science anyway, and I think the same thing applies here that applies in the medical field. Medicine only uses what is demonstrable. Mutation fits that, and studying mutation has a useful outcome. Other claims related to descent aren't really needed by medicine, and many of the same conclusions could be drawn from different (more creation-oriented) assumptions.

Nuts. I can see how that statement is going to totally derail this thread.

But, with respect to the comment about light, I assume you mean embedded age claims. Actually, current physics has some similar issues to wrestle with in that arena due to the initial expansion outpacing the speed of light. If YEC wanted to, they could appropriate the same explanations.

Also, YEC's would argue that the acceptance of an old earth has the same moral implications as accepting evolution.

Well, further clarification. I don't stand behind an old earth either. My answer is, "We don't know." You'd have to listen to my dissertation on time to get an answer to that one.

 

[Tomk80]

LOL, good one! That is the first post from her that I see in a long time which is not a copy and paste.

Although it is an almost to the letter repetition of an earlier post she made. But whatever, babysteps...

 

[Loudmouth]

Mmm. Not a fan of Hume. I'm not advocating some kind of naturalism, but neither do I like how subjective this approach makes ethics. How do "we" want things to be? I consider what some people want to be very immoral.

Notice how the two bolded parts contradict each other?

Ethics will always be subjective. There is no getting around it. People try to get around this by making theological claims about absolute morality, but which theology do you follow? Well, that is a subjective choice. You are simply subjectively choosing a rule set to follow.

Also, is an act immoral if it does not affect anyone else? I would say no. In a secular society like most western democracies we have rules set up that govern how people interact with other people. Your personal beliefs and personal activities are left to you to decide. For the western worldview, this is the way a soceity ought to be. However, some eastern cultures disagree and they do legislate based on religious belief and force others to abide by their religious beliefs.

I thought maybe you meant that creationist objections to certain aspects of geology would affect the use of geology in industries such as petroleum.

They require the constants of physics to vary over time. This includes the speed of light, decay constants, etc. This requires changes in the fundamental forces of physics which surely impact mechanics.

Nuts. I can see how that statement is going to totally derail this thread.

You have a good thread started here. I will try not to drag it any further off topic than you want it, but I can't make any promises.

But, with respect to the comment about light, I assume you mean embedded age claims. Actually, current physics has some similar issues to wrestle with in that arena due to the initial expansion outpacing the speed of light. If YEC wanted to, they could appropriate the same explanations.

I was thinking more of Barry Setterfields work where the speed of light, atomic radii, and several other physical constants have to change over time throughout the universe. He changes things so drastically that it requires the planet Earth to have twice it's current diameter just a few thousand years ago.

Well, further clarification. I don't stand behind an old earth either. My answer is, "We don't know." You'd have to listen to my dissertation on time to get an answer to that one.

My opinion is that we have ample evidence, so we do know. But like you say, this is a topic for another thread.

 

[Resha Caner]

Notice how the two bolded parts contradict each other?

Sure.

Ethics will always be subjective. There is no getting around it.

It might depend on what you define ethics to be, but it is not necessarily subjective. Let's use my earlier mention of geology as an example. As the science currently stands, does it make some very subjective conclusions? Yes. Will it always be that way? Not necessarily. I'm sure geologists are working to close the gaps. There is an implicit assumption that "the truth is out there." The rock has a "true" age, we just have to figure out how to find it. Paleontology, psychology, sociology might be even better examples for that.

So, only if you give up the idea of absolute truth does ethics become subjective.

They require the constants of physics to vary over time. This includes the speed of light, decay constants, etc. This requires changes in the fundamental forces of physics which surely impact mechanics.

And? (playing devil's advocate here) What if it needs to change? This is a philosophy of science question. Are those constants "real" or are they only instruments of our perception?

Let me ask this question: If someone could find an alternative system that produced the same conclusions, such that the only difference between the two systems are the philosophical implications, would you be OK with the alternate system? (FYI, I'll use "philosophical" to encompass the list of moral, theological, political, i.e. non-technical objections.)

