Belief Vs. Knowledge

[PeterMP]

I am talking about models that are built entirely on observations. Natural laws, future resembling the past, all are based on observations.

What untested assumption are you talking about?

 

The things that have made people believe that fine structure constant is not a constant are based on observations.

 

The people at Utah and BYU that thought they had a room temperature nuclear process were basing it on their observations, and the people that couldn't repeat it elsewhere (and in the future) made that claim based on observations.

 

The guy that posted here a couple of months ago and said he didn't switch lanes into a truck without any lights on that he couldn't see because he was told an angle him not to was (possibly (as I said in the thread, he might also just be a liar, but let's assume that everybody that tells such stories is not lying)) was basing his claims on his observations.

 

I'm talking about the same assumptions I've been talking about for two threads.  Most notably that the universe is based on natural laws that are constants and so things are reproducibile with respect to time and space.

[alexey]

...

I'm talking about the same assumptions I've been talking about for two threads. Most notably that the universe is based on natural laws that are constants and so things are reproducibile with respect to time and space.

You keep calling them "assumptions", and I keep disagreeing. I say these are conclusions based on observations.

We came to rely on repeatability because that's what we observed. I am sure quantum mechanics has examples where we stopped expecting repeatability after we stopped observing it.

I am not sure why you introduced examples of mistakes based on observations. I am also unclear about reasons for your claim that something about physics was not based on observations.

[PeterMP]

You keep calling them "assumptions", and I keep disagreeing. I say these are conclusions based on observations.

We came to rely on repeatability because that's what we observed. I am sure quantum mechanics has examples where we stopped expecting repeatability after we stopped observing it.

I am not sure why you introduced examples of mistakes based on observations. I am also unclear about reasons for your claim that something about physics was not based on observations.

 

And other people say that their beliefs are conclusions based on observations.  The guy that didn't switch lanes because an angel told him not to has drawn a conclusion based on his observations.  Though you then want to discard his observation as a mistake.

 

Maybe it is your observations that is the mistake (more accurately your conclusions based on your observations).

 

You've drawn a conclusion based on observations without really doing any test to see if the observation matches your conclusion.

 

I asked before:

"Why can't the universe be a completely random system without natural laws?"

 

Given an infinite system (i.e. the universe), what would be the probability of producing locally in time and place and area that would have something that would appear to be following natural laws given the human's brain desire to find patterns?

 

What makes you think they are mistakes?

 

It seems pretty presumptous of you to act like you know more about what was happening in this guy's lab while he was doing electrolysis than he did.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Fleischmann

 

"From 1970 to 1972, he was president of the International Society of Electrochemists.^[9] In 1973, together with Patrick J. Hendra and A. James McQuillan, he played an important role in the discovery of Surface Enhanced Raman Scattering effect (SERS) a contribution for which the University of Southampton was awarded a National Chemical Landmark plaque by the Royal Society of Chemistry in 2013,^[5][10] and he developed the ultramicroelectrode in the 1980s.^[11] In 1979, he was awarded the medal for electrochemistry and thermodynamics by the Royal Society of London. In 1982 he retired from the University of Southampton. In 1985 he received the Palladium Medal from the US Electrochemical Society, and in 1986 was elected to the Fellowship of the Royal Society.^[12] He retired from teaching in 1983 and was given an honorary professorship at Southampton University."

 

As I've alluded to in post 291 and 293, you see a "pattern", you have no way of actually testing that the pattern is true at any real significant level, but you have a strong bias that it is true.

 

Then in order to fit this essentially untestable pattern into your model of how the universe works (or vice versa), you dismiss things that would disprove the pattern as mistakes (I even used the word mistakes in post 293).

 

You don't actually collect data and test if the pattern is correct at a significant level.

 

Working under the assumptions made by science, Fleischmann must have made a mistake, but maybe it is that assumption that is wrong.

 

You see the pattern, you say the pattern exist, you do no rigorous test to see if the pattern is happening at some level above what you'd expected based on random chance, and you dismiss evidence that potentially the pattern isn't real as mistakes.

 

Despite the fact that you know the human brain is good at finding patterns and even when there isn't a pattern there, and you criticize people for doing similar things.

