I'd class the Principle of Relativity as a grammatical rule; that is, if we find a violation, then that means we've made a mistake - like finding both bishops on Black squares. — Banno

I'm not sure if that's different from what I'm saying or not.

Isn't it simpler just to point out that the notion of anything outside the universe is oxymoronic?

Regardless, that the speed of light is constant for any observer is a consequence of the laws of physics being the same for any observer.

I'm not sure if that's different from what I'm saying or not. — T Clark

Nor I.

Einstein said in 1905 that the maximum speed of causality was the same as the speed of light in a vacuum. Then he found that space expands faster then light and causes gravity (causality). So he violated his own rule by making an exception. Who can know all the exceptions, factors, powers and forces, and all the peaks and valleys of causality? Just because something expands this doesn't mean it must contract exactly as you think it would given that we don't know all the exceptions, factors, powers ect involved in our universe. If this makes you incapable of trusting everyday science that affects your life then you think "mechanically" to use Heidegger's term

Then he found that space expands faster then light and causes gravity (causality). — Gregory

Can you source this? What is it you are referring to?

https://www.space.com/universe-expanding-fast-new-physics.html

https://www.space.com/39815-hubble-suggests-universe-expanding-faster-study.html

Physicists also say that light is mass-less but still they can weigh it. They also say a tightened string has more MASS than a relaxed one and that most molecules and atoms weigh less than the sum of their parts. Rather strange philosophical assumptions are needed to make sense of all this. There are certainly a lot of paradoxes in modern science to say the least.. Fortunately, the eternity of whatever arises mysticism in us coincides with all time and reality.

AH, OK. Comoving and proper distance. It wasn't Einstein, but never mind.

Think we will leave it there. Folk seem to think I am kicking a puppy. I'll just say it seems you have misunderstood the physics.

Einstein knew that space expands faster than light latter in his life. They had shown it. I was questioning the idea that they can logically follow the expansion back to a singularity.

the advent of science has had an extraordinarily, overwhelmingly positive impact on how we live. — Banno

This is to say perhaps that science, with its method that uncovers (and creates) reproducibility, predictability, constancy, universality, has led to discoveries and innovation that improved our comfort and efficiency, impacted other practices, helped ease suffering etc. But the knowledge of science, has also, since the enlightenment, become a standard, created the concept of a fact, what is factual.

The advent of the kind of certain knowledge which science offers created a cultural blindness when the criteria of its judgment was transposed as the measure of every other rationale. We have bad science, but also the damage done in the name of science. Our culture has internalized the need for certainty and will only accept external justification; as if to remove ourselves as knowers. The inability to receive each thing for itself, in the ways it makes itself known, has withered our human judgment. The immediacy of empiricism and the solidity of science have led to the reification of fact which gives us a false confidence in a "soft" field like economics and a distrust of the methods of mastered experience like, say, psychotherapy. We are so taken with the power imbued to fact we are astonished when another refuses to agree or acknowledge the value we have unreflectively given them.

A TED talk I saw yesterday put [the progress of human culture] down to the types of explanations that we accept, arguing that it is down to the rejection of explanations that are too easily reinforced by ad hoc additions. I'd suggest it has to do with the introduction of self-checking conversations, the notion that we check what we say against the way things are. — Banno

So here maybe we could say the talk posits that progress has come from our rejection of the quality of the reinforcement of our explanations. Another way to say that might be that with a justification not created out of thin air but through a method, such as science's, our explanations have the continuity and validity that created the very concept of progress. Unfortunately, I don't believe our culture has benefitted from scientific progress. The expectation that we merely need to explain ourselves in the image of factual knowledge, underestimates the breadth of human culture. I do think there is something to what @Banno adds, if it is in a way not to value what we take facts to express or support, but to judge our selfs, our expressions, even our desire to express ourselves, and not against a standard, but in acceptance or aversion to the status quo, the context. Here there is the possibility not of progress, but of growth.

