3 of 3 Laws of Nature: Regularity vs. Necessitarianism Posted:
09 April 2010 06:51 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 31 ] Sr. Member Total
Posts:  731 Joined  2007-06-20 StephenLawrence - 08 April 2010
03:34 PM the PC apeman - 08 April 2010 04:49 AM StephenLawrence
- 08 April 2010 12:06 AM  I think I can use deductive reasoning
based on premises which are assumptions of science.  So I think
an assumption of science is there are infinite possible ways the
world could be.  This sounds more like metaphysical wibble and
not at all like a requirement for doing science.  How would
doing science be different if your assumption was not the case?
There would be no variables, hard to imagine science without
variables.   I think we are mixing two concepts here.  I’ll call
them ontological possibilities and epistemological
possibilities.  Since we do not have complete knowledge (hence
the drive behind doing science) we have unknowns, we have
variables.  These are epistemological possibilities.  I’d call
this a motivation for doing