Can a universal law be disproved?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
I need to know that a universal law like the First Law Of Motion may be disproved or not.
I mean, that how can we make sure that the particular law will hold true at all places of the universe?
universals
New contributor
|
show 4 more comments
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
I need to know that a universal law like the First Law Of Motion may be disproved or not.
I mean, that how can we make sure that the particular law will hold true at all places of the universe?
universals
New contributor
1
The answer is “the enterprise of science”. There is really no such thing as a “law” in the sense you’re asking. There are only theories with more or less compelling evidence or contrary evidence. Science holds all such theories contingently, always. Humanity assumed for (prehistoric) millennia the Earth was flat. We were wrong. We held for millennia that time was absolute, not relative. We were wrong. It’s always possible we will encounter new data that contradicts existing theories, no matter how widely-held, no matter how cherished. Science is contingent; that’s the price at the door.
– Dan Bron
16 hours ago
1
An object at rest stays at rest and an object in motion stays in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force. I'd argue that no object is ever really at rest, except relative to the speed and position of other objects.
– Bread
16 hours ago
1
@Bread From a physicist's point of view. all motion is relative to other objects. There is no concept of an object at rest in an absolute sense. So, you'd argue correctly.
– David Thornley
12 hours ago
1
@Joshua Last I saw, no proposed EM drive was going to establish an absolute spacetime coordinate system. The proposal is to ditch the momentum and energy conservation laws (which, by Noether's theorem, means the laws of physics will vary over time and space).
– David Thornley
9 hours ago
1
Your two sentences are about subtly different concepts. Your first is "how can we disprove a false universal statement?" A single counterexample suffices. If our universal is "all swans are white" then a single black swan disproves it. But your second statement is "how can we prove a true universal statement?" The only way to prove that is to observe all swans. That's going to be hard to do with physical laws!
– Eric Lippert
8 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
I need to know that a universal law like the First Law Of Motion may be disproved or not.
I mean, that how can we make sure that the particular law will hold true at all places of the universe?
universals
New contributor
I need to know that a universal law like the First Law Of Motion may be disproved or not.
I mean, that how can we make sure that the particular law will hold true at all places of the universe?
universals
universals
New contributor
New contributor
New contributor
asked 17 hours ago
Aayush Aggarwal
464
464
New contributor
New contributor
1
The answer is “the enterprise of science”. There is really no such thing as a “law” in the sense you’re asking. There are only theories with more or less compelling evidence or contrary evidence. Science holds all such theories contingently, always. Humanity assumed for (prehistoric) millennia the Earth was flat. We were wrong. We held for millennia that time was absolute, not relative. We were wrong. It’s always possible we will encounter new data that contradicts existing theories, no matter how widely-held, no matter how cherished. Science is contingent; that’s the price at the door.
– Dan Bron
16 hours ago
1
An object at rest stays at rest and an object in motion stays in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force. I'd argue that no object is ever really at rest, except relative to the speed and position of other objects.
– Bread
16 hours ago
1
@Bread From a physicist's point of view. all motion is relative to other objects. There is no concept of an object at rest in an absolute sense. So, you'd argue correctly.
– David Thornley
12 hours ago
1
@Joshua Last I saw, no proposed EM drive was going to establish an absolute spacetime coordinate system. The proposal is to ditch the momentum and energy conservation laws (which, by Noether's theorem, means the laws of physics will vary over time and space).
– David Thornley
9 hours ago
1
Your two sentences are about subtly different concepts. Your first is "how can we disprove a false universal statement?" A single counterexample suffices. If our universal is "all swans are white" then a single black swan disproves it. But your second statement is "how can we prove a true universal statement?" The only way to prove that is to observe all swans. That's going to be hard to do with physical laws!
– Eric Lippert
8 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
1
The answer is “the enterprise of science”. There is really no such thing as a “law” in the sense you’re asking. There are only theories with more or less compelling evidence or contrary evidence. Science holds all such theories contingently, always. Humanity assumed for (prehistoric) millennia the Earth was flat. We were wrong. We held for millennia that time was absolute, not relative. We were wrong. It’s always possible we will encounter new data that contradicts existing theories, no matter how widely-held, no matter how cherished. Science is contingent; that’s the price at the door.
– Dan Bron
16 hours ago
1
An object at rest stays at rest and an object in motion stays in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force. I'd argue that no object is ever really at rest, except relative to the speed and position of other objects.
– Bread
16 hours ago
1
@Bread From a physicist's point of view. all motion is relative to other objects. There is no concept of an object at rest in an absolute sense. So, you'd argue correctly.
– David Thornley
12 hours ago
1
@Joshua Last I saw, no proposed EM drive was going to establish an absolute spacetime coordinate system. The proposal is to ditch the momentum and energy conservation laws (which, by Noether's theorem, means the laws of physics will vary over time and space).
– David Thornley
9 hours ago
1
Your two sentences are about subtly different concepts. Your first is "how can we disprove a false universal statement?" A single counterexample suffices. If our universal is "all swans are white" then a single black swan disproves it. But your second statement is "how can we prove a true universal statement?" The only way to prove that is to observe all swans. That's going to be hard to do with physical laws!
– Eric Lippert
8 hours ago
1
1
The answer is “the enterprise of science”. There is really no such thing as a “law” in the sense you’re asking. There are only theories with more or less compelling evidence or contrary evidence. Science holds all such theories contingently, always. Humanity assumed for (prehistoric) millennia the Earth was flat. We were wrong. We held for millennia that time was absolute, not relative. We were wrong. It’s always possible we will encounter new data that contradicts existing theories, no matter how widely-held, no matter how cherished. Science is contingent; that’s the price at the door.
– Dan Bron
16 hours ago
The answer is “the enterprise of science”. There is really no such thing as a “law” in the sense you’re asking. There are only theories with more or less compelling evidence or contrary evidence. Science holds all such theories contingently, always. Humanity assumed for (prehistoric) millennia the Earth was flat. We were wrong. We held for millennia that time was absolute, not relative. We were wrong. It’s always possible we will encounter new data that contradicts existing theories, no matter how widely-held, no matter how cherished. Science is contingent; that’s the price at the door.
– Dan Bron
16 hours ago
1
1
An object at rest stays at rest and an object in motion stays in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force. I'd argue that no object is ever really at rest, except relative to the speed and position of other objects.
– Bread
16 hours ago
An object at rest stays at rest and an object in motion stays in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force. I'd argue that no object is ever really at rest, except relative to the speed and position of other objects.
– Bread
16 hours ago
1
1
@Bread From a physicist's point of view. all motion is relative to other objects. There is no concept of an object at rest in an absolute sense. So, you'd argue correctly.
