[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 37 KB, 262x394, 1652062149944.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14529485 No.14529485 [Reply] [Original]

>things will just keep happening this way because they always have
>there will be scientific, consistent laws because there always have
>reality won't morph and reshape randomly because we have never seen it happen
What justification does science have for the idea that, because something is consistent during a certain number of experiments, it must remain consistent forever? How do you explain this?

This is not a troll question, I'm just curious if there is any scientific explanation out there for WHY there are universal laws that remain consistent, and WHY these laws must always govern the universe outside of scientific experiments. Yes I am dumb, please help.

>> No.14529487

>>14529485
>inb4 science doesn't actually claim that laws will remain the same forever
I know, but that's missing the point of my question. Many other systems rely on scientific laws being consistent.

>> No.14529495

>>14529485
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YmvPnElHAug

thread theme

>> No.14529497

>>14529485
This line of thinking is what leads to them ideas about multiverses and parallel realities governed by physics different to ours you prob heard about.
It's just armchair thinking ofc but something many smart cookies who spend a lot time pondering such topics takes as a serious possibility.

>> No.14529503
File: 2.14 MB, 1920x2353, Hume.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14529503

>>14529485
Based and Humepilled

>> No.14529521

>>14529485
Nobody said that, and the moment we understand how to interview a reality bender, science will adapt in ways we currently cannot comprehend.

>> No.14529685

>>14529503
What did Hume say about this?

>>14529497
>>14529521
>I don't know the answer so I'll browbeat you for asking instead
lame

>> No.14529707

>>14529685
We haven't observed them to change because we haven't met a reality bender, literally that's the entire categorical argument.

>> No.14529770

>>14529685
>What did Hume say about this?
Problem of Induction
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction

>> No.14529808

>>14529485
stuff is changing all the time. most of the rules have just been figured out.
if too many rules change randomly there wouldn't be enough stability to notice change at all. it would just be constant randomness without order.

>> No.14529909

>>14529808
>stuff is changing all the time
What do you mean exactly?

>>14529770
Thank you anon.

>>14529707
>I haven't directly experienced something
>so I'll never think about it at all :)

>> No.14529944

>>14529909
No, I have thought about it, pretty extensively. Measuring differences between various models of reality is continually relevant to the interactions between fictional worlds. "What would it look like for this world to spill into this other world?" is a question I'm concerned with fairly often. You can make inferences that would be useful if we did ever see an upheaval in the fabric of the universe. One of the more obvious examples I've looked at is rebooting simulations after applying a patch. There need to be entities in the simulation looking for differences between frames or the updates would be functionally seamless to their observers.

Don't fucking assume incorrectly if you're gonna try to guess about my logic.