I actually feel like I came to that point in my work. I proposed an alternate concept for "force" that would have encompassed the current definition and yet greatly expanded the capability of mechanics. The objection I encountered was one of parsimony rather than technical merit. To overcome that objection would have required some serious life changes on my part, so my decision was also a rather parsimonious one. Meh, not worth it.

 

[Loudmouth]

As the science currently stands, does it make some very subjective conclusions? Yes.

Could you be more specific?

I'm sure geologists are working to close the gaps. There is an implicit assumption that "the truth is out there." The rock has a "true" age, we just have to figure out how to find it.

Geologists are using facts to arrive at conclusions. That isn't ethics. Ethics is not about how nature works. Ethics is about how humans should behave. Those are not the same thing.

So, only if you give up the idea of absolute truth does ethics become subjective.

That would depend on your epistemological system. Conclusions in science are always tentative. They are never absolute truths. Even the facts that scientists discover are not considered to be absolute truths.

But even more, if we look back through the ages we will find certain ideas that were claimed to have been absolute truths, but they obviously were not. The Sun moving about the Earth was held as an absolute truth by the Catholic priesthood, as one example. Just a century ago Newton's Laws were held as absolute truths, but then that pesky Mercury challenged that idea with it's funky orbit.

And? (playing devil's advocate here) What if it needs to change? This is a philosophy of science question. Are those constants "real" or are they only instruments of our perception?

It is not a question of philosophy. It is a question of evidence. There is no evidence for a change in the fundamental laws of physics seen in distant galaxies. Setterfield's ever changing ideas all have sever consequences for the universe, and those are not seen.

Let me ask this question: If someone could find an alternative system that produced the same conclusions, such that the only difference between the two systems are the philosophical implications, would you be OK with the alternate system? (FYI, I'll use "philosophical" to encompass the list of moral, theological, political, i.e. non-technical objections.)

If you could supply evidence for the alternate system that would certainly help.

The objection I encountered was one of parsimony rather than technical merit.

And that is a valid objection. Let's say that you are on a jury for a murder trial. The prosecution presents a case that includes forensic evidence that clearly ties the suspect to the murder. The forensic scientist shows that the suspects fingerprints, DNA, shoe prints, and fibers are on and around the victim. In response, the defense brings up another forensic scientist who argues that all of that evidence is also consistent with Leprechauns planting the evidence.

So, who is more convincing? How would you rule in this case? Would you ignore the evidence because it is also consistent with Leprecahuns planting evidence?

 

[Resha Caner]

Could you be more specific?

I don't really want to get into that. As you say later, conclusions are always tentative. In scientific language, there is a confidence level in the result. At one end of the spectrum is physics, which can quantify that confidence level. At the other end of the spectrum is psychology, where often the confidence level is the opinion of an expert - a qualitative assertion.

That was my only point. Just because human understanding of an idea is currently subjective isn't a reason to give up on the idea.

There is no evidence for a change in the fundamental laws of physics seen in distant galaxies.

In the recent past you couldn't have said that. When CERN announced FTL neutrinos, several theories were given to explain how that was possible. Then they found out the data had been corrupted.

It's funny how there is always a theory ready to fit the data.

But I realize you'll continue to think that way unless you accept Nagel's contention that physical "laws" are actually unfalsifiable assumptions.

And that is a valid objection.

It is, but your example is not what I meant by an objection of parsimony.

To start simply with my case, the "standard" equation involves 3 terms. However, these 3 terms are not enough to represent all systems. There are, then, several approaches from that point.

1) Some people continue to use 3 terms, and they "correlate" the coefficients on a case by case basis. It is what I would call the "fudge factor" approach.

2) Some people add a 4th term that makes the equations nonlinear. It gets pretty nasty, and so it is more parsimonious to use method #1 even though people know there is a sense in which it's wrong.

3) I suggested a 4th term that kept the linearity of the equations. In fact, as I said, I went on to suggest a redefinition of "force". Both of those approaches were rejected. The claim was that #1 was still more parsimonious. I'm not so sure, but it is what it is.

 

[Loudmouth]

In the recent past you couldn't have said that. When CERN announced FTL neutrinos, several theories were given to explain how that was possible. Then they found out the data had been corrupted.

