PsiPog.net

Science is EvolvingHomeArticlesQ&AArchiveMediaLinksSearch

View topic - Something i thought of

PsiPog.net Forum Index » Constructs » Something i thought of

Goto page 1, 2  Next

Something i thought of
Author Message
Something i thought of on Mon Jun 19, 2006 8:45 pm

ENtoMT

Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Posts: 229

Is it possible to program a Psiball to obey all the laws of physics so its like any other object on earth.
Back to top
Posted on Mon Jun 19, 2006 8:52 pm

LOTRfool

Joined: 13 Jan 2006
Posts: 518

Constructs, IMO, along with ALMOST everything else follow the laws of physics automatically (excluding black holes, where physics does not exist Shocked ). So I don't think you need to program it. However, it is already like the objects like earth, but it is not made of matter.

Summary: They follow it, but their just not made of matter.
Back to top
Posted on Mon Jun 19, 2006 9:16 pm

Scyze

Joined: 27 Apr 2006
Posts: 40

Constructs follow the laws of physics? O_o

Someone must be shoving crack down my throat in my sleep.. Razz As far as I know, constructs (unless programmed to) do NOT follow the laws of physics (as far as gravity is concerned)--I've made little random psiballs and constructs and the like just float around in space.. or drift around the room. Or circle my head if I'm bored.
Back to top
Posted on Tue Jun 20, 2006 12:30 am

freakinrican626

Joined: 23 Apr 2006
Posts: 514

its obvious they obey a different kind of physics.......... well i know that sounds weird but i didnt know any other way to put it

hmmmm.. ok so smaller things like atoms.....obey the laws of the universe that pertains to them. aka quantum physics

which is different from general relativity, that explains the movements of larger objects like planets and stars.

so since science (as far as I know) to some degree havent really acknowledged the existence of psi, so there havent been laws made to define their behaviour. honestly....i don't think there can ever be one definitive set of laws to explain their behaviour because their application and usage is limitless. they are so individual (because of the psion) that's it might be hardly impossible to just definitively say this is this and that is that.
Back to top
Posted on Tue Jun 20, 2006 3:30 pm

AuraTwilight

Joined: 16 Jun 2006
Posts: 18

They follow the laws of PSYCHICS, but not PHYSICS.
Back to top
Posted on Tue Jun 20, 2006 4:18 pm

psi_manipulator_3000

Joined: 14 Jan 2006
Posts: 1274

AuraTwilight wrote:
They follow the laws of PSYCHICS, but not PHYSICS.


Oh haha. That was lame. Laughing
I don't think they follow the laws of physics. Gravity doees't affect them and neither does poking them. It all depends on what you prgram them to be like I suppose.
Back to top
Posted on Tue Jun 20, 2006 11:20 pm

Elliptic

Joined: 19 Jan 2006
Posts: 199

[Edit: I added the initial categorical syllogism]

The simplest way to prove that psi is subject to the laws of physics is with a very simple categorical syllogism:

All things that exist are subject to the laws of physics
Psi is a thing that exists.
Therefore, psi is subject to the laws of physics.

[AAA1; A = B / C = A // B = C]

However, if you want to argue individual premises, it's perhaps better that we use the longer proof:

All psiballs are subject to the laws of physics.

1 - "Physics" is defined as the "study of Nature, or the material universe."
2 - A physical law is a law when it is always true about something in physics. (Something that is always true in physics is a physical law).
3 - Physical laws are always true about things in the material universe. [Conjunction 2, 1]
4 - If something exists in the material universe, it is subject to the laws of physics. [Conjunction 1, 3]
5 - Psi exists in the material universe.
6 - Psi is subject to the laws of physics. [Modus Ponens 4,5]
7 - Psiballs are psi.
8 - Psiballs are subject to the laws of physics. [Simplification 6, 7]

QED


NB: it's been a long time since I've used deductive reasoning so directly. My declaration of argument names may be incorrect (for example, I'm unsure if 8 is Simplification), but the arguments are true.
Back to top
Posted on Wed Jun 21, 2006 1:57 am

SheepKing

Joined: 12 Jan 2006
Posts: 728

So, Elliptic, Are you argueing for the semantics of the phrase "Subject to the laws of physics" where as "Laws of Physics" imply the laws of physics created by the universe (which may or may not be understood by humanity)? Or are you argueing for the laws of physics created by humanity, where as, psiballs must adhere to those set of laws?

They are two different things you know!
Back to top
Posted on Wed Jun 21, 2006 3:41 am

Elliptic

Joined: 19 Jan 2006
Posts: 199

Clearly, I am arguing that the laws of physics are not subject to human interpretation - whereas we may have an understanding of those laws that is incomplete. The laws themselves are immutable, and our understanding of them is irrelevant to their actual function.
Back to top
Posted on Wed Jun 21, 2006 11:26 am

SheepKing

Joined: 12 Jan 2006
Posts: 728

Indeed.

