/lit/ - Literature

>>15621000
shut the fuck up.

>>15621000
Nothing, its just assumed, because theres no purpose studying them otherwise. If everything has a direct cause and effect, there are infinite causes

>>15621000
>If the laws of the universe are the aggregated extrapolations of the causal relationship between material substances
*blocks your path*

>>15621000
I think it's the inverse chum.
Rather than agregated extrapolations, the abstraction is what defines the behaviour of the explicit substances.

>>15621000
As far as we know, the laws of physics have no particular meaning. However, if they had small variations we would not be here and the universe would not allow life at this stage. As causality progresses we will eventually reach a point where life is no longer possible anyway (stars dying for example) so the fact that we can analyse this implies survivorship bias.

So, the universe or even the multiverse, in all its infinity, includes all possible laws of physics, and all possible causalities. Thus there is nothing particularly important or unique about the causal relationships you observe.

Read Ghazali

>>15621405
>all possible laws of physics
But the anthropic principle can only hold if 'all possible laws' are still finite in number. If there is an infinite number of possible laws of physics then the probability of any one specific case existing becomes effectively zero. This then leads to the question, what dictates the boundaries of possible states from the infinite number of impossible states.

>>15621000
What does "dictates" is supposed to mean in this context.

>>15621298
Since we can never directly observe the origin of the laws of the universe, only observe their material effects we cannot ever presume that they precede causality. Only intuitively assume that.

>>15621425
>the probability of any one specific case existing becomes effectively zero.
Does it, really? The fact that the universe exists at all, which is evident, already proves that it is not effectively zero, it just asymptotically close to zero. Even if the probability of our current set of laws is infinitesimally small, survivorship bias allows us to experience and ask this thread's question.

I don't think we, in our finitude, understand the concept of infinity well enough to conclude a perfectly zero probability for anything. Evidence therefore compels me to believe it is non zero. If one wants, the inifinity of possibilities could even lead us to believe every possible reality has an effective 100% probability of occurring, because the infinitude of existence itself is great enough to allow it.

>>15621431
Compels. If you want to be even more specific, if materials interact causally (i.e. predictably and deterministically) then there must be a material basis for this causality. How can a material causality emerge from abstract, immaterial properties. If there is no material basis for causality then there is no causality and we're just inside of a very long chain of utterly disconnected coincidences.

>>15621425
>But the anthropic principle can only hold if 'all possible laws' are still finite in number.
I may not be too familiar with it but I thought it's the opposite?

>>15621430
That may be true.
But then that would reduce the OP statements to be matters of phrasing or definition rather than differences between the actual processes. The causal relationships and the agregated extrapolations would be the same thing.
If that was the case, the causal relationships of the material effects, and the materials themselves, might also be described as the same thing. You can't have one without the other.
Then the question becomes of a wider context that requires finding some fundamental meaning within the whole universe itself.

>>15621501
>If one wants, the inifinity of possibilities could even lead us to believe every possible reality has an effective 100% probability of occurring, because the infinitude of existence itself is great enough to allow it.
So then the word probability is basically useless, no? I mean eerything happens by this logic.

>>15621000
god

>>15621501
>If one wants, the inifinity of possibilities could even lead us to believe every possible reality has an effective 100% probability of occurring, because the infinitude of existence itself is great enough to allow it.
>>15621405
>So, the universe or even the multiverse, in all its infinity, includes all possible laws of physics, and all possible causalities. Thus there is nothing particularly important or unique about the causal relationships you observe.
Multiverse theory? I think this idea holds no no real value.
First of all, there is no evidence, and it cannot be tested for experimentally. It's a non scientific idea, and purely philosophical.

Philosophically then we have now jacknifed wildly away from the OP post, which is based around a philosophically testing subject but is at least orientated around observable ideas and observable material in our universe. To basically say rules within our universe are unimportant removes value from your own human context, and nulifies all our observations, thoughts, conversations, etc.
The causal relationships of things within our own local sphere of influence clearly have some value to us. Something like multiverse theory has abolutely no value to us in our own context of life, and it voids itself from actual practical use in anything, and cannot be used to pull the rug from under a debate regarding material substances and their causal relationships.

>>15621508
What is your example here? Billiard balls? Because there are explanations for material causality all the way down to the mass of the subatoms themselves. Are you just arguing from Hume or something else?

