wrote:
mhelland@techmocracy.net (Mike Helland) wrote in message
news:<ad157aec.0408191017.148151c@posting.google.com>...
Nature in the dictionary is defined as the material world and its
phenomena.
[snip a lot of self-indulgent crap, along with a request to do his
homework]
Nature is the set of all phenomena, a combination of four distinct
sets defined by the fundamental forces.
The part of this that overlaps with the dicitionary is not yours.
The part of this that does not overlap with the dictionary is not
correct since it assumes "four forces" (or something like that)
as the definition of nature. Even if there are exactly four forces
(and we have no reason to expect that is true since we currently
know of three, gravity, electro-weak, and strong) it can't be part
of the definition. Our definition of nature cannot depend on details
such as this, because our understanding of those details could
change,
could be wrong, or could be hopelessly mistaken for some other
reason.
The electromagnetic force and the weak force actually are different,
they involve different mediating bosons, they work differntly, so we
regard them as different defintions.
The second part of your objection is merely that the defintion is wrong
because we might find out that its wrong. This is of course true for
everything said in science.
You should try to argue why the defintion is wrong, instead of arguing
that it *could* be wrong, which should always be assumed.
Our defintions *can* depend on details like this, because if the
details change our defintions change. Science is different from
religion because new information, or different information is welcomed
as it invites us to change our thinking. That you discourage
establishing defintions about things that might change is an indication
that you fail to grasp the method of critical rationalism.
.
