Physics & Philosophy shower thoughts

Freedom and Law 'With laws our freedom is restricted' This is a very common remark nowadays. But what is ironic is that without laws, there would be no freedom; laws pave the way for our choices, and act as a 'frame' by presenting us with all available options and allowing us to meet our goal. Without law, there would be nothing to choose or love. In moral laws, for example, we can choose to follow them or not, but we would not be able to choose or follow anything if it were not for the existence of the law itself.  Likewise, we use traffic lights to signal traffic, and there are traffic laws.  These laws aren't in any way restricting our freedom, but actually enable us to reach our goal without failure (in this case, cross the road without becoming a pancake). Without these laws, it would be impossible to reach aims successfully, and freedom would become redundant. Thus, morally speaking, there can be no freedom without law, and there would be no need for law if t...

How do I know what I see is there? What if my brain somehow filters what is unnecessary so that I am only focused on the essential? So I'm just seeing simplified model? I suppose this could have been an evolutionary advantage for the first humans, and maybe even now, somehow. This theory would have its pros and cons, but as weird and intriguing as any theory can be, if it is wrong, it's wrong, and you can find many blogs refuting this idea with the following: 1) The irony of the unreal If what I'm able to see and perceive isn't reality, then what is 'reality'? The fact humans can make up the word 'reality' shows that we are aware of our capacity to perceive the world around us. Reality is exactly that- the truth that surrounds us. When philosophers use the words 'model' or 'reality', they have come to think about those concepts by using their intuitive sense that what surrounds us is real. In other words, we are not born with co...

This question might seem ridiculous at first, but it follows a process of thought. The other day I was talking to a professor and he believed that if the universe is infinite, not only will there be another 'him', there will be infinite copies of him. The reasoning: "the probability of another 'me' existing in the universe is not zero, even if it is seemingly very low. So as the number of trials tend infinity, the probability of at least a single copy of 'me' existing again increases and increases. Eventually, we reach a number of trials/'spaces' that the probability of at least one other of me existing is so high...there will have to be another copy of me certainly. Put another way, matter can arrange itself in different ways (quantum states). But the number of different arrangements is not infinite. So after a certain amount of space, the combinations will start to repeat over again. I (as a person) and my entire life (as a sequence of events) ...