i’d reckon a human can get by being ignorant as a mushroom regard physics, that something about being a (perhaps modern) human is more forgiving and possibly even accommodating of such a possibility. It could be culture, but surely starts with mental tools evolved, and perhaps importantly the cultural tweaks

it’s quite a good thing really, that minds can somewhat detach from brute physics, quite a grind the latter could be, in fact if minds were reality maximizers, overly inclined to explain things by way of physics, a mind may stop functioning optimally

I mean i’m sitting here, in a good mood, a favorable mental state, courtesy physics, but not an understanding of the physics that generates that favorable mental state. There’s no evidence understanding it down to the nuts and bolts so to speak, mechanisms and all, that my mental state would be improved any, or more effective for juggling the alphabet to write this, or much else

so there’s bliss in being ignorant as a mushroom

i’m attracted to the dysphysic, variously abstractions would be large part of that, including that avoided, the depth of abstraction

but I ask does it reliably help understand the natural world, nature, the physics of nature

is there some largely unspoken agreement regard depth of abstraction to do with the physics of the world, that contributes to the force of normal, that’s normative

transition said:

i’d reckon a human can get by being ignorant as a mushroom regard physics, that something about being a (perhaps modern) human is more forgiving and possibly even accommodating of such a possibility. It could be culture, but surely starts with mental tools evolved, and perhaps importantly the cultural tweaks

it’s quite a good thing really, that minds can somewhat detach from brute physics, quite a grind the latter could be, in fact if minds were reality maximizers, overly inclined to explain things by way of physics, a mind may stop functioning optimally

I mean i’m sitting here, in a good mood, a favorable mental state, courtesy physics, but not an understanding of the physics that generates that favorable mental state. There’s no evidence understanding it down to the nuts and bolts so to speak, mechanisms and all, that my mental state would be improved any, or more effective for juggling the alphabet to write this, or much else

so there’s bliss in being ignorant as a mushroom

i’m attracted to the dysphysic, variously abstractions would be large part of that, including that avoided, the depth of abstraction

but I ask does it reliably help understand the natural world, nature, the physics of nature

is there some largely unspoken agreement regard depth of abstraction to do with the physics of the world, that contributes to the force of normal, that’s normative

I know someone who could get by on nothing other than psychology, the parasite. No knowledge of physics, chemistry, biology, mathematics, money, work, aesthetics, interior decorating, or gardening is necessary. Well, perhaps psychology and martial arts.

> but I ask does it reliably help understand the natural world, nature, the physics of nature. Is there some largely unspoken agreement regard depth of abstraction to do with the physics of the world, that contributes to the force of normal, that’s normative.

I find physics useful for quickly distinguishing between truth and bullshit. Conservation of mass is the main one. Second law of thermodynamics. Conservation of momentum when driving. Conservation of angular momentum when rowing. Laws of mechanics – the lever, the screw, the wedge. Thermal expansion when opening jars. Stable and unstable equilibrium. Friction when moving furniture. Viscosity when pouring liquids. Parabolic arc when playing tennis. Some of this could be programmed as automatic without needing to understand the physics behind it. But not all.

Conservation of energy doesn’t seem to get much use.

mollwollfumble said:

transition said:

i’d reckon a human can get by being ignorant as a mushroom regard physics, that something about being a (perhaps modern) human is more forgiving and possibly even accommodating of such a possibility. It could be culture, but surely starts with mental tools evolved, and perhaps importantly the cultural tweaks

it’s quite a good thing really, that minds can somewhat detach from brute physics, quite a grind the latter could be, in fact if minds were reality maximizers, overly inclined to explain things by way of physics, a mind may stop functioning optimally

I mean i’m sitting here, in a good mood, a favorable mental state, courtesy physics, but not an understanding of the physics that generates that favorable mental state. There’s no evidence understanding it down to the nuts and bolts so to speak, mechanisms and all, that my mental state would be improved any, or more effective for juggling the alphabet to write this, or much else

so there’s bliss in being ignorant as a mushroom

i’m attracted to the dysphysic, variously abstractions would be large part of that, including that avoided, the depth of abstraction

but I ask does it reliably help understand the natural world, nature, the physics of nature

is there some largely unspoken agreement regard depth of abstraction to do with the physics of the world, that contributes to the force of normal, that’s normative

I know someone who could get by on nothing other than psychology, the parasite. No knowledge of physics, chemistry, biology, mathematics, money, work, aesthetics, interior decorating, or gardening is necessary. Well, perhaps psychology and martial arts.