>>15621697
Unless every universe has characteristics that when combined reveal the answer for OP question.

>>15621556
There are some significant metaphysical distinctions. If the laws of physics exist in some real but abstract way and compel the material processes we observe then it could be, hypothetically, possible that this relationship is symmetrical and thus a material process could actively inform as well as be informed by the laws of physics. Thus it would potentially be possible to permanently alter the flow of causality and the laws of physics themselves. If on the other hand the laws of physics are not physically real and what we deem to be observations of causality are simply statistical cascades in which anything CAN happen but overwhelmingly tends not to, and thus the laws of physics proceed from the interactions they generalise, then it leads to somewhat different conclusions. Of course from the point of view of being inside a causal stream these differences are non existent, a generalisations accuracy is not determined by the cause of the generalisation. But the cause is significant if you hypothetically envision a scenario where you are outside the stream of causality.

>>15621000
You know exactly what dictates these causal relationships.

>>15621000
our self creates the rules of their relations

>>15621615
Yes. When you are talking about infinity it is no longer a matter of quantity, but of quality. 0%, 100%, what's the difference when numbers stop being meaningful? The purpose we impose on numbers is quatifying elements and relationships. Under infinity all concepts go to the trash.

>>15621739
Again, other universes are not measurable in any way shape or form.
They can't be compared to our universe. The idea of multiverse theory is absolutely able to be false.

>>15621222
*curbs stomps hume for blocking his path and being a fat pussy*

>>15621405
Why do any laws of physics exist at all? What makes the laws effective, why don't they change moment to moment?

>>15621501
>A man falls out of the window on the 25th floor
>He falls straight down on the concrete ground, yet suffers no injuries
>The man wonders - "Why am I still here? How can it be that I live? What caused this unlikely event?"
>Anon, passing by, laughs at the foolish man
>"You poor fool man, don't you know," he says,
>"that if you had not lived, you couldn't ask this question? Only because you survive, you want to ask why? Had you not lived, you'd not have wondered at all!"
>The man marvels at the sharp mind of Anon, and decides never to wonder at anything again

>>15622134
beautiful

>>15622030
Because all of existence is an elaborate joke, played on us by God.

>>15621222
can someone explain why hume would disagree with this? I only read part of enquiry but it seems to line up with what he says there to me

>>15622226

he wouldn't, that guy just goes around spamming hume and thinking that he's made a refutation

>>15621508
I am still not sure what you mean, what is your ontology of causality? I take causal connections to be regularities, so x causing y means that as a matter of fact events of the type x are regularly followed by events of the type y. I don't see what remains there to be explained.

>>15622030
You have to remember that all spheres of human knowledge, including physics, are filtered through the human lens, which is comprised of intuition, reason, and empiricism. When we say that the universe has laws what we are REALLY saying is that to the human mind it appears the universe is structured and coherent, governed by laws which we infer from observation. This does not mean the noumenal universe is this way. It is absurd to look at the evidence of physics without considering the anthropocentricism inherent in it.
>>15622134
This line of reasoning has already been roundly refuted by Boltzmann brains. It is much more likely that a mind pops into existence in a void, filled with all the memories and experiences usually attributed to human life, than that the universe came about in the naturalistic, random way science posits. You are left with two options: accept solipsism as the most plausible scientific hypothesis or deny atheism.

I hvae a question that vaguely fits this thread. Lets say that all the 'rules' are just human perception. Now does this view also apply to the things like dark matter and dark energy?

>>15622134
I take this point, but what do you have to say to the one Chinese man who gets heads 30/30 times in a row in a country-wide coin-toss?

It’s not so much an issue of probability but the lack of wonder in the result, us. Your wonder at us is a narcissistic bias. That wonder is posited as requiring explanation instead of simply following the explanation to its result.

>>15622238
I would define causality as the function of regularity itself. So if causality is a static function (x is always followed by y) then this presents us with two branching paths, x is always followed by y due to an immutable relationship between x & y, x has only been followed by y coincidentally for as long as it has been observed. Practically there may not be a difference but theoretically there's a huge difference and the crux of the issue is mutability. If X and Y share an intrinsic relationship then that relationship should be material as the material cannot arise from the immaterial, if the relationship is material it can be affected materially. This means we could theoretically alter causality. If x is only followed by y as a statistical result, i.e. nothing *compels* or acts upon x to be followed by y, but rather we occupy a universe that just happens to have always had y follow x (the anthropic principle) it means that the relationship is immutable because there is nothing to change, we live in one of multiple causal possibilities arbitrarily.

