3 ms·

> The worldview characterized by an axiomatic belief in the time invariance of physical laws. It is contrasted by creationism, which posits non-differentiable p

> The worldview characterized by an axiomatic belief in the time invariance of physical laws. It is contrasted by creationism, which posits non-differentiable physical behaviors. LOL. You’re just cargo culting philosophy now, with a thin veneer of sciencey-sounding jargon. 1) An axiom is not an article of faith, it’s something on which we build a theory. Euclid’s axioms are invalid in quite a few situations and nobody loses any sleep about it. 2) The opposite of “the laws of physics never change” is “the laws of Physics can change”, not “god did it”. People would be very interested if you proved that Physics is not invariant with respect to time, because it would mean that energy is not conserved and it would open massive possibilities from a theoretical point of view. That would be much more impactful than most Nobel prizes in the last 60-odd years. 3) There is plenty of “non-differentiable physical behaviour” with invariant laws of Physics. No need for any creator. > There’s a middle ground of accepting the possibility of differentiable but non-constant mechanisms that should technically be owned by the evolutionists You fail to even allude to what this middle ground would be. Science itself would be fine with the time invariant being violated. A lot of laws we now know would be wrong, but science itself would not have any more problem than when we realised that the Galilean transformation of velocities was not actually true. Also, “differentiable but non-constant mechanisms” is just meaningless babble. > but this is a rarely embraced territory For a simple reason: it is a straw man and nobody actually believes what you are attacking (mostly because it is meaningless). > you get neither the warm fuzzies of belief in a God who specially designed you, nor the cool satisfaction of a belief in making observations about the universe now and scaling/time-inverting them to speak confidently about the distant past and future. You seem to be assuming that everyone shares your philosophical system, just swapping “science” for “god”. It is not the case. We do not need warm fuzzies or cool satisfaction. And we do not get any particular pleasure from the fact that any god that is not simply a hands-off creator is exceedingly implausible. You believe in whatever you tant to, and it’s fine. Do not assume that we are like you are.

explaininjs 2y ago
1. I mean axioms we take as fact when establishing a world view. 2. It can’t be proven that they are time invariant, that’s what you take on belief. 3. That’s not what I’m referring to. I’m referring to the laws themselves suddenly changing, not the state of a given particle suddenly changing. If you don’t understand point 3 there’s not much more to say. If you did you’d understand a lot of the other things you don’t at the moment, for instance what it might mean for a function to be differentiable but not constant. Contrast G changing over spacetime as can be described by a differentiable function vs a constant vs stepwise at the will of the creator.
mistermann 2y ago
> Science itself would be fine with... When you say "science", do you include scientists? If not, how does "science" accomplish anything? And if so, history is filled with numerous instances of scientists "not being fine with" (to put it nicely) ideas that conflict with their beliefs (which are often perceived as, and asserted as, facts). > We do not need warm fuzzies or cool satisfaction. And we do not get any particular pleasure from the fact that any god that is not simply a hands-off creator is exceedingly implausible. In science, are things like omniscience &/or mind reading possible? Because I encounter "scientific thinkers" (daily) and actual practicing scientists (frequently) who make explicit, unironic assertions like this about what their brethren do, and believe, and how they think (perfectly), and numerous other literally unknowable things (the future, for one example, counterfactual reality, for another). I wonder: could it be possible that subscribing to (or being subscribed to) a relatively high quality (yet flawed) metaphysical system doesn't render one perfectly rational? I also wonder: could something more powerful than science displace it as King of The Throne, considering the psychological grip it has on people (including government, academia, and the media, three of the most powerful reality synchronizers)? Could something do to science, what science did to religion? And if so: what might that be?

explaininjs 2y ago

1. I mean axioms we take as fact when establishing a world view. 2. It can’t be proven that they are time invariant, that’s what you take on belief. 3. That’s not what I’m referring to. I’m referring to the laws themselves suddenly changing, not the state of a given particle suddenly changing. If you don’t understand point 3 there’s not much more to say. If you did you’d understand a lot of the other things you don’t at the moment, for instance what it might mean for a function to be differentiable but not constant. Contrast G changing over spacetime as can be described by a differentiable function vs a constant vs stepwise at the will of the creator.

mistermann 2y ago

> Science itself would be fine with... When you say "science", do you include scientists? If not, how does "science" accomplish anything? And if so, history is filled with numerous instances of scientists "not being fine with" (to put it nicely) ideas that conflict with their beliefs (which are often perceived as, and asserted as, facts). > We do not need warm fuzzies or cool satisfaction. And we do not get any particular pleasure from the fact that any god that is not simply a hands-off creator is exceedingly implausible. In science, are things like omniscience &/or mind reading possible? Because I encounter "scientific thinkers" (daily) and actual practicing scientists (frequently) who make explicit, unironic assertions like this about what their brethren do, and believe, and how they think (perfectly), and numerous other literally unknowable things (the future, for one example, counterfactual reality, for another). I wonder: could it be possible that subscribing to (or being subscribed to) a relatively high quality (yet flawed) metaphysical system doesn't render one perfectly rational? I also wonder: could something more powerful than science displace it as King of The Throne, considering the psychological grip it has on people (including government, academia, and the media, three of the most powerful reality synchronizers)? Could something do to science, what science did to religion? And if so: what might that be?