Could we create a universe with completely different laws of physics? It depends on the objectivity and logical consistency we may bring to the table.
(1) We must acknowledge what is there without any filters (bias, prejudice, fixed idea, assumption and blind faith). We may call such observations “objective”.
(2) We must postulate what is logically consistent with objective observations. We may call such theorizing “real”.
(3) Introduction of filters produces subjectivity.
(4) Introduction of logical inconsistency produces unreality.
(5) We are continually updating or refining the laws of physics based upon improved objectivity in observations.
(6) We are continually updating and refining the reality based upon improved logical consistency in theorizing.
(7) This may lead to completely different laws of physics that we are aware of at the moment. Galileo, Newton and Einstein have contributed this way in the past.
.
Comments
Something we could do to improve this is to define what is meant by filter. In the dictionary sense, a filter removes. In the sense written here, a filter adds. Regardless, what exactly is going on mentally when we say filter?
LikeLike
Please see https://vinaire.me/2014/08/26/filter-in-khtk/.
LikeLike
It adds?
LikeLike
Keeping in mind that “laws of physics” are human abstractions of the most consistent and continuing observations of physical processes that we have made to date, it seems reasonable to me that as our understanding improves, the “laws” of physics will be improved. We may even find a better word than law.
LikeLike
I ruminate about law because there is a theistic underpinning to that early description that contains an unnecessary assumption. An underpinning rule directing the processes of the universe.
LikeLike