3 ms·
As a layman in physics, whenever I look at anything quantum, I'm certain there is something fundamental that we're missing. When we've figured something out abo
by grishka 6y ago
As a layman in physics, whenever I look at anything quantum, I'm certain there is something fundamental that we're missing. When we've figured something out about nature for good, the explanation is usually surprisingly simple and just makes sense. You know you're most probably wrong when your model produces more questions than it answers.
That said, I like Stephen Wolfram's theory of everything. It just feels like a step in the right direction.
- ncmncm 6y agoThere is no reason to think that a more fundamental theory would be simple or even tractable. We have just got lucky, so far. It is the nature of good luck to falter. Wolfram is not doing anything original. He just doesn't tell you who he is cribbing from.
- avz 6y agoI think the history of physics does not support this view. New theories that explain a wider range of phenomena tend to be harder to understand than their predecessors that explain a narrower range of observations. For example, Newtonian mechanics is simpler than relativistic mechanics which is simpler than quantum field theories. Also, I see nothing that would make fundamental aspects of nature comprehensible for humans. Our cognition evolved to handle classical mechanics without the relativistic or quantum effects that we find bizarre and indeed classical mechanics is roughly where average person's understanding of nature ends. An alternative view is that there is a survivorship bias at play: we tend to understand the things about the universe that are simple enough for a human mind and remain oblivious to the ones that are too complicated for it.
- dorgo 6y agoThere is the argument that it might be a mistake to discard complex explanations just because they are not simple. The nature is as it is and doesn't care for our preference of simple explanations.