Sure, logically seen, it is perfectly possible the sun does not rise tomorrow.
Does this possibility have a probability, whether we can know what it is or not?
And remember we are talking about it not rising due to past regularities that we thought were laws of nature breaking down, not due to some giant cosmic tsunami coming that is off our radar screen.
That’s why I wrote up till now, it was an edit so it might not have been there when you first read it.
Stephen
I thought we are an expression of natural laws which are fundamental to the formation and evolution of the universe and all that is contained.
Is gravity a law or regularity? What if the law of gravity ceased. What if the laws of momentum, conservation, equilibrium did not exist?
There are geometrical and mathematical progressions, chemical interactions, all of which are and were actively instrumental in our emergent evolved existence.
It doen’t sound right to say we did not and do not need these laws and their active natural functions (regularities) every instant in time we are alive. We exist because of them.
Slowly I am thinking your not only a dualist, but a theist too: God made the regularities!
I’m an agnostic and a dualist in the sense I gave you.
I’ll go off topic for a mo. Whilst I sit in my chair i believe there is a me that experiences travelling forward through time. This me was wholly present 5 minutes ago when that was the present and is wholly present now.
It’s a contradiction to say I’m wholly present at one moment in the process and I am the process, so when I refer to myself I am not refering only to the process.
It also seems to me, as you say you believe you experience travelling through time too, that you are a dualist in precisely the same sense as I am.
What I suggest is we come up with some alternative laws that the universe might start following from midnight tonight.
Now as long as these laws hold from then on for the next 100 years we can make accurate predictions to our benefit.
Why not? It gives us as much chance as any other method.
Stephen
That gives us as much chance as any other method only if the universe is not governed by natural laws. Think of it this way:
If the universe is governed by natural laws, then using induction works, and we can make accurate predictions.
If the universe is not governed by natural laws, then any guess is as good as another from our point of view, including using induction.
Because we do not know the status of the universe, this is not an epistemological justification of induction; that is, we still have not justified gaining knowledge from it. However, it is, in the words of Hans Reichenbach, a “pragmatic vindication”.
Then you would be able to say that laws of nature (regularity) can be negated, so which is it?
We have been assuming that what we imagine to be laws of nature might just be past regularities.
Meaning they can be negated, in the way you are putting it.
If that’s true or not I don’t know.
Stephen
ok, I understand the relative nature of the distinction. However are the functions of gravity regularities or are they laws of gravity? Gravity is a fundamental property of physical reality and absolutely necessary for the function of any system. It cannot be negated or ignored as not pertinent to the universe.