Principles that must apply to things on earth (such that we can rewind causes to find an origin) don't apply to the universe at large. Aka, Hume's theory

I'll respond without trying to fool you even once. As I said, this is an assumption. It underlies all of science. It hasn't been proven and can't really be. You skepticism is an instance of Hume's problem of induction. How do we know that induction is valid? We know it inductively by observing it's effectiveness. Ditto with the Principle of Relativity. We know it because that's how it's worked so far. — T Clark

Ok, I understand that foundational value of assuming the reliability of of certain laws of physics. Like axioms but so far infallibly reliable.
Does science actually operate under the assumption that the laws of physics will always be the same everywhere and always though?
I thought that science would be open to them changing or operating differently somewhere in the universe, wherever the method takes them. Are you saying that it is necessary for science to assume that anything contradicting those foundational assumptions is erroneous and they should try and find data that supports those foundational assumptions? (That question isn’t meant to be rhetorical or baiting, This isn’t my area so I’m sincerely asking...maybe these foundational assumptions are that important.)
I mentioned quantum mechanics because our understanding of physics breaks down the quantum level, and perhaps naively I thought of the quantum level as somewhere in the universe as well. That would contradict the portions I quoted of yours wouldn’t it?

have a credible discussion about why black people commit a lot more crime. — James Riley

I think it's cultural. Celebration of the criminal in black culture - particularly music, relates in turn to history, and the need to retain pride in face of persecution. Criminality was one of the few ways out of the ghetto. I'd like to think that's changed for those with the ability, but for those without it continues to serve as an excuse for fecklessness, encouraging criminality in young black men. Referencing Grand Theft Auto - I remember them mocking the guy assigned a job on release slinging burgers; ripping him about his hairnet. The pride invested in the criminal identity is a disadvantage to black people in my view. But then this raises the question of belonging to the societies they find themselves in - and it's thus in general terms I support the values political correctness purports to aspire to, it's just that I don't believe political correctness is honest, and cite twitter banning for stating facts - in contradiction to a media narrative inciting black people to further self inflicted injury, as evidence.

Ok, I understand that foundational value of assuming the reliability of of certain laws of physics. Like axioms but so far infallibly reliable.
Does science actually operate under the assumption that the laws of physics will always be the same everywhere and always though? — DingoJones

This is from Einstein's original paper on Special Relativity:

Examples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful attempts to discover any motion of the earth relatively to the “light medium,” suggest that the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest. They suggest rather that, as has already been shown to the first order of small quantities, the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good.1 We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called the “Principle of Relativity”)

I thought that science would be open to them changing or operating differently somewhere in the universe, wherever the method takes them. Are you saying that it is necessary for science to assume that anything contradicting those foundational assumptions is erroneous and they should try and find data that supports those foundational assumptions? — DingoJones

Identified scientific laws have changed over the years as we've gained more knowledge. New laws are generated, e.g. the old Laws of Conservation of Matter and Conservation of Energy had to be revised following Special Relativity, which showed that matter and energy are the same thing. It became Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy. That has always happened and will continue. The Principle of Relativity doesn't say that laws won't change. It says that whatever new laws are developed, they will apply everywhere.

I mentioned quantum mechanics because our understanding of physics breaks down the quantum level, and perhaps naively I thought of the quantum level as somewhere in the universe as well. That would contradict the portions I quoted of yours wouldn’t it? — DingoJones

I don't think this has anything to do with quantum mechanics. QM is just one more of those laws that apply everywhere.

Ok, thanks. :up:

Principles that must apply to things on earth (such that we can rewind causes to find an origin) don't apply to the universe at large. Aka, Hume's theory — Gregory

First off, your statement has nothing to do with the Problem of Induction as described by Hume.

What you have described is the Reverse Principle of Relativity - we can never know anything because everything changes everywhere and always. As I noted, you're welcome to that assumption, but it takes you outside of science. You have to play the science game by the science rules. As in the common example, God could have created the universe complete as we find it three seconds ago. In order to go about our business in the world, we assume that didn't happen.

First off, your statement has nothing to do with the Problem of Induction as described by Hume.

