5

On Aristotle's conception, yes. There is a subtle distinction between the potential and the possible, and the reality of the possible (as in possible worlds) is a controversial issue. Lewis is the chief proponent of modal realism, granting full reality to the possible worlds, the same reality as to our actual world, but this is even more exuberant than moral ...


4

It's a strange question, if you really look at it. "The Universe" is not a random variable. Probability means nothing. Either the universe is or is not complex. There is no probability to be had unless you define the problem with a random variable. We could treat this as a Bayesian inference question. You are asking if P(C | M) > P(C) where C is a ...


4

Act (or actuality) and potency (or potentiality) are both real. For example, if the potentiality of an acorn grow into a oak were not real, how could it indeed grow into an oak? Something non-existent cannot give rise to something existing; something cannot give what it does not have.


3

Before looking for examples when verificationism doesn't hold in the context of Physics, let's consider Wikipedia's description of it: Verificationism, also known as the verification idea or the verifiability criterion of meaning, is the philosophical doctrine that only statements that are empirically verifiable (i.e. verifiable through the senses) are ...


3

In Bohm's book Wholeness and the Implicate Order (which you can download for free here http://www.gci.org.uk/Documents/DavidBohm-WholenessAndTheImplicateOrder.pdf ) in chapter 8 "Steps Toward a More Detailed Theory of Hidden Variables" he puts forward a program for developing a theory of global hidden variables. His program aims at finding a sub-quantum ...


2

perhaps C. S. Peirce's doctrine of "tychism, anancism, and agapism", "that absolute chance, mechanical necessity, and the law of love are severally operative in the cosmos", respectively For a good overview of indeterminism, see Charles de Koninck's "The Problem of Indeterminism" (1935) and "Reflections on the Problem of Indeterminism" (1937), pp. 357-442 ...


2

When looking at a physical constant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_constant we find it consist of a number part and a unit of measure. The value of the number being the result of experimental observation, and the magnitude determined by the unit of measure. The unit used is arbitrary defined and it's function is to denote and categorize the constant. ...


2

Jimit, let me say first you have my condolences. Here I will provide another way to look at unlikely tragedies. In my previous career I had to deal with finding the root causes of catastrophes in our factories. Fortunately, none of these involved loss of life, but they had huge consequences for our business. What I discovered was that these disasters were ...


2

Most physicists don't care about the interpretation of probability. Nor do they care about the controversy over the "interpretation" of quantum mechanics. The philosophy of probability is not in a good state. It is mostly divided between frequentists who think that probability is defined by long run frequency and Bayesians who think that probability has ...


2

I will interpret the question as suggested by Philip: whether an argument to this effect has been discussed in philosophy. It was. A philosophizing mathematician/computer scientist/physicist David Wolpert formalized just such an argument in Physical limits of inference. Wolpert formalizes measurement, observation of a phenomenon, memory of past information ...


1

What's missing from the picture is entropy; the tendency toward greater entropy establishes an effective 'direction of time' that correlates with our perceived sense of time passing. We see eggs break rather than spontaneously forming from broken pieces. We can conceive of physical trajectories that would 'reform an egg' due to reversibility, but in ...


1

Afaik the theories of physics have no need to decide ERH. It is a metaphysical hypothesis of no concern in physics. I'm unable to think of a scientific theory that depends on ERH being true or false. This may be why no examples are given in the paper. ERH is not testable in physics so a theory dependent on it would not normally be considered scientific. ...


1

Why didn't you just ask "Do forces exist?" Asking if they "really exist" obscures the question. What kind of distinction is there between something "existing" and "really existing"? Existence is already a metaphysical concept and so is outside the realm of science. When "existence" is used in science it refers to patterns of experience. That is all we have ...


1

I wouldn't say that physical phenomena universe is differentiable, rather differentiability is a property of functions which are abstract objects (unlike rocks, trees, concrete stuff we do physics on). Note that momentum, forces and the like are abstract objects that we use to get information about concrete things. When we do physics, we take a phenomenon, ...


1

Classical physics as well as quantum mechanics (QM) and the theory of general relativity use as basic equation differential equations. A differential equation assumes that the law in question can be expressed by differentiable functions. This assumption has proven fruitful since the times of Newton. And QM shows: Even when the basic differential equations ...