I would say that the majority of physicists thought the data was bad from the start, and they were vindicated.

It's funny how there is always a theory ready to fit the data.

Are you saying that theories should not change to fite the data?

But I realize you'll continue to think that way unless you accept Nagel's contention that physical "laws" are actually unfalsifiable assumptions.

They are falsifiable. Anyone with the right equipment can measure the decay rate of an isotope. Anyone can measure these fundamental laws. Of course they are falsifiable. How else do you think that Newton's Laws were falsified?

It is, but your example is not what I meant by an objection of parsimony.

To start simply with my case, the "standard" equation involves 3 terms. However, these 3 terms are not enough to represent all systems. There are, then, several approaches from that point.

1) Some people continue to use 3 terms, and they "correlate" the coefficients on a case by case basis. It is what I would call the "fudge factor" approach.

2) Some people add a 4th term that makes the equations nonlinear. It gets pretty nasty, and so it is more parsimonious to use method #1 even though people know there is a sense in which it's wrong.

3) I suggested a 4th term that kept the linearity of the equations. In fact, as I said, I went on to suggest a redefinition of "force". Both of those approaches were rejected. The claim was that #1 was still more parsimonious. I'm not so sure, but it is what it is.

I guess I am not familiar with what you are talking about. Sorry.

 

[Resha Caner]

Are you saying that theories should not change to fite the data?

I'm saying there is a "hindsight is 20-20" aspect to these types of things that is rather amusing. What actually happens is all over the map. There are always people waiting with a new theory - waiting for the data to prove them right. And when it does, they can truthfully say that they knew all along that they were right. There are also always people skeptical of a new theory - always skeptical of the data that shows a new theory to be right. And when the mistake is found, they can truthfully say they knew it all along.

I've been in both positions.

They are falsifiable. Anyone with the right equipment can measure the decay rate of an isotope. Anyone can measure these fundamental laws. Of course they are falsifiable. How else do you think that Newton's Laws were falsified?

Alrighty, then. Let's get a perfectly rigid body, apply a known force in the absence of all other forces, measure the acceleration without the measurement affecting the system, and show me that F = ma is wrong.

I guess I am not familiar with what you are talking about. Sorry.

A) mx" + cx' + kx = f
B) mx" + cx' + qx^3 + kx = f

The correlation coefficient for equation A = 0.95.
The correlation coefficient for equation B = 0.98.

It costs $10 to build the machine and validate it using eqation A.
It costs $100 to build the machine and validate it using equation B.

1) Which equation is "right"?
2) The project sets a requirement of validating the machine to 0.90. Which equation should the project use?

 

[geneseib]

So, is there some moral objection to the theoretical basis of mechanics so that I can have fun talking about engineering in this forum?

God created the universe and everything in it. This includes science and mechanics. Science done properly is truth and lines up with the Word of God.

 

[Loudmouth]

I'm saying there is a "hindsight is 20-20" aspect to these types of things that is rather amusing. What actually happens is all over the map. There are always people waiting with a new theory - waiting for the data to prove them right. And when it does, they can truthfully say that they knew all along that they were right. There are also always people skeptical of a new theory - always skeptical of the data that shows a new theory to be right. And when the mistake is found, they can truthfully say they knew it all along.

There are scientists who have hypotheses. Then then go out and test those hypotheses. Some turn out to be accurate. Others are falsified. We call this "science".

Alrighty, then. Let's get a perfectly rigid body, apply a known force in the absence of all other forces, measure the acceleration without the measurement affecting the system, and show me that F = ma is wrong.

Do you agree or disagree that Newton's Laws were falsified, even if they are good approximations at low accelerations and velocities. That seems to be why we use Relativity instead of Newton's Laws when it comes to certain questions about nature.

The Law of the Luminiferous Aether was also falsified. Spontaneous Generation was falsified. Phlogiston was falsified. Tons of "laws" have been falsified through the history of science, so I am flummoxed as to why you think they would be unfalsifiable.