[alexey]

Peter,

Maybe we can find agreement like this:

Beliefs/conclusions for all people are based on observations, and observations, beliefs, conclusions can differ from person to person. There is no way of knowing what is "true", but we can discuss which systems of observations/beliefs/conclusions do a better job of achieving something. For example, if we want to achieve ability to best explain all available observations, predict the future. feed people, cure disease, etc., then science is better. Theology could be better suited to achieve other goals, just not those mentioned above.

[Chew]

I haven't read a single post in this thread, nor do I care do.  Belief, knowledge....I dunno.  I honestly don't know why/how we got here, or what our purpose is.

 

But one thing I do know......jesus was a black man.

 

 

all hail Robert Griffin III.

 

[PeterMP]

Peter,

Maybe we can find agreement like this:

Beliefs/conclusions for all people are based on observations, and observations, beliefs, conclusions can differ from person to person. There is no way of knowing what is "true", but we can discuss which systems of observations/beliefs/conclusions do a better job of achieving something. For example, if we want to achieve ability to best explain all available observations, predict the future. feed people, cure disease, etc., then science is better. Theology could be better suited to achieve other goals, just not those mentioned above.

 

The "ability" of a system to do anything is directly related to how much/frequent the underlying assumptions are.  If the assumptions aren't true, then the system isn't going to really solve any problems.

 

In the context of this conversation, where you've used the word better, but I suspect you pretty much mean exclusivey.  I suspect multiple approaches will be needed to address different issues, especially when you talk about a pretty broad class of issues.  Of course, that's just a belief on my part and could be incorrect.

 

For example, I haven't read much about feeding people since I was in college, but at that time, it seemed pretty clear that we actually did produce enough food globally to feed everybody pretty well (or at least had the ability to do so).

 

The issue is/was distribution and resource management not really food production or even really technology related to things like distribution.

 

But really our desire/will to feed people.

[alexey]

The "ability" of a system to do anything is directly related to how much/frequent the underlying assumptions are. If the assumptions aren't true, then the system isn't going to really solve any problems.

...

Peter I think you got it exactly backwards with this "assumptions->system->problem solving" view.

I think it all stars with solving problems, then systems emerge and become more complex, then our understanding of things you call "assumptions" emerges and becomes refined.

This is reflected in our evolutionary history and this is why I brought up the squirrel who already solves problems but cannot be said to have knowledge (comprehension) or make assumptions.

It sounds like you are advocating an "intelligent design" view of knowledge systems - take assumptions, go apply them, build a model. That is not how we got here. Knowledge systems evolved and competed with each other. Some inferior systems of knowledge became the fossil record already while others are on the way there. Science already won.

[PeterMP]

Peter I think you got it exactly backwards with this "assumptions->system->problem solving" view.

I think it all stars with solving problems, then systems emerge and become more complex, then our understanding of things you call "assumptions" emerges and becomes refined.

This is reflected in our evolutionary history and this is why I brought up the squirrel who already solves problems but cannot be said to have knowledge (comprehension) or make assumptions.

It sounds like you are advocating an "intelligent design" view of knowledge systems - take assumptions, go apply them, build a model. That is not how we got here. Knowledge systems evolved and competed with each other. Some inferior systems of knowledge became the fossil record already while others are on the way there. Science already won.

 

I don't care how it happened, if your knowledge system is based on an assumption, and the assumption is wrong, then your knowledge system is garbage.

 

I would suggest that the person that starts with understanding what the assumptions are is probably more likely to understand when things are counter to his/her assumptions and probably better prepared to address any relevant issues that come up and come up with ways to test those assumptions.

 

And that is actually my bigger problem with much of your argument and the post you made of the essay by Coyne.  If we ignore the most underlyinjg assumption, then your closing off routes to interpert data and to think about testing those assumptions.

 

 

And if you don't know or are willing to lie about your most underlying assumption, what other assumptions don't you know or are lying about?

 

And this happens in science.  Biochemists like to make something called the steady state assumption because it simplifies the math, but if you apply it to cases where it isn't true, you end up with problems.

 

But in certain areas, but historically lot's of people apply it in cases where it isn't likely true.

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2265107/

 

"It was shown that using the QSSA changed the perceived dynamical behaviour of the system. Unfortunately, these results have not been widely accepted within the biochemical community. There is an assumption that the long-term behaviour of most systems is to reach a steady state. The reduction of the model by the QSSA is considered acceptable because the long-term dynamic is assumed not to change [2, for example]. "

 

"This investigation shows that model reduction by the use of the QSSA can fail to reveal some important dynamical properties of the unreduced system. We hope that this demonstrates to the biochemical community that care should be taken when modelling complex pathways. The use of the QSSA in reducing the system, or in deriving reaction rates or fluxes, is contraindicated."

