appolose said:
Final-Fan said:
appolose said:
4. Because the rule, as science has observed it, is that there is no physical means of creation, not that things can't at all be created in the universe. This nonphysical thing would be using nonphysical means to create, so the rule here is unviolated.
7. Hmm. I'll try to clarify what I mean, but perhaps you.re right in saying were not on the same page here. In the case of science observing that there are no physical means of creation, and observing something being created in this universe, science does not, here, say to itself "Well, guess I was wrong about the first part, or the second" because they don't have two contradicting observations (they observed the object being created, but not physically created). Notice that they haven't eliminated all means of creation, just physical, so there's no reason to suspect one of the observations is wrong.
8. Yeah, this runs into 8.2
8.2 That's correct: no wormholes, no rips ins space/time, no physical means of transportation are detected; it just appeared from, apparently, nowhere. And on that apparancy science assumes no physicality had a hand in putting this object here, whether by creation or transportation.
9 I see: I think you're correct in where this is headed (since we agree on this point, it renders point 8 irrelevant).
|
4.
Is it? The rule as I understood it was "you can't create matter without using energy in X proportion". That says nothing about the agent creating the matter, or the method used.
7.
How do you "observe" that there is no physical means of creation? You can observe that this didn't happen, and this didn't happen, etc., and you can suppose that you haven't missed anything and therefore there is no physical cause -- but that's not an observation. (Similar to 1b)
8. (reunified)
"no physicality had a hand in putting this object here, whether by creation or transportation"
WHAT?! You agreed that the other universe was physical! How, then, could you conclude that the matter's creation in that other universe prior to transportation was definitely non-physical?
.... oh. You meant that either it was created here non-physically, or it was created elsewhere (perhaps physically) and transported here non-physically?
|
4. While it seems your referring to the real-life 1st law of thermodynamics here, it's still the same, essentially. My hypothetical observation only states that there are no physical means by which matter may be created (I would say that that what the first law says, too, but that's besides the point).
7. "and you can suppose that you haven't missed anything and therefore there is no physical cause -- but that's not an observation". But it its, though; science never assumes that it got everything in it's observations, it just assumes after "enough" observations. You can apply that to any scientific theory or law: they never claim to have examined everything, just lots of it. Which, hopefully, answers 1b as well (science, at one point, had, apparently, observed such a case, as denoted by the first law).
8. Wait, I thought we had agreed that this point was irrevelevant, in light of point 9. Perhaps you are arguing it anyways, for the sake of that part of the argument, perhaps?
In any event, yes, I mean that last part of your point. Sorry about the confusion.
|
; - ) : - ) : - ( : - P : - D : - # ( c ) ( k ) ( y ) If anyone knows the shortcut for 
, let me know!