– David Thornley
12 hours ago
@Bread From a physicist's point of view. all motion is relative to other objects. There is no concept of an object at rest in an absolute sense. So, you'd argue correctly.
– David Thornley
12 hours ago
1
1
@Joshua Last I saw, no proposed EM drive was going to establish an absolute spacetime coordinate system. The proposal is to ditch the momentum and energy conservation laws (which, by Noether's theorem, means the laws of physics will vary over time and space).
– David Thornley
9 hours ago
@Joshua Last I saw, no proposed EM drive was going to establish an absolute spacetime coordinate system. The proposal is to ditch the momentum and energy conservation laws (which, by Noether's theorem, means the laws of physics will vary over time and space).
– David Thornley
9 hours ago
1
1
Your two sentences are about subtly different concepts. Your first is "how can we disprove a false universal statement?" A single counterexample suffices. If our universal is "all swans are white" then a single black swan disproves it. But your second statement is "how can we prove a true universal statement?" The only way to prove that is to observe all swans. That's going to be hard to do with physical laws!
– Eric Lippert
8 hours ago
Your two sentences are about subtly different concepts. Your first is "how can we disprove a false universal statement?" A single counterexample suffices. If our universal is "all swans are white" then a single black swan disproves it. But your second statement is "how can we prove a true universal statement?" The only way to prove that is to observe all swans. That's going to be hard to do with physical laws!
– Eric Lippert
8 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
up vote
5
down vote
I need to know that a universal law like the First Law Of Motion may be disproved or not. I mean, that how can we make sure that the particular law will hold true at all places of the universe?
'Disproving' means showing that something is not true. The name for showing that a law will hold true at all places and times 'proving'.
Many philosophers would say the answer is yes:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/induction-problem/
In reality, proof and disproof are both impossible, as explained by the philosopher Karl Popper. Any argument uses assumptions and ideas about the consequences of those assumptions. The truth of the conclusion of any argument depends on the correctness of the assumptions and of the rules applied to them. Trying to guarantee the truth of the assumptions and rules would involve making another argument with more assumptions that would have to be proved. So arguments are useless for proving any statement, including the statement that an idea is false.
But it is still possible to learn about how the world works. If we assume some universal law is true and try to check its consequences and we find a clash between the results of the check and the consequences of the law then there is a problem somewhere in the set of ideas involved in the check. One possibility is that the law is wrong. Another possibility is that the check is flawed in some way. We might also have made a mistake about the consequences of the law. To solve this problem we come up with explanations of the clash and try to test the explanations until we find one that solve the original problem and has no other known problems.
For more explanations of these ideas, see the material here:
http://fallibleideas.com/books#popper
1
Surely if one finds a single exception then the law is proven to not be universal. Isn't that the entire purpose of falsifiability in science?
– Corey
7 hours ago
@Corey, yes, that proves it not to be universal. But it doesn't mean the original statement of the law should be thrown out, either. For instance, if a prehistoric man noticed some funny rocks (magnets) would attract other rocks (iron ore), he might tell his friend, "This rock makes other rocks stick!" But that would be easily falsifiable, and then he gets branded a loon. Not very useful. The observed effect (attraction) was real; further experiments are necessary to determine the actual limits of the effect. Determining those limits is done by further application of the scientific method.
– Wildcard
5 hours ago
(Disclaimer: I haven't read Popper, and I have no idea if what I'm saying above is the same as what he would say.)
– Wildcard
5 hours ago
4
While this does an admirable job at showing that you can't prove an assertion, it doesn't (validly, IMO) say that you can't disprove it.
– RonJohn
3 hours ago
Your answer says "In reality, proof and disproof are both impossible," which appears to be contrary to what the scientific method is all about. Falsifiability is the requirement that a hypothesis be capable of being disproved. A (supposed) universal law can be falsified - disproved - by showing one circumstance in which it does not hold. I agree with much of your answer, but it seems that disproof is not only possible but is in fact required to make the scientific method work.
– Corey
2 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
5
down vote
We can't disprove or prove universal laws, and it is not possible to do so without deity-like omniscience.
Proof belongs to the domain of logic and mathematics, where there can be no question of the accuracy of a given abstraction, because the subjects are the manipulation of abstractions.
But the example of a universal law you give belongs to science, which deals only in evidence, and probabilities. Consider the Problem Of Induction, which can only be answered by something like Bayesian statistics, likelihood based on experience.
It is generally poorly understood that the idea of a law, only proceeds from analogy with legal systems, and that is a bad analogy. We make abstractions of the world, often as much for tractability as accuracy, and then compare outputs to the world - but the world always has the final say. See Nancy Cartwright's How The Laws of Physics Lie for more on this.
So you might reasonably ask, what is the most universal? How universal a principle or model or framework can we get? Not easy to answer, because even just within physics there are many modes and methodologies, and comparing them for universality is more opinion than science. Candidates might be Noether's Theorem, which links symmetries in dimensions to conservation laws. Einstein said he felt thermodynamics to be more fundamental than quantum mechanics or relativity, and developments in entropic gravity seem like they are supporting that, as well as linking to Wheeler's 'It From Bit' doctrine of the fundamental reality only of information.
But just like Newton's Laws break down at high speeds and small scales, QM & relativity break down at black holes - even our most universal explanations find gaps & exceptions where they break down. What happened before the big bang if the dimension of time only came into existence then?
There are theories that the speed of light might have varied across time, or other fundamental constants might vary across space. The universe is full of uncertainties, not universalities..!
2
This is a good answer, and +1, but it could be improved even more by being passed through a spellchecker (and also another manual proof, e.g. the spellchecker isn’t going to catch “*cane into” -> “came into”).
– Dan Bron
16 hours ago
1
I'm not sure how "Newton's laws break down at high speeds and small scales" can possibly lead one to the conclusion "We can't, and it is not possible [to disprove a universal law.]" I find your refutation, of yourself, quite compelling.
– Roger
14 hours ago
4
The first sentence does not match the rest of the post. I think you meant to say "we can't prove a universal law" but the title asks if it can be disproved. And please do fix the typos like "queetion of the accuracy of abgiven abstraction".
– Conifold
13 hours ago
"We can't disprove or prove universal laws, and it is not possible to do so without deity-like omniscience." Utter rubbish. The whole notion of falsifiability means that physical laws are disprovable.
– RonJohn
4 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
The short answer is that we cannot be 100% certain for all cases. We can be more certain for the "frames" where we can do experiments, but the further off we go from actual experiments it gets less and less certain. We know for certain that Newtons laws are false by doing experiments proving them false.