> but I ask does it reliably help understand the natural world, nature, the physics of nature. Is there some largely unspoken agreement regard depth of abstraction to do with the physics of the world, that contributes to the force of normal, that’s normative.

I find physics useful for quickly distinguishing between truth and bullshit. Conservation of mass is the main one. Second law of thermodynamics. Conservation of momentum when driving. Conservation of angular momentum when rowing. Laws of mechanics – the lever, the screw, the wedge. Thermal expansion when opening jars. Stable and unstable equilibrium. Friction when moving furniture. Viscosity when pouring liquids. Parabolic arc when playing tennis. Some of this could be programmed as automatic without needing to understand the physics behind it. But not all.

Conservation of energy doesn’t seem to get much use.

Yeah, I probably only use conservation of energy millions of times a day, probably billions on a busy day.

Or at least the helpful little robot sitting on my desk does.

But to reply to the original post, I’d say everyone has a deep subconscious understanding of how physics works. If we didn’t, we’d keep falling over.

We even do it in our sleep. If we didn’t we’d keep falling out of bed.

The Rev Dodgson said:

But to reply to the original post, I’d say everyone has a deep subconscious understanding of how physics works. If we didn’t, we’d keep falling over.

We even do it in our sleep. If we didn’t we’d keep falling out of bed.

:)
It all comes to one in a flash whilst being involved in an accident.

mollwollfumble said:

I find physics useful for quickly distinguishing between truth and bullshit. Conservation of mass is the main one. Second law of thermodynamics. Conservation of momentum when driving. Conservation of angular momentum when rowing. Laws of mechanics – the lever, the screw, the wedge. Thermal expansion when opening jars. Stable and unstable equilibrium. Friction when moving furniture. Viscosity when pouring liquids. Parabolic arc when playing tennis. Some of this could be programmed as automatic without needing to understand the physics behind it. But not all.

Conservation of energy doesn’t seem to get much use.

The lever is an interesting one.

Levers work perfectly according to conservation of energy, but don’t seem to conserve momentum at all.

To get conservation of momentum to work with a lever you have to include the momentum of the planet supporting it.

The Rev Dodgson said:

But to reply to the original post, I’d say everyone has a deep subconscious understanding of how physics works. If we didn’t, we’d keep falling over.

We even do it in our sleep. If we didn’t we’d keep falling out of bed.

so that 3 month old child, part of everyone ¿ or falling over and out of bed, even in sleep ? subconsciously understood

The Rev Dodgson said:

Yeah, I probably only use conservation of energy millions of times a day, probably billions on a busy day.

Or at least the helpful little robot sitting on my desk does.

For what?

I know you use statics that often. But are you converting potential into kinetic energy that often?

well anyway it’s a bit of a stretch to claim that worldly experience derived from worldly experience is particularly similar to formal understanding of physics, and claimed use of all these conservation laws may well be far better represented as a worldly experienced appreciation of apparent symmetries in nature which therefore in formal physics correspond to conservation laws

mollwollfumble said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Yeah, I probably only use conservation of energy millions of times a day, probably billions on a busy day.

Or at least the helpful little robot sitting on my desk does.

For what?

I know you use statics that often. But are you converting potential into kinetic energy that often?

All “statics” is based on conservation of energy; finite element analysis in quite a direct way.

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Yeah, I probably only use conservation of energy millions of times a day, probably billions on a busy day.

Or at least the helpful little robot sitting on my desk does.

For what?

I know you use statics that often. But are you converting potential into kinetic energy that often?

All “statics” is based on conservation of energy; finite element analysis in quite a direct way.

Actually, no?

Newton’s F = ma is conservation of momentum. When a = 0 that reduces to statics. So statics is a simple consequence of conservation of momentum.

No conservation of energy is required.