A) mx" + cx' + kx = f
B) mx" + cx' + qx^3 + kx = f

The correlation coefficient for equation A = 0.95.
The correlation coefficient for equation B = 0.98.

It costs $10 to build the machine and validate it using eqation A.
It costs $100 to build the machine and validate it using equation B.

1) Which equation is "right"?
2) The project sets a requirement of validating the machine to 0.90. Which equation should the project use?

B is most likely correct, but A is the correct machine to build. You are asking two questions, one about mechanics and the other about economics.

 

[Resha Caner]

There are scientists who have hypotheses. Then then go out and test those hypotheses. Some turn out to be accurate. Others are falsified. We call this "science".

That's not what I was replying to. I was replying to what a majority of physicists supposedly think. If the majority had thought differently, should the data have been accepted "as is"?

Do you agree or disagree that Newton's Laws were falsified ...

The application of Newton's Laws was falsified - the use of them to predict Mercury's orbit, etc. The laws themselves were not. They work pretty well under the conditions you mentioned. So why are they wrong under those conditions? Are you saying I am not using science if the equation I use is F = ma? Take a look at the parsimony example I offered and your answer to it (noting that x" = a).

I am flummoxed as to why you think they would be unfalsifiable.

Address the example I offered and maybe you'll understand.

B is most likely correct, but A is the correct machine to build. You are asking two questions, one about mechanics and the other about economics.

Yep. That's the parsimony piece I was referring to. It's a justifiable objection, but the result is people using "science" that they know is most likely wrong.

 

[Loudmouth]

That's not what I was replying to. I was replying to what a majority of physicists supposedly think. If the majority had thought differently, should the data have been accepted "as is"?

The data was contradicted by other data. For example, the neutrino pulse from Supernova 1987a arrived just before the light flash. If neutrinos really did travel faster than the speed of light then the gap between them would not have been so short (btw, the gap in time is caused by the mean free path that is longer photons because the are absorbed and re-emitted).

The application of Newton's Laws was falsified - the use of them to predict Mercury's orbit, etc. The laws themselves were not.

When laws make false predictions they have been falsified. That's how it works.

They work pretty well under the conditions you mentioned. So why are they wrong under those conditions?

They are wrong under all conditions, but the margin of error is very small under "normal" conditions so it is just ignored. As an example, Mercury is not the only planet with orbital precession. All planets have this, it was just noticed first in Mercury because the of the precision of the instruments at the time.

Are you saying I am not using science if the equation I use is F = ma?

I would say that you are using an approximation that is valid for the system you are working with. If you were working at CERN you would probably not be using those formulas.

Address the example I offered and maybe you'll understand.

Address all of the laws that have been falsified and you will understand my point.

Yep. That's the parsimony piece I was referring to. It's a justifiable objection, but the result is people using "science" that they know is most likely wrong.

All of the theories we have right now are probably wrong in one way or another. That is why we are training new scientists, to find those errors.

 

[Resha Caner]

When laws make false predictions they have been falsified. That's how it works.

There is never just one law involved. When multiple laws are used to draw a conclusion, how do you partition out the blame?

I would say that you are using an approximation that is valid for the system you are working with. If you were working at CERN you would probably not be using those formulas.

Of course. CERN uses a different approximation than I do.

Address all of the laws that have been falsified and you will understand my point.

Hmm. Is this how we're going to do it? My comment was not meant to be cheeky. I really think walking through that example would help you understand what I'm saying.

 

[Loudmouth]

There is never just one law involved. When multiple laws are used to draw a conclusion, how do you partition out the blame?

They are all suspect, and you do further testing to find out which one is false.

Of course. CERN uses a different approximation than I do.

They use equations derived by Einstein, not Newton.

Hmm. Is this how we're going to do it? My comment was not meant to be cheeky. I really think walking through that example would help you understand what I'm saying.

You claim that laws are unfalsifiable. I show you laws that have been falsified. How can it get more open and shut than that?

 

[Resha Caner]

They are all suspect, and you do further testing to find out which one is false.

Yep. And the intent would be to identify a test where none of the other laws interact. So, you have to narrow it down to a test of one and only one law.

