CaptainGemini
First Post
Well, I'm still having trouble following the set-up. But, basically, if there is not any set of laws at all (ie, nothing we can understand), like if everything is at the whim of some set of battling D&D deities, then we just can't really do science. But that's an extreme case. Quantum physics has laws, but they are probabilistic and not deterministic, so we try to understand the aggregate statistical behavior of systems. Or we could talk about the laws of physics changing in some well-defined way across the universe --- there are people looking for variations of the strength of the fundamental electric charge over the history of the universe, for example. So I guess it depends on how extreme you mean.
What I am talking about is not a singular set of rules, but multiple sets of rules and the universe existing as an interaction between those sets of rules.
As an example, take quantum mechanics and general relativity. Now, let's say those cannot be combined into a singular set of laws of physics.
How does that change our understanding and study of physics?
Right, when @CaptainGemini suggests for instance that "A halfway point that produces consistent results most of the time out of pure randomness is perfectly possible. It would also produce results that are completely unexpected, but might not be observable from Earth at this time due to current technological limitations." then you'd simply have to explain why we consistently "don't see" this "pure randomness" in our part of the universe. If it is totally hidden then what we see is actually consistent, and we should be able to describe that consistency, and thus there ARE then laws of physics, because that's ALL that laws of physics ARE, consistent descriptions of how we observe things to behave, they can be naught else!
I think the point about Noether's Theorum wasn't really quite made either. It isn't something that may or may not be true. Noether's Theorum isn't a scientific result, it is a logical construct, it doesn't stand or fall, any more than the Pythagorean Theorum stands or falls. It is simply a truth. Furthermore we have a great deal of evidence that universal conservation laws and their equivalent symmetries exist because we observed conservation laws in action and then we derived symmetries from them. These symmetries were then used to derive further theories in physics which then matched observation, and this has happened MANY times. So either the observed conservation laws actually are really logically consistent and observed everywhere in our universe, or else most all of modern physics was discovered by random chance using a totally flawed process and we just got INCREDIBLY lucky.
This for instance is why we can with essentially 100% certainty rule out things like reactionless drives which violate Conservation of Momentum. If they exist, and Conservation of Momentum IS violated, ever, anywhere in the Universe, then all of our modern theories of physics are just blind luck, which we can state could only by true by chance at a level so unlikely that it is equivalent to zero. Now, maybe its possible to argue about what "anywhere in the Universe" exactly means, could it be that these things can be violated in some area of space which is causally disconnected from us (IE beyond our light cone and thus will never interact with us again for all time, and may have been causally disconnected since the start of inflation). I don't think we really know the answer to THAT, but is it even a meaningful question since we can never answer it, even in principle?
Stop and take a look at the probably of life existing even once on a planet, indeterminate of the fact it actually exists. Then take a look at how many events in human history pretty much amount to humanity surviving or succeeding simply due to blind luck.
Whether or not we like to admit it, it is unscientific to simply toss out blind luck as being part of the equation. Without it, it's quite possible science wouldn't exist in the first place.
Also, something to consider: The laws of physics do not care what human logic dictates. If there are to be multiple sets, or if it is all random chance, then that is reality regardless of what "truths" we know have to say. It is pure ego, not pure knowledge, to think that human logic has any dictates on the universe... and pure ego produces bad science. Which is why I referenced the electron in my previous post, as it does violate human logic in its simple existence.
That we have been right so far is just one thing: Pure luck. The universe could have easily been far different, or had massively different laws of physics.
Also, we can scientifically measure randomness, and even come up with ways to get consistent results our of pure randomness. Last I remember, there was at least one field of physics devoted to it.