19 Answers

  1. THE EXACT LAWS OF PHYSICS are the exact / absolute Truth that is practically given to science in a partial approximate form (with sufficient accuracy).

    The colossal practical effectiveness of the theories and laws of physics convincingly proves that these theories and laws are objective reality. There were no grounds or reasons for doubting this yet.

    NAIVETY of the question ” or interpretation of reality as we see it?” consists in the fact that :

    1. Science “SEES” and controls through the eyes of a huge number of independent scientists who use a very large list of objective instruments and instruments.
    2. The OPINION/VISION of individual scientists is never “the ultimate truth”.

    The rate of development of Science can be increased many times and by orders of magnitude.

  2. It depends on the definition of what is meant by the laws of physics, objective reality, and interpretation of reality. Wikipedia says that

    Physical law — stable repeating objective laws that exist in nature [1].

    Objective reality. In general, this term was coined in dialectical materialism and means

    Objective reality is the entire material world as a whole, in all its forms and manifestations. In terms of the main question of philosophy, the concept of an external relation is understood as existing independently of human consciousness and primary in relation to it. The concept of “O. R.” is relative. In relation to the individual, it is everything that exists outside of his consciousness and is reflected by him. But he himself with his consciousness will be O. R. in relation to others. Abstracting from the individual view of the world, we can say that the worldview coincides with all material reality [2]! <…>

    Or

    Objective reality is a world that exists independently of the subject (person) and his consciousness. The idea of the world as an external (surrounding) reality that does not depend on the position, understanding and perception of the subject [3].

    Let's move on to the interpretation of reality. Let's start with the interpretation.

    Interpretation is a theoretical and cognitive category; a method of scientific cognition aimed at understanding the internal content of the interpreted object through the study of its external manifestations (signs, symbols, gestures, sounds, etc.). Interpretation occupies a central place in the methodology of the humanities, where the procedure for identifying the meaning and significance of the object under study is the main strategy of the researcher. The main direction is linguistics [4].

    Further

    Reality (from Lat. realis — material, real) is a philosophical term used in various meanings as existing in general; objectively revealed world; a fragment of the universe that makes up the subject area of the corresponding science; objectively existing phenomena, facts, that is, existing really. There is a distinction between objective (material) reality and subjective (phenomena of consciousness) reality [5].

    Therefore, the interpretation of reality is “..> understanding the inner content ><…>” and then everything that is said about reality in the definition, for example, like this “<…>..> objectively existing phenomena, facts, that is, existing really through the study of their external manifestations (signs, symbols, gestures, sounds, etc.)”. ><…>

    Now it remains to understand the laws of physics (sustainable recurring objective regularities that exist in nature) it's objective reality (the whole material world as a whole, in all its forms and manifestations; or a world that exists independently of the subject (human) and its consciousness) or the interpretation of reality (the understanding of the internal content of objectively existing phenomena, the facts, that is indeed available through the study of their external manifestations (signs, symbols, gestures, sounds, etc.).). I think there is every answer for himself.

    1. https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A4%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D0%B7%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BD

    2. http://filosof.historic.ru/enc/item/f00/s08/a000801.shtml

    3. https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9E%D0%B1%D1%8A%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D1%8C

    4. https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%98%D0%BD%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%86%D0%B8%D1%8F_(%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%B8%D1%8F)

    5. https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A0%D0%B5%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D1%8C

  3. The laws of physics are simplified analytical descriptions / models of reality that are sufficient for effective practical application.

    All the laws of all the natural sciences are systematically refined and brought closer to the Truth.

  4. While there is no connection between the laws of physics and the fundamental laws of the universe, due to the absence of the latter, we can only talk about the interpretation of these laws.

    A good example is the law of universal gravitation, which quite accurately describes the behavior of celestial bodies in the Solar System, but cannot explain the laws of rotation of stars in galaxies.

