Alexiev wrote: ↑Fri Jan 31, 2025 12:13 am
BigMike wrote: ↑Thu Jan 30, 2025 9:45 am
Alexiev, this is where your argument completely
Alexiev, this is where your argument completely collapses under the weight of its own misunderstanding. Your claim that "existence governs the principles" is an empty abstraction that doesn’t actually mean anything. It’s just
wordplay meant to make a simple concept seem more profound than it is. Let’s strip away the rhetorical nonsense and get to the core of the issue.
Scientific principles don’t just "describe" reality as if they are arbitrary human inventions; they are derived from consistent, repeatable observations of how the universe actually works. The conservation laws and the four fundamental interactions—gravity, electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force, and the weak nuclear force—aren’t just convenient descriptors; they are the
framework within which everything happens. They are not external "laws" imposed on the universe; they are the fundamental constraints that shape
what is physically possible.
You are repeating the obvious. Everyone knows that this is the current scientific orthodoxy. Everyone also knows (as I wrote earlier) that if anyone could provide examples disproving this orthodoxy, the "principles" would change -- just as they have many times in the past. Doubt is the beginning of wisdom, as Einstein demonstrated when he doubted time is a constant.
My objections are not "poetic". They are logical. Inductive scientific evidence does not constitute proof. Any freshman logic course could so inform you.
let’s address your ridiculous mischaracterization of my position as "quasi-religious." You’re implying that accepting the fundamental structure of the universe as governing reality is akin to saying "the law precedes the universe." But I never said the laws predate existence itself—only that they define the structure within which all existence operates. That’s a massive difference, and one you’re either unwilling or incapable of understanding
.
I'm doing no such thing. Instead, I'm saying that your faith in current scientific orthodoxy is unjustified by the history of science, just as religious orthodoxy is unjustified. You are so invested in your rather pedestrian and insignificant theory that you fail to doubt or question. This failure is illogical and unscientific.
If you want to challenge this, do what no one arguing your side ever seems able to do: point to a single verifiable, reproducible example of something occurring outside of these fundamental principles. If you can’t, then all you’re doing is throwing up vague, pseudo-philosophical nonsense to avoid confronting the reality that everything—everything—obeys the deterministic structure of nature.
So, let’s be clear: either these principles govern existence, meaning nothing happens outside their domain, or you provide actual evidence of something that does. If you can’t, then what you’re really doing is engaging in intellectual smoke and mirrors—pretending that poetic abstractions are an argument when they are, in fact, nothing but empty noise.
You keep repeating yourself as if you have never read or understood anything I've written. Nobody could demonstrate that time was relative, until 115 years ago. Was time a constant until it proved otherwise? Or was the scientific orthodoxy incorrect?
I wouldn't object to your theories about determinism except that your pompous expectation that they are valuable is nonsense. What good is Determinism if it doesn't help us determine things? Of course scientists often can accurately predict: bravo! However, since we can't predict what choices individuals will make, determinism is worthless and irrelevant regarding "choice", even if, someday, this might change.
Alexiev, your entire response boils down to
vague skepticism for its own sake, without actually offering an alternative or a counterexample. You’re just throwing out
science was wrong before as if that automatically invalidates current knowledge. That’s not an argument—it’s a
cop-out.
Yes, scientific understanding evolves. But it evolves
through evidence, not through aimless doubt. The principle of relativity didn’t emerge from someone just
insisting that time might not be constant—it came from
empirical inconsistencies in Newtonian mechanics that led to testable, repeatable discoveries.
So, let’s get to the heart of your deflection:
- If fundamental scientific principles have changed, it’s because
we found empirical reasons to change them—not because someone just philosophized them away.
- If you want to challenge determinism,
point to a single empirical event that violates the conservation laws or the four fundamental interactions.
- Until then, your “doubt” isn’t the beginning of wisdom—it’s the
end of engagement with reality.
And as for your last bit of hand-waving—
determinism is irrelevant if we can’t predict choices? That’s a complete misunderstanding. Determinism isn’t about
human-level predictability; it’s about
cause and effect being absolute at all levels. Just because we don’t have the computational power to predict every neuron firing in your brain doesn’t mean they aren’t
determined by prior states. Your inability to predict something doesn’t make it free.
