Newton's Bucket--A New Look?

Post Reply New Topic

Hello, first post here.

I have been writing an essay recently to possibly show how a universe which consists of two worlds--an immaterial guiding world, and a physical world--is more probable than a purely physical world. The immaterial world that I am trying to show is most probable is the immutable, nonphysical, yet all important "world" of the laws of mathematics and physics. I attempt to show throughout the essay how these laws more than likely exist before, and independently, of any matter--at least in my opinion.

I am short on time so I'll get to the point now, and post some reasons as I think why later. However, here is what I think about the bucket argument, and please enlighten me if I understand the argument incorrectly.

In the bucket experiment, the question is what does the water concave relative to? Correct? If this is the case, then my answer, given previous sections within my essay, is why does the water have to be concaving relative to anything? Why can it not just be acting in accordance to the immutable laws of physics? Does there necessarily have to be something in relation?

Thoughts?

And I do have time, so let me try to explain my case.

I originally sought out to figure out the relation between mathematics and phenomenon; this first required me to define phenomenon. I thought an adequate definition was that phenomenon required two parts--an observable end product, and a hidden means that guide the observable end. An example is gravity: Gravity has a physically observable product, which could be anything from an apple falling to the moon spinning around us. However, this phenomenon has hidden means which are the laws of physics/mathematics. I contend that these laws not only explain the phenomenon, but guide it.

This is because, if it were argued that only physical interactions existed, it would possibly be argued that phenomenon's end product ARE the laws, and the means are the physical interactions: In this case, the laws are of necessity--if we think of a physical based universe where only two bodies exist, the laws of gravity are created by the two bodies interacting with one another, and arise out of necessity of coexistence. This goes against our intuition that the laws of mathematics and physics are just always there.

If we think back to the big bang, and "singularity" it is agreed upon (to my understanding, please correct if wrong) that at the beginning there was infinite density and heat which "flowed" symmetrically. If this is the case, however, is it not far fetched to imagine that if there were no immaterial laws guiding this symmetrical flow, that, given the infiniteness, some density and heat would diverge: which would give rise to different laws that then physical interactions thereon would have to act in accordance with--leading to an ultimately asymmetrical universe? This is not the case, however, as the laws are symmetrical throughout. The asymmetry that would intuitively come out of this infiniteness is if we take phenomenon's means as being physical interactions which give rise to laws out of necessity.

If all of this is the case, is it too far fetched to imagine that, given the immutable and always existing nature of the laws, that the water in the bucket is concaving in accordance with the laws themselves, and does not necessarily have to be concaving relative to anything?

If this is the case, then could a radical new idea come out of this, possibly that no other bodies have to exist in order for something to be affected by gravity? As bodies just act as if there is always a gravitational force?


This is a condensed version of my essay, so it may be unclear, but I would like input if anyone is interested; especially in areas of misunderstanding, as I am very unlearned in science.