# Physicists: Will the laws of physics will work tomorrow? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 16, 2007, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/physicists-will-the-laws-of-physics-will-work-tomorrow/419422 "2007-09-16T22:24:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2007, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/physicists-will-the-laws-of-physics-will-work-tomorrow/419422/41 "2007-09-20T14:11:45Z")
[QUOTE=Gfactor] Simply answering “yes, next question,” while amusing, isn’t an especially useful contribution to that debate. [/quote] It wasn’t intended to be amusing. It was intended as my perception of the silliness of the debate. And if it comes across as an incomprehensible and stupid waste of time to me, a reasonably intelligent and scientific person, you stand no chance whatsoever using similar reasoning with the Intelligent Design people. > [@](#): > > But when we start thinking about what science is really about, we are reminded that there are some unprovable assumptions, at least if we want proof in terms of formal logic. The ancient Greeks realized that and gave up 2500 years ago when trying to do the same thing with mathematics, so they gave us the axiom. Because the laws of physics as we currently understand them appear to have worked the same way throughout history it should be axiomatic that they will operate the same way tomorrow. Without base assumptions like that you have nothing on which to build a system of science, and it becomes turtles all the way down. However, as I’ve said before, as an engineer I’m unwilling to commit to the absoluteness of anything. “Will the Sun rise tomorrow?” “It has every day for 4.5 billion years, so I’ll go out on a limb and say, ‘Probably.’” ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2007, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/physicists-will-the-laws-of-physics-will-work-tomorrow/419422/42 "2007-09-20T14:56:03Z")
[QUOTE=dropzone] It wasn’t intended to be amusing. It was intended as my perception of the silliness of the debate. [/QUOTE] Thanks for dropping by. > [@](#): > > And if it comes across as an incomprehensible and stupid waste of time to me, a reasonably intelligent and scientific person, you stand no chance whatsoever using similar reasoning with the Intelligent Design people. Ok. So is ID science or not? Show your work this time. 😉 > [@](#): > > The ancient Greeks realized that and gave up 2500 years ago when trying to do the same thing with mathematics, Which is a formal system, not reliant on empirical observation. > [@](#): > > so they gave us the axiom. Which works for formal systems. Are you now contending that physics is a formal system? I thought you were telling me about science. And I thought science was about observation. > [@](#): > > Because the laws of physics as we currently understand them appear to have worked the same way throughout history it should be axiomatic that they will operate the same way tomorrow. Without base assumptions like that you have nothing on which to build a system of science, and it becomes turtles all the way down. And it is. That’s the point. It’s an axiom. > [@](#): > > An axiom is a sentence or proposition that is not proved or demonstrated and is considered as self-evident or as an initial necessary consensus for a theory building or acceptation. Therefore, it is taken for granted as true, and serves as a starting point for deducing and inferencing other (theory dependent) truths. > **[Axiom](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom)** > > An axiom, postulate, or assumption, is a statement that is taken to be true, to serve as a premise or starting point for further reasoning and arguments. The word comes from the Ancient Greek word ἀξίωμα (axíōma), meaning 'that which is thought worthy or fit' or 'that which commends itself as evident'. The precise definition varies across fields of study. In classical philosophy, an axiom is a statement that is so evident or well-established, that it is accepted without controversy or question. ... > [@](#): > > In engineering, axioms are accepted without formal proofs but their choice can be negotiated from the utility and economy viewpoints. They can also be considered as hypotheses in modeling, and changed after model/theory validation. \*Id. \* Can you prove an axiom? > [@](#): > > However, as I’ve said before, as an engineer I’m unwilling to commit to the absoluteness of anything. “Will the Sun rise tomorrow?” “It has every day for 4.5 billion years, so I’ll go out on a limb and say, ‘Probably.’” Then we agree. Yesterday, you said the answer was “yes.” Therefore . . . 😃 ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2007, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/physicists-will-the-laws-of-physics-will-work-tomorrow/419422/43 "2007-09-20T16:13:32Z")
