- #1
Gold Barz
- 467
- 0
For another universe with different constants and laws to produce more life-producing stars?
I wouldn't expect nothing more than PURE SPECULATION
I wouldn't expect nothing more than PURE SPECULATION
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:But doesn't the laws derive from the constants?
selfAdjoint said:Pure speculation it is. Yes it is possible. My reasoning is that we have no reason to suppose the setup in our universe is the best possible for life. All we know, from it's having produced us, is that it's at least MINIMALLY good enough.
And we all know that's pure speculation too!brightstar2005 said:Eugene Savov's theory of interaction shows that the universe
results from self-similar transforms, hence the laws remain
the same only the constants change.
Alkatran said:Universes are constantly created with different laws, we just happened to get this one.
Actually wait, I believe I know what the problem is. It's semantics.
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.Its [Savov's idea] not pure speculation. 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. The Universe is the ultimate system. If other dimensions exist, that means, somehow it makes sense with Universal Law, then they would have to be bound by Universal Law.
Rubbish - the 'truth' vs 'proof' debate was settled long ago (and not in your favour).LOGIC is all the proof you need to verify something as true.
Rubbish - "Twas brillig, and the slithy toves did gyre and gimble in the wabe" - what 'reality' is represented by these labels?Mathematics like english, spanish, and any other language are just LABELS to represent what CONCEPTS exist in reality.
Rubbish - you might like to read your Russell, and no doubt a great many philosophers besides.You can write 1+1=2 or you can translate in English one ball plus one ball equals two balls. They prove the exact same CONCEPT. They just use different LABELS to represent the same CONCEPT.
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).You can also write F=ma or you can translate in English force equals mass multiplied by acceleration. Neither represents reality more accurately than the other, they just use their own individual LABELS.
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?LOGIC is the thing that unifies all CONCEPTS and gives us the ability to analyze and 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?With this said, if something makes sense in English than it makes sense in math, physics, and any other language.
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.Therefore, I don't need to show you mathematical proof of what I am saying, I just need to make sense.
Perhaps we could all spend some time getting our terminology onto a common basis?Rahmuss said:If there are other Universes out there, they would have the same laws we have here. The reason for that is... laws had to exist before our Universe existed, or else our universe would not be here. Those same laws apply to all other universes out there to be created, and the universes don't make up laws as they grow and expand. So the "Universe" as DragonGod puts it is correct. An expanse that covers all universes with the same laws to create any universe out there, and therefore each universe would have the same laws.