/lit/ - Literature

>>18530003
>I genuinely invite you to use your rationality instead of simply cycling through your existing beliefs.
>
>The last fellow, for example, said that you cannot by way of induction know the laws of physics are not subject to change. Well lucky for me I don't believe in laws of physics.
>
>Again, it's called being meta. Call it "counter-factual thinking". What IF physics was wrong about the universe being run by laws, then what? It wouldn't be run by laws, but it would still have to be regular; what could possibly explain it? Think. You're not the only one to use counter-factual thinking, my friend.