<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 12pt;
font-family:Calibri
}
--></style></head>
<body class='hmmessage'><div dir='ltr'><p class="MsoNormal">Psi. I'll wave towards your bright light.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><br></p><p class="MsoNormal">Lee’s statements will be given in brackets, my unbracketed
responses follow:</p><p class="MsoNormal"><br></p><p class="MsoNormal"><br></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i>[Who told you this? To
be a credible source for making such a statement wouldn't this person have to
have been </i></p><p class="MsoNormal"><i>to every corner of the universe to test the statement?]<o:p></o:p></i></p><p class="MsoNormal"><i><br></i></p><p class="MsoNormal"><i><br></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">No. Physics has been *observed*
to apply in all areas of the universe to which we have pointed our instruments
of measurement. </p><p class="MsoNormal">The only unknowable areas
are those beyond our light horizon, and if those areas are magically different
simply because they have </p><p class="MsoNormal">been rendered unobservable then fine but those are
likewise areas upon which math and physics are no longer useful tools and can</p><p class="MsoNormal">be safely disregarded. If some future circumstance
allows us to interact with those areas of the universe, then we can revisit the </p><p class="MsoNormal">issue but it is not an argument against the universality of math to simply
state that that math’s non-universality is possible. </p><p class="MsoNormal">If that were so, then St. Anselm’s ontological
proof of God’s existence would be irrefutable.
It goes something like: “I can imagine </p><p class="MsoNormal">an infinitely perfect, powerful,
knowledgeable, being and therefore God must exist.” Gaunilo of Marmoutier put paid to that almost </p><p class="MsoNormal">as soon as it passed Anselm’s lips.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><br></p><p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The universality of math and physics is not demonstrable in
areas outside of observation but it likewise gets us nowhere to postulate </p><p class="MsoNormal">that
they are non-universal. Thus, we go
along building evidence for their universality while at all times keeping an
open mind for the </p><p class="MsoNormal">facts and observations which might discredit such a belief.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><br></p><p class="MsoNormal"><br></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i>[Why would observations
made in this tiny corner be presumed to apply to all other corners?]<o:p></o:p></i></p><p class="MsoNormal"><i><br></i></p><p class="MsoNormal"><i><br></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Because we have observed it to be so everywhere we have
looked and thus proceed as though it applies everywhere while always open</p><p class="MsoNormal">to
the possibility that we will be shocked later.
The problem with your argument against universality is that it assumes
that at some point </p><p class="MsoNormal">this will indeed happen merely because we can imagine it
might.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><br></p><p class="MsoNormal"><br></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i>[How can we make
statements regarding great swaths of the universe when we haven't observed
great swaths? Perhaps math and science </i></p><p class="MsoNormal"><i>represent minority exemptions from the
real laws which govern most of the universe. Is there a way to know? I don't
see it.]<o:p></o:p></i></p><p class="MsoNormal"><i><br></i></p><p class="MsoNormal"><i><br></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">We have observed great swaths. Look up at the night sky. What portions of the universe do you know to
exist that we have not observed either </p><p class="MsoNormal">directly or indirectly? If different principles apply in areas of the
universe inaccessible to observation or travel, then it does us no good to assume </p><p class="MsoNormal">that math/physics apply there, nor does it do us any good to assume that they
don’t apply there. The problem with
universality is what it means </p><p class="MsoNormal">to be universal.
Universal in my conception, and that of science if I understand
correctly, is that it uniformly applies in the observable universe.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><br></p><p class="MsoNormal"><br></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i>[For all that math and
science show us of the universe, there is likely far more out there it doesn't
and cannot show us.]<o:p></o:p></i></p><p class="MsoNormal"><i><br></i></p><p class="MsoNormal"><i><br></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">But you have cited only examples of misunderstandings of
what the observable universe is showing us, which are duly corrected and
refined</p><p class="MsoNormal"> through application of scientific principles and tools (e.g.
mathematics). If there is more out there
that it cannot show us, then it must be so because </p><p class="MsoNormal">we are incapable of having
any interaction with that part of the universe.
And if we (and by “we” I mean the stuff of the observable universe, not </p><p class="MsoNormal">necessarily the sub-set of stuff called *Homo sapiens*) are incapable of
interacting with that part of the universe then it might as well not exist and </p><p class="MsoNormal">we needn’t worry about whether math applies there. </p> </div></body>
</html>