maksiiiskam2 Says:

Jul 8, 2008 - It also depends on what is counted as a "detail about the world". If mathematics count as "about the world", there are infinitely many true facts of the form "the Nth digit of pi is X". If it doesn't, then it depends of what constitutes a fact. Consider Conway's Game of Life: the whole game is explainable in a handful of rules and someone might say that these rules are the only "facts about GoL". (cont)

maksiiiskam2 Says:

Jul 8, 2008 - However, questions such as "what is the maximal density of a GoL space?" or "can there exist an oscillator of 53 periods?", if considered as facts, are more numerous. What the GoL teaches us is that knowing the rules does not secure the demonstrable decidability of all questions one might ask. (cont)

maksiiiskam2 Says:

Jul 8, 2008 - For the same reason, the world might be explainable with a finite list of naturalistic laws, but it depends whether undecidable questions are factual. It might be impossible to decide what is the largest possible stable atom. There are even "meta-questions", such as the open problem of emergent phenomena, asking precisely whether a knowledge of the laws of physics is able to explain emergent phenomena. (cont)

maksiiiskam2 Says:

Jul 8, 2008 - Also, there are ontological questions, that sure aren't explainable with laws (knowing all the laws of the universe could not help to prove whether a planet revolves around a particular star, we have to actually look there). I think that facts are an ill-defined class of ontological entities that are better omitted. They are mereologically insignificant and add nothing to an emptier world of occurences and laws without facts appearing between those as I conceive of it. (cont)

maksiiiskam2 Says:

Jul 8, 2008 - I guess my answer really does say much about my philosophy, indeed.

CivilHuman Says:

Jul 8, 2008 - very interesting primes here. I think there is a subatomic level that is the main frame of what is. Basically like the higgs. A thing that unify s every thing like gravity, thermo dynamics, energy and atoms and other interesting stuff, I would have to say no. There may be individual answer's but nothing that unify s all.

captcaveman4201 Says:

Jul 8, 2008 - it would depend on the perspective. in order to give you free will you could look deeper into it. if you want to.

LimpLoser Says:

Jul 9, 2008 - hhhmmm. well. they think the world ends at the sub-atomic--so by implication there must be a sub-atomic particle out there which is the smallest. Curtailing the complexity of Matter in the cosmos.

thinkeatingmachine Says:

Jul 9, 2008 - I don't(can't (if it's infinite)) know, but it seems like there would be.

pyrrho314 Says:

Jul 9, 2008 - the idea of an atom in the material is interesting... one, these particles are made of energy, what makes energy? secondly, it's possible to reach a fundamental level by having your definition, e.g. quarks are the smallest material particles, but this doesn't mean they don't break down to something, but something which just doesn't count as "matter", such as ideas, or energy. I consider energy "material", but of course one might mean mass. Honestly, I don't know how we'll define material.

bigdaddydylan Says:

Jul 9, 2008 - What would a thing without parts look like-- Goo? Dylan

TheDevilsAdvocate55 Says:

Jul 9, 2008 - I always have to raise an eyebrow when people speak of "man made/artificial" things as somehow being fallacious or not real. If man is an epiphenomena of reality, how could it possible concieve or make anything above or outside of it.

Trollschool Says:

Jul 9, 2008 - The old answer to this is that man is an outcast from reality. My own opinion is that he's just an overachiever.

pyrrho314 Says:

Jul 10, 2008 - generally it's imagined as some hard indivisible thing like a diamond, unbreakable and hard, not gooey. Gooey things have parts, the particles of their goo.

chaoscontrot Says:

Jul 10, 2008 - When I was a kid, I thought there was a fundamental partical and was excited about it. Then one day I was sitting there and thought: "What if there is no fundamental partical, and all mass is simply the implied motion of other implied bodies" this would make everything subjective though. Its like money, money implies a power or an ability to buy something, however it gains its power from the implication that it has value. In short I think everything is implied by and implies every else.

chaoscontrot Says:

Jul 10, 2008 - @ Maksiiskam2 I see what your saying. There are all different types of questions and asking another creates a whole new set of facts. I liken this to a computers RAM memory which would be like our laws. The memory held on the computer can change from one fact to another to answer something. I think that if you know all the laws, you can predict absolutely anything including where a star is because i believe the future is ultimately predictable. If you know the law you can make the facts

pyrrho314 Says:

Jul 11, 2008 - I think there are possibilities in the universe, I believe they may be determined, possibly, but they are multiple, if it's not random, it's choice, but the future cannot be predicted that way, and if you were to go in reverse time, it couldn't be predicted that direction either. mo.

pyrrho314 Says:

Jul 11, 2008 - that's a yes it's infinite, because there are all the ways of looking at it, and if there are either infinite ways of looking at it, or at least one of the ways has infinite details, then there is infinite detail "in the universe".

pyrrho314 Says:

Jul 11, 2008 - yes, or "chemicals" as if we are not chemicals. The problem with toxic chemicals is, of course, we're all chemical. Funny pet peeve, I won't stand behind it... but what man makes, nature "made" too, through us.

pyrrho314 Says:

Jul 11, 2008 - very interesting

SilverPheonix360 Says:

Jul 12, 2008 - You will find infinity in all places both up and down and side to side and in directions you are not even capable of perceiving. All of what we know about this universe and all of our knowledge is miniscule in comparison to what we do not know. The main reason for this is found in our limited abilities. We use technology to overcome such limitations however if we are not aware of the limitation how can we overcome it?

pyrrho314 Says:

Jul 12, 2008 - exactly, wolfram points out simple rules can yeild stochastic systems that neverless sometimes show paterns, e.g. fractals., or in his case, those diagrams of his which are like the general case of one dimensional games of life.

pyrrho314 Says:

Jul 12, 2008 - the world might be explainable with a finite set of rules, so in the domain of concepts, do you think that is the case? or are there infinite rules.

pyrrho314 Says:

Jul 12, 2008 - knowledge comes from within the process begining with the discover of our limitations.

maksiiiskam2 Says:

Jul 12, 2008 - What I meant with the star is that the laws alone cannot prove the existence of something, you need also to observe phenomenons deriving from the thing. For example, I cannot accept a reasoning such as "planets disturb their stars's position, therefore star X has one planet". It requires another step: "planets trouble their stars' orbit, I obeserve a disturbtion in star X's position, therefore star X has one planet". Laws alone cannot help to know what exists to be ruled by them.