Final-Fan said:
appolose said:
Final-Fan said:
*headdesk*
Rath's scenario, where math/science allow for the laws of physics to be different ONLY AT THE VERY BEGINNING of the universe, does not constitute contradiction (or, as I believe you said, mathematical counter-observation of science's observation) of the laws of physics being constant outside of that time period.
Also, what exactly do you mean by "well-established observation"?
|
I mean that Rath's scenario is another observation; this is true, yes? We haven't always thought they the laws of physics were different at the beginning of time, right? In my scenario, this is a place where that observation has not yet been made.
By well-established, I mean that it has been observed so much that an empiricist would say "Ok, that is definitely true".
|
I'm not sure what you're getting at with this. If we hadn't ever made that inference and made an attempt to reconcile it with known science, a mathematician still could have played around and come up with the possibility, right? And if the math checked out, they would have to accept the possibility, and probably go looking for some clue IRL to see if it showed up.
I mean, the creation of the universe has always been a big question mark for science, so I don't think there was a time when scientists were completely ruling out possibilities for what was going on at that point.
|
I don't think mathematicians would come up with this by themselves. I'm fairly sure that they came up with this only as a result of recent scientific observations.
In any event, we could just pretend we're in a universe where the math doesn't work.