Generally, it is much easier to find one example proving that a theory is wrong than showing that there is not any example (remember, abscense of proof is not proof of abscense)
Today scientists do not call their theories for laws for a good reason. The simple experience is that sooner or later there will be some circumstance that proves the law false (well, as far as we currently guess this probably goes for all our physics theories). Any theory we have, including Newtons so called laws, can only be shown to be valid in a certain "frame" surrounding it. Outside that frame it might be correct, or not. The frame in physics is most often considered as doing experiments. (Theories that cannot be proved either wrong or right are generally frowned upon).
Several of Newtons laws were proved wrong in the case of relativity (Einstein). Law one gets invalidated in a frame known as quantuum mechanics (which is very strange animal if you ask me but experiments shows that it is a better explanation than Newtons laws for small things).
So can we really be sure that things are the same everywhere and all the time. Scientist do spend lifetimes trying to answer that question. Basically the jury is not out yet: has the constants of cosmology changed over time (except from during big bang, the answer currently seems to be no). Speed of light, the fine constant and so on, currently seems to not have changed over time, and probably not over distance either. But we cannot really be 100% certain right now. Probably never, so don´t expect any new laws. But then who knows?
New contributor
If you have references to the writings of others who take this view it would give the reader a place to go for more information and strengthen your answer. Welcome to this SE!
– Frank Hubeny
6 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
-2
down vote
Please note Newton's first law of motion.
"Newton's first law states that every object will remain at rest or in uniform motion in a straight line unless compelled to change its state by the action of an external force."
I don't know whether there is any other version to this law.
A living object is also an object. If so, which is the force that moves and stops a living object? Is it purely external?
What all forces stop an egg that is rolling on the floor? I think the internal force also has its influence in stopping the egg. You may argue that an egg is an amassed form of different substances...or the jelly-like-fluid that exerts friction also is attracted by the earth. So you may say that force also is an external. But we cannot ignore the fact that the jelly-like-fluid (both egg yolk and egg white) also attracts the earth. Then the force that stops a rolling egg must be internal and external. Similarly you may imagine a jelly-like-ball (a homogeneous substance) that rolls on the floor. What all forces stop it?
What I am trying to say is that the last term ('eternal force') in the law would need to be rectified if scientists discovered that the characteristics of force within the tiniest particles...I mean, if particles are also jelly-like.
I have no reference to put forward. This is just a possibility in this material world..."If scientists discover so,...."
No references, and not clear what you are saying.
– CriglCragl
7 hours ago
@CriglCragl, Thank you. It was a little confusing. I have edited it.
– SonOfThought
3 hours ago
add a comment |
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
5
down vote
I need to know that a universal law like the First Law Of Motion may be disproved or not. I mean, that how can we make sure that the particular law will hold true at all places of the universe?
'Disproving' means showing that something is not true. The name for showing that a law will hold true at all places and times 'proving'.
Many philosophers would say the answer is yes:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/induction-problem/
In reality, proof and disproof are both impossible, as explained by the philosopher Karl Popper. Any argument uses assumptions and ideas about the consequences of those assumptions. The truth of the conclusion of any argument depends on the correctness of the assumptions and of the rules applied to them. Trying to guarantee the truth of the assumptions and rules would involve making another argument with more assumptions that would have to be proved. So arguments are useless for proving any statement, including the statement that an idea is false.
But it is still possible to learn about how the world works. If we assume some universal law is true and try to check its consequences and we find a clash between the results of the check and the consequences of the law then there is a problem somewhere in the set of ideas involved in the check. One possibility is that the law is wrong. Another possibility is that the check is flawed in some way. We might also have made a mistake about the consequences of the law. To solve this problem we come up with explanations of the clash and try to test the explanations until we find one that solve the original problem and has no other known problems.
For more explanations of these ideas, see the material here:
http://fallibleideas.com/books#popper
1
Surely if one finds a single exception then the law is proven to not be universal. Isn't that the entire purpose of falsifiability in science?
– Corey
7 hours ago
@Corey, yes, that proves it not to be universal. But it doesn't mean the original statement of the law should be thrown out, either. For instance, if a prehistoric man noticed some funny rocks (magnets) would attract other rocks (iron ore), he might tell his friend, "This rock makes other rocks stick!" But that would be easily falsifiable, and then he gets branded a loon. Not very useful. The observed effect (attraction) was real; further experiments are necessary to determine the actual limits of the effect. Determining those limits is done by further application of the scientific method.
– Wildcard
5 hours ago
(Disclaimer: I haven't read Popper, and I have no idea if what I'm saying above is the same as what he would say.)
– Wildcard
5 hours ago
4
While this does an admirable job at showing that you can't prove an assertion, it doesn't (validly, IMO) say that you can't disprove it.
– RonJohn
3 hours ago
Your answer says "In reality, proof and disproof are both impossible," which appears to be contrary to what the scientific method is all about. Falsifiability is the requirement that a hypothesis be capable of being disproved. A (supposed) universal law can be falsified - disproved - by showing one circumstance in which it does not hold. I agree with much of your answer, but it seems that disproof is not only possible but is in fact required to make the scientific method work.
– Corey
2 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
5
down vote
I need to know that a universal law like the First Law Of Motion may be disproved or not. I mean, that how can we make sure that the particular law will hold true at all places of the universe?
'Disproving' means showing that something is not true. The name for showing that a law will hold true at all places and times 'proving'.
Many philosophers would say the answer is yes:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/induction-problem/
In reality, proof and disproof are both impossible, as explained by the philosopher Karl Popper. Any argument uses assumptions and ideas about the consequences of those assumptions. The truth of the conclusion of any argument depends on the correctness of the assumptions and of the rules applied to them. Trying to guarantee the truth of the assumptions and rules would involve making another argument with more assumptions that would have to be proved. So arguments are useless for proving any statement, including the statement that an idea is false.
But it is still possible to learn about how the world works. If we assume some universal law is true and try to check its consequences and we find a clash between the results of the check and the consequences of the law then there is a problem somewhere in the set of ideas involved in the check. One possibility is that the law is wrong. Another possibility is that the check is flawed in some way. We might also have made a mistake about the consequences of the law. To solve this problem we come up with explanations of the clash and try to test the explanations until we find one that solve the original problem and has no other known problems.
For more explanations of these ideas, see the material here:
http://fallibleideas.com/books#popper
1
Surely if one finds a single exception then the law is proven to not be universal. Isn't that the entire purpose of falsifiability in science?
– Corey
7 hours ago
@Corey, yes, that proves it not to be universal. But it doesn't mean the original statement of the law should be thrown out, either. For instance, if a prehistoric man noticed some funny rocks (magnets) would attract other rocks (iron ore), he might tell his friend, "This rock makes other rocks stick!" But that would be easily falsifiable, and then he gets branded a loon. Not very useful. The observed effect (attraction) was real; further experiments are necessary to determine the actual limits of the effect. Determining those limits is done by further application of the scientific method.
