What happens here must happen there

[WHR]

Assumptions are what drive modern Mainstream science. Not all assumptions need be false, but invariably some will be.

 

We know that within the boundaries of the observable universe, everything pretty much acts according to laws that a certain species of primates on a little blue ball has marveled at figuring out.

 

But what compels us to believe this MUST be true elsewhere? I grant that without being able to observe anything else, it's all we have. However, if I had been born in a prison cell and been fed beans and rice all my life by an unknown prison keeper,, I might believe that beans and rice were the only available foods, that I and my prisoner were the only people, and that if other people existed, they must also live in prison cells and have a prison keeper.

 

This reminds me of the interesting story of Kasper Hauser

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaspar_Hauser

 

An ant living in confines of a geographical area and with his colony would have a limited worldview. He may be surprised to know that some places in the world have snow, and that building an anthill is impossible. He may be shocked to know that some places have an abundance of sand for anthill construction. He might be very shocked at how different everything is.

 

Even grains of minerals in a geological strata, if they were animate, might be shocked at other species of minerals that exist in strata that it would not have the ability to interact.

 

There are a lot of completely logical examples that say that what happens here need not be the rule there. This is particularly true if you assume an infinity big universe.

 

Let the "you haven't got a clue" comments begin.

Edited August 8, 2012 by WHR

[JMJones0424]

Assumptions are what drive modern Mainstream science. Not all assumptions need be false, but invariably some will be.

 

We know that within the boundaries of the observable universe, everything pretty much acts according to laws that a certain species of primates on a little blue ball has marveled at figuring out.

 

But what compels us to believe this MUST be true elsewhere? I grant that without being able to observe anything else, it's all we have.

 

No one says it MUST be true elsewhere. It is a fundamental assumption of science, one that has worked quite well so far. What's the alternative?

 

 

[WHR]

Honestly, the alternative is to say "we don't know with any level of confidence".

 

Maybe even publish this in textbooks and teach it to children from an early age so that they aren't governed by absolute thinking.

 

No one says it MUST be true elsewhere. It is a fundamental assumption of science, one that has worked quite well so far. What's the alternative?

Actually, I have heard it said that it MUST be true many times. Many many times.

[Moontanman]

Must be true? I have heard that what we observe about the universe suggests very strongly that what is true here is also true every where else, I expect that some of what we currently think is true will eventually be seen as false but I expect it will be seen as false every else we can measure as well... I have never been told it must be true every where else... how can we possibly know that which we cannot measure?

[WHR]

Must be true? I have heard that what we observe about the universe suggests very strongly that what is true here is also true every where else, I expect that some of what we currently think is true will eventually be seen as false but I expect it will be seen as false every else we can measure as well... I have never been told it must be true every where else... how can we possibly know that which we cannot measure?

If I were a pitchman for a product on a TV advertisement, I would appeal to your beliefs about what you need to have in your life. I might use terms like "the latest craze", "act now supplies are limited" etc to convince you to buy my product.

 

For a scientist presenting a lecture or speaking before a camera, or writing a book it is imperative that he use convincing language. This has been particularly true historically in western culture that tends to be majority religious. The scientist must overcome the prejudice of religion. This means he must make claims that are authoritative. One of my favorite phrases is "It turns out that-----". One might hear a scientist say, "It turns out that the laws of physics are universal and apply everywhere". It turns out is a statement of confirmation. Not an unanswered question but a rigid Cause and effect.

 

One documentary series that I enjoyed watching was "The Universe". It's on Netflix. If I had a dollar for every time I heard someone say, "It turns out" I'd at least have money for Expensive dinner and a movie

[Greg H.]

While we have no confirmation that the laws of physics are universal, we also have no reason to suspect they are not. If we subscribe to the idea that the laws of nature vary from one location in the universe to another, then we are suddenly introducing the idea that for some reason our section of the universe is special or different in some way, and that is a far more damaging assumption than the laws of the universe are the same everywhere.

 

Also, not to argue semantics, but it turns out is a statement that science is working as we expect - it implies we learned something we didn't expect or that may not have been readily apparent. So yes, while it is a statement of confirmation, it's not as dogmatic as your interpretation would imply.

[StringJunky]

If we accept the inflationary model of the universe which had it's initial structure determined by quantum fluctuations of which said structure was further amplified by inflation, then it seems reasonable to think that what is here is also over there and the physics should be the same.

Edited August 8, 2012 by StringJunky

[Phi for All]

Honestly, the alternative is to say "we don't know with any level of confidence".

No, it's really not. The default would be, "From everything we can observe, we can say with a great deal of confidence that physics holds true everywhere."

 

Actually, I have heard it said that it MUST be true many times. Many many times.

Well, that would be wrong. No scientist I know would make an absolute, generalized assertion like that. MUST be false is often easy to show, MUST be true is contrary to the scientific method. We have no way of testing such a thing.

[John Cuthber]

As far as the observable universe is concerned, if the rest of it were like our bit then we would see stars and galaxies with particular emission spectra .

We do.

That's not proof that the universe is consistent throughout, but it is strong supporting evidence.

It's not perfect- you need to add things like dark matter for which there is no direct observation to get the maths to work, but it's still a good assumption.

The alternative is that we simply give up.