I have been reading David Hume's "Enquiries: Concerning the Human Understanding" lately and something puzzled me – but here is a little background information first:
___

Hume categorizes human knowledge into two categories - Matters of Fact and Relations of Ideas.

The Relations of Ideas category includes the Pythagorean Theorem and other things that are independent upon their existence in the universe – if there were no triangles in nature, the Pythagorean Theorem would still be correct. Mathematical knowledge fits in here.

The Matters of Fact category includes statements like “The sun will rise tomorrow,” “Fire produces heat,” and “My friend lives in France.” Scientific knowledge (re: probable events, but the contradiction can still occur) fits in here. Although I disagree with his grouping all scientific thought in here, I believe that Hume sees Mathematical knowledge as the framework of Scientific knowledge – Scientific knowledge is Mathematical knowledge applied to the real world.

Hume argues that at the root of all matters of fact is ‘cause and effect.’ Experience gives humans the basis upon which cause and effect is applied. He says that Adam, with all his analytical skill, would not have been able to know that water would suffocate him; he would not have been able to deduce that fire would consume him.
___

Here is what I would like your thoughts on:

If there were born a human with a very great analytical skill and a vast intellect (but no experience with the real world), do you think that he (or she) could arrive at the fundamental equations of the universe (which we have not yet been able to reach)? Or could he (or she) come up with the weak form of the Anthropic Principle?

Or would he have to begin with experiencing physics firsthand – dropping apples, measuring the speed of light, colliding subatomic particles, et cetera to work up the pyramid, so to speak, toward the most fundamental equations (from which he would be able to derive that fire would burn, water would drown, etc.)?
___

I appreciate your feedback in advance =)

• experience is necessary - harvey1 - January 25, 2002 - 02:24 UTC
  • fiction is necessary - something - January 25, 2002 - 05:21 UTC
  • There's one problem experience can't solve - aurino - January 25, 2002 - 15:07 UTC
    • I bet I get 'english translated' whether I like it or not - harvey1 - January 25, 2002 - 17:25 UTC
      • No, only when I'm in a humurous mood - aurino - January 25, 2002 - 17:58 UTC
        • Reference frames - harvey1 - January 25, 2002 - 18:09 UTC
          • I'm shocked - aurino - January 25, 2002 - 19:21 UTC
            • Huh? - harvey1 - January 25, 2002 - 19:44 UTC
              • I thought 2 + 2 = 5 - aurino - January 25, 2002 - 20:39 UTC
                • And now you - harvey1 - January 25, 2002 - 21:56 UTC
              • Harwey, wrong page. Aurino is indeed right here. - alexander - January 25, 2002 - 20:46 UTC
                • Not based on internet searches - harvey1 - January 25, 2002 - 21:17 UTC
                  • Correction - harvey1 - January 25, 2002 - 22:01 UTC
                    • Sorry Harv - aurino - January 28, 2002 - 20:49 UTC
                      • You have no clue - harvey1 - January 28, 2002 - 21:19 UTC
                        • I can be nasty too - aurino - January 28, 2002 - 22:00 UTC
                          • Okay - harvey1 - January 28, 2002 - 22:22 UTC
                            • Correction - harvey1 - January 28, 2002 - 22:29 UTC
                              • You are not paying attention! - doctordick - January 29, 2002 - 21:04 UTC
                            • Is this 'professional' wrestling? - harvey1 - January 29, 2002 - 22:08 UTC
                              • Tagged out??? - aurino - January 30, 2002 - 13:59 UTC
                                • Oh please - harvey1 - January 30, 2002 - 15:06 UTC
                                  • Just who the hell do you think you are? - aurino - January 30, 2002 - 16:15 UTC
                                    • Typical response from you (nt) - harvey1 - January 30, 2002 - 17:10 UTC
                              • You have the wrong slant on this! - doctordick - January 30, 2002 - 14:07 UTC
                            • Simon says? - harvey1 - January 30, 2002 - 15:15 UTC
                            • Simon says? (messed up html, read this one) - harvey1 - January 30, 2002 - 15:17 UTC
                              • I am very sorry about that! - doctordick - January 31, 2002 - 16:35 UTC
                                • Don't be sorry, Dick - pmartin - January 31, 2002 - 21:52 UTC
                            • Are you trying to say that you are a sophisticated realist? - harvey1 - January 31, 2002 - 20:06 UTC
                            • Read this one, I just am no good at html - harvey1 - January 31, 2002 - 20:07 UTC
                  • Google :) corrections - something - January 26, 2002 - 05:35 UTC
                • Regarding my Rice University reference - harvey1 - January 25, 2002 - 22:19 UTC
            • prove physics more pertinent to "god and science" than history - something - January 26, 2002 - 04:30 UTC
              • Some smiles about atheists and theists. - alexander - January 27, 2002 - 01:00 UTC
  • Thanks. One more for y'all. - bladesinger - January 25, 2002 - 18:20 UTC
• Experiment is vital in determining initial and other conditions. - alexander - January 25, 2002 - 04:13 UTC
  • Sorry, missed important word. - alexander - January 25, 2002 - 04:17 UTC
• I understand, and now that I think of it, - bladesinger - January 25, 2002 - 05:39 UTC
• We are conceived knowing Universe basics - dolphin - January 27, 2002 - 04:37 UTC