4 ms·

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?
• pkghost 8y ago
  kudos to stcredzero for a humorous and tactful exit... I'll be the killjoy and explain his joke, which I think was a last-ditch attempt illustrate the point he's been trying (and failing) to get across all thread, which is that > When it comes to fundamental science, a consistent map is the territory isn't the case. Science/empiricism merely produce predictive models; over the last few hundred years, these models have improved dramatically, but they are nonetheless only maps of a territory ("reality"), and it's still fundamentally uncertain that the underlying assumptions (that laws of nature exist/that reality is mappable) are reliable. > "Map is not the territory" applies to simplifications that omit detail. Even if we had a perfect model, which we don't (and it's not clear that such a model is obtainable) that could predict everything, it would still be separate from the territory. You might think this is a pedantic distinction, and in your ideal world where we have a unified field theory, it certainly would be, but like I said above, it's not clear that such a thing is obtainable, so it's important to hold onto the distinction lest we forget the fact that we're still sitting on an incredibly young and uncertain foundation.