The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!

Comment: Perhaps the word "rules" was a throwback

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Does the universe have rules? (see in situ)

Perhaps the word "rules" was a throwback

I am looking for "how things work", the nature of the universe, the rules of the universe, whatever phrase works. Semantics.

Yes, the universe does obey "rules" of some description. Gravity is a rule, don't try to defy that one, you'll get hurt. ;)

You can see simply because a photon obeys certain rules. I am physically sitting here because protons and neutrons obey rules. The electron has some known rules. Of course, it doesn't have to hold that these are ALL the rules for these things.

Much of the foundation of science can be reproduced in your own back yard. That is the cornerstone of science actually. More than one person has done the experiment that shows a specific fact. If others can't do it, the "fact" is of course, suspect.

A quick peek under the hood (sub-atomic physics) will show that the underlying reality is VERY different than what we perceive.

When science tells me (it actually has) that anti-gravity is impossible, I don't just accept it. That is an interpretation of facts in evidence, not a "rule". I certainly don't think science has uncovered all the facts, nor do I think all of their interpretations are fully correct.

However, there are some known facts. Its hard to dispute these facts in a computer based forum. That seems ironic to me. ;)

Also, remember, Hawking is a theorist. Theorists speak math, the language of the universe. Their descriptions are converted to human, so others can understand. But, what they say, they say with math.
Just because the math works in their description, doesn't mean its a fact either. At most, they can say "my logic has an internal consistency, and doesn't violate any known rules, or explains why that rule wasn't ever true" Haramein has a different interpretation than main stream, and he did it without breaking a single known "rule".

Just open the box and see