>>15621000
This is a silly question

If something else dictated these causal relationships, they would be different causal relationships

>>15622298
>You have to remember that all spheres of human knowledge, including physics, are filtered through the human lens, which is comprised of intuition, reason, and empiricism. When we say that the universe has laws what we are REALLY saying is that to the human mind it appears the universe is structured and coherent, governed by laws which we infer from observation. This does not mean the noumenal universe is this way. It is absurd to look at the evidence of physics without considering the anthropocentricism inherent in it.
well said

>>15622442
sure sure but today everything has a material explanation (not saying it’s gonna be the last word, it’s clearly not) up until the Big Bang. At that point the laws of physics are essentially born. We simply seek an explanation at that point. It’s a scientific not a philosophical question.

>>15622442
>Well ackshually 2+2=4 cannot be proven because it could just be a coincidence that putting two objects beside another two objects always yields a result of four objects
God philosophy is so dumb. Material causes exist. That's obvious. Sure you can doubt it by playing mind games but in practicality there is no reason to deny it.

>>15621775
love these lads

>>15622536
I think it's relevant to consider what the word 'material' means, originally it meant 'possessing mass' but I'm sure most scientists would agree that there are mass-less particles that interact in a meaningful way with particles possessing mass, this led to the use of the phrase 'physicalist world' but if you look up the definition of 'physicalism' you will see it relates to supervenience, that is that all *real* things are physical things or related to physical things, this is a tautology. I think a better way to examine the physical vs non-physical world is the principle of symmetrical conditionality. That if you take any physical object, say a proton, you can establish a chain, however long, of interaction or observation (which is just another form of interaction) from that object to any other physical 'object', thus the statement 'unicorns aren't physically real' would mean that no chain of interaction could be formed between a proton and a unicorn (obviously ignoring the idea of a unicorn which is the result of electrons in the brain). Now that we have established all that it's important to consider conditionally, if you affect something, physically, that means it affects you, since to affect something is to be 'observed' by that thing. Thus if something affects a proton, it is affected by the proton. This is a cornerstone of being physical, which for all intents and purposes is equivalent to being real. Now if we surmise that the relationship between a future unknown state of physical objects Y is related to the present state X in a physically deterministic way as opposed to a statistically way, it would suggest that it would be physically possible to change the laws of causality themselves. For example to change the direction of entropy. Of course by changing causality you permanently alter your ability to perceive it, perhaps a better example is to 'jump' in causality, so if X leads to Y and Y leads to N, to go from X to N, this is a change one could theoretically observe if accounting for the physical properties of ones brain in observing a change. If however the laws are statistically determined, then one could conclude that X is followed by both Y and N and Z and J etc. but that we are perpetually perceiving our own state and thus would never be aware of any changes thus the universe would appear consistent without being so, this still presents some questions I won't get into.

>>15621764
>There are some significant metaphysical distinctions. If the laws of physics exist in some real but abstract way and compel the material processes we observe then it could be, hypothetically, possible that this relationship is symmetrical and thus a material process could actively inform as well as be informed by the laws of physics.
This sounds like performing an experiment with light, and slowing it down through layers of glass, and measuring that change of speed.
In that case material processes interacting with causal relationships is fairly mundane, and happens all the time.

The inverse, the idea that abstract causal relationships affect the material substances, is far more fundamental and pure, more simple and direct yet more powerful.
You have a fundamental formula or a law in constant eternal action upon endless trillions of objects and materials in the universe.
Weight this against these very minor puzzle pieces acting against these laws.
The human arm, or a tree, resisting gravity. All these endless objects on the surface of the earth working in tandem against gravity, and yet gravity persists tirlessly and without pause, and works in opposition on all of them alone.

>>15622298
>anthropocentricism
Your not anwsering the question. Practical reason shows the existence and constancy of physical laws.

Even granting your premise, why then does man, a part of nature, experience the existence of any physical laws, why are they effective, and why do they stay the same?

>>15622643
>In that case material processes interacting with causal relationships is fairly mundane, and happens all the time.
Not quite, it's like observing a function and the derivative of that function. In the case of the glass you are affecting a change on the particle. But I am talking about 'changing' causality, in this instance CHANGING the change itself. So slowing down a photon through layers of glass, and then using the same photon and the same glass causing an acceleration.

