4 ms·
> “as far as we can possibly tell from the data we have” Isn't that self evident in all cases? In cosmology, the implicit assumptions are the Corpernican prin
by mr_mitm 3y ago
> “as far as we can possibly tell from the data we have”
Isn't that self evident in all cases?
In cosmology, the implicit assumptions are the Corpernican principle and that GR is correct. That is covered in introductory texts, but unless stated otherwise, it is usually not mentioned, especially not in press releases.
I mean, maybe you're just a Boltzmann brain floating in space and nothing is real. Fun to think about, sure, but expecting to state the basics in any and all cases is unrealistic.
- pfannkuchen 3y agoI’m not talking about physics being different in different places. I’m talking about the signal we are getting from far away quite likely being altered between its origin and when it gets to us. Different branches of science have vastly different degrees of certainty. I don’t feel there is sufficient effort put towards communicating this well to the public, especially with respect to the Big Bang, and that annoys me because lay people seem to use it as a factual version of an origin myth when really it probably isn’t any more factual than any other random myth you could pick. It’s very irresponsible to replace the cultural origin myth, which is psychologically important to humans. The whole “explosion from nothing” myth may actually be contributing to modern people’s feelings of meaninglessness.