1

Yes, of course. One should keep in mind that physics is thoroughly positivistic but positivism is not a purely logical philosophy. It should be seen a transposition of legal proceedings: evidence is presented and pleas are made, that is facts and theories are used to issue a judgement which is at best 'beyond reasonable doubt' in the light of what is known. ...


1

Generally, When I read physics and ontology on the same paragraph I slightly cringe. Not that it is bad to use it, but the implicit mathematization of ontology is what takes me back. Let me tell you why, Quantum Mechanics is undeterministic solely due to the fact that the solution to Schrodinger's equation is a wave-distribution. That is, we get a probably ...


1

Wikipedia describes isomorphism as the following: In mathematics, an isomorphism (from the Ancient Greek: ἴσος isos "equal", and μορφή morphe "form" or "shape") is a homomorphism or morphism (i.e. a mathematical mapping) that can be reversed by an inverse morphism. Two mathematical objects are isomorphic if an isomorphism exists between them. An ...


1

Just as in religion there is a leap of faith then in science there is a leap of understanding. The essential notion that physical theory relies upon is that of a universal order; given that understanding, induction are merely attempts to work out the nature, detail and relationships of this universal order.


1

Pierre Duhem, in his Aim & Structure of Physical Theory pt. 2 ch. 3 "Mathematical Deduction & Physical Theory" is worth reading. §3 gives "an example of a mathematical deduction that can never be utilized" in a physical theory, which is quoted in ch. 5 of the free Chaos film.* In other words: There are mathematical deductions that do not correspond ...


1

Energy turns into hydrogen atoms, and then the stars are born That's not how stars are created. On the plus side, it's less wrong than All stars release Big Bang's energy which is stored at Hydrogen atom which is how the linked abstract words it. So maybe there was a scenario before the formation of the world There definitely was a scenario before the ...


1

There are actually two aspects to a physical analysis of, let's say an object being held against gravity. In the static analysis, that is non temporal, we would more accurately talk about force acting against whatever holds the object in place. The potential "energy" would be represented by a force vector, and measurable as pressure, in that sense it would ...


1

What is your definition of "seems to follow?" One can argue that that appearance needs be nothing more than an illusion. Thus one can argue that nature seems to follow simple human-conceived patterns because the definition of the concept of following a pattern is a human-conceived pattern itself. One such example of why this thinking is reasonable is the ...


1

According to Alvin Plantinga, Where the Conflict Really Lies (WTCRL) page 77-8, while criticizing what he called "hands-off theology" practiced by theologians such as Rudolph Bultmann, noted the following about Isaac Newton: ...Newton himself (one hopes) accepted the Newtonian picture, but he didn't accept hands-off theology. He believed that God ...


1

And speaking of quantum mechanics, it's fairly widely known (without going into detail) that many quantum-mechanical measurements depend on the observation itself being carried out. The so-called double-slit experiment, for example, or Einstein's "spooky action at a distance" referring to the quantum-state entanglement of distant particles, both of which "...


1

I will try to summarize what should be a general consensus (more or less). We would first have to define our terms: "law of nature" and "universal". Two different types of "laws of nature" There are two distinct things that are called laws of nature, that one tends to confuse, but: The first type is a human creation: it's expressed in symbols, diagrams, ...


1

I interpret this as a question about the demarcation of what is science. It is of current controversy in relation to string theory, where the limit on distance scales that can be probed without an accelerated particle creating a blackhole, may put direct phenomena forever beyond our reach. For this reason string theory is dismissed by many experimental ...


1

@ Mozibur Ullah- One simple way to approach this question may not resolve whether what has been observed as what appear to be 'laws' of nature are such, is to point up that no matter what the physical activity under observation, whether in a fishbowl, an ocean, a person's body, the moon, distant stars, black holes, or even the Big Bang, at each and every ...


1

Drop a rock in a hole through a planet with gravity and no lava and it would go to the middle and act like a yo yo until it finally stops. It would stay in the middle. Now being its suspended, either way then would be up if it was lifted from either end. The hole would be bottomless being its open on both ends of the planet.


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