3 ms·
Saying "X is true because otherwise, it would be quite a shocker" isn't really a proof. It's almost an appeal to common sense. (which, admittedly, is often the
by hnfong 3y ago
Saying "X is true because otherwise, it would be quite a shocker" isn't really a proof.
It's almost an appeal to common sense. (which, admittedly, is often the best argument we have). IMHO there's often a bit of over-confidence among scientists about the universe being 13 billion years old and what happened during the Big Bang, if it just relies on such a common sense argument.
I know it's unscientific to suggest maybe laws of physics are not time invariant across such scales, because until we have a time machine we can't test this theory, but then flipping the argument (that laws of physics are definitely time invariant) is also technically unscientific -- we're basically assuming this without strong evidence.
This goes back to the old debate on the problem of induction in science, (see David Hume, Karl Popper, etc.) and I think it isn't emphasized enough in modern discussions that, perhaps, there's a small chance that these foundational concepts in physics could be invalid.
- Veserv 3y agoI did not present proof. They asked what it would mean and a consequence of physical laws not being time invariant would be that energy does not need to be conserved. To the extent that relates to epistemology that would be more like anti-proof I guess? It does not prove that the laws are time invariant, rather it raises the bar to demonstrate that the laws are not time invariant because that means energy need not be conserved. You can not get one without the other without attacking even deeper fundamentals of modern scientific models. So you must either demonstrate the linked claims, which are pretty foundational themselves, or you must overturn basically everything; both of which demand very robust evidence.