In our previous paper, ‘The Nature of Physical Reality’, we have shown that we live in a non-physical world. Things exist only as potentialities in our universe. Interaction between the potential properties of the observed and observer manifests the apparent form of the objects. In other words, an act of observation does not produce an entity; it only manifests entity being observed.
In this paper, we have explained the nature of reality.
René Descartes’s approach of dividing the whole into parts to understand the behavior of the whole, and his division of the world into two independent and separate realms – that of mind and that of matter have been the guiding principles for science in general and physics in particular.
Classical physics
…show more content…
Inert systems do not possess mental faculties. Therefore, behavior of physical systems can be explained through simple physical laws.
Quantum mechanics suggests that an act of observation produces what is being observed. We have shown that this observation applies even in the macro world. Therefore, Observer emerges as the central figure in the physical world.
All systems in the universe are sub-systems of the universe.
Process of evolvement of the universe is explained through the second law of thermodynamics. Second law of thermodynamics describes a process through which universe is achieving greater equilibrium in its structure. In other words, the universe is constantly moving towards the state of higher entropy.
Physics also assumes that the whole is merely sum of its parts (basic building blocks of the universe); therefore, we can understand the behavior of the whole by examining its parts. However, we have explained the scientific basis of Aristotle’s observation that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Therefore, it is not possible to understand the whole by examining its parts.
The universe as a whole is transforming from one state to another through a process described by the second law
“Where did the universe come from? Why are we here?” What is to become of us? Such questions have traditionally been answered by appeal to the supernatural. From time immemorial, the workings of the natural world have been attributed to supernatural beings (Gods),” (Schick 2013, 432).
Without outside intervention, there is no tale to tell; in other words, there is only the Nothingness that has always remained a possibility in man’s encounter with the Universe. Unlike the preposterous pulp-fiction worlds of Mars and Venus created by Edgar Rice Burroughs, for example, where an energetic evolutionary force has created an elaborate hierarchy of intelligent beasts and beings, Clarke and Kubrick looked to outside intervention to spur the slow, steady state of terrestrial change. If the
But when the twentieth century was at the gates of new and historical events, that began to change. New discoveries shook the old certainties and paved away for questions about "where the universe came from?". One observation transformed our ideas about the true scale of the universe. It began with a mystery in the sky. By the early part of the twentieth century, it was well known that our solar system lay within a galaxy, the milky way.
Bill Bryson, author of “A Short History of Nearly Everything” (ASHONE), writes to address the public about the cosmos and space in their entirety. For an adolescent to grasp the concepts of cosmology is a virtually impossible feat. Although it is a difficult phenomenon for the ‘Average Joe’ to grasp the analytical ideas, Bryson gets the job done. Whilst the vast expanse of universe overwhelms the masses, the author manages to present the information in a masterfully lackadaisical manner. Lax as Bryson may be in his narration, all of his scientific facts relate to rudimentary examples that even the quaint can find common ground in.
In this paper I will lay out his arguments in the following order: (1) The purpose of the method of Universal Doubt and its strategic approach towards the foundation for a new system of knowledge, (2) The most basic foundation of the new system – the fact that “I exist” and how it achieved an absolute certainty, (3) The subsequent absolute certainty and ultimate key to all absolute certainty in knowledge, namely the existence of God and (4) An evaluation of Descartes’s argument for God’s existence. As Galileo shook the foundation of Aristotelian ideals on the scientific ground, Descartes attacked them on the philosophical front and paved a concrete step towards the rise of a new science, yet the importance of his
To efficiently use the physical stance, one needs to have sustainable knowledge of the current being of the universe. Then one has to apply a broad understanding of physics to the present state of the universe in order to predict the future nature of the universe. In other words, the physical stance is a vigorous system of the physical sciences where the knowledge on the laws of nature is employed. The knowledge of physical constitution of the object in question is used to formulate prediction (Dennett 1981:557). Generally, things that are neither alive nor artifacts, the physical stance seems be the only available strategy even though there are important exception.
Conclusion: The mind is substantively different from the body and indeed matter in general. Because in this conception the mind is substantively distinct from the body it becomes plausible for us to doubt the intuitive connection between mind and body. Indeed there are many aspects of the external world that do not appear to have minds and yet appear none the less real in spite of this for example mountains, sticks or lamps, given this we can begin to rationalize that perhaps minds can exist without bodies, and we only lack the capacity to perceive them.
Knowledge Argument against Physicalism Physicalism is a branch of philosophy which states that everything in this world is physical. There is nothing like non-physical. Physical facts are the truth in this world. Physicalism is also called ‘materialistic monism’. Monism is a singular existence theory like only one substance exists in the world.
These two always go together even when a person tries to set them apart. Whenever there is order, there is always chaos that comes with it. This is what the author, Pamela Zoline 's wants to emphasis in her subversive short sci-fi story entitled “The Heat Death of the Universe”. This deftly portrays a housewife named Sarah Boyle, and her nervous breakdown, along with the discussion of cosmology and physics.
Disrupting the innate flow of the universe puts the entire system in shock and forces the laws of nature to find out how to return the world to normal. Instead of gaining authority over the phenomena, one becomes the victim of the
Yet how exactly does the existence of an observer affect how photons behave still remains an enigma in the modern
Baruch Spinoza’s geometric structured view on the universe, and everything in general, is beautifully broken down for present and future thinkers to ponder in his work, Ethics. Although complex at times, his method of demonstrating each discoveries of proved proposition aids readers to conceptual God-Nature. At the base of these propositions are definitions and axioms (truths) Spinoza accounts as certain truths and are critical to understanding God-Nature (substance). I will here provide an account of Spinoza’s substance monism and attribute pluralism, along with strengths and weaknesses in his arguments for this picture of reality.
I argue that while mechanistic and teleological explanations are distinctly different, both are required in order to thoroughly explain a phenomenon. In this essay, I will describe mechanistic, atomistic, and teleological explanations, highlight their key differences, and then explain why one cannot completely understand a phenomenon without incorporating a teleological component. A mechanistic explanation is one that describes “how” a phenomenon (such as breathing, growing, or eating) occurs. It conveys the physiological, or physical, movements and changes involved in that phenomenon.
In his philosophical thesis, of the ‘Mind-Body dualism’ Rene Descartes argues that the mind and the body are really distinct, one of the most deepest and long lasting legacies. Perhaps the strongest argument that Descartes gives for his claim is that the non extended thinking thing like the Mind cannot exist without the extended non thinking thing like the Body. Since they both are substances, and are completely different from each other. This paper will present his thesis in detail and also how his claim is critiqued by two of his successors concluding with a personal stand.
I. Introduction a. How many of you have heard of Albert Einstein? i. Albert Einstein is a German born scientists ii. Einstein was born at Ulm, in Württemberg, Germany, on March 14, 1879 b. Who was Albert Einstein/Achievements to the scientific world? i. Are you familiar with his contributions do science? 1.