Not really - the constants are like the dimensions of the playing field - the laws are the rules of the game. You could, for example, move the picher's mound back a foot without changing any of the rules and the way the game ended up could be different (hey, it's baseball season...).Gold Barz said:
selfAdjoint said:
And we all know that's pure speculation too!brightstar2005 said:
Alkatran said:
So, within the framework that we use here in PF, Savov's ideas are pure speculation - there is no math, no quantification, no specific, concrete predictions ... in short, it's not science.
Rubbish - the 'truth' vs 'proof' debate was settled long ago (and not in your favour).
Rubbish - "Twas brillig, and the slithy toves did gyre and gimble in the wabe" - what 'reality' is represented by these labels?
Rubbish - you might like to read your Russell, and no doubt a great many philosophers besides.
Rubbish - explain how it's possible to 'translate' the equations of QFT into English! Besides, science long ago ceased to be about 'representing reality' (and maths blazed that trail well before science did).
So you will have no difficulty then in using LOGIC to show the unity of all the CONCEPTS within LOGIC itself? And, furthermore, you will shortly publish some papers showing that folk such as Cantor, Gödel, Church, and Turing were just too narrowly focussed to properly interpret reality?
"It only makes sense that no matter what, if other dimensions exist, that the universal laws, whatever they are, would have to apply to other dimensions. Within a system, anything within the system, is bound by the laws of the system - my law, but it makes sense." makes no sense to me - in English - so therefore it cannot make sense in math, physics, etc?
If you want to 'make sense' here in PF, you need to discuss concepts within the framework of the physics that you find in peer-reviewed journals; I submit to you that your challenge, should you choose to accept it, is to present any 'alternative ideas' (whether your own or Savov's) in a manner that is a) self-consistent, b) consistent with all good observational and experimental results (within its domain of applicability), and c) consistent with good theories with overlapping domains of applicability. If you can't, then we call such ideas (e.g. Savov's) 'pseudoscience', and PF is not a healthy place for such.
Perhaps we could all spend some time getting our terminology onto a common basis?Rahmuss said:
Scientists have theorized the existence of multiple universes based on mathematical models and observations of the universe's expansion. They also believe that the laws of physics may vary in each universe, allowing for the possibility of life-producing stars.
No, it is currently impossible to observe another universe. However, scientists are studying the cosmic microwave background radiation and other astronomical phenomena to gather evidence and support for the existence of other universes.
The conditions for a universe to create life-producing stars may vary, as it depends on the specific laws of physics in that universe. However, some general conditions include the presence of elements necessary for star formation, a stable and suitable environment, and enough time for stars to evolve and potentially support life.
It is possible that life could exist in a universe with different physical laws, as long as the conditions are suitable for the development and sustenance of life. However, it is difficult to speculate on the exact nature of life in such a universe, as we only have knowledge and understanding of life based on the laws of our own universe.
The existence of multiple universes is a topic of ongoing research and debate among scientists. It does not have a direct impact on our current understanding of the origin of life, as it is still a mystery that is being studied and explored. However, the concept of multiple universes opens up new possibilities and perspectives in our understanding of the universe and its potential for supporting life.