Well, if it means that, I don't agree. It is physically impossible for anything to travel faster than light. But it is logically possible. Do you also think there is nothing physically impossible about anyone jumping 100 feet into the air? How about 1,000 feet into the air? I asked you before, do you think there is a distinction between "logically impossible" and "physically impossible". Now let me define those two terms for you: "logically impossible" = entails a contradiction. "physically impossible" = is inconsistent with a law of physics. You don't see a distinction between those two terms?

It is true that it does not happen that something travel faster than light. You don't think there is an explanation for why that is true? (Remember, that we do not know, or even that there is, no explanation for that explanation, does not imply that there is no explanation for the speed of light. Why should it?).

Science does not merely tell you that something happens, it tells you why what happens, happens. It gives us explanations.

Well, if it means that, I don't agree. It is physically impossible for anything to travel faster than light. But it is logically possible. Do you also think there is nothing physically impossible about anyone jumping 100 feet into the air? How about 1,000 feet into the air? I asked you before, do you think there is a distinction between "logically impossible" and "physically impossible". Now let me define those two terms for you: "logically impossible" = entails a contradiction. "physically impossible" = is inconsistent with a law of physics. You don't see a distinction between those two terms?

It is true that it does not happen that something travel faster than light. You don't think there is an explanation for why that is true? (Remember, that we do not know, or even that there is, no explanation for that explanation, does not imply that there is no explanation for the speed of light. Why should it?).

Science does not merely tell you that something happens, it tells you why what happens, happens. It gives us explanations.

the only problem I have with that is that I don't see why I should think that the laws are what they are by necessity. I see why things under or governed by the law are and happen a certain way by necessity because of the laws but I see no reason to believe the laws themselves were born out of necessity.

I see no particular reason to assume that having the laws be something else would be contradictory.

Which is why I prefer, given the choice between chance(what we've discussed in this thread mostly), necessity, or design, I tend to side with design. As the other 2 options just seem more implausible with chance being more implausible than necessity.

maybe you could explain why you think the laws are what they are out of necessity. Meaning they could be no other way

Pyrrho;146855 wrote:

What makes you believe that it never happens that things go faster than the speed of light?

Again, that's just a matter of inductive reasoning. A simple version would go like this:

1. All observed crows are black.
2. Therefore all crows are black.

In the case of relativity it's a bit more complicated:

1. All observed accelerations use energy such as that an acceleration of faster than the speed of light would use infinite energy.
2. All observed mechanisms for producing energy produce only finite energy.
3. Therefore nothing ever accelerates faster than the speed of light.
...

the only problem I have with that is that I don't see why I should think that the laws are what they are by necessity. I see why things under or governed by the law are and happen a certain way by necessity because of the laws but I see no reason to believe the laws themselves were born out of necessity.

I see no particular reason to assume that having the laws be something else would be contradictory. (ADDED Of course then for all I know there is some superset of physical laws such that it would be, but then again that just moves the question back about why those laws are what they are)

Which is why I prefer, given the choice between chance(what we've discussed in this thread mostly....well sort of.....we've kind of been debating whether the laws even exist at all or not actually), necessity, or design, I tend to side with design. As the other 2 options just seem more implausible with chance being more implausible than necessity.

maybe you could explain why you think the laws are what they are out of necessity. Meaning they could be no other way

But you do not observe accelerations using energy.

What reason could you possibly have for supposing that other things, which are different from any experience that anyone has had, will conform to such a formula?

If we are randomly selecting from all possible randomly configured worlds then there are plenty of possible worlds that are predictable but still random.

No. There are plenty of possible worlds that are (and will always be) regular but still random. But they are not predictable. It is impossible to tell, from a viewpoint within a random but hitherto regular universe, whether it will continue to be regular or not. Perhaps we are living in one of those universes that will be forever regular; but there is no way of knowing this. Regularity does not imply predictability. A universe can be random and regular (by chance), but it cannot be random and predictable.

I am not impressed with the argument for induction in a random universe. In such a universe, induction will do no worse than any other strategy for predicting the future; but there is no reason to suppose it will do any better either. And, since induction and non-induction are equally good in themselves, other factors may weigh in the balance.

