Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 6718578" data-attributes="member: 82106">Right, when [MENTION=6801122]CaptainGemini[/MENTION] 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?</blockquote>

Verification