  5. I think the situation here is a bit more complicated than the “either-or”suggested in the question. First, the laws of physics describe many things that we do not see or perceive with any other sense organs. This applies to electromagnetic vibrations of a certain part of the frequency ranges, and especially to the behavior of microobjects studied in quantum physics. At the same time, the entire history of physics shows that no law or theory is an accurate representation of objective reality at all times: time passes, and previous theories and laws, which seemed to be the pinnacle of objectivity and accuracy, turn out to be limited, working only under certain conditions and not corresponding to reality under other conditions

  6. The laws of physics printed in textbooks are objective reality, like all books in general. Some of the books, however, can still find practical use if you need to put something under the table leg.

    Especially admires that the question is on the topic of “Psychology”.

    If you reformulate it, it will turn out to be generally gorgeous. Is the interpretation an objective reality, or is everything just our imagination? The answer is yes, yes, and yes.

  7. I think the situation here is a bit more complicated than the “either-or”suggested in the question. First, the laws of physics describe many things that we do not see or perceive with any other sense organs. This applies to electromagnetic vibrations of a certain part of the frequency ranges, and especially to the behavior of microobjects studied in quantum physics. At the same time, the entire history of physics shows that no law or theory is an accurate representation of objective reality at all times: time passes, and previous theories and laws, which seemed to be the pinnacle of objectivity and accuracy, turn out to be limited, working only under certain conditions and not corresponding to reality under other conditions

  8. Strictly speaking-interpretation. The existence of objective reality cannot be strictly proven, because consciousness cannot receive information directly without relying on the senses. A model of the world constructed in subjective reality without restraining fantasies does not correspond to what the senses tell us about objective reality, in which not everything that we can imagine is possible – so the need for knowledge arises. Cognition, including scientific knowledge, is finding patterns in what the senses present to us. In subjective space, the laws of physics are objective, in accordance with our observations, on which they are based. Whether something in objective reality corresponds to them, we do not know, but it is easier for us to live assuming that objective reality exists, and our senses adequately perceive objective reality, which means that our laws formulated on the basis of what our senses have told us also correspond to some objective reality. But without a subject trying to link the subjective and objective worlds, science has no meaning, because a flying stone does not need Newton's laws to fly correctly! Without the certainty (belief) that the laws are objective, we would not be able to engage in science that is practically useful to us, and this does not depend on whether the world with its laws that seem real to us is illusory or actually real. The world that is revealed to us through the senses is designed so that repeated situations are resolved in the same way – in this sense, the world is such that the laws are objective.

  9. The laws of physics, like physics itself, are a product of the scientific knowledge of mankind. With the help of this knowledge, humanity seeks to understand objective reality. That is, the world as it really is. There is constant progress in this process. Knowledge is deepened and tested in practice. This is not just an understanding of reality as we see it, but a deeply meaningful, proven comprehensive knowledge. But, of course, a person's understanding of nature will always have gaps due to the inexhaustibility of nature. Therefore, it is impossible to equate open laws with the most objective reality.�

  10. In the framework of scientific (and not just philosophical, this is fundamental!According to the paradigm of experimental realism developed by the American cognitive scientist George Lakoff, the laws of physics refer to indirectly significant metaphorical models, the sources for which are directly significant symbolic structures that arise during the functioning of the human body in space – basic-level categories and kinesthetic figurative schemes. In other words, all models, including physical ones, are built by humans on the basis of their bodily experience, which can be called the only accessible “objective reality” for our species.

  11. I think the situation here is a bit more complicated than the “either-or”suggested in the question. First, the laws of physics describe many things that we do not see or perceive with any other sense organs. This applies to electromagnetic vibrations of a certain part of the frequency ranges, and especially to the behavior of microobjects studied in quantum physics. At the same time, the entire history of physics shows that no law or theory is an accurate representation of objective reality at all times: time passes, and previous theories and laws, which seemed to be the pinnacle of objectivity and accuracy, turn out to be limited, working only under certain conditions and not corresponding to reality under other conditions

  12. Here you must first decide what to consider as reality. And then, after all, now there are a lot of phrases with the word “reality”. Even physicists have their own “physical reality” that is not identical to the objective one that Einstein introduced into the philosophy of science.

    So the laws of physics are just entities related to physical reality, and they relate, like all physical reality, to objective reality based on physical experiments.

