4 ms·
Isn't it the other way around? You start out with assumptions and a model (which usually involves some math), and then you show that you've made the correct ass
by nahumfarchi 9y ago
Isn't it the other way around? You start out with assumptions and a model (which usually involves some math), and then you show that you've made the correct assumptions by empirically testing it. You can't prove something in the mathematical sense about physical reality.
- akvadrako 9y agoOf course you can; if you prove, given the indirect evidence, it's the only possibility.
- davrosthedalek 9y agoYou have to prove that math actually maps to reality. I don't think you can do that. With the possibility that it's all a simulation, our universe doesn't even have to be consistent.
- akvadrako 9y agoWhy not just simplify your whole position to "you can never prove anything"?
- davrosthedalek 9y agoIn Physics, this might be true, at least for generalizations (I can prove to myself that I currently write this text, for suitable definitions of "I, write, text". I might not be able to prove it to you.). In Math, it's not.
- TheOtherHobbes 9y agoIn physics it's absolutely true. You can only disprove theories. You can never prove them. In math it's relatively true, because you can only prove theorems given a set of axioms and other assumptions you take as true.
- davrosthedalek 9y agoIn math, this is fine, as long as you can show that your assumptions are consistent. If you disprove something in physics, you at the same time prove the negative of the something. Of course the negative of a theory is not really a theory by itself.