For example, suppose you are relaxing on the grass and see a snake approaching you, of a type you recognise as poisonous in the past. If all events are random, you have little reason to fear the snake; of all the logically possible courses of events, only a tiny minority involve your being bitten and poisoned (and there are some in which the snake actually does you good). And you are happy lying on the grass, and do not wish to go to the trouble of getting up and moving away (and anyway, something bad might randomly occur if you did). So it is rational for you to take no action and stay where you are.

But in real life you would move, wouldn't you?

I would move because I accept induction. See above.

Of all the logically possible universes I am in, I may be in one where that snake is poisonous but random guessing doesn't give me any better odds at being right and induction can possibly even give me better odds if I'm lucky enough to be in a universe where the regularity continues.

The rational choice is to rely on induction.

it seems to me that relying on induction in the manner in which you suggest in this example is to assume that you are wrong about random chance.

For in a random world no weight can(nor should) be given whatsoever to previous examples....thus induction is worthless

If the random world we are in is one in which the regularity will continue then examining the past regularity and projecting it forward in time will work. If the random world we are in is one in which the regularity will not continue then examining the past regularity and projecting it forward is no better and no worse than random guessing.

If the random world we are in is one in which the regularity will continue then examining the past regularity and projecting it forward in time will work. If the random world we are in is one in which the regularity will not continue then examining the past regularity and projecting it forward is no better and no worse than random guessing.

OK let me attempt to make an appeal to your statistical side. . . . .let's say I have a program that's only job is to print the number 5 over and over again once per second for an entire day.

according to Google there are 86,400 seconds in a day...

now let us also assume that the only things that exist are the number 5 and the number 4 such that those are the only possible outputs of our program

upon running the program sure enough I get 86,400 straight 5's


in a world governed by laws of nature and causality the odds of this occurring are 1 in 1 or 100%. There's no way for it not to happen


now in a world which is random but "acts" regular the odds would be 1 in (2)^86,400 which equates to,
according to my calculator, 1.02*10^-26009%.

we're talking 0.0 followed by another 26,007 more zeros followed by 102%.

now for all practical purposes that is zero. Obviously it's not impossible but it's so overwhelmingly unlikely that it is unreasonable to think it could be random.

Having seen this, imagine applying this to the entire universe of events and variables. The odds cannot even be calculated.

Now, in what way can any reasonable person maintain that our world is random and simply defying impossible odds vs. maintaining a world governed by laws where the odds(of such things like my example) are 1 in 1?

This is why I think the random view is implausible.....not impossible obviously just implausible.....agree?

Great point. I agree with you. The only problem is that your analysis is incomplete. Your own belief in necessary laws falls under the same criticism. You are replacing the question of "why these regularities" with "why these laws". Then either you have to appeal to them simply being in place randomly (brute facts) or you have to explain the existence of laws in further terms of "laws of the laws" and so on forever. Since you claim that random existence is so unlikely it looks like you are in for an infinite regress of laws of laws of laws and so on.

I agreed with you until you said "and so on forever" and on into your entire last sentence.

Just as a starting point we can, at least, accept that the laws are there(or at least more likely to be there than to not be there), which at least answers questions about our own universe in the most plausible way.

The question of how the laws got there is the real mystery(at least to some). But it's generally thought there are only 3 ways: Chance, Necessity, or Design. If someone has another means I'm listening.

Now given that we are again left to ask, 'which is more plausible?"

The only options you have left are.

1. An infinite chain of necessary laws.
2. A random universe with extremely improbable regularities.

So, I would say that (2) is more plausible because (1) seems even more absurd.

I love how your saying an infinite chain of necessary laws but you're NOT saying an infinite chain of random universes with improbable regularities.

We have good reasons for thinking the universe had a beginning which means it had to begin to exist. Given this we can't have an infinite chain of necessary laws anymore than we can have an infinite chain of worlds that operate by random improbability . We can't anything infinite(in the material world).

There was not an infinite chain of events...it doesn't make sense metaphysically, it doesn't make sense in any sense. There was a definite beginning. There cannot be an infinite regress.

I'm not a proponent of necessity either for the record

I don't need an infinite chain. I'm the one that's biting the bullet and saying it just is the way it is. If you are saying the laws are just the way they are then you're no better off.