6 ms·

That is kinda the hole point.

by ngold 9y ago

TekMol 9y ago
Exactly. Scientists: Listen people! We have created models that explain why stuff does what it does! They are so complicated almost nobody can understand them. They involve 4 dimensions, a zoo of particles, randomness in everything and no reality independent of the observer. And they conflict. But at least they explain why stuff does what it does! World: But they make the wrong predictions. Stuff does not behave like that. Scientist: Oh, no problem. Just imagine there is an invisible force out there that moves stuff around. Imagine most of our universe is made of that invisible stuff. Now back to our awesome models!
- nimih 9y ago
  This doesn't strike me as an especially powerful critique, in spite of your provocative language. We have well understood mathematical models which correctly and accurately predict all physical behavior relevant to our everyday lives, and, further, correctly and accurately predict the majority of our observations of the universe around us, period. As tools for understanding our world, they are incredible achievements. In spite of us knowing these models to be fundamentally incomplete, we have yet (to my understanding) to perform an experiment on Earth which contradicts them. More to the point, the theory which supersedes them will, by virtue of needing to replicate all experimental results so far, will likely be even more esoteric, complicated, wild, baffling, and impenetrable (and--with any luck--elegant, inspiring, and beautiful).
  - ColanR 9y ago
    He didn't say it very well, but I think he was getting at the Occams' Razor argument - this seems like an unnecessarily complex set of theories to explain the observed phenomena. (Not that I agree, but I think you missed his point)
    - Roujo 9y ago
      IMO, Occam's Razor is only meaningful when there are two competing hypothesis, one of which is markedly simpler than the other. Mentioning it in a context of "surely it can't be this complicated" without pointing towards a simpler alternative doesn't strike me as very useful. I know you're not the person who made the original argument, just chiming in on the discussion.
  - TekMol 9y ago
    accurately predict all physical behavior Now you made me curious. What is the non-physical (metaphysical?) behaviour that we cannot predict?
    - nimih 9y ago
      We cannot, as an example, currently predict the zeroes of the Riemann zeta function.
      - TekMol 9y ago
        What if we make a robot that dances those zeroes. Then we have unpredictable physical behavior.
        Retra 9y ago
        The robot would have to predict those zeroes to 'dance them'.
zhengyi13 9y ago
I see what you did there.
- AnimalMuppet 9y ago
  I'm missing it...

That is kinda the hole point.

by ngold 9y ago

That is kinda the hole point.

Exactly. Scientists: Listen people! We have created models that explain why stuff does what it does! They are so complicated almost nobody can understand them. They involve 4 dimensions, a zoo of particles, randomness in everything and no reality independent of the observer. And they conflict. But at least they explain why stuff does what it does! World: But they make the wrong predictions. Stuff does not behave like that. Scientist: Oh, no problem. Just imagine there is an invisible force out there that moves stuff around. Imagine most of our universe is made of that invisible stuff. Now back to our awesome models!

nimih 9y ago
This doesn't strike me as an especially powerful critique, in spite of your provocative language. We have well understood mathematical models which correctly and accurately predict all physical behavior relevant to our everyday lives, and, further, correctly and accurately predict the majority of our observations of the universe around us, period. As tools for understanding our world, they are incredible achievements. In spite of us knowing these models to be fundamentally incomplete, we have yet (to my understanding) to perform an experiment on Earth which contradicts them. More to the point, the theory which supersedes them will, by virtue of needing to replicate all experimental results so far, will likely be even more esoteric, complicated, wild, baffling, and impenetrable (and--with any luck--elegant, inspiring, and beautiful).
- ColanR 9y ago
  He didn't say it very well, but I think he was getting at the Occams' Razor argument - this seems like an unnecessarily complex set of theories to explain the observed phenomena. (Not that I agree, but I think you missed his point)
  - Roujo 9y ago
    IMO, Occam's Razor is only meaningful when there are two competing hypothesis, one of which is markedly simpler than the other. Mentioning it in a context of "surely it can't be this complicated" without pointing towards a simpler alternative doesn't strike me as very useful. I know you're not the person who made the original argument, just chiming in on the discussion.
- TekMol 9y ago
  accurately predict all physical behavior Now you made me curious. What is the non-physical (metaphysical?) behaviour that we cannot predict?
  - nimih 9y ago
    We cannot, as an example, currently predict the zeroes of the Riemann zeta function.
    - TekMol 9y ago
      What if we make a robot that dances those zeroes. Then we have unpredictable physical behavior.
      - Retra 9y ago
        The robot would have to predict those zeroes to 'dance them'.

zhengyi13 9y ago

I see what you did there.

AnimalMuppet 9y ago
I'm missing it...