Is the law of conservation of energy right?

But do they keep preaching it to be a true theorem?? Or more of a often-true consequence?

Just out of curiosity, how does nature distinguish between ordered and less ordered? Surely it would see different patterns, and randomness as one of them.

It sounds a little strange, but actually “nature distinguishes” (whatever that means) order from disorder by virtue of speed. That which is ordered merely remains closer to as it was for a longer time, thus establishing a “fixed pattern” (for at least a short duration) and thus an “order” to be discerned by a mind, labeled, and used for prediction.

The very first/lowest “order in nature” is that of a sphere of dense EMR noise, known as a “subatomic particle”. Its enduring shape allows for all higher ordered structures to form (atoms, molecules,…). The sphere only forms due to the traffic jam of noise retarding any change in the over all cluster.

Those of the physicists I personally know want it to be a true theorem.

But this noise is not the “subatomic particle” itself.

The cluster (gathering) of the noise is the particle. A crowd is not people, but rather a gathering of people. A human body is not chemicals, but rather a gathering of chemicals (in a particular order).

I rewrite your analogy as follows:

If a particle is the cluster (gathering) of the noise, and the crowd is - rather (!) - a gathering of people and the human body - rather (!) a gathering of chemicals (in a particular order), then a particle must - rather (!) - be like a human body or like a crowd, whereas the noise must - rather (!) - be like chemicals (in a particular order) or like people.

Well…
Umm…
Okay…

:laughing:

Yes, exactly like Darwin’s Natural Selection, the law of conservation of energy is a fundamental principle of the universe.

Your statement is merely religious, theological, pantheistical. Stop referring to your god(s). Try to leave your false god Darwin and the 19th century. In addition: Darwin is not the issue in this thread.

But is it possible that science’s ontologies will be revisited and reborn? I mean, think of all the destroyers who become more and more daily. Just those who say that they have a solution are mostly the wildest destroyers. And think of all those stupid or absurd theories (philosophies?) circulating here on ILP, for instance.

It’s not only possible, it is very probable.

I guess, you mean all this narcistic “theories”, kinds of solipsim (extreme subjectivism) and nihilism. => => => =>

They fit the wildest destroyers as well as the stupidities or absurdities you are talking about.

You seem to be sure about that. Right?

Science” means “natural science” in the first place, and “natura science” means “physics” in the frist place. So how could its ontologies be revisited and reborn accordíng to you?

Natural knowledge is basically binary before it develops into more sophisticated uses, or functions from the existential requirements of knowledge, such as flight or flight. Physics derives perhaps, from the literally physical manifestations of knowledge, and that is why it is referentially effective

It s ontology has such referent, and it has a probability of recurrence based.on existential recurrence, rather then primarily a thematic one to physics as a secondary development.

You are right, its a probabilistic hypothesis, arguable both ways, but not as deeply divisive as for instance, the familiar question were to be asked: What comes first, the chicken or the egg.

In any case, the problem therefore, is not settled, yet does not rise to the level of being paradoxical. It tends to gravitate toward a semantic loophole, but I that might be diversive , to cover for the latent inversion of knowledge and its effective entropy, or closure.

The literality of hypothesis breaks down as Your answer suggests it might, but I do have some reference, although equally suggestive.

My only defense is based on a more probable scenario , and with probability ranging minimally from nearly a 50-50 scenario…

For this You may challenge with a more narrow focus toward an effect of demonstrative physical science criteria, but the ontology or metaphysical basis suggests more then merely a semantic criteria

I do wish it were the other way, and that is what ultimately I believe, but demonstraticaly, it’s more conjecture in with a categorically imperative, then its underlying causation. Needless to say, science foundations may be revisited and even revised, over again. There are no present statistical showings whereby, the shidtnfrom probable to more certainty may not change the rules themselves.

Every potential to affect consumes itself as it creates affect. And every affect creates an equal potential to affect as it propagates. Since there is nothing else, no amount of affectance can ever be lost nor gained. And such is yet another reason that the universe is necessarily infinite and without beginning nor end.

When it comes to the internet, they are just trolls, on top of it all: stupid trolls.

“Eat my narcistic interpretation or die” is what those trolls are saying all the time.

Man I have to give you props for that! You come across as venomous at times with your unprovoked ad hominous attacks (wish you’d quit that), but that’s one helluva ground breaking answer! So why isn’t that accepted by the mainstream and taught? It seems a matter of common sense for the very fact we’re here that the universe is perfectly capable of organizing itself.

Yeah no shit. Physics inherited its terminology from religion. I call them observed regularities.

But we still have to disagree there because if the universe were infinite, there surely couldn’t be any such thing as conservation of energy.

I agree and it’s why there can’t also be an infinite amount of it.