3 ms·

We do know a lot about the very small and the very big, though. We understand quark interactions extremely well. It's very hard to imagine interactions at that

We do know a lot about the very small and the very big, though. We understand quark interactions extremely well. It's very hard to imagine interactions at that scale complex enough to yield something anyone would be comfortable calling "life". The defining property of dark matter is no or only weak interaction (which we also understand very well), so imagining life there becomes even harder. > We simply don't know and we will never know, if we think we already know. That's a very defeatist and intellectually lazy point of view. As is "just asking questions" which lack support by even a shred of plausibility.

lukan 1y ago
"That's a very defeatist and intellectually lazy point of view. " In my opinion it is the opposite. Claiming we understand life and quarks and quarks can therefore not be part of subatomic life is the lazy approach to me. I am open for it. That doesn't mean I see indications for it, just that I am open for the concept. If I would not be open for unexpected ideas, I would never get them. And correct me if I am wrong, but I never met a scientist who claimed to really understand quantum mechanics. Well, I heard of some who do, but they are mostly not taken seriously by the rest. So sure, we do know a lot. But understanding it?
- mr_mitm 1y ago
  > quarks can therefore not be part of subatomic life is the lazy approach to me For the record, I wrote "very hard to imagine". If you claim it can be possible, it is you who must produce at least a suggestion on how it could be possible. > And correct me if I am wrong, but I never met a scientist who claimed to really understand quantum mechanics. I know that's a popular trope, but what they usually mean is that they don't understand it on an intuitive level. You can understand the math of it just fine. QM is by far the most successful theory we ever had and laid the foundations for the transistor, lasers, CCD chips, solar panels, MRIs, and much more. It's responsible for arguably the biggest transformation of society of all times. You don't get there without understanding even the smallest nook of that theory. Maybe we have different definitions of what it means to understand something, but that's not a discussion I'm interested it.
  - sanderjd 1y ago
    Yep, nothing around us would work if quantum mechanics didn't work just the way people figured out that it works. It's just that most people, even those who understand it best, still find it to be pretty wild that things actually work this way.
  - lukan 1y ago
    "You can understand the math of it just fine." Can you explain it? That is usually the bar for understanding. Also, can you explain to me how gravity works?
    - mr_mitm 1y ago
      It's been a while, but yeah, I probably could. I've been teaching general relativity seminars on a graduate level while I was getting my PhD. Not sure if I could explain it to you, because it sounds like you lack the necessary prerequisites (no offense). Also, please understand I do not have the time to teach GR to random internet strangers.
      - lukan 1y ago
        You can really explain how gravity works? To quote wikipedia: "Scientists are currently working to develop a theory of gravity consistent with quantum mechanics, a quantum gravity theory,[7] which would allow gravity to be united in a common mathematical framework (a theory of everything) with the other three fundamental interactions of physics." (And unlike your assumptions, my background involves some physic) So I am curious for your grand unified theory.
        mr_mitm 1y ago
        Please don't take it personally, but I don't enjoy discussions with someone who can only communicate in questions. If you have something of substance to say, say it.
        1y ago
- sanderjd 1y ago
  Basically, your point of view as expressed in this thread is mystical rather than scientific. That's fine if it's what you're into, but don't be surprised if it makes more scientific types roll their eyes.
  - lukan 1y ago
    Do you think, scientists are atheists by definition? I have a different experience. And yes, mysticism is also my thing, but I don't see it as odds with science, as I don't make claims about the structure of the world. I simply say, I also did study a bit of physic, before switching to IT, but I did not got the impression, it is remotely solved, nor understood. Go a bit deeper or bigger and it all gets blurry quickly. So plenty of room for all kinds of even more freaky things. You know the anecdote I shared about Max Planck?
    - sanderjd 1y ago
      No, I don't think they are all atheists. But I do think they tend to roll their eyes at the sort of mysticism you're describing. The two things are not the same.
      - lukan 1y ago
        Well, and I tend to roll my eyes about arrogance leading to humans repeating the same misstakes again and again. Because even though I personally tend towards mysticism - as the universe is a pretty big mysterious place to me, this is just curiosity: "But since we only know so very little when going really small or really big, I do say it is an interesting thought to give room for quark or dark matter based life, or the theoretical organism of a black hole." I made no claim of anything here. "Just stating, hey things get already pretty wild and unexpected on the border of our understanding. I don't think it is smart ruling anything out yet." If you roll your eyes to this, so be it. It is just, that I was a bit interested in the history of science and I know rolling eyes is a tradition of the established ones.
        1y ago