>>15621000
>causal relationship
>>>/x/

>>15622631
Respect for writing all that but your head is a little too far up your own ass. “Causality” is honestly a bit outmoded today. We no longer think of balls hitting into balls. Everything today, including matter and mass itself is a result of math. Math that traces certain patterns that “fit” reality. The derivability of the math is the “change in causality” you mention. You can flip variables around, set them to zero and see what happens, predict new things. Then if something exists that matches your numbers, it’s real. The “causality” happens inside of the math, no longer between tiny ball bearings.

>>15622235
Hume would deny the philosophical veridity of it all.
Hume would block the path of STEMcel theory if applied to anything but practicability.
So this
> what dictates these causal relationships?
Hume wouldn't allow being investigated on the same basis as the relationships.

>>15622723
I am not talking about billiard balls, causality is a necessary assumption in order for any empirical truth to be held. To frame it in a better way, is it possible to change math? Is it possible to create a model of reality that is inconsistent with the observations of reality and then somehow cause reality to confirm to that model. If you say 'no, it is not possible' then I am asking, metaphysically or intuitively, 'why?' if you think that's a waste of time you're welcome to leave the thread.

>>15622657
So you would aim to try and change the speed of light itself using matter? Making a photon accelerate to faster than the limit?

>>15622754
>causality is a necessary assumption in order for any empirical truth to be held.
wrong

>>15622298
Draw a square circle Draw a circle that isn’t a closed loop.

>>15622654
>Practical reason shows the existence and constancy of physical laws.
You are assuming that human faculties produce veridical results as regards the noumenal world. Why? All of our knowledge of the external world is filtered through human interpretive processes (reason, empirical observation, and intuition), and since it is impossible for any human to access the noumenal world and compare it with the phenomenal world to test the reliability of these processes, all of human inquiry is best characterised as the study of the world AS IT APPEARS TO US rather than AS IT IS. Now this does not lead us into a position of skepticism; it does not mean that we can know nothing. We can know a great deal of things, but it is only knowledge FROM the human standpoint.
>Even granting your premise, why then does man, a part of nature, experience the existence of any physical laws, why are they effective, and why do they stay the same?
The best explanation is that the human brain superimposes a structure on the world in order that we do not go insane. A world without structure, which is what our noumenal world probably is, cannot be perceived by a sane mind, because the mind which perceives the world chaotically is by definition insane. Without the innate structuring perceptive principle in our minds, we would be like Condillac's Statue, unable to understand causation, distance, space, time, etc..

>>15622796
>>15622780
What I mean by causality is the intersection between two worldlines. Is there only one discrete set of immutable intersecting worldlines or are there many different grids of worldline intersections and we simply occupy the one that supports our conscious existence (itself a physical property)

>>15622796
this

>>15622754
>Is it possible to create a model of reality that is inconsistent with the observations of reality and then somehow cause reality to confirm to that model.
basically yes. that's what happens. people make predictions based solely on math and then we figure out a way to test it and sometimes that process is extremely difficult (hardon collider) and then we arrive at a result that contradicts our previous observations (seemingly correct observations at the time).

yes "causality" as you see it, the relationship between past states and future states is a totally dispensable concept today. we still need explanations of course, and if you search deep down you'll realize causality is simply another word for explanation. but what explains is no longer a hard and fast connection between past and present but whether or not certain equations and derivable from others. it is only after the math checks out that we bother to build the colliders.

>>15622825
>You are assuming that human faculties produce veridical results as regards the noumenal world. Why?
Because that is all we have, ultimately.
>>15622654
>Practical reason shows the existence and constancy of physical laws.
Yes.
If you are going to discount our own evidence and observations, even your own mind, you are actively discounting your own reasoning and opinions in real time debate.

>>15621000
>>15621000
Anything extrapolated becomes material. It is super-imposed from one plane to the next via merkaba (light-body). It is like rain turning from gas to liquid. Likewise if darkness sits still long enough the chaos and friction will spark light.

>>15622838
>are there many different grids of worldline intersections and we simply occupy the one that supports our conscious existence (itself a physical property)
Well of course we do that in day to day life.
You can't support something far away from yourself, outside of your field of vision for example, or something you don't encounter.