    In objective reality, there are no laws, there are only a variety of events (by and large unique). But it is impossible to systematize and describe the infinite variety of unique events and objects, so physicists introduce abstract concepts (objects), which denote in their physical reality at once a huge number of somewhat similar unique objects in a truncated simplified form.

    And with the help of these abstract simplified physical objects, physicists describe the patterns of events that occur with them. Thus, the laws they obtained describe an extremely simplified world, which in fact has little in common with the objective one, since all this description does not refer to the surrounding world, but only to incredibly simplified and localized conditions of physical experiments. As a result, instead of describing the world around us, we ended up with our own artificial technological world, into which we are gradually sinking deeper and deeper.

  13. Everyone knows….. knowledge is endless….. On what basis is something being claimed? )))) based on our mechanism of cognition. Cognition by parts, interpretation, abstraction, general agreement))))))

    At the same time, claiming objective reality))))) in addition, you can touch it))))) although “touching” reality, not the fact that we touch, only what we “see”))))

  14. The laws of Nature are our interpretation of reality. One type of interpretation is physics. The nature of a person's interpretation of the laws of Nature depends on the properties of the human body. The same law of Nature is often interpreted differently by two different people.

    1. Reality is just reality. There are objects in it, and they interact.

    2. Seeing reality, studying reality, and interpreting reality are all the same things. Philosophical metaphorical evasions from unambiguous definitions are the death of the mother of sciences. Such evasion leads to the fact that philosophy does not meet the criteria of scientific character. There is no falsifiability, objectivity, result, predictive power, nothing.

    3. All interactions of objects in reality can always be studied, the world is knowable, and there are patterns. But the laws of reality (laws of physics) and Reality are different terms.

    4. The laws of nature are objective, true, consistent representations of the interaction of objects in reality. There is and cannot be any personal interpretation.

    A true representation of reality cannot be “one kind for one person and the opposite kind for another person” )) Therefore, the strictest objectivity, for any kind of Knowledge, Laws of physics, Working scientific theories.

    The result of the experiment does not change depending on the observer's personality, and depends only on the conditions.

    1. Moreover, as soon as you see that the” making a positive statement ” party, instead of strictly logical, mathematical, physical proofs, refers to the Personalities of Authorities, you should immediately understand that you are being deceived.

    As soon as a philosopher pointed out the work of another philosopher WITHOUT scientific reasoning, Instead of logic, everything-he shamefully merged.

  15. The problem is that quantum mechanics says that objective reality does not exist.�

    Reality is relative. This must be accepted. There is no single reality, everything is subjective.

  16. History knows many examples of how someone's discovery (or a chain of discoveries) completely changed the prevailing paradigm in society. The most banal example is the rejection of the geocentric system in favor of the heliocentric one, which ended in the Renaissance. Keywords: Periodic table, law of gravitation, relativity theory, quantum mechanics. A breakthrough in aviation at the end of the XIX-beginning of the XX century-before the idea that it is really possible to design a fast and maneuverable aircraft, no one took it seriously.

    So, this process of understanding the world is by no means complete and can hardly come to this. At any time, something can be discovered that radically changes our ideas. We know so little about the world that it is absurd to say that the current paradigm is the truth — except that it is temporary, relative. And absolute truth — a moment of solipsism-probably doesn't exist.

  17. From the point of view of modern knowledge about quantum interactions, Yes, interpretation. Most likely, “laws” are private interpretations that work on local systems. Objective reality in the broadest sense of the word may not exist at all, at least not for our level of understanding.

  18. This is a difficult question from philosophy, and probably every person involved in science should answer it himself. Personally, from the height of my nonexistent experience, I believe that “yes”: all physics is a collection of more or less successful models, or, as you said, interpretations that turned out to be acceptable in certain cases.

    And here is what our well-known scientists wrote on this issue::

    N. A. Umov: “Our entire worldview, from its most ordinary to its most sublime content, is a collection of models that form a more or less successful response to the existing one…”

    A. G. Stoletov: “The model has no claims to coincide — at least approximately with what it depicts; it is only a conditional image.”

    quotes from the textbook of B. And Spassky on the History of physics.

Leave a Reply