4 ms·
This isn't an argument that should convince anyone unless we both have a theory of everything and you want to then enumerate every possible variable involved. A
by guerrilla 4y ago
This isn't an argument that should convince anyone unless we both have a theory of everything and you want to then enumerate every possible variable involved. Any ignorance would leave a gap. The Bekenstein bound mentioned in the other comment though demonstrates that the approach isn't even necessary to come to the same conclusion though (as far as I can tell anyway.)
- BlueTemplar 4y agoThat doesn't seem reasonable to me : we do not need to preface every statement with "with our current understanding of physics", this goes without saying. We might never get a "theory of everything", and we shouldn't assume the existence of new physical properties without any other reason to do so, this goes against the principle of parsimony ! (Especially continuous ones, none of which seem to exist for now !) And if our understanding of physics does change, it could have other dramatic consequences - that Bekenstein bound might not be valid any more for instance...
- guerrilla 4y agoWe're not assuming the existence of such physical properties. We're also not assuming the inexistence of such physical properties. That's the point. You're making a leap based on no evidence. I'm making no such commitment and your arguments shouldn't convince anyone to make that leap with you. Worse, you want to use this unfounded leap to claim we know something else. It's terrible epistemology. It turns out we do know that other fact, but certainly not by following you down your unsound road.