Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On Sunday, June 27, 2021 at 2:36:38 AM UTC+2 Bruce wrote: Much as I respect Russell, his book is not an authoritative source for > anything. It is all rampant speculation. > On the matter of the stability of laws and the connection with simplicity, > I refer you to the 'grue/bleen' paradox

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On Sat, Jun 26, 2021 at 7:31 PM Tomas Pales wrote: >> But the world is not stable. The universe looked very different 13 >> billion years ago than it does now because space is not only expanding, >> it's accelerating; and Black Holes evaporate eventually, they are not >> stable, and there are

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On Sat, Jun 26, 2021 at 7:43 AM Tomas Pales wrote: > *> this world is more simple if its regularities (such as laws of physics) > continue than if they are discontinued, and simple worlds are more likely > (more frequent in the collection of all possible worlds) than more complex > worlds. (A

ALCOR in the New York Times

The following article about ALCOR was on the front page of today's New York Times: The Cryonics Industry Would Like to Give You the Past Year, and Many More, Back It's a pretty good

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On Sunday, June 27, 2021 at 2:29:38 PM UTC+2 Bruce wrote: > > The problem with that is that it is dependent on the language in which you > express things. The string 'amcjdhapihrib;f' is quite comples. But I can > define Z = amcjdhapihrib;f', and Z is algorithmically much simpler. >

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On Sunday, June 27, 2021 at 3:53:18 AM UTC+2 Brent wrote: > > Notice that they don't exist in the sense you mean. Newton's laws aren't > around anymore. > By laws I mean regularities in nature. The apple still falls down and not up or in random directions, so the regularity exists like it

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On Sat, Jun 26, 2021, 6:39 PM Tomas Pales wrote: > > > On Saturday, June 26, 2021 at 7:26:01 PM UTC+2 Jason wrote: > >> Hi Tomas, >> >> The origin of laws, and why the universe follows them are great >> mysteries, but I think there's been some recent progess. I link to done >> other sources, in

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On Sat, Jun 26, 2021, 7:36 PM Bruce Kellett wrote: > On Sun, Jun 27, 2021 at 10:20 AM Tomas Pales wrote: > >> On Sunday, June 27, 2021 at 1:54:29 AM UTC+2 Bruce wrote: >> >>> >>> How do you know that? Or is it just an arbitrary assumption? If it is >>> just an assumption, your initial question

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On Sat, Jun 26, 2021, 8:53 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > > On 6/26/2021 4:41 PM, Tomas Pales wrote: > > > > On Saturday, June 26, 2021 at 11:36:47 PM UTC+2 Brent wrote: > >> >> But presumably the *laws *are stable. Why? Because that's the

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On Sun, Jun 27, 2021 at 7:49 PM Tomas Pales wrote: > On Sunday, June 27, 2021 at 3:53:18 AM UTC+2 Brent wrote: > >> >> Notice that they don't exist in the sense you mean. Newton's laws aren't >> around anymore. >> > > By laws I mean regularities in nature. The apple still falls down and not >

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On Sun, Jun 27, 2021 at 10:18 PM Tomas Pales wrote: > On Sunday, June 27, 2021 at 1:21:32 PM UTC+2 Bruce wrote: > >> On Sun, Jun 27, 2021 at 7:38 PM Tomas Pales wrote: >> >>> On Sunday, June 27, 2021 at 2:36:38 AM UTC+2 Bruce wrote: >>> >>> Much as I respect Russell, his book is not an

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On Sunday, June 27, 2021 at 2:44:31 PM UTC+2 johnk...@gmail.com wrote: > > I suppose in that way the fundamental laws of physics can be thought of as > data compression algorithms > Yes, and this makes a universe more simple and therefore more likely than a universe without laws. -- You

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On Sun, Jun 27, 2021 at 7:38 PM Tomas Pales wrote: > On Sunday, June 27, 2021 at 2:36:38 AM UTC+2 Bruce wrote: > > Much as I respect Russell, his book is not an authoritative source for >> anything. It is all rampant speculation. >> On the matter of the stability of laws and the connection with

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On Sunday, June 27, 2021 at 1:21:32 PM UTC+2 Bruce wrote: > On Sun, Jun 27, 2021 at 7:38 PM Tomas Pales wrote: > >> On Sunday, June 27, 2021 at 2:36:38 AM UTC+2 Bruce wrote: >> >> Much as I respect Russell, his book is not an authoritative source for >>> anything. It is all rampant

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On Sunday, June 27, 2021 at 1:24:41 PM UTC+2 Bruce wrote: > > Induction does not work. > So there is no reason to expect that the sun will rise tomorrow? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On Sun, Jun 27, 2021 at 10:19 PM Tomas Pales wrote: > On Sunday, June 27, 2021 at 1:24:41 PM UTC+2 Bruce wrote: > >> >> Induction does not work. >> > > So there is no reason to expect that the sun will rise tomorrow? > Our confidence that the sun will rise tomorrow is not based on any

