4 ms·

What does "baked into reality" mean? We can never know more about reality than what we observe, and furthermore conservation laws are axiomatic -- conservation

by kolpa 8y ago

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
stcredzero 8y ago
What does "baked into reality" mean? We can never know more about reality than what we observe, and furthermore conservation laws are axiomatic -- conservation simply means that we are able to account for (almost) everything we observe, in a consistent way. You said it right there. "Almost." We keep on prying and doing experiments, and we can't find any exception. If we've tried hard enough for long enough, we can start to conclude that we're probably getting close to reality. If we pry and we find it's "almost" then we know it's not baked into reality. When conservation is broken, we name a new form of energy, and (so far), we find that it can by accounted in a consistent, predictable way. (Dark matter is an unsolved problem. [Citation Needed] Yes, we still don't know what Dark Matter is, but do you understand that dark energy is not dark matter, and the current model for dark energy involves space expanding and more dark energy appearing due to the space expanding? Citing dark energy is tantamount to admitting that conservation of energy isn't universal. When it comes to fundamental science, a consistent map is the territory. Arrgh. You're getting your pointers mixed up here. A context where science is the territory would be the study of Science, as in the philosophy of science. When it comes to fundamental reality, Science is the map and fundamental reality is the territory.
- kolpa 8y ago
  Sorry, I should have said we don't understand dark energy yet. In what sense does "fundamental reality" exist?
  - stcredzero 8y ago
    We're working on it. We'll get back to you on that. (Maybe we need a bigger particle accelerator?)
  - goatlover 8y ago
    That which gives rise to experimental results and perception. If you don't think there's a real world responsible for those, then how do you explain what we sense and the results from experiments? What makes the technology work? God?
    - gowld 8y ago
      I surely don't know. That's metaphysics, not science.
      - stcredzero 8y ago
        I surely don't know. That's metaphysics, not science. But you can clearly do science on the technology. People do this with high degrees of success, developing theoretical models with high predictive ability. It's called "reverse engineering." If you're going to retreat into metaphysical mumbo-jumbo, that's up to you. The doing and the results will speak for themselves, and no one will pay attention to the metaphysical mumbo-jumbo obscurantists.
    - throwaway37585 8y ago
      > God? What do you mean by this?
      - goatlover 8y ago
        I mean that if reality (nature, the world) isn't responsible for our experiences of a world, including scientific experiments, then what is? Does the empirical just a appear for no reason with nothing behind it?
goatlover 8y ago
> When it comes to fundamental science, a consistent map is the territory. "Map is not the territory" applies to simplifications that omit detail. But physics does leave out detail. It's an abstraction over many particular instances. Nature isn't a physics equation. An equation doesn't generate a field of force, nor does it have any causal powers. > We can never know more about reality than what we observe If that were true, then theoretical physics wouldn't exist. Much of scientific theory involves unobservables, or processes way too long for us to observe. Most of evolutionary history is unobservable. We have to fill in the gaps with a theory explaining the fossil record, genetics, and the organisms around us. We don't have time machines, nor billion year old cameras.

by kolpa 8y ago

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

stcredzero 8y ago

What does "baked into reality" mean? We can never know more about reality than what we observe, and furthermore conservation laws are axiomatic -- conservation simply means that we are able to account for (almost) everything we observe, in a consistent way. You said it right there. "Almost." We keep on prying and doing experiments, and we can't find any exception. If we've tried hard enough for long enough, we can start to conclude that we're probably getting close to reality. If we pry and we find it's "almost" then we know it's not baked into reality. When conservation is broken, we name a new form of energy, and (so far), we find that it can by accounted in a consistent, predictable way. (Dark matter is an unsolved problem. [Citation Needed] Yes, we still don't know what Dark Matter is, but do you understand that dark energy is not dark matter, and the current model for dark energy involves space expanding and more dark energy appearing due to the space expanding? Citing dark energy is tantamount to admitting that conservation of energy isn't universal. When it comes to fundamental science, a consistent map is the territory. Arrgh. You're getting your pointers mixed up here. A context where science is the territory would be the study of Science, as in the philosophy of science. When it comes to fundamental reality, Science is the map and fundamental reality is the territory.

kolpa 8y ago
Sorry, I should have said we don't understand dark energy yet. In what sense does "fundamental reality" exist?
- stcredzero 8y ago
  We're working on it. We'll get back to you on that. (Maybe we need a bigger particle accelerator?)
- goatlover 8y ago
  That which gives rise to experimental results and perception. If you don't think there's a real world responsible for those, then how do you explain what we sense and the results from experiments? What makes the technology work? God?
  - gowld 8y ago
    I surely don't know. That's metaphysics, not science.
    - stcredzero 8y ago
      I surely don't know. That's metaphysics, not science. But you can clearly do science on the technology. People do this with high degrees of success, developing theoretical models with high predictive ability. It's called "reverse engineering." If you're going to retreat into metaphysical mumbo-jumbo, that's up to you. The doing and the results will speak for themselves, and no one will pay attention to the metaphysical mumbo-jumbo obscurantists.
  - throwaway37585 8y ago
    > God? What do you mean by this?
    - goatlover 8y ago
      I mean that if reality (nature, the world) isn't responsible for our experiences of a world, including scientific experiments, then what is? Does the empirical just a appear for no reason with nothing behind it?

goatlover 8y ago

> When it comes to fundamental science, a consistent map is the territory. "Map is not the territory" applies to simplifications that omit detail. But physics does leave out detail. It's an abstraction over many particular instances. Nature isn't a physics equation. An equation doesn't generate a field of force, nor does it have any causal powers. > We can never know more about reality than what we observe If that were true, then theoretical physics wouldn't exist. Much of scientific theory involves unobservables, or processes way too long for us to observe. Most of evolutionary history is unobservable. We have to fill in the gaps with a theory explaining the fossil record, genetics, and the organisms around us. We don't have time machines, nor billion year old cameras.