Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Time and evolution
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Wiccan_Child" data-source="post: 32216410" data-attributes="member: 104966"><p><span style="color: darkgreen"></span></p><p><span style="color: darkgreen"><span style="color: Black">Indeed. No-one has ever claimed it was anything other than an assumption. However, it is by a long shot the most probable assumption we can make. Since <em>all</em> recorded and verifiable observations ever made conform to the principle, and <em>none </em>has ever demonstrated a unique area of spacetime where the physical laws are different, then we can be fairly (i.e., beyond a shadow of a doubt) sure that the principle is sound.</span></span></p><p><span style="color: darkgreen"><span style="color: Black"></span></span></p><p><span style="color: darkgreen"><span style="color: Black">You understand, of course, that if we reject the principle, then empiricism collapses and we fall into an intellectual stupour? Axioms and fundamentals exist so that we can progress beyond them.</span></span></p><p><span style="color: darkgreen"><span style="color: Black"></span></span></p><p><span style="color: darkgreen"><span style="color: Black">I don't suppose you can give us a pragmatic reason to <em>reject</em> the assumption? The last appeal of the literalist and the religious fundamentalist is the rejection of reality.</span></span></p><p><span style="color: darkgreen"><span style="color: Black"></span></span></p><p><span style="color: darkgreen"><span style="color: Black">Or perhaps you advocate we go all the way? As individuals with private thoughts, we only know, <em>truely know</em>, three things: the laws of logic, the fact that we recieve sensory input, and the fact that we exist. I do not <em>know</em> my computer exists, for it is remotely possible that my senses are manipulated.</span></span></p><p><span style="color: darkgreen"><span style="color: Black"></span></span></p><p><span style="color: darkgreen"><span style="color: Black">However, it is absurd (not to mention useless) to reject the assumption that the sensory input I recieve is at least a semi-accurate portrayal of the 'real' reality.</span></span></p><p><span style="color: darkgreen"><span style="color: Black"></span></span></p><p><span style="color: darkgreen"><span style="color: Black">Likewise, we assume the physical laws are not arbitrarily and unpredictably tampered with by an external entity or force.</span></span></p><p><span style="color: darkgreen"><span style="color: Black"></span></span></p><p><span style="color: darkgreen"><span style="color: Black">Finally, there is also the question of: if the principle is false, then why do palaeontological predictions bear out? Indeed, why do all dating methods correlate? Surely the past, if it is indeed subject to different laws as today, would yield incomprehensible abominations that would defy explanation?</span></span></p><p><span style="color: darkgreen"><span style="color: Black"></span></span></p><p><span style="color: darkgreen"><span style="color: Black">Yea, I'm not sure how well that flows, it's late. But it's right.</span></span></p><p><span style="color: darkgreen"><span style="color: Black"></span></span></p><p><span style="color: darkgreen"></span></p><p>On the contrary, the nature of reality and the laws inherent therein are richly debated by philosophers and scientists alike (me and you being but one pair).</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Wiccan_Child, post: 32216410, member: 104966"] [COLOR=darkgreen] [COLOR=Black]Indeed. No-one has ever claimed it was anything other than an assumption. However, it is by a long shot the most probable assumption we can make. Since [I]all[/I] recorded and verifiable observations ever made conform to the principle, and [I]none [/I]has ever demonstrated a unique area of spacetime where the physical laws are different, then we can be fairly (i.e., beyond a shadow of a doubt) sure that the principle is sound. You understand, of course, that if we reject the principle, then empiricism collapses and we fall into an intellectual stupour? Axioms and fundamentals exist so that we can progress beyond them. I don't suppose you can give us a pragmatic reason to [I]reject[/I] the assumption? The last appeal of the literalist and the religious fundamentalist is the rejection of reality. Or perhaps you advocate we go all the way? As individuals with private thoughts, we only know, [I]truely know[/I], three things: the laws of logic, the fact that we recieve sensory input, and the fact that we exist. I do not [I]know[/I] my computer exists, for it is remotely possible that my senses are manipulated. However, it is absurd (not to mention useless) to reject the assumption that the sensory input I recieve is at least a semi-accurate portrayal of the 'real' reality. Likewise, we assume the physical laws are not arbitrarily and unpredictably tampered with by an external entity or force. Finally, there is also the question of: if the principle is false, then why do palaeontological predictions bear out? Indeed, why do all dating methods correlate? Surely the past, if it is indeed subject to different laws as today, would yield incomprehensible abominations that would defy explanation? Yea, I'm not sure how well that flows, it's late. But it's right. [/COLOR] [/COLOR] On the contrary, the nature of reality and the laws inherent therein are richly debated by philosophers and scientists alike (me and you being but one pair). [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Time and evolution
Top
Bottom