Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="CaptainGemini" data-source="post: 6718659" data-attributes="member: 6801122">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?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 &quot;truths&quot; 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.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="CaptainGemini, post: 6718659, member: 6801122"] 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 [i]cannot[/i] be combined into a singular set of laws of physics. How does that change our understanding and study of physics? 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification