could you expect it to become two bottles without intervention? Of course not.
You shouldn't expect it in any way. You can't absolutely rule it out either. You're basically using a backwards ontological argument to "prove" a negative. Which, you can't actually do, which is precisely related to my point of view.
because you are in possession of the facts about bottles and their capabilities to spontaneously generate.
The bottle could duplicate through some rational process without you being capable of measuring it. You don't actually possess anything other than your ability and capacity to measure things. You are far more confident in this than you should be.
A statement that always describes reality is a statement of fact.
Well, let's try to hit bedrock: "There is a universe."
Well.. probably, but genuinely, since we can't get outside of it, we have to resolve ourselves to a solid "maybe." From here, most hope for "absolute truth" is also gone. Since.. we live in this object that we believe is a "universe."
Still.. our best guess is that the laws of nature inside this "universe" have not been constant for the life of the universe. So, some of your statements, while possibly valid for billions of years, are almost certainly constrained in time (and again, possibly space, which is why dark matter theories are a thing), and if you think they aren't, you'll need to hypothesize and present a different possible explanation for our measurements and observations.
You are far more confident in this than you should be.
Maybe so, but I think you might be right alongside me in that.
Well, let's try to hit bedrock: "There is a universe."
Seems like a good bedrock. We have to be somewhere. This exchange alone could be said to be proof of that because we are certainly not arguing with ourselves.
laws of nature inside this "universe" have not been constant for the life of the universe
Time to slow your roll for a moment. I never said facts aren't variable in that a change of circumstance can bring a change of environment or disposition. If you look at the theorized conditions of the early universe you might find many differences between that and its current condition (even if you think that is theorized as well).
I'm not sure where your position that physical laws should not change to fit physical conditions comes from, but I'm curious to know more.
need to hypothesize and present a different possible explanation for our measurements and observations
Perhaps you could elucidate the particular observations and measurements you're referring to.
Since the focus has relaxed to observable states of the universe, we can also speak of accuracy. An accurate statement of fact describes the change in reality in accordance to circumstance. One might argue that a fact that describes any amount of change is more accurate because change is one of the few observable constants. This is more commonly known as cause and effect.
You shouldn't expect it in any way. You can't absolutely rule it out either. You're basically using a backwards ontological argument to "prove" a negative. Which, you can't actually do, which is precisely related to my point of view.
The bottle could duplicate through some rational process without you being capable of measuring it. You don't actually possess anything other than your ability and capacity to measure things. You are far more confident in this than you should be.
Well, let's try to hit bedrock: "There is a universe."
Well.. probably, but genuinely, since we can't get outside of it, we have to resolve ourselves to a solid "maybe." From here, most hope for "absolute truth" is also gone. Since.. we live in this object that we believe is a "universe."
Still.. our best guess is that the laws of nature inside this "universe" have not been constant for the life of the universe. So, some of your statements, while possibly valid for billions of years, are almost certainly constrained in time (and again, possibly space, which is why dark matter theories are a thing), and if you think they aren't, you'll need to hypothesize and present a different possible explanation for our measurements and observations.
Maybe so, but I think you might be right alongside me in that.
Seems like a good bedrock. We have to be somewhere. This exchange alone could be said to be proof of that because we are certainly not arguing with ourselves.
Time to slow your roll for a moment. I never said facts aren't variable in that a change of circumstance can bring a change of environment or disposition. If you look at the theorized conditions of the early universe you might find many differences between that and its current condition (even if you think that is theorized as well).
I'm not sure where your position that physical laws should not change to fit physical conditions comes from, but I'm curious to know more.
Perhaps you could elucidate the particular observations and measurements you're referring to.
Since the focus has relaxed to observable states of the universe, we can also speak of accuracy. An accurate statement of fact describes the change in reality in accordance to circumstance. One might argue that a fact that describes any amount of change is more accurate because change is one of the few observable constants. This is more commonly known as cause and effect.