[QUOTE=Gfactor] Ok. So is ID science or not? Show your work this time. 😉 [/quote] Well, yes. Maybe not _accurate_ science. Maybe it’s based on different assumptions than what most modern scientists accept. But it is every bit as much science as what Archimedes studied. > [@](#): > > Which is a formal system, not reliant on empirical observation. Which is why trying to force-fit science into the framework of a formal system by denying induction is ultimately fruitless. > [@](#): > > Can you prove an axiom? Er, isn’t that the point of having axioms? However, while they cannot be proven, they can be _dis_proven, which is suggested in your Wikiquote on axioms in engineering and which is where ID falls down as a modern science. > [@](#): > > Then we agree. Yesterday, you said the answer was “yes.” Therefore . . . 😃 I’ve always said that I’m a bundle of contradictions. But yesterday’s “yes” was shorthand for “It’s probable enough that any denial of it prior to the receipt of data to the contrary is a complete waste of time and shouldn’t you guys be using your enormous brains for something useful, like curing cancer?” 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Indistinguishable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/90ced4/32.png) [@Indistinguishable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Indistinguishable)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2007, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/physicists-will-the-laws-of-physics-will-work-tomorrow/419422/44 "2007-09-20T16:21:54Z")
It may be helpful to think of the discussion of the problem of induction as not an attack on its use, but an attempt, as logicians, to analyze and understand the precise details of its use. In making clear what cannot serve as its justification, one need not be implicitly rejecting inductive logic itself; rather, this brings us to a better understanding of the correct foundations of inductive logic, its precise logical relations with other forms of reasoning. As **Gfactor** said, it’s not a matter of pretend-rejection of logic; it’s a matter of having such great interest in logic that one studies and analyzes it in detail, paying meticulous attention to how things really work within it. Incidentally, I am amused by this sort of thing: [QUOTE=dropzone] However, as I’ve said before, as an engineer I’m unwilling to commit to the absoluteness of anything. “Will the Sun rise tomorrow?” “It has every day for 4.5 billion years, so I’ll go out on a limb and say, ‘Probably.’” [/QUOTE] On what grounds do we know that the sun has risen every day for 4.5 billion years? (On the grounds that the laws we’ve formulated have always held in the past?) Presumably, whatever kind of reasoning could take us from our observations to knowledge about the past could also, in some manner, take us from our observations to knowledge about the future. So, again, to the man who does not already have inductive reasoning available to him, this sort of argument is doubly unuseful. (That doesn’t mean there’s anything wrong with it for us who do have inductive reasoning.) ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2007, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/physicists-will-the-laws-of-physics-will-work-tomorrow/419422/45 "2007-09-20T16:55:05Z")
[QUOTE=Indistinguishable] Incidentally, I am amused by this sort of thing… On what grounds do we know that the sun has risen every day for 4.5 billion years? [/quote] Okay, I’ll revise it to “Whereas I have observed the Sun rising every morning in the 52 years of my life, I’d place good money on it rising tomorrow.” Er, maybe not _observed_ it rising every morning. More like I _inferred_ that it rose every morning because I observed that its location in the sky was about where I’d expect it for that time of day and since I heard no news stories about it jumping around that day and the stories I have heard about the Sun jumping around are limited to observations by people at specific sites, like Fatima, and those observations can be dismissed because nobody anywhere else saw it happen. I mean…JEBUS! It’s “given,” 'kay? 😉 I will attempt to use your blasted reasoning to “prove” to my satisfaction, if not to yours, that the Sun “rose” every morning since the Earth was formed and get back to you. You bastids are going to make a philosopher out of me yet. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2007, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/physicists-will-the-laws-of-physics-will-work-tomorrow/419422/46 "2007-09-20T17:23:21Z")