What you have described is the Reverse Principle of Relativity - we can never know anything because everything changes everywhere and always. As I noted, you're welcome to that assumption, but it takes you outside of science. You have to play the science game by the science rules. As in the common example, God could have created the universe complete as we find it three seconds ago. In order to go about our business in the world, we assume that didn't happen. — T Clark

How much of Hume have you read? He wrote that causality applies within the universe but not necessarily to the universe as a whole. I used this logic in a slightly different way in saying we can reverse causality to find origin in the universe within a certain scope but not necessarily to the universe at large.

Also, God could not have created the universe 3 seconds ago because I infallibly remember the universe existing since as far back as my memories go (age 3). So the universe from my perspective has certainly existed for 32 years, and possibly for much longer

. I used this logic in a slightly different way in saying we can reverse causality to find origin in the universe within a certain scope but not necessarily to the universe at large. — Gregory

True. When they talk about where the big bang came from, they're expanding the meaning of "universe".

He wrote that causality applies within the universe but not necessarily to the universe as a whole. — Gregory

I was mistaken. Since we had been talking about Hume's problem of induction, I assumed that's what you were referring.

Also, God could not have created the universe 3 seconds ago because I infallibly remember the universe existing since as far back as my memories go (age 3). So the universe from my perspective has certainly existed for 32 years, and possibly for much longer — Gregory

The obvious answer is that God could have created your memories along with all the rest of the universe.

When they talk about where the big bang came from, they're expanding the meaning of "universe". — frank

From the point of view of the Principle of Relativity, the universe we are talking about is the expanding space in which we live. It was created, according to widely accepted theory, during a big bang that happened about 14 billion years ago. We cannot, and may never be able to, know if there is anything beyond those limits.

From the point of view of the Principle of Relativity, the universe we are talking about is the expanding space in which we live. It was created, according to widely accepted theory, during a big bang that happened about 14 billion years ago. We cannot, and may never be able to, know if there is anything beyond those limits. — T Clark

They speculate anyway. Watch more PBS Space Time on the YouTube.

They speculate anyway. Watch more PBS Space Time on the YouTube. — frank

Whether or not something exists outside our local space-time continuum, everything I've said about the Principle of Relativity relates this one here. The one where we live. If other continua exist outside this one, they may have very different laws and parameters.

Unless we're in a black hole.

The obvious answer is that God could have created your memories along with all the rest of the universe. — T Clark

That's not obvious. It sounds like your more a skeptic than I am

The one where we live. — T Clark

The one we live IN. That is key. Do you appreciate how old 14 billions years is and how big trillions of light years of space is? There are things that are too old and too big for us to know anything about. That's my view and I think i have a good intuition of time and how causality can change over epochs. There are few things that I can say I know them for sure, but other writers on this forum think cosmology as understood nowadays is very highly reliable. I'm not convinced that is the case. One billion years can erase billions of traces of the casual series

Unless we're in a black hole. — frank

Or a bowl of Frosted Flakes. Or Silvester Stallone's back pocket. Or Kankakee Illinois.

That's not obvious. It sounds like your more a skeptic than I am — Gregory

This whole idea has been around for a long time. I didn't come up with it. The idea of God changing our memories has always been part of it.

The one we live IN. That is key. Do you appreciate how old 14 billions years is and how big trillions of light years of space is? There are things that are too old and too big for us to know anything about. That's my view and I think i have a good intuition of time and how causality can change over epochs. There are few things that I can say I know them for sure, but other writers on this forum think cosmology as understood nowadays is very highly reliable. I'm not convinced that is the case. One billion years can erase billions of traces of the casual series — Gregory

Whatever you believe, however skeptical you are, no matter how much you don't like it, science is explicitly and definitively built on the foundation of the Principle of Relativity. Those of us who accept and use the scientific method are fish swimming in the water of relativity. Perhaps you are the wise fisherman on the shore watching us in amusement as we swim around in our wrong-headedness.

