hyksos » August 12th, 2017, 1:16 am wrote:mm,
Your essential claim here is that science works well in this universe because : the universe is not a "chaotic logically inconsistent dream".
Yes. A method which actually seeks the truth is more likely to work in a universe where there is a truth to be found. It is the simplest of logic.
hyksos » August 12th, 2017, 1:16 am wrote:But to pretend that someone (anyone) knows why the universe is not such a thing should automatically be assumed to be false, from the outset. This answer begs the question, if science works in this realm on account of it not being a "chaotic logically inconsistent dream in our own head", then why is the universe not such a thing?
Nonsense. To ask why the method works and why the universe is the way it is, are two entirely different questions. Frankly, most people see very little value in the second question.
Your original question was: "Why does science work so well in this universe?"
I assumed the more meaningful way of understanding this as "What is it about the universe which makes this method work so well?" rather than something like the petulant child query of "Why can't the world just be the way I want it to be?"
Wow! That is an extraordinary claim. How can you possibly know any such thing? I suspect what this claim really amounts to is that you can imagine such a universe -- or at least imagine that you can imagine such a universe. But the reason we can have dreams which are logically incoherent chaos is because they are completely unreal and very probably due to no more than the random firing of neurons in the brain. Frankly, I think the logical incoherence not only makes them incapable of reality but practically impossible to remember because their logical incoherence makes them meaningless -- not all dreams, mind you, just those lacking in logical coherence.
hyksos » August 12th, 2017, 1:16 am wrote:Precise measurement works better in a universe where everything is related to each other by mathematical relationships.
Yes, so the success of science is because "everything is related to each other by mathematical relationships". Why is the universe this way, and not another way?
And why should this question even have an answer let alone an answer that can be objectively established.
Of course, you can insist on an answer and make one up as many do. Theists like myself typically believe that God created the universe for a reason and the universe is the way it is to satisfy that purpose for which He created it. But some theists, like myself, also understand the complete subjectivity of such a belief and would hardly expect other people to agree.
As to a theistic understanding of why the universe is mathematical and measurable in particular... I believe it has to do with automation. It is to make the universe operate on its own according to its own rules rather than just according to His own whim. It is to make the universe and existing thing on its own rather than just a dream of His. And the reason for this is to create the conditions for life, which rather than being some magical substance, is a self-organizing process by which living things make their own choices and thus create themselves. In simplest terms, I believe the mathematical nature of the universe is necessary for the existence of free will.
hyksos » August 12th, 2017, 1:16 am wrote:If you were contend that
"There is no other way the universe could be", I would (no.1) consider the answer to be hostile, and (no.2) really require elaboration on the point.
Then I would have say that you have a peculiar definition of hostility which is highly suggestive of an intolerant ideologue. The idea that there is no other way the universe could be, is not hostility but simply a different point of view. It is typical of intolerant ideologies that they push a "with me or against me" attitude which views any disagreement and differing points of view as being hostile. Well I am certainly hostile to intolerance and this sort of attitude, championing instead the attitude that different points of view are healthy and an asset to human civilization. All points of view? Not completely, no. Only those compatible with the ideals of a free society, i.e. liberty and tolerance, are an unalloyed asset to civilization. The intolerant viewpoints are more of a mixed bag, they both increase our diversity and oppose diversity at the same time.
Actually the idea that, there is no other way the universe could be (in certain regards, at least), is an extremely logical one. It is basically saying that there is a reason why the universe exists and only a universe which satisfies certain conditions also satisfies this reason why the universe exists in the first place.
Besides the theist version above there is also the naturalist version which would say that the universe is the way it is because of causal events within some set of natural laws
A very different approach is the multiple worlds anthropic one, saying that all possible worlds exist and only this one has people like us in it... capable of asking such stupid (according to some people) or interesting (according to others like myself) questions.
There is also a combined approach, which I like, which says there is no reason to choose one type of world over the other because even when both exist, their nature determines how we categories them. The chaotic logically incoherent universe DOES exist, in our dreams, and the chaotic logically incoherent character of these universes is why we call them dreams. I think it is even reasonable to argue this is the only way such worlds could even exist.
If you argue that all of these answers basically presuppose logically coherent world, then I would reply that your original question of "why is this world the way it is?" by supposing an answer to such a question, is already presupposing to same degree, a logically coherent world.