– Wildcard
5 hours ago
(Disclaimer: I haven't read Popper, and I have no idea if what I'm saying above is the same as what he would say.)
– Wildcard
5 hours ago
4
While this does an admirable job at showing that you can't prove an assertion, it doesn't (validly, IMO) say that you can't disprove it.
– RonJohn
3 hours ago
Your answer says "In reality, proof and disproof are both impossible," which appears to be contrary to what the scientific method is all about. Falsifiability is the requirement that a hypothesis be capable of being disproved. A (supposed) universal law can be falsified - disproved - by showing one circumstance in which it does not hold. I agree with much of your answer, but it seems that disproof is not only possible but is in fact required to make the scientific method work.
– Corey
2 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
5
down vote
up vote
5
down vote
I need to know that a universal law like the First Law Of Motion may be disproved or not. I mean, that how can we make sure that the particular law will hold true at all places of the universe?
'Disproving' means showing that something is not true. The name for showing that a law will hold true at all places and times 'proving'.
Many philosophers would say the answer is yes:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/induction-problem/
In reality, proof and disproof are both impossible, as explained by the philosopher Karl Popper. Any argument uses assumptions and ideas about the consequences of those assumptions. The truth of the conclusion of any argument depends on the correctness of the assumptions and of the rules applied to them. Trying to guarantee the truth of the assumptions and rules would involve making another argument with more assumptions that would have to be proved. So arguments are useless for proving any statement, including the statement that an idea is false.
But it is still possible to learn about how the world works. If we assume some universal law is true and try to check its consequences and we find a clash between the results of the check and the consequences of the law then there is a problem somewhere in the set of ideas involved in the check. One possibility is that the law is wrong. Another possibility is that the check is flawed in some way. We might also have made a mistake about the consequences of the law. To solve this problem we come up with explanations of the clash and try to test the explanations until we find one that solve the original problem and has no other known problems.
For more explanations of these ideas, see the material here:
http://fallibleideas.com/books#popper
I need to know that a universal law like the First Law Of Motion may be disproved or not. I mean, that how can we make sure that the particular law will hold true at all places of the universe?
'Disproving' means showing that something is not true. The name for showing that a law will hold true at all places and times 'proving'.
Many philosophers would say the answer is yes:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/induction-problem/
In reality, proof and disproof are both impossible, as explained by the philosopher Karl Popper. Any argument uses assumptions and ideas about the consequences of those assumptions. The truth of the conclusion of any argument depends on the correctness of the assumptions and of the rules applied to them. Trying to guarantee the truth of the assumptions and rules would involve making another argument with more assumptions that would have to be proved. So arguments are useless for proving any statement, including the statement that an idea is false.
But it is still possible to learn about how the world works. If we assume some universal law is true and try to check its consequences and we find a clash between the results of the check and the consequences of the law then there is a problem somewhere in the set of ideas involved in the check. One possibility is that the law is wrong. Another possibility is that the check is flawed in some way. We might also have made a mistake about the consequences of the law. To solve this problem we come up with explanations of the clash and try to test the explanations until we find one that solve the original problem and has no other known problems.
For more explanations of these ideas, see the material here:
http://fallibleideas.com/books#popper
answered 15 hours ago
alanf
6,406616
6,406616
1
Surely if one finds a single exception then the law is proven to not be universal. Isn't that the entire purpose of falsifiability in science?
– Corey
7 hours ago
@Corey, yes, that proves it not to be universal. But it doesn't mean the original statement of the law should be thrown out, either. For instance, if a prehistoric man noticed some funny rocks (magnets) would attract other rocks (iron ore), he might tell his friend, "This rock makes other rocks stick!" But that would be easily falsifiable, and then he gets branded a loon. Not very useful. The observed effect (attraction) was real; further experiments are necessary to determine the actual limits of the effect. Determining those limits is done by further application of the scientific method.
– Wildcard
5 hours ago
(Disclaimer: I haven't read Popper, and I have no idea if what I'm saying above is the same as what he would say.)
– Wildcard
5 hours ago
4
While this does an admirable job at showing that you can't prove an assertion, it doesn't (validly, IMO) say that you can't disprove it.
– RonJohn
3 hours ago
Your answer says "In reality, proof and disproof are both impossible," which appears to be contrary to what the scientific method is all about. Falsifiability is the requirement that a hypothesis be capable of being disproved. A (supposed) universal law can be falsified - disproved - by showing one circumstance in which it does not hold. I agree with much of your answer, but it seems that disproof is not only possible but is in fact required to make the scientific method work.
– Corey
2 hours ago
add a comment |
1
Surely if one finds a single exception then the law is proven to not be universal. Isn't that the entire purpose of falsifiability in science?
– Corey
7 hours ago
@Corey, yes, that proves it not to be universal. But it doesn't mean the original statement of the law should be thrown out, either. For instance, if a prehistoric man noticed some funny rocks (magnets) would attract other rocks (iron ore), he might tell his friend, "This rock makes other rocks stick!" But that would be easily falsifiable, and then he gets branded a loon. Not very useful. The observed effect (attraction) was real; further experiments are necessary to determine the actual limits of the effect. Determining those limits is done by further application of the scientific method.
– Wildcard
5 hours ago
(Disclaimer: I haven't read Popper, and I have no idea if what I'm saying above is the same as what he would say.)
– Wildcard
5 hours ago
4
While this does an admirable job at showing that you can't prove an assertion, it doesn't (validly, IMO) say that you can't disprove it.
– RonJohn
3 hours ago
Your answer says "In reality, proof and disproof are both impossible," which appears to be contrary to what the scientific method is all about. Falsifiability is the requirement that a hypothesis be capable of being disproved. A (supposed) universal law can be falsified - disproved - by showing one circumstance in which it does not hold. I agree with much of your answer, but it seems that disproof is not only possible but is in fact required to make the scientific method work.
– Corey
2 hours ago
1
1
Surely if one finds a single exception then the law is proven to not be universal. Isn't that the entire purpose of falsifiability in science?
– Corey
7 hours ago
Surely if one finds a single exception then the law is proven to not be universal. Isn't that the entire purpose of falsifiability in science?
– Corey
7 hours ago
@Corey, yes, that proves it not to be universal. But it doesn't mean the original statement of the law should be thrown out, either. For instance, if a prehistoric man noticed some funny rocks (magnets) would attract other rocks (iron ore), he might tell his friend, "This rock makes other rocks stick!" But that would be easily falsifiable, and then he gets branded a loon. Not very useful. The observed effect (attraction) was real; further experiments are necessary to determine the actual limits of the effect. Determining those limits is done by further application of the scientific method.