They use equations derived by Einstein, not Newton.

Are you saying their data correlates exactly to those equations? The error is 0.0...%?

You claim that laws are unfalsifiable. I show you laws that have been falsified. How can it get more open and shut than that?

You didn't show me. You asked me a question and then rejected my answer. You don't want to work through the example. OK.

 

[Loudmouth]

You didn't show me. You asked me a question and then rejected my answer. You don't want to work through the example. OK.

Yes, I did show you. Newton's Laws predicted the wrong orbit of Mercury. Newton's Laws were falsified.

 

[Resha Caner]

Yes, I did show you. Newton's Laws predicted the wrong orbit of Mercury. Newton's Laws were falsified.

Maybe it will help to clarify that I think GR (Or is it SR that's involved here? Or both? I always forget.) is the truer theory. At best Newton's Laws are only a special case (asymptotically approach the answer at low speeds).

But why do I think that? Not because Newton was falsified. It is possible there are two laws at play. Using Newton's Laws for low speeds and moderate masses has not been falsified. Only using it for high speeds and/or very tiny or very large objects has been falsified. Even so, the idea of one unified law is more appealing. It fits with Occam's Razor. That's the reason I think relativity is truer, not because Newton was completely falsified.

And if we restrict the discussion to Newton vs. Einstein I realize it might seem like I'm obfuscating (or whatever word you might prefer).

But look at the larger picture. There is no grand unified theory yet. We don't insist that people stop referring to gravitational force, electromagnetic force, strong & weak forces, etc. because there must be one theory for force. We don't say that the conflict between relativity and QM when it comes to black holes means one of those ideas has been falsified - that there must be a unity of theory for that case. We leave the conflict unresolved and say relativity is legitimate in its place and QM is legitimate in its place and we hope to resolve it someday.

Until a unified theory is found, the door remains open that, in fact, there are multiple laws and the conditions determine when they should be applied.

So, I'm OK with people saying relativity is the "proper" law in all cases and not Newton's Laws, but IMO the reason is Occam, not falsification. Further, I think it's important to recognize that.

 

[Loudmouth]

But why do I think that? Not because Newton was falsified. It is possible there are two laws at play. Using Newton's Laws for low speeds and moderate masses has not been falsified. Only using it for high speeds and/or very tiny or very large objects has been falsified. Even so, the idea of one unified law is more appealing. It fits with Occam's Razor. That's the reason I think relativity is truer, not because Newton was completely falsified.

No, they have been falsified. Period. That they are just good approximations at low velocities and mass is coincidental. Gravity is not an instantaneous force, and that is where the laws were wrong, and where Relativity is right.

What happened to the Luminferous Aether? Falsified. What happened to Phlogiston? Falsified. Science is littered with falsified ideas, "Laws" amongst them.

But look at the larger picture. There is no grand unified theory yet. We don't insist that people stop referring to gravitational force, electromagnetic force, strong & weak forces, etc. because there must be one theory for force. We don't say that the conflict between relativity and QM when it comes to black holes means one of those ideas has been falsified - that there must be a unity of theory for that case. We leave the conflict unresolved and say relativity is legitimate in its place and QM is legitimate in its place and we hope to resolve it someday.

I would say that both Relativity and QM are incomplete. Newton's Laws were not incomplete since they were based on instantaneous gravity. They were just wrong. It's not a case of Occam's Razor when one theory is just wrong. It may be that Relativity is wrong in some sense too, and when that is discovered it too will be falsified.

 

[Resha Caner]

Gravity is not an instantaneous force, and that is where the laws were wrong, and where Relativity is right.

Newton's 2nd law makes no claim about gravity.

 

[Loudmouth]

Newton's 2nd law makes no claim about gravity.

Then it would appear that I am talking about the laws that do involve gravity.

"Further, Newton's other great achievement, the law of universal gravitation, is not compatible with special relativity. Newton's law of gravity assumes instantaneous transmission of force across distance; special relativity does not permit this. The strength of gravity depends on the inverse distance squared; distance is now relative, not invariant."
8: The General Theory of Relativity