If by specifically looking at worldines instead of substances, that changes the original premise of the thread and argument.
Even specifically looking at that, a worldine is still changed by time and affected by abstract causal relationships, as it is a measurement of an object.

>>15622889
>Anything extrapolated becomes material. It is super-imposed from one plane to the next via merkaba (light-body)
Does time eventually become material?

>>15622838
the intersection of the worldline of one billiard ball and the worldline of another billiard ball?

>>15622866
It would still appear that reality behaves within a very strictly bound range of behaviours. In an example above a photon decelerates when passed through a medium (such as water) but yet we assume (and subsequently observe) the photon decelerate each time it passes through water, we never observe it accelerate. This consistency seems fundamental, is it because of some materially fixed 'law' that could in theory be altered, or rather is it because while the photon could accelerate when passing through water it overwhelmingly tends not to, and that if you did the experiment a sufficient number of times you would eventually, through overwhelming statistics, see the particle accelerate when passing through water.

>>15622945
Two billiard balls cannot have intersecting worldlines because they cannot occupy the same space at the same time.

>>15622954
>if you did the experiment a sufficient number of times you would eventually, through overwhelming statistics, see the particle accelerate when passing through water.

Would you be able to see time reversed if you wait long enough?

>>15622954
Yeah I think you've restated the past/future resemblance thing enough ways. I get it.

And I think my main point here is just that we no longer conceive of the laws of the universe as extrapolations from the past into the future. In other words, if the scientists told me today that the did the math and the sun will fail to rise tomorrow, and the math checks out, I will believe that.

Science today is no longer conducted under the auspices of some kind of homegrown empiricism. It is not conducted in the manner of biology or the social sciences. Today it is a matter of networking, connecting equations that work in one context with equations that work in another. We do not begin with cause and effect, past and future. We begin with our network of equations. We begin with the laws themselves, in their pure form, you could say. The laws now dictate our observations, not the other way around.

I don't think I'm missing the point of this thread either. If Hume were alive today, I believe he may be impressed by this point. Today, the fundamental laws of nature are incomprehensible. They no longer relate to the world in a clear direct way. Today the Higgs Boson is taken to be real. What does this have to do with the resemblance of the future to the past? Nothing. If the collider revealed no energy signature, what would that have meant to me? Nothing. Our deepest understanding of reality is not a common sensical one.

>>15622825
Why does it not lead us into a position of skepticism, if we only know how the world appears to us and then base our understanding on that appearance? Is there even any evidence of it actually being different than its appearance?

>>15622030
Physical laws exist necessarily, they could not not exist, because Chaos, physical or otherwise, is a self-contradictory concept. I don't care what the physicists say because they do not understand metaphysics.
Why is Chaos self-contradictory? In a state of Chaos, the implementation of a law would preclude any thing or event which contravenes the law, thus making it no longer Chaos. I'll state that again: a state of Chaos would no longer be Chaos if a law was introduced. That means Chaos is itself bound by the law that it has no laws. But this is a self-contradiction: you cannot be bound by a law which states that you have no laws any more than you can be a married bachelor or square circle. Chaos therefore could never exist; entropy is an incoherent concept.
So what is the conclusion? Being, physical or non-physical, is necessarily non-chaotic. There can never be a case where something exists as chaotic because Chaos can not exist. This points to a Primary Structuring Being from which the rest of the world proceeds; ie. God.
This easy to understand post of under 3000 characters refutes the entire field of naturalist/atheist cosmology.

>>15623178
But these equations only exist because of the assumption of a consistent universe. Do you believe the universe will remain consistent in perpetuity or not?

>>15623875
I don't assume the universe is consistent. In fact the universe as it stands is not consistent but contradicts itself at every point. Our science contradicts itself at every point. But consistency is something that guides scientific practice in every context and overall consistency is something we strive for, because it's how we WANT to understand the world. Yet, as it stands, the world is an inconsistent mess and I feel fine. I don't know if these inconsistencies will ever be resolved in my lifetime and I don't see it as mind-breaking if they are not resolved. The laws of physics are a tool we use to understand the universe. If they are not correct (and they are certainly unfinished) then deeper laws will be found. Consistency is a norm we impose on the universe. The universe has yet to prove to us that it is in any way so.

>>15621787
This.

We have now moved from Hume to Kant.

