In particular, we’ve observed that the fundamental laws appear to be absolutely stable, universal, and precise; and whenever we observe a seeming exception, it turns out that there’s a deeper and absolutely universal fundamental rule.
[SNARK DELETED. Caledonian, I don’t have time to edit your individual comments, keep it up and I’ll start deleting them even if they contain meat. -- EY]
Our ‘absolutely universal’ laws can be shown to have predictive power over an infinitesimal speck of the cosmos. Our ability to observe even natural experiments in the rest of the universe is extremely limited.
We’ve found lots of exceptions to our fundamental laws—but once we did that, we no longer considered them fundamental laws. Your statement is accurate only in a trivial sense, and that’s if we make the extraordinary presumption that our beliefs are actually right. Experience teaches us that, at any given time, the majority of our beliefs will be wrong, and the only thing that makes even approximate correctness possible is precisely what we cannot apply to the universe as a whole.
[SNARK DELETED. Caledonian, I don’t have time to edit your individual comments, keep it up and I’ll start deleting them even if they contain meat. -- EY]
Our ‘absolutely universal’ laws can be shown to have predictive power over an infinitesimal speck of the cosmos. Our ability to observe even natural experiments in the rest of the universe is extremely limited.
We’ve found lots of exceptions to our fundamental laws—but once we did that, we no longer considered them fundamental laws. Your statement is accurate only in a trivial sense, and that’s if we make the extraordinary presumption that our beliefs are actually right. Experience teaches us that, at any given time, the majority of our beliefs will be wrong, and the only thing that makes even approximate correctness possible is precisely what we cannot apply to the universe as a whole.