Hi HE,
From the perspective of pure logic it would make perfect sense to label the grizzly bear "non-existent" because it qualifies by every logical criterion for non-existence. If it began to show existent properties then we could, logically, review the conclusion.
Why would you say that it qualifies by every logical criterion for non-existence?
I would say that if logically I had neither evidence for or against something, I couldn’t know if it existed or not.
If someone speculated that there could be an alternate universe in which the laws of physics were different then what they were here, would it be correct to assume that this alternate universe couldn’t exist? If it’s not correct to assume that, then what would be the difference then about speculating about the possibility that someone could exist here that doesn’t follow science as we understand it?
Could it be possible for a particle exist that has never been observed and which defies various physical laws? If that is possible, what is the difference between then and suggesting the possibility that something else that doesn’t follow such laws and has never been observed (eg. the bear) might exist?
I understand why one wouldn’t believe in any of these things (neither the bear, nor the multiverse), but how does one actually know that they couldn’t be true?
Surely it's axiomatic to say that reality is something other than our understanding of it?
Yes, however, I’m not sure if my meaning was axiomatic. I meant to say if our understanding of reality is incorrect. For example if we understand that gravity is a constant law, is it known to us that we couldn’t be mistaken about it?
A single observation is unlikely to convince anyone that a well-established "law" is false. Such observations would need to be checked, and making scientific observations is not a trivial exercise.
I understand that generally speaking it is unlikely that the scientific community would accept it as fact even if someone somewhere did make an observation that violated scientific laws. However, whether or not the scientific community accepted it, would not affect whether or not the event happened.
I think that people will often forget how the scientific process actually works. I use the dice analogy to illustrate the fact that simply because something repeats itself over and over again doesn’t actually prove (nor even make probable) that there is a law in place that will always cause it to act that way. It’s not a perfect analogy, but I hope the principle I’m attempting to illustrate is still seen. If we see something happen the same way over and over again, we have a tendency of assuming that it will always act this way, but we don’t actually possess a reason to know that that is the case. The scientific process looks at a large body of observations and will propose an explanation that is consistent will all of these observations (eg. if we see mass attracts mass a billion times, we then come up with the explanation that there is a force of attraction between them that is constant throughout time and space). However, it isn’t actually possible to know that this explanation is true, because we don’t have an infinite number of observations and we never will. That is to say, we can’t know that the force always will, always has and everywhere exists on the basis of our finite observations, because we don’t have a means of knowing that our finite observations are constant in all time and space. We can speculate it, and act as though it did exist and it would seem that this is the best option available to us (it seems preferable to nihilism at least).
At no point, however, does it actually become known. This is because to see something happen over and over again does not show that something will always happen over and over again. It can be assumed though. Good science will always attempt to question and test these assumptions so to either refute or support them, and thus lead to a better understanding of science.
From the perspective of faith, sometimes I wonder if that verse I quoted (Wisdom 11:20 But thou hast arranged all things by measure and number and weight.) is speaking about abstract physical laws.
Thank you very much for your thoughts.
God Bless,
