h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Bod. Too much so. It would amount to coercion if God were to persuade us. That's why he sent a human to do it.

A universe is a domain where the same set of fundamental rules applies.

If Jupiter operated according to a different set of fundamental laws we couldn't observe it.

A phase transition, on the other hand, marks the boundary between domains where the same fundamental rules operate under different conditions, and results in different behaviour in the two domains. In a metaphorical sense the boundary between two or more religions could well be regarded as a form of phase transition.

Noggin

Hi Noggin.

Since, ex hypothesi, we can't have empirical evidence of the above, how is it known? Presumably from some theory.

Why does it follow that a slightly different law set region couldn't transmit light into our region? Let's suppose, for example, that the only difference is a slight one in the gravitational constant.

Researcher 234443
I'm with you there.
It's funny to me that in a debate about God fact or fiction, the first thing people discuss is the religions as if they had any answers that were positive, if they had this discussion would be pointless.

If the gravitational constant was subject to change, it wouldn't be a constant.

The question would then be "Does it vary in a rule governed way, or just at random?"

If the first, the variability is governed by a more fundamental rule - so no problem (philosophically speaking). If the second - big problem with the entire scientific and observational edifice. The interpretation of observations at a distance depends on the invariability of fundamental physical laws.

Noggin

Math
I think if you select anti biotics you also have to include every medical aid to health
you also might like to blame better nutrition for over population. for example in the 1700s puberty didn't occur until a person was 20, improve the nutrition of the population and we get puberty , and breedability at 12 and lower. So should we do away with good food?

Aiversity
ALL paths do lead to the top of the mountain including the fundamentals who have to have their path going through the horrors of rigid unthinking religiousity, so that 'next time around' they are much wiser after the experience.
I'm 'certain' at some point in my previous lives (chink... warning 'lunacy' alert) I had a very religious outlook and was persecuted for it. I can almost smell the bonfires and the torturers equipment and must have thought at the moment of dying "hang on this is isn't right and certainly not worth dying about in such a horrible manner.
now i wear no labels.

Mtah
Really the increase in population is not entirely due to the demon anti biotic, firstly third world countries hardly get their hands on them poors sods, and secondly many of them don't work anymore because of misuse.
This is obviously not the only reason for a poopulation explosion.
I don't use them myself, but wouldn't say no if i had some horrible death causing infection

"Tell me oh wise one, if a man is alone in a forest, and there is not a woman within twenty miles of him, is he still wrong?"
Well of course, always

Har, har. Nogg, I use 'constant' in a domain-relative way!



But might we not interpret observations to conclude that a given law is not, in fact, fundamental as we might have previously supposed? If not, surely we aren't doing it right!

Increased activity from regulars and newcomers ensures that old topics are now being explored in a new light, thus retaining my interest. Fnord out.
-m3

We might indeed, Toxx, but it's logically irrelevant.

The problem is a logical one relating to the function of rules qua rules, not one of the formal knowledge of what those rules are.

In the case under discussion F,G and m are reciprocally related, each being definable in terms of the other two. So if a body A crossed the domain boundary where G changed, F and m would change, too. But the reciprocal relation means that this could not be measured.

There is, in theory, only one fundamemental law (GUT). The four fundamental forces are merely this law operating in a low energy domain.

Noggin

In heaven, Catholics have their own room. Other religions must sneak past the door to this room in order not to disturb us. We are the only ones allowed in this room and we must not know that other religions are admitted into heaven. This is because Catholics believe that Catholics are the only people that go to heaven. Furthermore, only Catholics burn in hell. Hell is actually a nice place, except for the room where the Catholics are kept. The Catholics are forever tortured and tormented in this room while everyone else in hell lounges and drinks martinis and big fruity drinks with umbrellas in them. Why are the Catholics tortured in hell? Because we wanted it this way. It's in the bible.

Noggin. The case I suggested was light arriving from a region where G (assuming that is supposed to be the gravitational 'constant') is slightly different. Now, also assuming that your other symbols have their conventional meanings, the whole thing is irrelevant. Light is massless.

I'm not convinced that f and m are dependant on G anyway. Can you please clarify.

Cheers, Toxx.

Yes you did. But no it isn't.

The *measurement* of F and m is dependant on G being constant.

More to the point, if Jupiter and Earth are acting reciprocally on each other (gravitationally) what would it mean to say that they had different values of G?

The problem is that to postulate domain boundaries where the fundamental laws change *at random* is to postulate a boundary where information is totally destroyed. There *could* be such a boundary five meters away from you in every direction. But then what?

This is similar to Russell's argument that if you accept Creationism there is no reason to reject the idea that the universe was created five minutes ago.

Noggin

Why are we still talking about F and m. I only mentioned light. Anyway mass has no relationship to G. Weight yes, but not mass.

I would be at a loss if Jupiter and Earth were to have different values of G as I previously said. However, since we would have two constants rather than one, I don't see that information about, say, the colour of light would be totally destroyed. In fact, we'd notice the anomalous relocation of the sodium line in the spectrum, for example. So I'm not talking about random variation. That would be chaos.

We seem to have strayed a lot, Nogg. All I disagreed with was your assertion that we wouldn't be able to observe any system with different parameters. Now you seem to be saying that we wouldn't be able to make sense of the observations. I wasn't particularly interested in the latter point, but surely light from Jupiter would still be observable in your scenario.

Toxxin
>I hardly think an astronomer would agree with you. We have considerable knowledge of the solar system and a surprising amount from the most distant regions of the universe<

But, not observed.

If we extend our faith/logic arguing to physical atributes of other planets, then perhaps that is valid.

Has science determined what the core of Jupiter is made of? Neptune? These are real and physical occurances in our own lives, and we proceed on the belief systems of scientists. We will accept their theory on many things they have not observed. Scientists will admit they base their assumption on evidence available.

Hey, a few years back we couldn't even agree what Earths center was. That did not make science bad, just incomplete.

Same with religion...

diversity

Again, Tox

>Since, ex hypothesi, we can't have empirical evidence of the above, how is it known? Presumably from some theory.<

ex hypothesi
can't have emperical
evidence
presumably
some
theory

If you pour your observation through the above arranged set of sieves and filters, you will be left with a very thin liquid indeed. Certainly without enough left in it to sustain proof.

'Presume' and 'theory' alone suggest any residue should be refered to as 'faith'.

I can certainly see why Matho enjoys nature so much. You KNOW that's there!

diversity

Diversity. Thanks for your support. Yes, that's exactly what I meant by what you quote. So you too believe that Noggin's assertion was false. Cool.