>>15623975
>our science contradicts itself at every point
Poetic writing but demonstrably untrue. I am not talking about some obtuse dispute between string theorists. I mean on an absolute, ontological, fundamental level, perception, human perception is *predicated* on causality. I don’t just mean like billiard balls, I mean that you were you yesterday and not some completely different entity on a different planet a moment ago. Consider the state of the universe at any discrete moment in time, now let us consider that motion (change) exists. Now if we imagine state A then we imagine state B as that state which immediately follows state A given the smallest possible amount of change, because our mind is fundamentally material it relies on motion to “think”, thus we can never consider an instant in time that we occupy but only consider it after the fact. This means all thoughts are memories, the basis of ALL human thoughts, ALL logic, ALL mathematics, etc. etc. is the idea that our memory corresponds AT least to a semblance of a degree, with an accurate observation of reality. Now what I am arguing is NOT just your run of the mill skepticism and solipsistic “but can we trust our senses” I am saying there is actually TWO assumptions we must make, not just one. A) that our memory of the past was to some n-degree representative of the reality we occupied
Which is your run of the mill solipsistic skepticism. And crucially B) that the reality we occupied moments ago bears a causal relationship to this one.
Because going back to the A > B state, if we imagine the most discrete possible changes from one state to another, we can chart out every possible arrangement of every particle and quantum state and electron spin that is possible in our known universe, but if the arrangement of those states, the ORDER in which they occur were to be random, then in one instant you could observe one piece of data and in another you would be in a different place, seeing something different etc. Reality would be incomprehensible and so would subsequently mathematics. Thus causality is critical to any model of reality.

>>15623714
>This easy to understand post of under 3000 characters refutes the entire field of naturalist/atheist cosmology.
Chaos cannot exist because it is impossible, therefore chaotic universes do not exist. Nothing cannot exist because it is impossible, therefore something must exist. That something is non-chaotic universes, one of which we occupy. Less words than your post and no God needed.

>>15624827
Yeah but you didn’t explain why Chaos can not exist. And you didn’t explain why a non-chaotic something must exist, because you have no explanation. God is the only possible explanation.

>>15623714
If something isn't operating according to a law, there is no law needed to bind it. If a law does become operative over chaos, then it is no longer chaos. This doesn't mean that chaos is impossible, it just means that law can arise out of the chance-spontaneity of chaos, and that law grows like everyone else and it isn't necessitated by the force of the cosmos being ordered by bad retard logic like you are trying to say.
Furthermore, chaos never goes away after law starts growing, because it is the only thing for law to grow from. It's a continuum

>>15625013
You yourself explained it; because it's an incoherent concept, god is a superfluous addition to this explanation.

>>15622134
guys, i wrote this earlier today while kinda high, please tell me if my prose is comfy or shit, i hate reading my own notes

>>15624693
>I am not talking about some obtuse dispute between string theorists.
Neither am I. String theory is actually an attempt to bring together some of the contradictions in physics. And it is notable that it is infamously a purely mathematical result with no possibility of empirical testing in the near future. But it would not exist if there were no contradictions. Indeed it is the perfect example of what I spoke of before of "changing the laws" and hoping reality follows suit. I'm also speaking of the isolation of topics like thermodynamics, from where the oft-talked about entropy boogeyman arises. Thermodynamics really bears no relation to any other part of physics. And I'm also speaking of the disconnect between chemistry and physics and biology and chemistry. There is no connection between these fields. We want there to be, I don't deny that, but in reality they can be easily made to contradict, for the laws of one cannot reduce to the laws of the other. Our world and our science is not one giant consistent whole. You merely imagine it to me. It is patchwork of tiny disciplines, and to network between any two is a great achievement, but not a given by any means. We need to separate the reality of what we know from the holistic picture you bring to it in your desire for such a picture. Such a picture is not undesirable by any means but it is premature to take it as a fundamental assumption of all science. EACH science is very narrow. Each observation is narrower still. Everything we know hangs in the balance of a data point or two. This must be the anxiety of a scientist with a great theory: that the world will betray him in the most radical way possible. Not skepticism (except about your own theory). Openness to the truth. The heart of science not the death of it.

