3 ms·
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 re
by 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 agoThat 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 agoIn that model, our model is the universe.
- jdmichal 10y agoA 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 agoI'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 agoIt 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.