– Wildcard
5 hours ago
@Corey, yes, that proves it not to be universal. But it doesn't mean the original statement of the law should be thrown out, either. For instance, if a prehistoric man noticed some funny rocks (magnets) would attract other rocks (iron ore), he might tell his friend, "This rock makes other rocks stick!" But that would be easily falsifiable, and then he gets branded a loon. Not very useful. The observed effect (attraction) was real; further experiments are necessary to determine the actual limits of the effect. Determining those limits is done by further application of the scientific method.
– Wildcard
5 hours ago
(Disclaimer: I haven't read Popper, and I have no idea if what I'm saying above is the same as what he would say.)
– Wildcard
5 hours ago
(Disclaimer: I haven't read Popper, and I have no idea if what I'm saying above is the same as what he would say.)
– Wildcard
5 hours ago
4
4
While this does an admirable job at showing that you can't prove an assertion, it doesn't (validly, IMO) say that you can't disprove it.
– RonJohn
3 hours ago
While this does an admirable job at showing that you can't prove an assertion, it doesn't (validly, IMO) say that you can't disprove it.
– RonJohn
3 hours ago
Your answer says "In reality, proof and disproof are both impossible," which appears to be contrary to what the scientific method is all about. Falsifiability is the requirement that a hypothesis be capable of being disproved. A (supposed) universal law can be falsified - disproved - by showing one circumstance in which it does not hold. I agree with much of your answer, but it seems that disproof is not only possible but is in fact required to make the scientific method work.
– Corey
2 hours ago
Your answer says "In reality, proof and disproof are both impossible," which appears to be contrary to what the scientific method is all about. Falsifiability is the requirement that a hypothesis be capable of being disproved. A (supposed) universal law can be falsified - disproved - by showing one circumstance in which it does not hold. I agree with much of your answer, but it seems that disproof is not only possible but is in fact required to make the scientific method work.
– Corey
2 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
5
down vote
We can't disprove or prove universal laws, and it is not possible to do so without deity-like omniscience.
Proof belongs to the domain of logic and mathematics, where there can be no question of the accuracy of a given abstraction, because the subjects are the manipulation of abstractions.
But the example of a universal law you give belongs to science, which deals only in evidence, and probabilities. Consider the Problem Of Induction, which can only be answered by something like Bayesian statistics, likelihood based on experience.
It is generally poorly understood that the idea of a law, only proceeds from analogy with legal systems, and that is a bad analogy. We make abstractions of the world, often as much for tractability as accuracy, and then compare outputs to the world - but the world always has the final say. See Nancy Cartwright's How The Laws of Physics Lie for more on this.
So you might reasonably ask, what is the most universal? How universal a principle or model or framework can we get? Not easy to answer, because even just within physics there are many modes and methodologies, and comparing them for universality is more opinion than science. Candidates might be Noether's Theorem, which links symmetries in dimensions to conservation laws. Einstein said he felt thermodynamics to be more fundamental than quantum mechanics or relativity, and developments in entropic gravity seem like they are supporting that, as well as linking to Wheeler's 'It From Bit' doctrine of the fundamental reality only of information.
But just like Newton's Laws break down at high speeds and small scales, QM & relativity break down at black holes - even our most universal explanations find gaps & exceptions where they break down. What happened before the big bang if the dimension of time only came into existence then?
There are theories that the speed of light might have varied across time, or other fundamental constants might vary across space. The universe is full of uncertainties, not universalities..!
2
This is a good answer, and +1, but it could be improved even more by being passed through a spellchecker (and also another manual proof, e.g. the spellchecker isn’t going to catch “*cane into” -> “came into”).
– Dan Bron
16 hours ago
1
I'm not sure how "Newton's laws break down at high speeds and small scales" can possibly lead one to the conclusion "We can't, and it is not possible [to disprove a universal law.]" I find your refutation, of yourself, quite compelling.
– Roger
14 hours ago
4
The first sentence does not match the rest of the post. I think you meant to say "we can't prove a universal law" but the title asks if it can be disproved. And please do fix the typos like "queetion of the accuracy of abgiven abstraction".
– Conifold
13 hours ago
"We can't disprove or prove universal laws, and it is not possible to do so without deity-like omniscience." Utter rubbish. The whole notion of falsifiability means that physical laws are disprovable.
– RonJohn
4 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
5
down vote
We can't disprove or prove universal laws, and it is not possible to do so without deity-like omniscience.
Proof belongs to the domain of logic and mathematics, where there can be no question of the accuracy of a given abstraction, because the subjects are the manipulation of abstractions.
But the example of a universal law you give belongs to science, which deals only in evidence, and probabilities. Consider the Problem Of Induction, which can only be answered by something like Bayesian statistics, likelihood based on experience.
It is generally poorly understood that the idea of a law, only proceeds from analogy with legal systems, and that is a bad analogy. We make abstractions of the world, often as much for tractability as accuracy, and then compare outputs to the world - but the world always has the final say. See Nancy Cartwright's How The Laws of Physics Lie for more on this.
So you might reasonably ask, what is the most universal? How universal a principle or model or framework can we get? Not easy to answer, because even just within physics there are many modes and methodologies, and comparing them for universality is more opinion than science. Candidates might be Noether's Theorem, which links symmetries in dimensions to conservation laws. Einstein said he felt thermodynamics to be more fundamental than quantum mechanics or relativity, and developments in entropic gravity seem like they are supporting that, as well as linking to Wheeler's 'It From Bit' doctrine of the fundamental reality only of information.
But just like Newton's Laws break down at high speeds and small scales, QM & relativity break down at black holes - even our most universal explanations find gaps & exceptions where they break down. What happened before the big bang if the dimension of time only came into existence then?
There are theories that the speed of light might have varied across time, or other fundamental constants might vary across space. The universe is full of uncertainties, not universalities..!
2
This is a good answer, and +1, but it could be improved even more by being passed through a spellchecker (and also another manual proof, e.g. the spellchecker isn’t going to catch “*cane into” -> “came into”).
– Dan Bron
16 hours ago
1
I'm not sure how "Newton's laws break down at high speeds and small scales" can possibly lead one to the conclusion "We can't, and it is not possible [to disprove a universal law.]" I find your refutation, of yourself, quite compelling.
– Roger
14 hours ago
4
The first sentence does not match the rest of the post. I think you meant to say "we can't prove a universal law" but the title asks if it can be disproved. And please do fix the typos like "queetion of the accuracy of abgiven abstraction".
– Conifold
13 hours ago
"We can't disprove or prove universal laws, and it is not possible to do so without deity-like omniscience." Utter rubbish. The whole notion of falsifiability means that physical laws are disprovable.
– RonJohn
4 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
5
down vote
up vote
5
down vote
We can't disprove or prove universal laws, and it is not possible to do so without deity-like omniscience.
Proof belongs to the domain of logic and mathematics, where there can be no question of the accuracy of a given abstraction, because the subjects are the manipulation of abstractions.