 

Scientists should be very aware of ALL of the assumptions they are making and then take that into account when considering their data.  This also can lead to important thinking about how do test our assumptions and what does our data mean in the context that they aren't true.

 

If you've come to a system of knowledge where you don't even know what the assumptions are (i.e. they haven't been refined), then you are in even bigger trouble because you don't even know what your issues might be.

[alexey]

I don't care how it happened, if your knowledge system is based on an assumption, and the assumption is wrong, then your knowledge system is garbage.

I would suggest that the person that starts with understanding what the assumptions are is probably more likely to understand when things are counter to his/her assumptions and probably better prepared to address any relevant issues that come up and come up with ways to test those assumptions.

And that is actually my bigger problem with much of your argument and the post you made of the essay by Coyne. If we ignore the most underlyinjg assumption, then your closing off routes to interpert data and to think about testing those assumptions.

And if you don't know or are willing to lie about your most underlying assumption, what other assumptions don't you know or are lying about?

And this happens in science. Biochemists like to make something called the steady state assumption because it simplifies the math, but if you apply it to cases where it isn't true, you end up with problems.

You challenged well established, continuously observed, and constantly validated facts about natural laws and the future resembling the past using a philosophy paper that says reality could be a simulation. I openly, honestly, explicitly considered your argument, and rejected it...

Well established and continuously validated fact about the natural world continues to be a safe assumption. You did not provide sufficient evidence to substantiate a doubt about it.

...

Scientists should be very aware of ALL of the assumptions they are making and then take that into account when considering their data. This also can lead to important thinking about how do test our assumptions and what does our data mean in the context that they aren't true.

If you've come to a system of knowledge where you don't even know what the assumptions are (i.e. they haven't been refined), then you are in even bigger trouble because you don't even know what your issues might be.

I agree that it is important to discover, question, and validate assumptions. We discovered the assumption, we questioned it, and we validated it... and continue to validate it all the time as things keep working as they had before.

Your case for a non-zero probability that natural laws can suddenly stop working remains unsubstantiated.

[PeterMP]

You challenged well established, continuously observed, and constantly validated facts about natural laws and the future resembling the past using a philosophy paper that says reality could be a simulation. I openly, honestly, explicitly considered your argument, and rejected it...

Well established and continuously validated fact about the natural world continues to be a safe assumption. You did not provide sufficient evidence to substantiate a doubt about it.

I agree that it is important to discover, question, and validate assumptions. We discovered the assumption, we questioned it, and we validated it... and continue to validate it all the time as things keep working as they had before.

Your case for a non-zero probability that natural laws can suddenly stop working remains unsubstantiated.

 

1. I've actually said I don't know what it is and I don't even know how to put a number on it.  You've said it that it is very high.  You are making the positive assertion.  The burden of proof it is on you.

 

2.  It is only unsubstantiated if you dismiss evidence for it as mistakes without actually having evidence they are mistakes unless you start with your assumption.  An experienced electrochemists observing the production of heat and nuclear products while doing electrochemistry that cannot be explained by known natural laws and cannot be reproduced by others is evidence, unless you out-and-out reject the claim by stating it is a mistake.

 

If I make the assumption that it can't happen, then he's wrong and my assumption that it can't happen is right.

 

The other possbility is that your assumption is wrong, but you don't eve know how to test that because you don't want to talk about it.

 

And that's just one example.

 

And that's exactly where Coyne is and that is only a solution to stifling knowledge/progress.

 

**EDIT**

In terms of burden of proof, the novice position has to be that all realities, including those where physical laws are not constants, have equal probabilities.  If you want to argue that is not the case, then the burden of proof of yours.

 

I'll admit that there is evidence that the past predicts the future because at least sometimes is appears to do so.  How much it does and how value that evidece is, I'm unsure.

[alexey]

1. I've actually said I don't know what it is and I don't even know how to put a number on it. You've said it that it is very high. You are making the positive assertion. The burden of proof it is on you.

I remember us agreeing that nobody can say anything about probabilities of discontinuity of natural laws.

