Quite simply, we cannot deduce that physical determinism is eternally the case because we cannot prove without a reasonable doubt that the fundamental Laws of Physics which limit the outcomes of deterministic processes a priori do not or cannot change spontaneously over time. It necessarily follows that any scientific theories concerning the origin of the universe which are based in the notion that the Laws of Physics remain unchanged over time, are at best, speculative, for they are based in inductive reasoning and not deductive reasoning.
If there were evidence that they could change over time, the materialists would just cover it up so that they could maintain their materialistic and deterministic worldview. This has happened before. Your claim that there is “no evidence” for this is based in the fact that your sphere of knowledge is limited to fields of study which support your own materialistic and deterministic worldview.
The point I am trying to is that because scientific truths have the potential to change over time, they are not necessary truths, and therefore cannot be used as the basis for a serious philosophy, but only a speculative philosophy.
Also, not all truths are empirically observable, so there’s no point in saying that “because truth x cannot be verified empirically, that it cannot be true,” as you imply in your posts, for it may very well be the case that a proposition is true, and is necessary for an empirical truth, but cannot be verified empirically.
the question as to whether the laws of physics have the potential to change over time or not resides in the answer to the question as to whether they are contingent upon subjectivity or not. The answer to this question cannot be known scientifically.
Further, the existence of causality, beyond that of the determinism of the subjective will, is nothing but mere speculation. His is why we must ground our methodology in the category of modality; that is, the notion that “x is contingent upon y,” rather than the notion that “y causes x,” for it could very well be the case that x is caused by a transcendental entity which is not identical to x or y.
But of course, as evidenced by all of our previous conversations, all of this is beyond comprehension for you. So there is no point in discussing these points further. You’ll just copy and paste your prewritten opinions as responses and none of them will pertain to the points that I am actually making.
why do we not have reason to think that they change spontaneously over time, why, because you don’t know of any? does one have to perceive changing laws to contend that the laws can potentially change? are the laws eternal or not? The answer to my question lies in the answer to this question, but the answer to the question as to whether the laws of physics are eternal or not can it be discovered by means of empirical observation.
the question as to whether the laws of physics have the potential to change over time or not resides in the answer to the question as to whether they are contingent upon subjectivity or not. The answer to this question cannot be known scientifically.
Comments
Post a Comment