2 ms·
> Take “flat earth” model of the world. It’s not right, but it’s precise enough for the purposes of living in a village. Nothing wrong with that, its when you w
by travisjungroth 7y ago
> Take “flat earth” model of the world. It’s not right, but it’s precise enough for the purposes of living in a village. Nothing wrong with that, its when you want to venture out, then you have to find a more precise one.
I don’t think you have to have a more precise model. The modern world is incredibly tolerant of bad models.
Last year, I visited four continents. I don’t think a single thing would have been different if I believed the world was flat. It’s not like I was flying the plane. I just bought a ticket, showed up, and tried to fall asleep.
- kingludite 7y agoMy model is exact. I don't need my world to be round or flat. Until I do I really don't care. The superiority in this model is that it doesn't distract me from things I do care about. You just have to appreciate what little minds we have and how short it lasts. This is a human doing a puzzle with 2 parts https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4c1qhCtpAa4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4c1qhCtpAa4 This is a human doing a puzzle with 3 parts https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zQmkyH0Mr0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zQmkyH0Mr0
- lonelappde 7y agoNumber of pieces isn't strictly the source of complexity. The complexity of the pieces matters too.
- baddox 7y agoYou just weren’t doing anything that depended on your model of cosmology. I don’t think that says much about how tolerant of bad models the modern world is. The engineers making GPS required good models of physics, but their efforts probably would not have been thwarted by even the most inaccurate models of human medicine. And likewise it’s probably fine if your doctor doesn’t know about relativity.