You asserted that I am evaluating this probability to be low when I get on the plane. I refused and said I do not evaluate it at all.

2. It is only unsubstantiated if you dismiss evidence for it as mistakes without actually having evidence they are mistakes unless you start with your assumption. An experienced electrochemists observing the production of heat and nuclear products while doing electrochemistry that cannot be explained by known natural laws and cannot be reproduced by others is evidence, unless you out-and-out reject the claim by stating it is a mistake.

Evidence that cannot be reproduced does not have to be dismissed and it cannot be proven a mistake. It is simply useless.

The other possbility is that your assumption is wrong, but you don't eve know how to test that because you don't want to talk about it.

I test the continuity of natural laws every morning in the shower. If water still falls down, we're in business.

And that's just one example.

In terms of burden of proof, the novice position has to be that all realities, including those where physical laws are not constants, have equal probabilities. If you want to argue that is not the case, then the burden of proof of yours.

Before we go there, let's see if we have sufficient evidence to conclude that other realities exist.

[PeterMP]

I remember us agreeing that nobody can say anything about probabilities of discontinuity of natural laws.

You asserted that I am evaluating this probability to be low when I get on the plane. I refused and said I do not evaluate it at all.

 

"I openly, honestly, explicitly considered your argument, and rejected it."

That's your previous post.

 

You evaluated, and you rejected it.

 

You can't say that I don't evaluate the possibliity that the probability is low when I get on a plane, and then two pages later say I've evaluated it and rejected it, and then in the next post say I don't evaluate it.

 

Evidence that cannot be reproduced does not have to be dismissed and it cannot be proven a mistake. It is simply useless.

 

But that's the point.  Things that can't be reproduced are EXACTLY what you'd expect if natural laws are not really natural laws.

 

That's the assumption that underlies science.  If we can't reproduce it, it isn't sicence, and you dismiss it as useless.

 

You're saying that any evidence that I'm wrong is useless.

 

That's really convienant for you.

[alexey]

"I openly, honestly, explicitly considered your argument, and rejected it."

That's your previous post.

You evaluated, and you rejected it.

You can't say that I don't evaluate the possibliity that the probability is low when I get on a plane, and then two pages later say I've evaluated it and rejected it, and then in the next post say I don't evaluate it.

Oh I see where you are coming from now. Think of it as a two stage process:

1) Evaluate whether there is a good reason to think that something could happen.

2) Evaluate probabilities of it happening.

The "natural laws could suddenly stop working" was evaluated and rejected in step 1).

But that's the point. Things that can't be reproduced are EXACTLY what you'd expect if natural laws are not really natural laws.

That's the assumption that underlies science. If we can't reproduce it, it isn't sicence, and you dismiss it as useless.

You're saying that any evidence that I'm wrong is useless.

That's really convienant for you.

Please remember that we are coming from different places:

Alexey - natural laws are observed facts

Peter - natural laws may or may not be "really natural laws"

I don't know if you're wrong (frankly I don't even know what you mean), but the evidence in question 1) does not change observed facts, and 2) does not provide any information about what's really real.

Our main disagreement came from your claim that science and theology are on equally shaky grounds. Looks like we cleared up our disagreement, somewhat. You were not talking about the thing we call reality, but an abstract inaccessible "really truly real" stuff.

[PeterMP]

Oh I see where you are coming from now. Think of it as a two stage process:

1) Evaluate whether there is a good reason to think that something could happen.

2) Evaluate probabilities of it happening.

The "natural laws could suddenly stop working" was evaluated and rejected in step 1).

Please remember that we are coming from different places:

Alexey - natural laws are observed facts

Peter - natural laws may or may not be "really natural laws"

I don't know if you're wrong (frankly I don't even know what you mean), but the evidence in question 1) does not change observed facts, and 2) does not provide any information about what's really real.

Our main disagreement came from your claim that science and theology are on equally shaky grounds. Looks like we cleared up our disagreement, somewhat. You were not talking about the thing we call reality, but an abstract inaccessible "really truly real" stuff.

Except I am talking about "reality".

 

A very experienced electrochemists "really" did say that he was able to do electrochemistry that produced more heat than it should have and nuclear products.

 

If that's not reality, then I don't know what it is.

[alexey]

Except I am talking about "reality".

A very experienced electrochemists "really" did say that he was able to do electrochemistry that produced more heat than it should have and nuclear products.

