virus: Scientific laws

Eric Boyd (
Wed, 12 Nov 1997 23:16:16 -0500

Brett wrote:

> Theories from physics (which I think Sodom is more familiar with than
> meta-physics) might apply to "spirit", "soul", "consciousness"...all we have
> to do is assume that these states are in some way material. What about
> "relativity" of consciousness (a place where e=mc^2 translates to "thought =
> being times consciousness squared") or an uncertainty theory of
> consciousness where "the subject and the thought cannot be determined at the
> same time"?

That last is really really sweet... congratulations, that one is destined
for the quotation file!

Of course, you are wrong that these laws are absolutes -- like all of
science, they are MODELS which we know accurately predict what we see.

We can derive some of these models from mathematical axioms -- relativity
is like this -- but how do we prove the axioms?

By observation.

If God suddenly intervened, our laws would no longer hold.

> Statements like "We all know that absolutes are a faulty way of
> thinking" make less sense to physicists when talking about laws like the
> second law of thermodynamics ("We can't use absolutes?") than when talking

Actually, the second law of thermodynamics is NOT absolute -- you CANNOT
DERIVE IT. It was created in an attempt to *explain* what we see around us
-- but that DOES NOT RULE OUT the possibility of finding a perpetual motion
machine -- just makes it very unlikely, as we are just as sure of the 2nd
as we are of the sun rising every day.

There is a very large prize in engineering for the design of a working
perpetual motion machine.

people only dream about.

Just thought I'd clear that up.