But the example of a universal law you give belongs to science, which deals only in evidence, and probabilities. Consider the Problem Of Induction, which can only be answered by something like Bayesian statistics, likelihood based on experience.
It is generally poorly understood that the idea of a law, only proceeds from analogy with legal systems, and that is a bad analogy. We make abstractions of the world, often as much for tractability as accuracy, and then compare outputs to the world - but the world always has the final say. See Nancy Cartwright's How The Laws of Physics Lie for more on this.
So you might reasonably ask, what is the most universal? How universal a principle or model or framework can we get? Not easy to answer, because even just within physics there are many modes and methodologies, and comparing them for universality is more opinion than science. Candidates might be Noether's Theorem, which links symmetries in dimensions to conservation laws. Einstein said he felt thermodynamics to be more fundamental than quantum mechanics or relativity, and developments in entropic gravity seem like they are supporting that, as well as linking to Wheeler's 'It From Bit' doctrine of the fundamental reality only of information.
But just like Newton's Laws break down at high speeds and small scales, QM & relativity break down at black holes - even our most universal explanations find gaps & exceptions where they break down. What happened before the big bang if the dimension of time only came into existence then?
There are theories that the speed of light might have varied across time, or other fundamental constants might vary across space. The universe is full of uncertainties, not universalities..!
We can't disprove or prove universal laws, and it is not possible to do so without deity-like omniscience.
Proof belongs to the domain of logic and mathematics, where there can be no question of the accuracy of a given abstraction, because the subjects are the manipulation of abstractions.
But the example of a universal law you give belongs to science, which deals only in evidence, and probabilities. Consider the Problem Of Induction, which can only be answered by something like Bayesian statistics, likelihood based on experience.
It is generally poorly understood that the idea of a law, only proceeds from analogy with legal systems, and that is a bad analogy. We make abstractions of the world, often as much for tractability as accuracy, and then compare outputs to the world - but the world always has the final say. See Nancy Cartwright's How The Laws of Physics Lie for more on this.
So you might reasonably ask, what is the most universal? How universal a principle or model or framework can we get? Not easy to answer, because even just within physics there are many modes and methodologies, and comparing them for universality is more opinion than science. Candidates might be Noether's Theorem, which links symmetries in dimensions to conservation laws. Einstein said he felt thermodynamics to be more fundamental than quantum mechanics or relativity, and developments in entropic gravity seem like they are supporting that, as well as linking to Wheeler's 'It From Bit' doctrine of the fundamental reality only of information.
But just like Newton's Laws break down at high speeds and small scales, QM & relativity break down at black holes - even our most universal explanations find gaps & exceptions where they break down. What happened before the big bang if the dimension of time only came into existence then?
There are theories that the speed of light might have varied across time, or other fundamental constants might vary across space. The universe is full of uncertainties, not universalities..!
edited 7 hours ago
answered 16 hours ago
CriglCragl
2,3761415
2,3761415
2
This is a good answer, and +1, but it could be improved even more by being passed through a spellchecker (and also another manual proof, e.g. the spellchecker isn’t going to catch “*cane into” -> “came into”).
– Dan Bron
16 hours ago
1
I'm not sure how "Newton's laws break down at high speeds and small scales" can possibly lead one to the conclusion "We can't, and it is not possible [to disprove a universal law.]" I find your refutation, of yourself, quite compelling.
– Roger
14 hours ago
4
The first sentence does not match the rest of the post. I think you meant to say "we can't prove a universal law" but the title asks if it can be disproved. And please do fix the typos like "queetion of the accuracy of abgiven abstraction".
– Conifold
13 hours ago
"We can't disprove or prove universal laws, and it is not possible to do so without deity-like omniscience." Utter rubbish. The whole notion of falsifiability means that physical laws are disprovable.
– RonJohn
4 hours ago
add a comment |
2
This is a good answer, and +1, but it could be improved even more by being passed through a spellchecker (and also another manual proof, e.g. the spellchecker isn’t going to catch “*cane into” -> “came into”).
– Dan Bron
16 hours ago
1
I'm not sure how "Newton's laws break down at high speeds and small scales" can possibly lead one to the conclusion "We can't, and it is not possible [to disprove a universal law.]" I find your refutation, of yourself, quite compelling.
– Roger
14 hours ago
4
The first sentence does not match the rest of the post. I think you meant to say "we can't prove a universal law" but the title asks if it can be disproved. And please do fix the typos like "queetion of the accuracy of abgiven abstraction".
– Conifold
13 hours ago
"We can't disprove or prove universal laws, and it is not possible to do so without deity-like omniscience." Utter rubbish. The whole notion of falsifiability means that physical laws are disprovable.
– RonJohn
4 hours ago
2
2
This is a good answer, and +1, but it could be improved even more by being passed through a spellchecker (and also another manual proof, e.g. the spellchecker isn’t going to catch “*cane into” -> “came into”).
– Dan Bron
16 hours ago
This is a good answer, and +1, but it could be improved even more by being passed through a spellchecker (and also another manual proof, e.g. the spellchecker isn’t going to catch “*cane into” -> “came into”).
– Dan Bron
16 hours ago
1
1
I'm not sure how "Newton's laws break down at high speeds and small scales" can possibly lead one to the conclusion "We can't, and it is not possible [to disprove a universal law.]" I find your refutation, of yourself, quite compelling.
– Roger
14 hours ago
I'm not sure how "Newton's laws break down at high speeds and small scales" can possibly lead one to the conclusion "We can't, and it is not possible [to disprove a universal law.]" I find your refutation, of yourself, quite compelling.
– Roger
14 hours ago
4
4
The first sentence does not match the rest of the post. I think you meant to say "we can't prove a universal law" but the title asks if it can be disproved. And please do fix the typos like "queetion of the accuracy of abgiven abstraction".
– Conifold
13 hours ago
The first sentence does not match the rest of the post. I think you meant to say "we can't prove a universal law" but the title asks if it can be disproved. And please do fix the typos like "queetion of the accuracy of abgiven abstraction".
– Conifold
13 hours ago
"We can't disprove or prove universal laws, and it is not possible to do so without deity-like omniscience." Utter rubbish. The whole notion of falsifiability means that physical laws are disprovable.
– RonJohn
4 hours ago
"We can't disprove or prove universal laws, and it is not possible to do so without deity-like omniscience." Utter rubbish. The whole notion of falsifiability means that physical laws are disprovable.
– RonJohn
4 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
The short answer is that we cannot be 100% certain for all cases. We can be more certain for the "frames" where we can do experiments, but the further off we go from actual experiments it gets less and less certain. We know for certain that Newtons laws are false by doing experiments proving them false.
