Create account

replied 2271d
You also can't disprove that a magical gnome is deciding the entire fate of the universe from a tree made of cookies, but that isn't how science works. It's what you can prove.
3 / 47 2
546
replied 2271d
A tree made of cookies? That's ridiculous.
1
1,234
Sk8eM dUb
replied 2271d
"Prove" is an extremely loaded word. Everything we think we know about anything is theoretical. Science = "evedence seems to support the hypothesis". Even Einstein may be wrong.
replied 2271d
It is important to understand the difference between a law and theory. Laws are WHAT happened. Theories are WHY it happened. Laws are provable. Theories are not.
1
546
Sk8eM dUb
replied 2270d
Name one single "law" that's proven.
replied 2270d
Laws are simply observations of phenomena. Gravity is very easily proven. The theories behind WHY it happens, when/where it applies, etc. are not “proven”
replied 2270d
I do not need to study anything to observe that gravity exists. Science is making itself important to create authorities. Mathematics is the only science that is really useful/proven.
replied 2269d
Oh but Physics is mother of all sciences, mathematics is like the language
replied 2269d
Physics is based on Mathematics. How can physics be the mother if it depends on mathematics? Language are letters and words which describe mathematics.
1
replied 2269d
Its other way around, mathematics is language to represent the natural laws, which are laws of Physics.
replied 2269d
Ok I give up you reject logic thinking out of pure stubbornness.
replied 2268d
This is logical thinking, natural law is the rule which is laws of Physics, which is explained with mathematics.
replied 2268d
Child needs mother to be born. Nature doesnt need physics. Mathematics doesnt need physics. Physics needs both of them to exist. There you see who is the mother and who is the child.
replied 2267d
Mathematics is a language... it is used to describe natural laws, which is laws of Physics.
replied 2267d
What? Nature is Physics.
replied 2269d
Mathematics isn't even a science...
Sk8eM dUb
replied 2270d
If every piece of matter in the universe doesn't obey it consistently 100% it's a pretty lousy law. The devil's always in the details! That's why we have magic stuff like dark matter.
replied 2270d
... probably impossible to ever actually observe first hand.
Sk8eM dUb
replied 2270d
Exactly. That's why the words "prove" and "law" are just not very helpful. As if the universe obeys the slight electrical impulses in a few groups of atoms on one random planet.
replied 2270d
It's impossible to say that anything will apply to every "piece of matter". The best we can do is define patterns in what we can observe. Many theories involve phenomena that are...
replied 2270d
Most science is not based on observation but on false assumptions and people who believe in books more than in their own ability to think logical. Modern science creates sheeps.
1
555
replied 2269d
I'm genuinely not sure if you are being satirical or not.
1
replied 2271d
Einstein was especially probably wrong. Remember that Einstein didn't do much science. He did a lot of math and thinking, theorizing connections btwn existing scientific laws.
replied 2270d
Probably wrong, but he is still right until proven wrong. Right now, he is very right
replied 2270d
theory of relativity over time (dropping cosmo. constant, grav waves, etc.). He didn't one day think he figured it all out and write a formula/theory which is yet to be proven wrong.
replied 2270d
Einstein was often wrong, even by his own admission. Such is the nature of working on such complex and ultimately abstract theories. For example, he changed numerous aspects of his...
replied 2271d
You can't prove that the Universe does not revolve around the Earth given Relativity. Or do you think you can? Please educate me.
replied 2271d
However, iirc, it generally appears to be expanding at the same speed away from us in every direction, and has no spin, thus revolves around nothing.
Sk8eM dUb
replied 2271d
Here's another thing to consider. The red shift is not smooth https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift_quantization
1
1,234
Sk8eM dUb
replied 2271d
Some have theorized that the quantized red-shift corresponds with excited/falling electron orbitals instead of speed. Makes sense but that'd mean earth is in the middle of the universe
replied 2270d
There's a high probability that the Earth is the center of our universe (that would be consistent with the theory that we're 'living' in a simulation. One of 'many' simulations)
Sk8eM dUb
replied 2270d
"The simulation" is a PC term for intelligent design. If you believe in the simulation you necessarily must believe in a simulator. Then you have to talk about that being's character.
replied 2269d
Not a being, just the first base reality human beings. They run simulations on their origins and development with altered variables for various reasons.
1
1,234
Sk8eM dUb
replied 2269d
I mean you realize this ultra smart "human being" who's running this simulation made the simlatees(us) in their own image? You're just describing Christianity.
1
777
replied 2269d
"Ultra Smart" for us, but base reality Humans (plural) advanced millions of years beyond us should easily be able to create simulations to analyze alternate progressions.
Sk8eM dUb
replied 2269d
Riddle me this - what physical laws govern the universe that "base reality Humans" inhabit? Are they not just the ones you wish that this universe had but apparently doesn't?
replied 2269d
I would guess the physical laws would be similar, but maybe some quantum principles and effects may not exist in base reality. They may be quirks, or artifacts of the simulations.
Sk8eM dUb
replied 2269d
What's your motivation for believing we live in/are a simulation?
BitcoinIsP2PC4$H
replied 2269d
Frustum culling equalling quantum uncertainty, speed of light limit/"limit"
Sk8eM dUb
replied 2269d
What do you think about wave theory? I think I like it because it wrecks a lot of the dumb cosmological models.
BitcoinIsP2PC4$H
replied 2268d
I have not read much about it. I'll look into it thanks
replied 2262d
haha wow guys. op was about infowars being banned. & you've ended up talking about if were in a simulation. lol love how meandering memo discussions are.
1
1,000
Sk8eM dUb
replied 2269d
Ahhhh, so your God is technology. Though somehow our "true selves" have managed to simulate consciousness in us but avoid an AI singularity? Very interesting religion you got there.
replied 2269d
Personally i think we are base reality. But there's a real probability of living in a sim. I don't think an AI singularity will happen, but if so the AI would be running the sim(s)
Sk8eM dUb
replied 2269d
So a human being is not a being?
replied 2271d
stuff that has given us us a better understanding of the universes shape / it's center? I feel like probably have. (and I probably should've learned this in astronomy class haha)
replied 2271d
Interesting. I know red shift is how we first suspected an expanding universe, but is there further evidence from studying cosmic radiation background (really old light) or other...
replied 2271d
I'm not an expert in astrophysics, but my limit understanding of the matter is that we have not yet conclusively proven the shape or movement "direction" of the universe.


About Privacy Terms Stats