3 ms·

I feel like you're suggesting that the universe springs forth from scientific theory and not the other way around.

jdmichal 10y ago
I'm not quite sure what you're suggesting. The universe and the science that describe it are the same thing. Much as I am the same thing as the chemicals and reactions that describe me. However, our understanding of the science may be flawed, and perhaps that's what you're really meaning to say.
- cgriswald 10y ago
  That seems a bit like saying a CAD file describing a roller coaster is the roller coaster. We have a model of our perception of the universe
  - aminorex 10y ago
    In that model, our model is the universe.
  - jdmichal 10y ago
    A roller coaster is a physical object. A CAD drawing of it is a model. I could make a roller coaster from the model, but the model is not the roller coaster. On the other hand, the universe is nothing more than the set of constraints that we call "science". The universe is the model, and science is an effort to duplicate that model.
- davesque 10y ago
  I'm confused. Was your response to me or Certhas? If it was to me, I don't agree. Science is a collection of human ideas that exist in the minds of humans. As another commenter said, it's our model of the universe. There is no difference between science and our understanding of science unless you're talking about differences in understanding between individual people.
  - jdmichal 10y ago
    It was very much meant for you. I'll just copy from my other response: > On the other hand, the universe is nothing more than the set of constraints that we call "science". The universe is the model, and science is an effort to duplicate that model.
Certhas 10y ago
No I'm not. I'm saying that we know something about how the universe works. And one of the things we know is that there is no free momentum or energy (in flat space time). The reason that we know this is far stronger than simply: "It hasn't been observed yet". That would allow that any new thing could end up violating the established rules. It could be that if you write the one hundred millionth Mersenne prime on a cookie, and the one two hundred millionth on a banana they start circling each other and create free energy. This claim has not been falsified. So on what grounds do we rule it out? Because it is incompatible at an incredibly deep level with everything we know about cookies, bananas, and how their physical properties depend on what's written on them. Every aspect of each of these objects that has ever been observed has been found to be describable in terms of some unbelievably simple mathematical structures. For these unbelievably simple mathematical structures we have prove that anything that can be described by them does not allow free energy. An observation like the Mersenne, cookie, banana interaction can not violate the mathematical derivation, therefore it implies that out of all the infinitude of observations that have been made of bananas and cookies, that all were describable by energy and momentum conserving physical theories, somehow this one arbitrary one is special. It can not be described by even the type of mathematics we have hitherto used and yet was completely invisible. How could that be? Flying Spaghetti Monster of course. Just as the FSM hid the true age of the earth from us by interfering with science, so it also conspired to hide the free energy Mersenne Banana Cookie interaction from us. In other words: If you know that the FSM did not create the earth 4000 years ago, then you even more definitely know that there is no free momentum/energy. If you think that we can't know either of these things, then your concept of knowledge sucks.
- davesque 10y ago
  I'm not suggesting that anyone spend much time entertaining ideas like the prime cookie or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I'm merely pointing out that theory does not dictate outcomes. I'm happy that they have disproven the EM drive (or that this appears to be the case), but one of the things that's bothered me about the discourse surrounding this phenomenon has been the notion that we should immediately dismiss it as "impossible". Surely, it was improbable. But that's just what it was: improbable.

I'm not quite sure what you're suggesting. The universe and the science that describe it are the same thing. Much as I am the same thing as the chemicals and reactions that describe me. However, our understanding of the science may be flawed, and perhaps that's what you're really meaning to say.

cgriswald 10y ago
That seems a bit like saying a CAD file describing a roller coaster is the roller coaster. We have a model of our perception of the universe
- aminorex 10y ago
  In that model, our model is the universe.
- jdmichal 10y ago
  A roller coaster is a physical object. A CAD drawing of it is a model. I could make a roller coaster from the model, but the model is not the roller coaster. On the other hand, the universe is nothing more than the set of constraints that we call "science". The universe is the model, and science is an effort to duplicate that model.
davesque 10y ago
I'm confused. Was your response to me or Certhas? If it was to me, I don't agree. Science is a collection of human ideas that exist in the minds of humans. As another commenter said, it's our model of the universe. There is no difference between science and our understanding of science unless you're talking about differences in understanding between individual people.
- jdmichal 10y ago
  It was very much meant for you. I'll just copy from my other response: > On the other hand, the universe is nothing more than the set of constraints that we call "science". The universe is the model, and science is an effort to duplicate that model.

Certhas 10y ago

No I'm not. I'm saying that we know something about how the universe works. And one of the things we know is that there is no free momentum or energy (in flat space time). The reason that we know this is far stronger than simply: "It hasn't been observed yet". That would allow that any new thing could end up violating the established rules. It could be that if you write the one hundred millionth Mersenne prime on a cookie, and the one two hundred millionth on a banana they start circling each other and create free energy. This claim has not been falsified. So on what grounds do we rule it out? Because it is incompatible at an incredibly deep level with everything we know about cookies, bananas, and how their physical properties depend on what's written on them. Every aspect of each of these objects that has ever been observed has been found to be describable in terms of some unbelievably simple mathematical structures. For these unbelievably simple mathematical structures we have prove that anything that can be described by them does not allow free energy. An observation like the Mersenne, cookie, banana interaction can not violate the mathematical derivation, therefore it implies that out of all the infinitude of observations that have been made of bananas and cookies, that all were describable by energy and momentum conserving physical theories, somehow this one arbitrary one is special. It can not be described by even the type of mathematics we have hitherto used and yet was completely invisible. How could that be? Flying Spaghetti Monster of course. Just as the FSM hid the true age of the earth from us by interfering with science, so it also conspired to hide the free energy Mersenne Banana Cookie interaction from us. In other words: If you know that the FSM did not create the earth 4000 years ago, then you even more definitely know that there is no free momentum/energy. If you think that we can't know either of these things, then your concept of knowledge sucks.

davesque 10y ago
I'm not suggesting that anyone spend much time entertaining ideas like the prime cookie or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I'm merely pointing out that theory does not dictate outcomes. I'm happy that they have disproven the EM drive (or that this appears to be the case), but one of the things that's bothered me about the discourse surrounding this phenomenon has been the notion that we should immediately dismiss it as "impossible". Surely, it was improbable. But that's just what it was: improbable.