by Giles on Mon Jul 31, 2023 11:18 am
Maybe the example of the airplane isn't quite so good. Someone in the year 1700 would be flabbergasted if they saw it in the air, but they would still see the congruence with a gliding bird, so in that sense it might be a little more 'understandable'. Maybe we can imagine someone in London around that time who witnesses, say, a Skype video call with someone else they know to be in Scotland at that moment. Conducted on an iPhone, in the middle of a park. This too from our perspective doesn't break any physical laws, assuming you've got the whole telecommunications infrastructure in place (in 1700). But for even a highly-educated person in 1700, this use of (as yet unknown) physical laws would be so far out of the box that "magic" ("sorcery","devilment" or indeed "angelic forces" etc.) would seem the only explanation. Even Isaac Newton (alive and kicking then) wouldn't have the frame of reference to explain how this could be achieved through "natural philosophy". (Although it might get him thinking, he was by all accounts quite clever...).
Our current observations of the universe and the derived suite of physical laws are probably not "wrong". Just like Newton's laws of physics are not "wrong" - but apply to only a certain segment of reality. As maybe the current laws of relativity, the laws of thermodynamics etc. also do...?
Do not make the mistake of giving up the near in order to seek the far.