Generally, it is much easier to find one example proving that a theory is wrong than showing that there is not any example (remember, abscense of proof is not proof of abscense)
Today scientists do not call their theories for laws for a good reason. The simple experience is that sooner or later there will be some circumstance that proves the law false (well, as far as we currently guess this probably goes for all our physics theories). Any theory we have, including Newtons so called laws, can only be shown to be valid in a certain "frame" surrounding it. Outside that frame it might be correct, or not. The frame in physics is most often considered as doing experiments. (Theories that cannot be proved either wrong or right are generally frowned upon).
Several of Newtons laws were proved wrong in the case of relativity (Einstein). Law one gets invalidated in a frame known as quantuum mechanics (which is very strange animal if you ask me but experiments shows that it is a better explanation than Newtons laws for small things).
So can we really be sure that things are the same everywhere and all the time. Scientist do spend lifetimes trying to answer that question. Basically the jury is not out yet: has the constants of cosmology changed over time (except from during big bang, the answer currently seems to be no). Speed of light, the fine constant and so on, currently seems to not have changed over time, and probably not over distance either. But we cannot really be 100% certain right now. Probably never, so don´t expect any new laws. But then who knows?
New contributor
If you have references to the writings of others who take this view it would give the reader a place to go for more information and strengthen your answer. Welcome to this SE!
– Frank Hubeny
6 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
The short answer is that we cannot be 100% certain for all cases. We can be more certain for the "frames" where we can do experiments, but the further off we go from actual experiments it gets less and less certain. We know for certain that Newtons laws are false by doing experiments proving them false.
Generally, it is much easier to find one example proving that a theory is wrong than showing that there is not any example (remember, abscense of proof is not proof of abscense)
Today scientists do not call their theories for laws for a good reason. The simple experience is that sooner or later there will be some circumstance that proves the law false (well, as far as we currently guess this probably goes for all our physics theories). Any theory we have, including Newtons so called laws, can only be shown to be valid in a certain "frame" surrounding it. Outside that frame it might be correct, or not. The frame in physics is most often considered as doing experiments. (Theories that cannot be proved either wrong or right are generally frowned upon).
Several of Newtons laws were proved wrong in the case of relativity (Einstein). Law one gets invalidated in a frame known as quantuum mechanics (which is very strange animal if you ask me but experiments shows that it is a better explanation than Newtons laws for small things).
So can we really be sure that things are the same everywhere and all the time. Scientist do spend lifetimes trying to answer that question. Basically the jury is not out yet: has the constants of cosmology changed over time (except from during big bang, the answer currently seems to be no). Speed of light, the fine constant and so on, currently seems to not have changed over time, and probably not over distance either. But we cannot really be 100% certain right now. Probably never, so don´t expect any new laws. But then who knows?
New contributor
If you have references to the writings of others who take this view it would give the reader a place to go for more information and strengthen your answer. Welcome to this SE!
– Frank Hubeny
6 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
The short answer is that we cannot be 100% certain for all cases. We can be more certain for the "frames" where we can do experiments, but the further off we go from actual experiments it gets less and less certain. We know for certain that Newtons laws are false by doing experiments proving them false.
Generally, it is much easier to find one example proving that a theory is wrong than showing that there is not any example (remember, abscense of proof is not proof of abscense)
Today scientists do not call their theories for laws for a good reason. The simple experience is that sooner or later there will be some circumstance that proves the law false (well, as far as we currently guess this probably goes for all our physics theories). Any theory we have, including Newtons so called laws, can only be shown to be valid in a certain "frame" surrounding it. Outside that frame it might be correct, or not. The frame in physics is most often considered as doing experiments. (Theories that cannot be proved either wrong or right are generally frowned upon).
Several of Newtons laws were proved wrong in the case of relativity (Einstein). Law one gets invalidated in a frame known as quantuum mechanics (which is very strange animal if you ask me but experiments shows that it is a better explanation than Newtons laws for small things).
So can we really be sure that things are the same everywhere and all the time. Scientist do spend lifetimes trying to answer that question. Basically the jury is not out yet: has the constants of cosmology changed over time (except from during big bang, the answer currently seems to be no). Speed of light, the fine constant and so on, currently seems to not have changed over time, and probably not over distance either. But we cannot really be 100% certain right now. Probably never, so don´t expect any new laws. But then who knows?
New contributor
The short answer is that we cannot be 100% certain for all cases. We can be more certain for the "frames" where we can do experiments, but the further off we go from actual experiments it gets less and less certain. We know for certain that Newtons laws are false by doing experiments proving them false.
Generally, it is much easier to find one example proving that a theory is wrong than showing that there is not any example (remember, abscense of proof is not proof of abscense)
Today scientists do not call their theories for laws for a good reason. The simple experience is that sooner or later there will be some circumstance that proves the law false (well, as far as we currently guess this probably goes for all our physics theories). Any theory we have, including Newtons so called laws, can only be shown to be valid in a certain "frame" surrounding it. Outside that frame it might be correct, or not. The frame in physics is most often considered as doing experiments. (Theories that cannot be proved either wrong or right are generally frowned upon).
Several of Newtons laws were proved wrong in the case of relativity (Einstein). Law one gets invalidated in a frame known as quantuum mechanics (which is very strange animal if you ask me but experiments shows that it is a better explanation than Newtons laws for small things).
So can we really be sure that things are the same everywhere and all the time. Scientist do spend lifetimes trying to answer that question. Basically the jury is not out yet: has the constants of cosmology changed over time (except from during big bang, the answer currently seems to be no). Speed of light, the fine constant and so on, currently seems to not have changed over time, and probably not over distance either. But we cannot really be 100% certain right now. Probably never, so don´t expect any new laws. But then who knows?
New contributor
edited 9 hours ago
New contributor
answered 10 hours ago
ghellquist
1113
1113
New contributor
New contributor
If you have references to the writings of others who take this view it would give the reader a place to go for more information and strengthen your answer. Welcome to this SE!
– Frank Hubeny
6 hours ago
add a comment |
If you have references to the writings of others who take this view it would give the reader a place to go for more information and strengthen your answer. Welcome to this SE!
– Frank Hubeny
6 hours ago
If you have references to the writings of others who take this view it would give the reader a place to go for more information and strengthen your answer. Welcome to this SE!
– Frank Hubeny
6 hours ago
If you have references to the writings of others who take this view it would give the reader a place to go for more information and strengthen your answer. Welcome to this SE!
– Frank Hubeny
6 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
-2
down vote
Please note Newton's first law of motion.
"Newton's first law states that every object will remain at rest or in uniform motion in a straight line unless compelled to change its state by the action of an external force."
I don't know whether there is any other version to this law.
A living object is also an object. If so, which is the force that moves and stops a living object? Is it purely external?
