FAITH... WITH REASON

FAITH... WITH REASON Mar 3, 2017 10:31:03 GMT

Quote

Post by fatpaul on Mar 3, 2017 10:31:03 GMT

Mar 1, 2017 19:41:12 GMT Eva Yojimbo said:

RE the invariant laws of physics: in the abstract, I'd say this is something that can be assumed due to Occam's Razor a priori of any evidence. A variant universe would be innately more complex as you'd have to have multiple sets of laws occurring either at different times (in that they change) or different places. Invariant laws would mean one set would apply everywhere at all times.

Now, the thing with Occam's Razor is that it doesn't give you proof of anything, all it does is tell you that the more complex hypothesis requires evidence in order to favor it over the simpler one. Plus, as cham went on to explain, we actually DO have evidence that the laws existed far away a long time ago into the past. So all the evidence we DO have is for invariable laws and none for variant

Appealing to parsimony is a bias for simplicity in theory construction encapsulated in Ockham's razor: entities must not be posited beyond necessity. It is a tendency for simplicity in us, not necessarily a tendency of the universe itself. It could be that, due to this reductive tendency, we only know the structure of the universe, only the appearance but not what's intrinsic; not all hold fully with scientific realism.

It is a fact that light speed is a constant that enables spatial and temporal information about the laws and I know that light itself has no frame of reference which implies invariance, but what I don't know is if the speed of light has always been a constant. I also don't know if cham's mentioned method (spectroscopy I think) is done within a metric of GR. If this is the case, then it may be somewhat circular.