I think, though, that the original poster was refering to the human interpretation of the laws of physics Wink. Not the universal set.
Back to top
Posted on Wed Jun 21, 2006 5:25 pm

Elliptic

Joined: 19 Jan 2006
Posts: 199

SheepKing wrote:
Indeed.

I think, though, that the original poster was refering to the human interpretation of the laws of physics Wink. Not the universal set.


Ideally, they're the same thing. Our human set of laws describes things that are largely true. Psi is affected by gravity, for example.
Back to top
Posted on Wed Jun 21, 2006 5:30 pm

pyroman098

Joined: 13 Jan 2006
Posts: 916

they actually are psysical matter(from my experience) and the laws of psysics do apply to them, but since they follow how your mind works (you subconciously program gravity to not affect them, and everything else, like the poking as psi_manipulator mentioned) so HA! its a little hard to describe what i'm saying but i'm saying they ARE psysical matter, its just they dont have any of those psysical things to them because you subconcoiusly probgram them....bah....i cant explain....
Back to top
Posted on Wed Jun 21, 2006 8:13 pm

freakinrican626

Joined: 23 Apr 2006
Posts: 514

Elliptic wrote:
[Edit: I added the initial categorical syllogism]

The simplest way to prove that psi is subject to the laws of physics is with a very simple categorical syllogism:

All things that exist are subject to the laws of physics
Psi is a thing that exists.
Therefore, psi is subject to the laws of physics.

[AAA1; A = B / C = A // B = C]

However, if you want to argue individual premises, it's perhaps better that we use the longer proof:

All psiballs are subject to the laws of physics.

1 - "Physics" is defined as the "study of Nature, or the material universe."
2 - A physical law is a law when it is always true about something in physics. (Something that is always true in physics is a physical law).
3 - Physical laws are always true about things in the material universe. [Conjunction 2, 1]
4 - If something exists in the material universe, it is subject to the laws of physics. [Conjunction 1, 3]
5 - Psi exists in the material universe.
6 - Psi is subject to the laws of physics. [Modus Ponens 4,5]
7 - Psiballs are psi.
8 - Psiballs are subject to the laws of physics. [Simplification 6, 7]

QED


NB: it's been a long time since I've used deductive reasoning so directly. My declaration of argument names may be incorrect (for example, I'm unsure if 8 is Simplification), but the arguments are true.




omg...you think this actually proves that psi is subject to the laws of physics? please don't EVER use language to prove things like that. language is a very limited way to prove something like this. if you really wanna prove it, do scientific experiments and then we'll talk.

don't try to pull this shit out please. it means nothing unless you have scientific data.

by proving something to be fact by way of language does not make it definitive or even reality for that matter.
Back to top
Posted on Thu Jun 22, 2006 12:25 am

Elliptic

Joined: 19 Jan 2006
Posts: 199

freakinrican626 wrote:

omg...you think this actually proves that psi is subject to the laws of physics? please don't EVER use language to prove things like that.language is a very limited way to prove something like this. if you really wanna prove it, do scientific experiments and then we'll talk.


No, we won't talk, because you don't like language, apparently. I can see why, seeing as you don't understand how to use it.


freakinrican626 wrote:
don't try to pull this shit out please. it means nothing unless you have scientific data.


Perhaps the concept of "categorical syllogism" and "logic and reasoning" are lost to you? It wouldn't surprise me, seeing as you don't believe in "language," but it's something you may want to study in the future.

freakinrican626 wrote:
by proving something to be fact by way oflanguage does not make it definitive or even reality for that matter.


Again, perhaps you should study logic? I didn't use "language" to prove anything, I used a categorical syllogism, and then I used a perfectly rational argument. Did you know they use rational arguments in science? It's a fact, look it up. Philosophical reasoning is a complicated thing to master, but I think you might enjoy it.

As far as an experiment, let's do something simple: make a psiball.

Does it last forever? No? Entropy! There you are, then.

For future reference, it's generally accepted to be poor philosophical form to argue against the circumstances of an argument, instead of the argument itself. I'll give you another chance, though, if you'd like to debate any of my premises? Otherwise, kindly spend some time researching "reasoning" so that in the future you can adhere to the forum's admonition to "be intelligent."
Back to top
Posted on Thu Jun 22, 2006 10:30 am

Aero_Maniac

Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 26

Personally, I believe that psiballs do follow the laws of physics. Thing is, I reckon that psi is a sub-atomic energy, so obviously has no mass. Gravity needs mass to act upon and therefore a psiball is not 'affected' by gravity but it still applies if you follow me.
Back to top

Goto page 1, 2  Next

PsiPog.net Forum Index » Constructs » Something i thought of