If that's not reality, then I don't know what it is.

people say things and experience things, that's clearly a part of reality.

Burden of proof is on people who claim that their experiences, aka activity in their brain, is more than just activity in their brain.

Claims of science can meet this burden of proof but claims about god cannot. That is a fundamental difference between these different kinds of claims.

[PeterMP]

people say things and experience things, that's clearly a part of reality.

Burden of proof is on people who claim that their experiences, aka activity in their brain, is more than just activity in their brain.

Claims of science can meet this burden of proof but claims about god cannot. That is a fundamental difference between these different kinds of claims.

 

How?

 

Science is based on an underlying assumption that natural laws really do exist.

 

You can't prove that with science.

 

Again, you see a pattern (that the past predicts the future), you want to say that is true, but you don't do any rigorous tests to demonstrate it.

 

The things that you say meet this burden of proof are dependent on that being true.

 

Why isn't the burden of proof on you that the experinece is more than just acitivity in your brain in the same manner you require of everybody else?

[alexey]

How?

Science is based on an underlying assumption that natural laws really do exist.

You can't prove that with science.

Again, you see a pattern (that the past predicts the future), you want to say that is true, but you don't do any rigorous tests to demonstrate it.

You drop a rock. It falls. You drop it again. It falls again. You drop if from different heights, in different ways, etc, etc, etc, and it falls every time. Then Peter says: your conclusions are not based on observations, but on assumptions. You didn't do any rigorous tests to demonstrate it!

Continuity of natural laws is an observable and demonstrable fact. Yes observable and demonstrable facts do not tell us what "really exists".

The things that you say meet this burden of proof are dependent on that being true.

Why isn't the burden of proof on you that the experinece is more than just acitivity in your brain in the same manner you require of everybody else?

The burden of proof is on me whenever I assert that my experience reflects reality.

Notice that I am talking about the reality where it has been established, beyond a reasonable doubt, that we are human beings who live on a planet, etc.

If you say that fact is in doubt, then please share the way you obtain facts about reality.

[PeterMP]

You drop a rock. It falls. You drop it again. It falls again. You drop if from different heights, in different ways, etc, etc, etc, and it falls every time. Then Peter says: your conclusions are not based on observations, but on assumptions. You didn't do any rigorous tests to demonstrate it!

Continuity of natural laws is an observable and demonstrable fact. Yes observable and demonstrable facts do not tell us what "really exists".

The burden of proof is on me whenever I assert that my experience reflects reality.

Notice that I am talking about the reality where it has been established, beyond a reasonable doubt, that we are human beings who live on a planet, etc.

If you say that fact is in doubt, then please share the way you obtain facts about reality.

 

Fleischman does electrolysis using Pd in the presence of deutereated water, he gets excess heat.  He does it again, he gets exess heat.  He does it again, he gets excess heat.  He does it again, he gets excess heat.  He does it for 19 times and he gets excess heat.  He does it for the 20th time, he doesn't.

 

Other people do the experiment and see excess heat, while others do not.

 

The incontinuity of some natural laws is an observable fact.

[alexey]

Fleischman does electrolysis using Pd in the presence of deutereated water, he gets excess heat. He does it again, he gets exess heat. He does it again, he gets excess heat. He does it again, he gets excess heat. He does it for 19 times and he gets excess heat. He does it for the 20th time, he doesn't.

Other people do the experiment and see excess heat, while others do not.

The incontinuity of some natural laws is an observable fact.

non sequitur.

Example of "we don't know what happened" is not evidence for "we know this was discontinuity of natural laws"

[PeterMP]

non sequitur.

Example of "we don't know what happened" is not evidence for "we know this was discontinuity of natural laws"

 

I'm just mimicing your language back at you.

 

And the same thing applies for your example.  How many times did you actually test the rock fell because of gravity and not some other cause?

[alexey]

I'm just mimicing your language back at you.

And the same thing applies for your example. How many times did you actually test the rock fell because of gravity and not some other cause?

I am merely claiming that natural laws are demonstrably continuous. Your claim that they could stop working is not well supported.

Btw far from being an anomaly, your example is widely considered a mistake of researchers:

( "cold fusion" section)

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathological_science

[PeterMP]

 

I am merely claiming that natural laws are demonstrably continuous. Your claim that they could stop working is not well supported.