[QUOTE=dropzone] Well, yes. Maybe not _accurate_ science. [/QUOTE] I’m not so sure it’s even science, but since I think it’s crap either way, I’m not looking to argue about it. > [@](#): > > Which is why trying to force-fit science into the framework of a formal system by denying induction is ultimately fruitless. I’d say they were trying desperately to find a way to _prove_ induction, but failed. Just as the \*Principia Mathematica \* failed in a similar effort. Turtles all the way . . . > [@](#): > > Er, isn’t that the point of having axioms? Yes. But as you can see from prior responses in the thread. Many defenders of science are uncomfortable admitting that induction is an axiom. It’d be a lot easier to simply admit, as you did, that we assume it, we need to assume it, and damnit, it works. But Popper didn’t want to, and it makes some people squirm in their chairs. It’s always reminded me of this bit from Salinger: > [@](#): > > On the sub-main floor of the hotel, which the management directed bathers to use, a woman with zinc salve on her nose got into the elevator with the young man. > > “I see you’re looking at my feet,” he said to her when the car was in motion. > > “I beg your pardon?” said the woman. > > “I said I see you’re looking at my feet.” > > “I beg your pardon. I happened to be looking at the floor,” said the woman, and faced the doors of the car. > > “If you want to look at my feet, say so,” said the young man. “But don’t be a God-damned sneak about it.” > > “Let me out here, please,” the woman said quickly to the girl operating the car. > **[Verify](http://www.freeweb.hu/tchl/salinger/perfectday.html)** > [@](#): > > However, while they cannot be proven, they can be _dis_proven, which is suggested in your Wikiquote on axioms in engineering and which is where ID falls down as a modern science. Yes. Although, science historians point out that the history of science shows an attachment to keeping the axiom, and working the contrary evidence into the theory, which by the way, also works. Few claim that science doesn’t work, or even that scientists do it wrong. > [@](#): > > I’ve always said that I’m a bundle of contradictions. Don’t get me started on Freud. 😃 > [@](#): > > But yesterday’s “yes” was shorthand for “It’s probable enough that any denial of it prior to the receipt of data to the contrary is a complete waste of time and shouldn’t you guys be using your enormous brains for something useful, like curing cancer?” 😃 Oh, you don’t want me _doing_ science. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2007, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/physicists-will-the-laws-of-physics-will-work-tomorrow/419422/47 "2007-09-20T17:44:15Z")
[QUOTE=Indistinguishable] It may be helpful to think of the discussion of the problem of induction as not an attack on its use, but an attempt, as logicians, to analyze and understand the precise details of its use. In making clear what cannot serve as its justification, one need not be implicitly rejecting inductive logic itself; rather, this brings us to a better understanding of the correct foundations of inductive logic, its precise logical relations with other forms of reasoning. As **Gfactor** said, it’s not a matter of pretend-rejection of logic; it’s a matter of having such great interest in logic that one studies and analyzes it in detail, paying meticulous attention to how things really work within it. [/QUOTE] Right. And let’s not mince words here. Logic is not the same thing as common sense. In fact, often they are opposites. Try to explain the material conditional in terms of common sense, for example: > **[Material conditional](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_conditional)** > > The material conditional (also known as material implication) is a binary operation commonly used in logic. When the conditional symbol > > > > → > > > {\\displaystyle \\to } > > is interpreted as material implication, a formula > > > > P > → > Q > > > {\\displaystyle P\\to Q} > > is true unless > > > > P > > > {\\displaystyle P} > > is true and > > > > Q > > > {\\displaystyle Q} > > is f... [http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/courses/log/mat-imp.htm](http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/courses/log/mat-imp.htm) Or modal logic: [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-modal/#WhaModLog](http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-modal/#WhaModLog) The material conditional in particular has also caused tremendous mischief for philosophers of science. ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2007, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/physicists-will-the-laws-of-physics-will-work-tomorrow/419422/48 "2007-09-21T14:34:21Z")
[QUOTE=dropzone] I will attempt to use your blasted reasoning to “prove” to my satisfaction, if not to yours, that the Sun “rose” every morning since the Earth was formed and get back to you. [/QUOTE] Didn’t work. The first or second sentence of the proof began with “Assuming” every time I tried. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/physicists-will-the-laws-of-physics-will-work-tomorrow/419422.md?page=2)