There's an interesting review of of Lawrence Krauss' book A Universe from Nothing which is relevant to this debate. In that book, Krauss attempts to argue that, as physics now posits particles arising from empty space, there's no reason to believe that this process can't be extrapolated to the Universe as a whole - hence the title. Krauss, a well-known evangatheist, wishes to argue on this basis that science has dispensed with the need for 'necessary being'.

In this review, Neil Ormerod talks of the 'anxiety over contingency':

Various claims have been made that somehow science can come up with a theory which is so good that it must be true - a "theory of everything" in which all the loose ends are tied up, no free variables remain. The two main contenders for this are theories of the multiverse and theories of quantum gravitation. While they are not unrelated, they do have distinctive features.

...

In metaphysical terms, both the theory of a multiverse and the "theory of everything" are seeking to move beyond contingency to necessity, to formulate what would in traditional terms be called "necessary" being. This approach is an attempt to bypass the traditional response which would identify such a necessary being with God. But the simple fact is that no mathematical formula creates anything. In itself, it is the creation of the mind that conceives it. It may help explain what exists, but it does not create the thing it explains.

The anxiety over contingency is nonetheless a valid anxiety because without some necessary being - such as God - the drive towards the intelligibility of the universe, which is the foundational drive of science, hits a brick wall with existence itself, which remains radically unintelligible, without explanation, unless it is related in some way to necessary being.

This, of course, is not a proof that such a being exists, but it does indicate why the notion of a divine being arises in relation to the problem of contingency; it also indicates the vacuous nature of the question, "Who made God?" Necessary being is self-explanatory; it needs no further explanation, no "maker" to explain it. It also shows why God's existence or non-existence can never be a scientific question. Scientific method is predicated on the need for empirical verification, which means it can only deal with contingent being, not necessary being. We can never get to God, or get rid of God, as the conclusion of a scientific argument. — Neil Ormerod, The Metaphysical Muddle of Lawrence Krauss

The anxiety over contingency is nonetheless a valid anxiety because without some necessary being - such as God - the drive towards the intelligibility of the universe, which is the foundational drive of science, hits a brick wall with existence itself, which remains radically unintelligible, without explanation, unless it is related in some way to necessary being. — Neil Ormerod, The Metaphysical Muddle of Lawrence Krauss

This is exactly right - the universe is ultimately radically unintelligible and without explanation. I'm cool with that.

I am reminded of the well-known Bertrand Russell quote - ‘ Physics is mathematical not because we know so much about the physical world, but because we know so little; it is only its mathematical properties that we can discover.’

(I would prefer ‘measure’ to ‘discover’ but I’ll let it go.)

That's quite funny. I just finished the book where he says that. An Outline of Philosophy. It was extremely good even beyond comments of that type. I liked it better than his Human Knowledge

It's interesting that based on (for him) new physics, he describes the world in terms of events, not things.

I read HWP in the summer before starting philosophy classes. I noticed his comments on quantum physics in his concluding chapter - matter was becoming 'less material' (the chapter was, however, overall rather 'scientistic' in attitude.)

Actually I should mention, back in those days - late 70's - I gained entry to University as an adult entrant on the basis of a written exam, a large part of which was a comprehension test on, of all things, a long passage from Bertrand Russell's Mysticism and Logic. It was right up my street, and very much the core of what I then went on to study (not that any of the lecturers had any interest in such esoterica).

Yes. His philosophy was very much based on science. He says in this book "matter has become as ghostly as anything in a spiritualist séance."

Nevertheless, I wish more philosophers at that time in the history of physics would have written about the subject and its implications for philosophy at large. Not many of them did that, so far as I know. Though some of the founders of QM did. Still, Russell did pretty good work, but I do agree with you that he goes a bit too far into science for my tastes.

Which is why, although he can be obscure to the extreme, I've always liked Whitehead quite a bit. Even more than Russell in some aspects.

I can speculate a bit based on what we've talked about, but it's never been to clear to me how much science should play a role, say, in metaphysics. I think it should have a significant role to play, but I wouldn't base an entire ontology or a worldview on the scientific image...