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On Sunday, June 27, 2021 at 2:30:56 PM UTC+2 Bruce wrote: > > Our confidence that the sun will rise tomorrow is not based on any > induction from a large number of previously observed sunrises. > What is it based on then? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On 6/27/2021 2:49 AM, Tomas Pales wrote: On Sunday, June 27, 2021 at 3:53:18 AM UTC+2 Brent wrote: Notice that they don't exist in the sense you mean. Newton's laws aren't around anymore. By laws I mean regularities in nature. The apple still falls down and not up or in random

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On 6/27/2021 5:18 AM, Tomas Pales wrote: On Sunday, June 27, 2021 at 1:21:32 PM UTC+2 Bruce wrote: On Sun, Jun 27, 2021 at 7:38 PM Tomas Pales wrote: On Sunday, June 27, 2021 at 2:36:38 AM UTC+2 Bruce wrote: Much as I respect Russell, his book is not an

Re: Rudy Giuliani's law license has been suspended

Understood and this is fine. We agree on nothing and like all democrats you loyally follow your DNC fuhrer's in their money-taking from China-bribed boards of directors. No problem.  -Original Message- From: 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent:

Re: Rudy Giuliani's law license has been suspended

On Sun, Jun 27, 2021 at 1:28 PM wrote: * > Roosevelt died shortly before its end in April 1945, and 13 million > men and women were in the military from 1941-1946. This kind of skews your > big blue stripe.* > I don't know how you figured that, they were gainfully employed and their employer

Re: Rudy Giuliani's law license has been suspended

Like you John I lived thru some of those years. The most obvious thing with Roosevelt for instance I notice was the historians observation that it wasn't the Civilian Conservation Corp that ended the Great Depression but WW2 with , Roosevelt died shortly before its end in  April 1945, and 13

RE: Why are laws of physics stable?

[Philip Benjamin] A representation of reality is not REALITY itself. Atoms are complex structures. "Positive" protons do not repel each other within the nucleus, nor areelectrons drawn into nucleus. How did that "highly informed" complexity arise? Moreover the question of "aseity" of atomic

Re: Rudy Giuliani's law license has been suspended

I figure it because statistics were accurate during FDR's final term, the CCC only helped unemployed somewhat, and that according to every historian what ended the Great Depression was the Second World War, something I think you had familiarity with? 11 million males in uniform, so no

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On Sun, Jun 27, 2021 at 2:34 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > > On 6/27/2021 2:49 AM, Tomas Pales wrote: > > > On Sunday, June 27, 2021 at 3:53:18 AM UTC+2 Brent wrote: > >> >> Notice that they don't exist in the sense you mean. Newton's laws

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On Sun, Jun 27, 2021, 5:34 PM Bruce Kellett wrote: > On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 12:08 AM Tomas Pales wrote: > >> On Sunday, June 27, 2021 at 2:29:38 PM UTC+2 Bruce wrote: >> >>> >>> The problem with that is that it is dependent on the language in which >>> you express things. The string

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 8:50 AM Jason Resch wrote: > On Sun, Jun 27, 2021, 5:38 PM Bruce Kellett wrote: > >> On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 12:10 AM Tomas Pales >> wrote: >> >>> On Sunday, June 27, 2021 at 2:30:56 PM UTC+2 Bruce wrote: >>> Our confidence that the sun will rise tomorrow is

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 8:58 AM Jason Resch wrote: > On Sun, Jun 27, 2021, 5:34 PM Bruce Kellett wrote: > >> On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 12:08 AM Tomas Pales >> wrote: >> >>> On Sunday, June 27, 2021 at 2:29:38 PM UTC+2 Bruce wrote: >>> The problem with that is that it is dependent on

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On Sunday, June 27, 2021 at 10:12:23 PM UTC+2 Brent wrote: > > > On 6/27/2021 5:18 AM, Tomas Pales wrote: > > No, atoms are more simple than ducks, and atoms are also more frequent > than ducks because there are atoms in every duck but there is no duck in an > atom. However, it seems that

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On 6/27/2021 4:13 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Jun 27, 2021, 6:03 PM Bruce Kellett > wrote: On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 8:58 AM Jason Resch mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com>> wrote: On Sun, Jun 27, 2021, 5:34 PM Bruce Kellett

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On Sun, Jun 27, 2021, 8:09 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > > On 6/27/2021 4:13 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Sun, Jun 27, 2021, 6:03 PM Bruce Kellett wrote: > >> On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 8:58 AM Jason Resch wrote: >> >>> On Sun, Jun 27,

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On Sun, Jun 27, 2021, 7:04 PM Tomas Pales wrote: > > On Sunday, June 27, 2021 at 10:56:33 PM UTC+2 Jason wrote: > >> >> By chance I was just reading this: >> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286624424_My_8_Big_Ideas by >> Zuboff, and in it he shows how to justify induction through a

