23

If it's not consistent, you can't usefully make predictions. Since we so far are pretty good at predictions based on the physical laws we have discovered, it is a good working hypothesis that the universe is consistent, even if there is no way to prove it. Once you encounter something that is in contradiction to current models, either you improve the models (...


6

You state a form of Hume's 'problem of induction': do we have any reason except the regularity of regularities in the past, to think the future will resemble the past? Then you frame a version of Hilbert's 6th problem, can physics be axiomatised? That is, a set of rules given with a minimum of assumptions, and those self-evident, or compelling. Godel ...


4

There is a nonzero epistemic chance that change in general is inconsistent; that article describes inconsistent change theory as "surprisingly robust." If laws of physics are laws governing physical changes, then if change itself is inconsistent, in some sense the laws must be, too; one could even argue that the compatibility question regarding ...


4

I suspect you won't like this answer — physicists tend to like concepts that are neat and contained while philosophers deal with scruffy, unruly ideas — but it's worth considering a quote from Wittgenstein: 1.1 The world is the totality of facts, not of things. Facts are things that we have use for (or have to overcome); they are mental constructs, not ...


3

Reality cannot be inconsistent with itself because there is no two properties that are the negation of each other. Black is not non-white, rich is not non-poor. The only pair of truly contradictory predicates is the pair existence/non-existence, but of course, our own notion of reality limits it by definition to what is existent. Thus, the fact that the ...


3

The view you are describing, though possibly not the view you are thinking of, is called indirect realism. It is not a view of mystics, but the view of most materialists and physical realists today. Idealism denies that there is a real world at all. Idealists believe that only the mind exists (along with perceptions in the mind). An indirect realist believes ...


2

This is a common concept for those who hold by idealist worldviews. That the world is really consciousness, and the appearance of matter around us, and its solidity, is an illusion. There is a term for this idea in Indian philosophy, and that is Maya -- that the appearance of a material world is an illusion. The concept of Maya is adopted from its Hindu ...


2

Energy is a property of a physical system as measured in a particular frame - not necessarily a single object, but a collection of objects in relation to each other from a certain vantage point. For example, two massive objects separated by a distance have gravitational potential energy. The objects may or may not be "material" in the sense of &...


1

Hmmmm... First point: Chinese Buddhism (Chan Buddhism, which extended into Korea as Seon and into Japan as Zen) is markedly influenced by Daoist philosophy. This is typical of Buddhism in general, which tends to absorb cultural elements as it moves into new regions, instead of replacing or suppressing them as other religions do. In fact, one of the major ...


1

Mario Bunge, who calls himself an exact philosopher, once wrote down a formula for philosophy: P^2 = P Meaning the philosophy of philosophy is philosophy. Likewise, I would suggest he would say the metaphysics of metaphysics is metaphysics.


1

Bunge calls himself an exact philosopher. In the above paper he says: Because it is ubiquitous, the concept of energy is philosophical and in particular, metaphysical (ontological). That is it belongs in the same league as the concepts of thing, property, event and process, causation and chance, law and trend and many others. He that sggests: Energy = ...


1

The pedagogy of physics begins with a presentation of energy as a dichotomy between kinetic energy and potential energy. This dichotomy presupposes a "configuration space" of "points" presumably correlated with a three dimensional real space. There is no such thing as an "absolute potential." Potential energy is understood as a ...


1

There must be some reason why we exist, not as humans but as matter. Why do physical laws work in the way they do? There must be a reason. This is not a question nor a logical argument, it is known as the Argument from incredulity fallacy. So it's a well known logic mistake to make the claim that you made above.


1

So, maybe a more pragmatic answer: In is entirely possible that the universe is not gouverned by coherent rules. Most of it might not even exist it's all in your head; it may be a simulation; it may be governed by some whimsical demon that decides the results of any process ore experiment for teh lulz. All of these ideas have been seriously argued for by ...


1

I would take kutschkem's answer one step further and assert that if our universe were internally inconsistent on large physical scales then we wouldn't be here to ponder that fact- because such a universe would not support the formation of galaxies, stars, planets, or the evolution of life.


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible