3 ms·
This, together with the endless philosophising around dark energy, dark matter and whatnot paints a pretty strong arrow towards our models having some flaws whe
by rf15 3y ago
This, together with the endless philosophising around dark energy, dark matter and whatnot paints a pretty strong arrow towards our models having some flaws when it comes to their large-scale application. I hope to live long enough to see where we made our mistake and get a better model.
- pishpash 3y agoAlmost every model we build of more trivial things based on observation always turns out to be not really right. I cannot imagine why one of the universe that has had multiple version updates in the last 100 years to not also be grossly mistaken. I also don't expect the full model to be simple or beautiful. We may be thinking wishfully based on massive extrapolation and cutting corners to suit our narrow view into the world.
- CuriouslyC 3y agoI think the truth is likely that we live in a very complex universe that can be approximated by these sweeping laws in general, but is very "messy" close up. Consider that while the universe roughly obeys probabilities, it also has will and intent (to a degree we can debate in another conversation).
- kaashif 3y agoWhat do you mean by will and intent? I guess if humans have will and are part of the universe, then the universe has it too, but I don't think that's what you meant.
- CuriouslyC 3y agoHopefully we can agree that at least part of the universe "chooses" outcomes, rather than them occurring randomly. You could assume that "choosing" is what random outcomes feel like but I don't think that's productive. Given that we have evidence of physical systems evolving their states by conscious choice, that begs the question "Why would large, complex physical systems have a governing force that doesn't exist in smaller physical systems?" Occam's Razor suggests that consciousness and will drive the evolution of all physical systems, and our elegant equations are merely statistical approximations following the law of large numbers given a population with a natural variance. Of course we can debate what it means for a low information system to be conscious and have will, but I think that's a more meaningful debate than trying to pinpoint the exact moment that a system becomes complex enough for the magical emergence fairy to sprinkle consciousness dust on inert matter.
- qup 3y agoIt's probably spaghetti code
- cowgoesmoo 3y agoWe know for sure that there are issues with our current theories. Our two best theories, general relativity and quantum mechanics, are not compatible with each other. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity#Relationship_with_quantum_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity#Relationshi...
- dclowd9901 3y agoInteresting to think we only got the “middle” size physics right, but we can’t reconcile it with micro or universal physics.
- ethbr1 3y agoI think about it as getting practical / low-tech observable physics right, then expanding out from there. < atomic and > planetary have very important applications! But I'd argue not nearly as many as "Here are all the formula that govern a falling apple."
- hinkley 3y agoI still have $20 down on "We are living in a universe inside a black hole."
- hughesjj 3y agoI mean effectively we are regardless. The cosmological event horizon is a thing. Also, I forget off the top of my head, but there's some oddities depending on your chosen frame of reference when looking @ hawking radiation (skip to part about relativity of the vacuum) that I think could apply to the cosmic event horizon as well https://youtu.be/isezfMo8kWQ?si=5m_L6JtZ7p7Ls6xH https://youtu.be/isezfMo8kWQ?si=5m_L6JtZ7p7Ls6xH
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- superjan 3y agoAnd don’t forget cosmic inflation.