7
   

Is there a possible universe where the laws of logic and math are different from what we know?

 
 
fresco
 
  2  
Reply Wed 28 Jan, 2015 12:50 am
@Brandon9000,
Alas, you have correctly identified that "anti-intellectual" trend which seems to have gradually infected this "specialist" forum over the years. References are of course mandatory for serious correspondents...a point which is resented by those who are here for the social dancing, or a lightweight anti-dementia work-out.
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Jan, 2015 01:36 pm
@fresco,
This reification of "laws" of nature, i.e., describing the physical world as if it were obeying statutes, is bizzare. It should be obvious that natural "laws" (theoretical nomothetic generalizations) do little more than describe how the physical world "behaves." It also seems that somewhere in the vast universe, there may be behavioral variations far different from ours. Moreover, as we've stressed before, exotic sentient creatures may enjoy (or suffer)--as expressions of their physical makeup--cognitive ways of being far different from ours.
That's my anti-dementia work out for today.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Jan, 2015 02:10 pm
@JLNobody,
Indeed ! I quite like Brian Cox's subtitle to his book on Quantum Theory
Quote:
Whatever can happen, does happen !
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  2  
Reply Sat 31 Jan, 2015 02:54 am
The word Universe has recently been twisted by ignoramus and the fashion spread and we now have to deal with it it in "modern" terms if we want people to understand what we mean...so in modern terms answering, yes, there may be niche rules, to niche places, to which some people call Universes within a Multiverse...in old good language the Multiverse is the Universe. Twisting and obfuscating aside that's what it is. So in good old languaging, NO ! There is only one big set of rules that rules over all local ruling if you wish...REALITY is one not several although people that actually understand this are becoming old and dwindling in number...Discovery channel wont help you much on this regard either...don't fool yourself with "lasers" and flashing "Star Wars" pop science talks...
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Jan, 2015 03:27 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Sounds reasonable.
0 Replies
 
Lustig Andrei
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Jan, 2015 12:02 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
There's only one thing in that screed with which I disagree, Fil. 'Reality' is subjective. What seems 'real' to you, may seem like a fantasy to me. What seems 'real' to me may be a hallucination to you. (I use the word 'seems' because none of us know, or can know, what the ultimate reality actually is.)
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Jan, 2015 12:05 pm
@Lustig Andrei,
Good point, and well taken.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Jan, 2015 12:49 pm
@Lustig Andrei,
Lustig Andrei wrote:

There's only one thing in that screed with which I disagree, Fil. 'Reality' is subjective. What seems 'real' to you, may seem like a fantasy to me. What seems 'real' to me may be a hallucination to you. (I use the word 'seems' because none of us know, or can know, what the ultimate reality actually is.)



But the thing is that REALITY may be something completely divorced from what it "seems" to you or me or anyone.

Whatever REALITY is...it cannot be subjective...it has to be objective, because whatever it is...it IS.

It appears none of us knows what the ultimate REALITY is...but that does not mean that what it "seems" to us...is a subjective reality. It simply is what reality seems to us to be.

But the REALITY is whatever it actually IS.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Jan, 2015 12:51 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Reality is something you feel you can pontificate about without reading up on the subject.

You made the full extent of your beliefs known a long time ago.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Jan, 2015 12:55 pm
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:

Reality is something you feel you can pontificate about without reading up on the subject.

You made the full extent of your beliefs known a long time ago.


I do not do "believing", Izzy...and I do not pontificate on REALITY. In fact, I freely acknowledge that I do not know the true nature of the REALITY of existence.

Sorry you are so out of sorts that you have to get into this kind of nonsense, but I will accommodate you if you insist.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Jan, 2015 01:06 pm
@Frank Apisa,
You do do believing Frank, you're one of the most believingest people I know.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Jan, 2015 01:12 pm
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:

You do do believing Frank, you're one of the most believingest people I know.


No I do not, Izzy.

Why ya getting so worked up?

Life not treating you right?
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Jan, 2015 01:16 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Laughing Is that what you believe Frank ?
izzythepush
 
  3  
Reply Sat 31 Jan, 2015 01:16 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Not at all, although talking to you does tend to make one lose the will to live.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Jan, 2015 01:22 pm
@fresco,
fresco wrote:

Laughing Is that what you believe Frank ?


Nope.

It is what I know.

Wink Wink
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Jan, 2015 01:23 pm
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:

Not at all, although talking to you does tend to make one lose the will to live.


Really?

Makes one wonder why you do it then.

If what you say is true, it seems rather foolish to do so to me.
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Jan, 2015 01:42 pm
Reality being subjective would require subjectivity being an objective fact. A contradiction.
People have to stop confounding relational with subjective, because "subjective" is obscure wording while relational it is not.
There is no relativity without an absolute.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Jan, 2015 01:59 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Reality being subjective would require subjectivity being an objective fact. A contradiction.


Precisely, Fil.

I do not know the true nature of the REALITY of existence...but whatever it is...it IS.

So I can know that about REALITY (even though I do not know what it IS)...

...It is objective no matter what.


0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  2  
Reply Sat 31 Jan, 2015 01:59 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
No. There is no relativity without an agreed set of axioms.

"Relativity theory" per se in physics depends on axioms about the constancy of the speed of light and that the "laws of physics" are the same for potential observers. Ironically the first axiom came from the rejection/disagreement of Newton's "absolute frame of reference". No one can say whether Einstein's axioms are the end of the story. That point is significant to the OP.

Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Jan, 2015 03:59 pm
@fresco,
Gibberish !
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 04/17/2021 at 12:23:17