lukan 1y ago

"That's a very defeatist and intellectually lazy point of view. " In my opinion it is the opposite. Claiming we understand life and quarks and quarks can therefore not be part of subatomic life is the lazy approach to me. I am open for it. That doesn't mean I see indications for it, just that I am open for the concept. If I would not be open for unexpected ideas, I would never get them. And correct me if I am wrong, but I never met a scientist who claimed to really understand quantum mechanics. Well, I heard of some who do, but they are mostly not taken seriously by the rest. So sure, we do know a lot. But understanding it?

mr_mitm 1y ago
> quarks can therefore not be part of subatomic life is the lazy approach to me For the record, I wrote "very hard to imagine". If you claim it can be possible, it is you who must produce at least a suggestion on how it could be possible. > And correct me if I am wrong, but I never met a scientist who claimed to really understand quantum mechanics. I know that's a popular trope, but what they usually mean is that they don't understand it on an intuitive level. You can understand the math of it just fine. QM is by far the most successful theory we ever had and laid the foundations for the transistor, lasers, CCD chips, solar panels, MRIs, and much more. It's responsible for arguably the biggest transformation of society of all times. You don't get there without understanding even the smallest nook of that theory. Maybe we have different definitions of what it means to understand something, but that's not a discussion I'm interested it.
- sanderjd 1y ago
  Yep, nothing around us would work if quantum mechanics didn't work just the way people figured out that it works. It's just that most people, even those who understand it best, still find it to be pretty wild that things actually work this way.
- lukan 1y ago
  "You can understand the math of it just fine." Can you explain it? That is usually the bar for understanding. Also, can you explain to me how gravity works?
  - mr_mitm 1y ago
    It's been a while, but yeah, I probably could. I've been teaching general relativity seminars on a graduate level while I was getting my PhD. Not sure if I could explain it to you, because it sounds like you lack the necessary prerequisites (no offense). Also, please understand I do not have the time to teach GR to random internet strangers.
    - lukan 1y ago
      You can really explain how gravity works? To quote wikipedia: "Scientists are currently working to develop a theory of gravity consistent with quantum mechanics, a quantum gravity theory,[7] which would allow gravity to be united in a common mathematical framework (a theory of everything) with the other three fundamental interactions of physics." (And unlike your assumptions, my background involves some physic) So I am curious for your grand unified theory.
      - mr_mitm 1y ago
        Please don't take it personally, but I don't enjoy discussions with someone who can only communicate in questions. If you have something of substance to say, say it.
        1y ago
sanderjd 1y ago
Basically, your point of view as expressed in this thread is mystical rather than scientific. That's fine if it's what you're into, but don't be surprised if it makes more scientific types roll their eyes.
- lukan 1y ago
  Do you think, scientists are atheists by definition? I have a different experience. And yes, mysticism is also my thing, but I don't see it as odds with science, as I don't make claims about the structure of the world. I simply say, I also did study a bit of physic, before switching to IT, but I did not got the impression, it is remotely solved, nor understood. Go a bit deeper or bigger and it all gets blurry quickly. So plenty of room for all kinds of even more freaky things. You know the anecdote I shared about Max Planck?
  - sanderjd 1y ago
    No, I don't think they are all atheists. But I do think they tend to roll their eyes at the sort of mysticism you're describing. The two things are not the same.
    - lukan 1y ago
      Well, and I tend to roll my eyes about arrogance leading to humans repeating the same misstakes again and again. Because even though I personally tend towards mysticism - as the universe is a pretty big mysterious place to me, this is just curiosity: "But since we only know so very little when going really small or really big, I do say it is an interesting thought to give room for quark or dark matter based life, or the theoretical organism of a black hole." I made no claim of anything here. "Just stating, hey things get already pretty wild and unexpected on the border of our understanding. I don't think it is smart ruling anything out yet." If you roll your eyes to this, so be it. It is just, that I was a bit interested in the history of science and I know rolling eyes is a tradition of the established ones.
      - 1y ago