3 ms·
I think the author is wrong. For example, 150 years ago, radio waves were unknown, but they are all around us, they are fundamental, and when they were discove
by ktRolster 10y ago
I think the author is wrong.
For example, 150 years ago, radio waves were unknown, but they are all around us, they are fundamental, and when they were discovered, they changed our daily lives.
Another example, imagine a bushman, and asking him if he understands everything. He might say, "Yeah, that's a kangaroo, that's a bush, that's dirt....everything practical, I understand. There are things about God I don't understand, but they are far away." By defining things that you don't understand as 'not important' then you understand everything important by definition.
Another example, this quote from Albert Michelson in 1894, "it seems probable that most of the grand underlying principles have been firmly established and that further advances are to be sought chiefly in the rigorous application of these principles to all the phenomena which come under our notice"
In other words, it is likely that people have always thought these sorts of things, and so far have always been wrong.
- pka 10y agoYou are missing the point. The author acknowledges that there may be particles that we haven't yet discovered, but even if there were, we can prove that they wouldn't impact everyday live. In other words, "we know what we don't know".
- ktRolster 10y agoIn other words, "we know what we don't know". I gave a true historical analogy of how that could not be the case, I gave a hypothetical example of how that could not be the case, and I gave a quote of someone thinking physics was basically solved right before a massive change in our basic understanding of physics. It's easy to imagine that there is something analogous to radio waves, that are all around us, but we are unable to detect them with current technology (dark matter might be one possibility).
- pka 10y agoThis seems to be a lost cause, but I'll try one last time. The point is that even if there were some yet undiscovered particles or forces, they wouldn't have any effect whatsoever on the world around us. This we can say with certainty. Even if it turns out that our current understanding of QM or GR are just approximations of the real laws of physics, again, this won't matter, much as GR doesn't matter at the speed of a moving car and thus you wouldn't take time dilation into account when you calculate the time you need to get from point A to point B.
- ktRolster 10y agoeven if there were some yet undiscovered particles or forces, they wouldn't have any effect whatsoever on the world around us. This we can say with certainty. Would you also assert that radio waves have no effect whatsoever on the world around us?
- pka 10y agoNo?
- ktRolster 10y agoSo, in your opinion, radio waves do have an effect on the world around us. Which, actually, I agree with you. However, their existence was undetected 150 years ago. Similarly, there are likely things that are undetected by us that also will become very important once they are discovered.
- pka 10y agoImportant, sure, for our deeper understanding of the universe. They wouldn't, however, have a detectable effect on the world around us.
- TheOtherHobbes 10y agoIf Carroll is claiming that nothing we learn in the future can possibly feedback into everyday experience, the kindest and most polite response is that it's a very strong claim, and almost certainly wrong. And if he's not making that strong claim, the post is pointlessly tautological. ("So - like - the things we already know about everyday reality and technology are the things we, er, already totally know. Wow! Go science!") Clearly that's always true historically, until it isn't any more, because new science [tm]. What was the point of that post? I honestly don't even. So you're right, and not just about kangaroos, radio waves, and god. We're an inventive animal, and we've been discovering new science [tm] for a million years or so. If it's even remotely practical, it invariably turns into technology which completely transform our everyday experience. Did that process stop in 2011? I suppose it's possible. But the only rational response to anyone suggesting that is extreme skepticism.
- macspoofing 10y ago>If Carroll is claiming that nothing we learn in the future can possibly feedback into everyday experience He's not claiming that. >And if he's not making that strong claim, the post is pointlessly tautological No quite. The claim is based on experimental evidence we gained from testing the claims of fundamental physics over the last few decades. >What was the point of that post? I honestly don't even. To illustrate how powerful Quantum Field Theory. >We're an inventive animal, and we've been discovering new science That isn't going to change.