What all forces stop an egg that is rolling on the floor? I think the internal force also has its influence in stopping the egg. You may argue that an egg is an amassed form of different substances...or the jelly-like-fluid that exerts friction also is attracted by the earth. So you may say that force also is an external. But we cannot ignore the fact that the jelly-like-fluid (both egg yolk and egg white) also attracts the earth. Then the force that stops a rolling egg must be internal and external. Similarly you may imagine a jelly-like-ball (a homogeneous substance) that rolls on the floor. What all forces stop it?
What I am trying to say is that the last term ('eternal force') in the law would need to be rectified if scientists discovered that the characteristics of force within the tiniest particles...I mean, if particles are also jelly-like.
I have no reference to put forward. This is just a possibility in this material world..."If scientists discover so,...."
No references, and not clear what you are saying.
– CriglCragl
7 hours ago
@CriglCragl, Thank you. It was a little confusing. I have edited it.
– SonOfThought
3 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
-2
down vote
Please note Newton's first law of motion.
"Newton's first law states that every object will remain at rest or in uniform motion in a straight line unless compelled to change its state by the action of an external force."
I don't know whether there is any other version to this law.
A living object is also an object. If so, which is the force that moves and stops a living object? Is it purely external?
What all forces stop an egg that is rolling on the floor? I think the internal force also has its influence in stopping the egg. You may argue that an egg is an amassed form of different substances...or the jelly-like-fluid that exerts friction also is attracted by the earth. So you may say that force also is an external. But we cannot ignore the fact that the jelly-like-fluid (both egg yolk and egg white) also attracts the earth. Then the force that stops a rolling egg must be internal and external. Similarly you may imagine a jelly-like-ball (a homogeneous substance) that rolls on the floor. What all forces stop it?
What I am trying to say is that the last term ('eternal force') in the law would need to be rectified if scientists discovered that the characteristics of force within the tiniest particles...I mean, if particles are also jelly-like.
I have no reference to put forward. This is just a possibility in this material world..."If scientists discover so,...."
No references, and not clear what you are saying.
– CriglCragl
7 hours ago
@CriglCragl, Thank you. It was a little confusing. I have edited it.
– SonOfThought
3 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
-2
down vote
up vote
-2
down vote
Please note Newton's first law of motion.
"Newton's first law states that every object will remain at rest or in uniform motion in a straight line unless compelled to change its state by the action of an external force."
I don't know whether there is any other version to this law.
A living object is also an object. If so, which is the force that moves and stops a living object? Is it purely external?
What all forces stop an egg that is rolling on the floor? I think the internal force also has its influence in stopping the egg. You may argue that an egg is an amassed form of different substances...or the jelly-like-fluid that exerts friction also is attracted by the earth. So you may say that force also is an external. But we cannot ignore the fact that the jelly-like-fluid (both egg yolk and egg white) also attracts the earth. Then the force that stops a rolling egg must be internal and external. Similarly you may imagine a jelly-like-ball (a homogeneous substance) that rolls on the floor. What all forces stop it?
What I am trying to say is that the last term ('eternal force') in the law would need to be rectified if scientists discovered that the characteristics of force within the tiniest particles...I mean, if particles are also jelly-like.
I have no reference to put forward. This is just a possibility in this material world..."If scientists discover so,...."
Please note Newton's first law of motion.
"Newton's first law states that every object will remain at rest or in uniform motion in a straight line unless compelled to change its state by the action of an external force."
I don't know whether there is any other version to this law.
A living object is also an object. If so, which is the force that moves and stops a living object? Is it purely external?
What all forces stop an egg that is rolling on the floor? I think the internal force also has its influence in stopping the egg. You may argue that an egg is an amassed form of different substances...or the jelly-like-fluid that exerts friction also is attracted by the earth. So you may say that force also is an external. But we cannot ignore the fact that the jelly-like-fluid (both egg yolk and egg white) also attracts the earth. Then the force that stops a rolling egg must be internal and external. Similarly you may imagine a jelly-like-ball (a homogeneous substance) that rolls on the floor. What all forces stop it?
What I am trying to say is that the last term ('eternal force') in the law would need to be rectified if scientists discovered that the characteristics of force within the tiniest particles...I mean, if particles are also jelly-like.
I have no reference to put forward. This is just a possibility in this material world..."If scientists discover so,...."
edited 3 hours ago
answered 13 hours ago
SonOfThought
1,32939
1,32939
No references, and not clear what you are saying.
– CriglCragl
7 hours ago
@CriglCragl, Thank you. It was a little confusing. I have edited it.
– SonOfThought
3 hours ago
add a comment |
No references, and not clear what you are saying.
– CriglCragl
7 hours ago
@CriglCragl, Thank you. It was a little confusing. I have edited it.
– SonOfThought
3 hours ago
No references, and not clear what you are saying.
– CriglCragl
7 hours ago
No references, and not clear what you are saying.
– CriglCragl
7 hours ago
@CriglCragl, Thank you. It was a little confusing. I have edited it.
– SonOfThought
3 hours ago
@CriglCragl, Thank you. It was a little confusing. I have edited it.
– SonOfThought
3 hours ago
add a comment |
Aayush Aggarwal is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Aayush Aggarwal is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Aayush Aggarwal is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Aayush Aggarwal is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphilosophy.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f57027%2fcan-a-universal-law-be-disproved%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
1
The answer is “the enterprise of science”. There is really no such thing as a “law” in the sense you’re asking. There are only theories with more or less compelling evidence or contrary evidence. Science holds all such theories contingently, always. Humanity assumed for (prehistoric) millennia the Earth was flat. We were wrong. We held for millennia that time was absolute, not relative. We were wrong. It’s always possible we will encounter new data that contradicts existing theories, no matter how widely-held, no matter how cherished. Science is contingent; that’s the price at the door.
– Dan Bron
16 hours ago
1
An object at rest stays at rest and an object in motion stays in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force. I'd argue that no object is ever really at rest, except relative to the speed and position of other objects.
– Bread
16 hours ago
1
@Bread From a physicist's point of view. all motion is relative to other objects. There is no concept of an object at rest in an absolute sense. So, you'd argue correctly.
– David Thornley
12 hours ago
1
@Joshua Last I saw, no proposed EM drive was going to establish an absolute spacetime coordinate system. The proposal is to ditch the momentum and energy conservation laws (which, by Noether's theorem, means the laws of physics will vary over time and space).
– David Thornley
9 hours ago
1
Your two sentences are about subtly different concepts. Your first is "how can we disprove a false universal statement?" A single counterexample suffices. If our universal is "all swans are white" then a single black swan disproves it. But your second statement is "how can we prove a true universal statement?" The only way to prove that is to observe all swans. That's going to be hard to do with physical laws!
– Eric Lippert
8 hours ago