On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 6:07 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < [email protected]> wrote:
> > > On 5/10/2019 8:17 AM, Jason Resch wrote: > > If the theory is to make any sense, any reference to "the universe" must >> be consistent with every other reference to "the universe". >> >> >> Einstein's paper on special relativity begins with one concept of time, > and by the end of the paper refines it to a more accurate conception of > time. I don't think this is any different. Here we start with a > conventional meaning of "physical universe", and by the end we show how the > reasoning leads to a more refined concept of universe. > > > The difference is that we don't credence Einstein's theory because of some > argument, we accept it because it made some surprising predictions which > were empirically verified. > Do you have another theory that can explain why we have: - Simple physical laws that are probabilistic - Persistent regularities - An external world that contains the observer - Inter-subjective agreement on physical laws - Subjective immortality - Simple initial conditions - Observation of a universe that evolves in time - Observation of a universe with an absolute beginning in time ? Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUhAWXubGg%2BkBrpeC92BMC0ZNefN%2B07wj%3DwTMRz1YrRGHA%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
