On Sun, Jun 27, 2021, 10:30 PM Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 9:06 AM Jason Resch <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Sun, Jun 27, 2021, 6:01 PM Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 8:50 AM Jason Resch <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> What is your assumption that the conservation of angular momentum will >>>> continue to hold throughout the night based on? >>>> >>> >>> >>> Largely on symmetry. The conservation of angular momentum is related, by >>> Noether's theorem, to the isotropy of space -- largely its rotational >>> symmetry. One can have confidence in the continuation of angular momentum >>> conservation because there is nothing in prospect that will spoil this >>> symmetry -- the rotational invariance of space. >>> >>> You cannot, of course, rule out the idea that the universe will suddenly >>> become random, and symmetries will no longer obtain. If you want to worry >>> about that possibility, feel free, but don't bother me with your paranoia. >>> >> >> I don't fear it suddenly changing, but it's valid to ask why we should >> not fear it, or: why is the probability deemed low that the laws will stop >> working? >> > > > It is not really possible to give a probability estimate for things like > this because we have no data on which we could base such an estimate. > We can propose distributions and test them by comparing the predictions against current observations. The general working assumption is that things will continue as they are > unless there is some underlying instability or some external cause of > change. We have no evidence for any such instability in the nature of > space, or of the conservation laws. > This stability is what we should try to explain. You spoke of begging the question earlier. Here you are saying we should believe it is that way because we assume it is that way. This is essentially Newton's first law writ large. > > > Since empiricism is not logically required in the set of logically >> possible worlds, it is then a phenomenon we should try to explain. >> > > > Why should we ever be led to consider the set of all logically possible > worlds? I doubt that such a set can ever be well-defined. Current evidence > is against the existence of these other worlds -- we have evidence only for > our world. > What evidence is there that this is the only universe? I can think of many theories and findings that suggest there are many, but I don't know if one piece of evidence suggesting there's only one. Jason > Bruce > > >> I admire Tomas for questioning something many scientists might take as a >> given. >> >> 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 view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLT0YRe9VQo_fdFJJvV3c-Ndoa81MOA1gUe4Emr4QV94pQ%40mail.gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLT0YRe9VQo_fdFJJvV3c-Ndoa81MOA1gUe4Emr4QV94pQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUh%3DWXbBxxt6B6vOUMJ-0c2p6NwKAzVjMC81rcQ1-jzrKA%40mail.gmail.com.
