If physics worked differently in different parts of the Universe, and anything from another part of the Universe collided with our own, then it would either have to suddenly follow our laws of physics, create a bubble of different physics in our area, simultaneously operate under both laws of physics by either the 'lowest commonality' or 'highest restriction', OR cancel out both physics and create a new sub-universal physics operation.

Acres, the caveman. Are you there?

_________________

Or any other possibility that hasn't, or can't, be explored for whatever reason. As far as I'm concerned, there are an infinite amount of possibilities of anything happening. Though perhaps the fabrics of reality do change and shift seamlessly from place to place. At any rate, that's what I would believe. Or rather what I would consider to be of the highest likelihood in this situation. I most definitely believe that the laws of physics do not hold true in the entirety of everything. As to what that encompasses, I am entirely unsure in my belief. That's one of my goal in life, though. To have an answer to that. Keywords: In Life

_________________

Apparently, that's the conclusion many of the worlds top physicists are now contemplating when they examine a lot of anomalies in the universe and physics: that there are multiple sets of rules of physics that do not all apply everywhere.

But, that could also be because they are unwilling to accept certain other possibilities, like that some basic physics theories and laws are actually wrong (like gravity, for instance).

Science is the search for truth, and truth is in the eyes of the beholder. But wouldn't that be exciting? To think that even the tiniest change could alter everything that we know. And that those changes may very well exist elsewhere? That's why I choose to believe what I believe, if it's as ambiguous as this. So long as there's that chance, I may as well believe in it.

Of course, it's an insane theory. In all honesty, if I were to think about it logically, I would not believe in it. But I am not a scientist. So I am not demanded to think about these things logically. So I may hope.

_________________

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Truth is truth, regardless of how or even if it is perceived. Otherwise, it's simply perception or viewpoint.

Science is a method for pursuing certain kinds of truth, or certain aspects of truth.

But doesn't perception shape everything? No human being can go outside of their own viewpoint to see things. So it will always be skewed. Is there such thing as a universal truth? Something that can be agreed upon by everyone?

_________________

Truth is what is regardless of whether it is perceived, and regardless of whether it is known, and regardless of who agrees upon it. We aren't that important that truth relies on us.

And it is possible to go outside your own viewpoint, it's just very, very difficult. There are also degrees of doing so.

No, humanity is as unimportant as everything else. Since the worth of something is a concept created by entities. Without the entity, there is no value. And what is truth if truth varies from place to place, then?

Explain the second part of this to me though. However, I'll make one remark on it before that. If it goes in degrees, who's to say what the highest degree of that is? Or if you can go beyond it? What is attainable is limited by our minds. So if I challenge and say that there is no highest degree, or if the highest degree is much further than what you say it is, how can it be proved or disproved? Especially in something as subjective as this.

_________________

Once you go beyond your veiw point, your really just stretching the edge OF your veiw point, and thus expanding your veiwpoint

_________________

I'm not sure why you started with "no" there. You don't seem to be disagreeing with anything I said. Though, I didn't go so far as to say that humanity is "as unimportant as everything else". I wasn't so specific. I simply said we are not so important that truth would rely on us. Where we actually lie in importance I didn't go into.

As for the second part and the degrees. When I say in degrees, don't think of it a strict, scientific proposal of degrees with an absolute and known measure, with minimum and maximum. I simply say there are degrees on the matter as a common way of indicating there is variation possible in achievement of what I describe. If I were to say there are varying degrees of success in making a start-up company, I am not proposing an actual scale, just noting that it is not a binary situation where you either are successful or are not, you can also be partially successful, break even, be more successful, and more successful than that, or fail, or fail miserably, and so on and so forth without any strict levels necessarily.

Now, while I think you read too much into that simple statement, I will argue that the "highest degree" would simply be completely understanding another view point just as the person with the other view point understands it. You can possibly understand the particular matter or reasons of that viewpoint better than they, but that's not really putting yourself at a higher degree of understanding their viewpoint as they view it, since they do not view it with deeper understanding than they themselves possess.



Not necessarily. You could also completely adopt the other viewpoint (or worldview) as your own, and replace your own with it, and thus you haven't precisely expanded your viewpoint so much as exchanged it.

Though, in one sense, you could possibly say that replacing your own viewpoint with another requires an initial step of stretching beyond the edge of your original viewpoint.

I'm not sure why I started it off as a disagreement either. I care about the wording of my statements, however most of that care goes into making sure it's organized. Not necessarily details like that. It might have slipped my mind.

Now, I apologize. I think I was unclear there. I didn't propose that I was taking it in a literal, or numerical sense. I'm well aware that you meant with that variation. I simply meant that we could challenge an accepted "maximum" towards something. I meant more to ask could explain how you would disassociate yourself from a viewpoint entirely. Any viewpoint. Not simply exchange viewpoints. Apparently that's not what you meant. But that's how it came across.

_________________

Wouldn't a complete exchange of viewpoint involve disassociation? At least if you understand exchange as giving up of one thing and taking on another.

How it's done is commonly called a conversion. People have many kinds of conversions all the time (philosophical conversion, political conversion, religious conversion, topical conversion, etc.). Typically, if it's a sever enough issue, that involves a change of viewpoint.

I'm arguing a half-conversion. Simply dropping a viewpoint entirely. Since that would be the only way to see a non-warped "absolute truth" in my opinion.

_________________

You haven't really made that argument about anything yet... would you like to do so now?

In any case, you will always have a viewpoint. A viewpoint can be wide, all-encompassing, and absolutely correct, but it is a viewpoint. It simply means it's how you view something. To not have a viewpoint is to not have a view, which would not be to see truth so much as not to see at all, which is rather different.