[ordinaryguy]

What Law of gravity

Newton's: Law of Gravity - introduction to Newton's law of gravity

In the Principia, Newton defined the force of gravity in the following way (translated from the Latin):

Every particle of matter in the universe attracts every other particle with a force that is directly proportional to the product of the masses of the particles and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.

so far as I know gravity is as abstract a term as intention.

It seems pretty concrete to me.

When I say by “chance” I use it in relation to reasoned cause.

I don't understand what you mean by "A reasoned cause". Do you mean a cause that has its origin in logical (reasoned) thought within an intelligent, self-conscious being? And what do you mean by "use it in relation to"? Are you saying that "by chance" means "caused by something that has no power of reason"?

Reasoning is freedom from pure chance.

Reasoning is a cognitive capability of the human (and possibly other) minds. How does it equate with "freedom from pure chance"?

[Dark_crow]

OG
So that's what you believe. That's OK, a lot of people think in black and white.

The easiest way I've found to explain it is the way Einstein did… gravity is actually just the observed result of the shape of the Four-dimensional space time continuum.
There are other theories of gravity too, some involve particles (Gravitons), still others involve quantum events and an attempt to explain all forces in one grand unified theory there is String Theory.

Explaining these unproven theories would take much more than I'm willing to give it here.
BTW... My Cats reason... Don't confuse intelligence with reasoning.

[Dark_crow]

Reason, along with the ideas of Socrates is only part of the picture. Reason is not freedom from pure chance. Reason is simply the vehicle, within it, you use the abstraction of language to minimize what you don't get. Perhaps after you die, the reason will become clear.

Given that Reasoning does not guarantee the exclusion of chance, I do see a correlation.

Would you explain what you mean by……”… you use the abstraction of language to minimize what you don't get.”

[ordinaryguy]

OG
So that’s what you believe.

And you don't? Are you suggesting that the classical (Newtonian) formulation of the law of gravity is inadequate to explain the origin and development of our solar system? That was the question you asked me:

a simple yea or nay…Do you believe the solar system began to operate by chance alone?

If we were discussing the origin of the entire material universe, it would be a different story, but the solar system began a long time after the Big Bang, and things had settled down a lot by then.

That’s OK, a lot of people think in black and white.

Are you suggesting that my answer is naïve and oversimplified, or what? If that's what you think, why not give a coherent explanation of why you think so, instead of an airy put-down with no substance to it?

The easiest way I’ve found to explain it is the way Einstein did… gravity is actually just the observed result of the shape of the Four-dimensional space time continuum.
There are other theories of gravity too, some involve particles (Gravitons), still others involve quantum events and an attempt to explain all forces in one grand unified theory there is String Theory.

Yes, but do the limitations and approximations of the classical theory make it inadequate to explain the origin and development of our solar system?

Explaining these unproven theories would take much more than I’m willing to give it here.

I see that as a good thing, since they have little to do with the topic under discussion.

Still, I do agree that these more fundamental issues are fascinating, even if they don't really bear on the question at hand. Here's an interesting story from today's NYTimes: Laws of Nature, Source Unknown

There is in fact a kind of chicken-and-egg problem with the universe and its laws. Which “came” first — the laws or the universe?

If the laws of physics are to have any sticking power at all, to be real laws, one could argue, they have to be good anywhere and at any time, including the Big Bang, the putative Creation. Which gives them a kind of transcendent status outside of space and time.

On the other hand, many thinkers — all the way back to Augustine — suspect that space and time, being attributes of this existence, came into being along with the universe — in the Big Bang, in modern vernacular. So why not the laws themselves?

BTW... My Cats reason... Don’t confuse intelligence with reasoning.

Are you saying that your cats aren't intelligent? How would you characterize the difference between intelligence and the ability to reason?

I'd still like to hear your answers to some of my previous questions, for example:

I don't understand what you mean by "A reasoned cause". Do you mean a cause that has its origin in logical (reasoned) thought within an intelligent, self-conscious being? And what do you mean by "use it in relation to"? Are you saying that "by chance" means "caused by something that has no power of reason"?

Originally Posted by Dark_crow
Reasoning is freedom from pure chance.

Reasoning is a cognitive capability of the human (and possibly other) minds. How does it equate with "freedom from pure chance"?

[Dark_crow]

OG

The reason I don't answer all of your questions is because so many are red herrings; for instance you ask: “Are you saying that your cats aren't intelligent?” Well no, had I meant to say that I would have. The intelligence of a cat can only meaningfully be address relative to something else.

Another, you ask: “Are you saying that "by chance" means "caused by something that has no power of reason"?” And another: Do you mean a cause that has its origin in logical (reasoned) thought within an intelligent, self-conscious being?


Perhaps if you paid more attention to the whole of what I say instead of analyzing a particular sentence out of context you would not be so confused by what you think I might mean and the conversation would move along better.

Another example, you ask: “Are you suggesting that my answer is naïve and oversimplified, or what? If that's what you think, why not give a coherent explanation of why you think so, instead of an airy put-down with no substance to it?”

Again, if that is what I had meant, that is what I would have said. You seem to believe one theory about gravity at the exclusion of all others…as I said, that is OK with me, it's just that I refuse to accept it.

[ordinaryguy]

Perhaps if you paid more attention to the whole of what I say instead of analyzing a particular sentence out of context you would not be so confused by what you think I might mean and the conversation would move along better.

OK, let's start over. Here's a clean slate. What was the main point of your original post?

[Dark_crow]

Ok, here is my view: Abstract terms refer to ideas or concepts; they have no physical referents.
Concrete terms refer to objects or events that are available to the senses. This is directly opposite to abstract terms, which name things that are not available to the senses.

General terms and specific terms are the different ends of a range of terms. General terms refer to groups; specific terms refer to individuals—or somewhere in between.

We experience the world first and most vividly through our senses.

Can gravity be sensed…well, not unless someone has convinced you that there is a fine balance of the opposite but same force that allow you to walk and that force is named gravity.

Freedom and spirit are generally considered abstract terms. Are there any conditions under which they can be sensed…well, if I am driving down the street and decide I want a vanilla ice cream cone and then pull over, walk in with the purpose of getting one, but decide instead to get a chocolate cone instead. Do I experience a sense of freedom, and if so isn't that a concrete sense of freedom in specific as opposed to general terms.

Suppose I am playing a game of high school football and my team is down by two touchdowns starting into the last quarter…but we come together after some incident, rally, and go on to win. We attribute 'team spirit' as the cause because we individually experienced it and the crowd sensed it. So isn't that an example of a concrete sense of spirit in specific as well as general terms.

What has this to do with the claim that freedom is essential to spirit? Could that spirit have existed if we each had believed that it was impossible, that we were not free to do so but rather bound by circumstance beyond our control.

[ordinaryguy]

So it was all about Freedom and Spirit, and not really about Reason, gravity, or the solar system? Then I don't have a problem with it. Thanks for clearing that up.