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 12:08 AM Tomas Pales wrote: > On Sunday, June 27, 2021 at 2:29:38 PM UTC+2 Bruce wrote: > >> >> The problem with that is that it is dependent on the language in which >> you express things. The string 'amcjdhapihrib;f' is quite comples. But I >> can define Z =

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On Sun, Jun 27, 2021, 6:03 PM Bruce Kellett wrote: > On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 8:58 AM Jason Resch wrote: > >> On Sun, Jun 27, 2021, 5:34 PM Bruce Kellett >> wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 12:08 AM Tomas Pales >>> wrote: >>> On Sunday, June 27, 2021 at 2:29:38 PM UTC+2 Bruce wrote:

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On Sunday, June 27, 2021 at 10:56:33 PM UTC+2 Jason wrote: > > By chance I was just reading this: > https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286624424_My_8_Big_Ideas by > Zuboff, and in it he shows how to justify induction through a priori > reasoning: > > "By the same reasoning > as above,

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 12:10 AM Tomas Pales wrote: > On Sunday, June 27, 2021 at 2:30:56 PM UTC+2 Bruce wrote: > >> >> Our confidence that the sun will rise tomorrow is not based on any >> induction from a large number of previously observed sunrises. >> > > What is it based on then? >

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On 6/27/2021 1:56 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Jun 27, 2021 at 2:34 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: On 6/27/2021 2:49 AM, Tomas Pales wrote: On Sunday, June 27, 2021 at 3:53:18 AM UTC+2 Brent wrote: Notice that

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On Sun, Jun 27, 2021, 5:38 PM Bruce Kellett wrote: > On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 12:10 AM Tomas Pales wrote: > >> On Sunday, June 27, 2021 at 2:30:56 PM UTC+2 Bruce wrote: >> >>> >>> Our confidence that the sun will rise tomorrow is not based on any >>> induction from a large number of previously

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On Sun, Jun 27, 2021, 6:01 PM Bruce Kellett wrote: > On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 8:50 AM Jason Resch wrote: > >> On Sun, Jun 27, 2021, 5:38 PM Bruce Kellett >> wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 12:10 AM Tomas Pales >>> wrote: >>> On Sunday, June 27, 2021 at 2:30:56 PM UTC+2 Bruce wrote:

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On Monday, June 28, 2021 at 1:01:14 AM UTC+2 Bruce wrote: > 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. And there is nothing in prospect to maintain

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On 6/27/2021 5:00 PM, Tomas Pales wrote: On Sunday, June 27, 2021 at 10:12:23 PM UTC+2 Brent wrote: On 6/27/2021 5:18 AM, Tomas Pales wrote: No, atoms are more simple than ducks, and atoms are also more frequent than ducks because there are atoms in every duck but there is

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 10:11 AM Tomas Pales wrote: > On Monday, June 28, 2021 at 1:01:14 AM UTC+2 Bruce wrote: > >> 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

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On Sun, Jun 27, 2021, 10:30 PM Bruce Kellett wrote: > On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 9:06 AM Jason Resch wrote: > >> On Sun, Jun 27, 2021, 6:01 PM Bruce Kellett >> wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 8:50 AM Jason Resch >>> wrote: >>> What is your assumption that the conservation of

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 2:34 PM Jason Resch wrote: > On Sun, Jun 27, 2021, 10:35 PM Bruce Kellett > wrote: > >> On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 10:11 AM Tomas Pales >> wrote: >> >>> On Monday, June 28, 2021 at 1:01:14 AM UTC+2 Bruce wrote: >>> One can have confidence in the continuation of

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 2:30 PM Jason Resch wrote: > On Sun, Jun 27, 2021, 10:30 PM Bruce Kellett > wrote: > >> On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 9:06 AM Jason Resch wrote: >> >>> >>> I don't fear it suddenly changing, but it's valid to ask why we should >>> not fear it, or: why is the probability

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On 6/27/2021 6:19 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Jun 27, 2021, 8:09 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: On 6/27/2021 4:13 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Jun 27, 2021, 6:03 PM Bruce Kellett mailto:bhkellet...@gmail.com>>

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 9:06 AM Jason Resch wrote: > On Sun, Jun 27, 2021, 6:01 PM Bruce Kellett wrote: > >> On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 8:50 AM Jason Resch wrote: >> >>> >>> What is your assumption that the conservation of angular momentum will >>> continue to hold throughout the night based on?

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On Sun, Jun 27, 2021, 10:35 PM Bruce Kellett wrote: > On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 10:11 AM Tomas Pales wrote: > >> On Monday, June 28, 2021 at 1:01:14 AM UTC+2 Bruce wrote: >> >>> One can have confidence in the continuation of angular momentum >>> conservation because there is nothing in prospect