>I am saying there is actually TWO assumptions we must make, not just one. A) that our memory of the past was to some n-degree representative of the reality we occupied
Which is your run of the mill solipsistic skepticism. And crucially B) that the reality we occupied moments ago bears a causal relationship to this one.
We need to move from Hume to Kant. You are literally right on the cusp of it and it's beautiful. You are describing to a tee the transcendental unity of apperception. But it is something we bring to the table as knowers, not a property of the universe itself.
>Reality would be incomprehensible
It is incomprehensible. Quantum theory clearly states there is always a possibility the particles of the universe will shift randomly. The probability cloud that is an electron is an infinite expanse that encompasses the entire universe, it's probability of being on one side of it rather than the other being asymptotically small, but not zero. Yet we have the math to describe this, take this into account, to say yes it makes sense we got lucky this time and the last zillion times. Out of space. I'll see if you reply.

>>15622226

He's skeptical that the world we live in isn't a real world and autonomous knowledge is not acceptable because he is a dumbass who can't accept scientific fact.

>>15626060
I liked it anon

>>15626060

I think that instead of prose, you should've thought twice about posting that picture of Ty Lee because now everybody's thinking of her tits than your prose you stupid nincompoop.

>>15626127
>but in reality they can be easily made to contradict
give a single example

>>15626159
"Scientific fact" is just a certain set of epistemological criteria. There's nothing inherent to the scientific method which makes it superior for investigating metaphysical questions. In fact, science, by definition, can never answer metaphysical questions in any way.

>>15626201

Metaphysics is “a priori” whereas science is “a posteriori”, meaning that metaphysics only assumes on the possibilities of such events. Science only determines the probability of those possibilities. However, the difference between them outside of empiricism is that Science deals with experiences and observations while metaphysics is more abstract.

>>15622134
Kek

>>15626215
I agree.

>>15626060
It's perfect

>>15626187
In general all macro theories so far have failed to reduce into their respective micro theories. The biggest one is already mentioned. The wave nature of matter has nothing to do with any theory above quantum physics.

>>15626266
that's all wrong though

>>15626269
no it isn't

>>15626294
yes it is. we can go sentence-by-sentence if you want.
>all macro theories so far have failed to reduce into their respective micro theories
this is too vague to rebut, but any clearer formulation is obviously wrong. e.g. the connection between thermodynamics and stat mech is clear and well-understood
>The biggest one is already mentioned
if your go-to example of an "easily made" contradiction is string theory you're already off to a bad start given that the whole reason quantum gravity is hard is because there's almost no regimes in which disagreement between gravity and QM is manifest
The wave nature of matter has nothing to do with any theory above quantum physics
because when p is large the de broglie wavelength is small, as has been understood for about 100 years. not a contradiction at all.

>>15626319
never said people didn't seek explanations and unity. I used the word contradiction and it triggered you, I get that, but I never attacked science. I am merely being realistic about it. the easier thing for me to do is just state the contrary which is that all of science is currently reducible to one giant equation. that is patently absurd and does not need argument. the most important thing about your response is to notice that all of those connections you mention are post hoc. they do not fall out of the original theories. they are constructed precisely in order to resolve the contradictions between them. there is nothing wrong with this, I said earlier it is exactly what needs to happen. but it is how things are.

>>15621000
Big words there, friend. I'll try to break it down.
>aggregated extrapolations of the causal relationship between material substances
What you're describing (onerously) is physics. So then, I suppose the question is what decides the laws of physics? If anyone knew the answer to that question, then physics wouldn't be a field of active study.

>>15621775
God, Jesus, a european swallow and the holy hand grenade

>>15626463
>the most important thing about your response is to notice that all of those connections you mention are post hoc. they do not fall out of the original theories
incorrect. you're just uninformed.

>>15626127
>Quantum theory clearly states there is always a possibility the particles of the universe will shift randomly.
Which is where I was going anyways, I firmly hold the position that what *can* happen is distinct from what *does* happen and while what *can* happen is finite, what *cannot* happen is infinite and I’m most interested in what mediates that relationship.

>>15626744
I am not being obtuse intentionally, the reason I chose that specific wording is more to describe two different schools on the metaphysics of the laws of physics. One (mechanistic) sees the laws of physics as transcendental and immutable, we can never observe them, and our understanding of them is inferred through mathematics coupled with some empiricism in some instances. However a different school sees them as statistical aggregates, that given enough time and enough space a particle might 'violate' the laws because the laws are mere tendencies. It's a heated debate, and evidence sometimes piles up on one side and then another. I personally go with the statistical view so my OP was biased.