Btw far from being an anomaly, your example is widely considered a mistake of researchers:

( "cold fusion" section)

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathological_science

It is well supported as the opposite argument.

If you throw out every case that possibly could be cauased by the discontiouation of natural laws as a mistake (without real evidence) as a mistake.

And count every case consistent with the continuation of natural laws, but not rigorously demonstrated to be actually caused by known natural laws (e.g. every rock falling is evidence that gravity exist w/o worrying about things like the veolicty at which the rock falls), then yes my position is poorly supported.

But that's a garbage argument.

And of course they consider it a mistake. We have a strong societal (and I'd bet individual bias- if nothing else based on our brain's "desire" to see patterns) to ignore evidnece.

To use your quote from the ghost thread again:

I cannot tell if you people are just playing or are actually serious about this ghost stuff.

More you believe in this stuff, more you will see it. That is how the human brain works. It is not real.

Who gets up in the morning and thinks, I hope my car starts because I'm not sure the laws of physics/chemistry have changed and made the combustion of gas not favorable?

We believe our cars will start and so that's what we see.

But that isn't really evidence that is real.

Your above quote works both ways.

[alexey]

It is well supported as the opposite argument.

If you throw out every case that possibly could be cauased by the discontiouation of natural laws as a mistake (without real evidence) as a mistake.

And count every case consistent with the continuation of natural laws, but not rigorously demonstrated to be actually caused by known natural laws (e.g. every rock falling is evidence that gravity exist w/o worrying about things like the veolicty at which the rock falls), then yes my position is poorly supported.

But that's a garbage argument.

Claims about suspensions or discontinuations of natural laws have been abundant in human history, yet the trend amongst our intellectuals has been to take them less and less seriously.

I see this happening doe to lack of evidence, and you see mistreatment of evidence. We can agree to disagree on this.

A while back you raised a thread exploring possible ways of studying non-repeatable phenomena. I remember coming into the thread not knowing any good ways of doing it, and leaving with the same impression.

And of course they consider it a mistake. We have a strong societal (and I'd bet individual bias- if nothing else based on our brain's "desire" to see patterns) to ignore evidnece.

I would prefer evidence that the mainstream position is wrong over accusations of mainstream bias.

Yes radical new theories have an uphill climb in convincing the mainstream, and most of them fail.

Who gets up in the morning and thinks, I hope my car starts because I'm not sure the laws of physics/chemistry have changed and made the combustion of gas not favorable?

We believe our cars will start and so that's what we see.

But that isn't really evidence that is real.

Your above quote works both ways.

You keep going back to this what is "really real" question. It's a word game. When we talk about "what's real", we are talking about reality that we inhabit, a reality in which human beings live on a planet.

Within this reality, we use words to indicate things. There are things we call "physical objects", there are things we call "clouds", there are things we call "experiences", and so on.

What are we really asking when we wonder whether our experience reflects something real? As I understand, we are asking what other words can be used to describe the thing we are experiencing. Is this "experience" of a "physical object"?

When it comes to cars, for example, the answer is yes. When it comes to gods and ghosts, answers can get confusing. People feel that it's more than just an experience, but its not what we call a "physical object", not what we call a "chemical element", etc. So what can they do? There is a solution - call it "supernatural" - something real but not a part of reality. Other people call it "spiritual" or co-opt words like "energy".

[PeterMP]

Claims about suspensions or discontinuations of natural laws have been abundant in human history, yet the trend amongst our intellectuals has been to take them less and less seriously.

I see this happening doe to lack of evidence, and you see mistreatment of evidence. We can agree to disagree on this.

 

Really, I missed the papers you posted by any intellectual that dealt robustly with scenarios where it is likely that "natural laws" might be discontinued or suspended.

 

I remember posting several myself.

 

Much less you posting anything on the rate of change.

[alexey]

Really, I missed the papers you posted by any intellectual that dealt robustly with scenarios where it is likely that "natural laws" might be discontinued or suspended.

I remember posting several myself.

...

I do not see a way to rationally examine discontinuation or suspension of natural laws.

Papers you posted, they examined whether reality could be a simulation. You ran with that a bit too far, in my view. You started taking about properties of the simulation. Those papers did not go there. And I don't think they mentioned anything about suspensions of natural laws.

Besides, you are acting like those papers support your conclusion when they actually say something like "one of these 3 conclusions is highly likely to be true"