|
vespuzzi (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
so?
seanmPWH (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Emergence is unable to account for it's own existence.
DanHipp (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
You're right about the inverse square law. But fortunately our understanding of gravity has changed since Newton, and even since Einstein. We now have a somewhat ontological theory of gravity, meaning that we don't just describe what it does, but what it is. Gravity, currently, is understood as perturbations in the otherwise relatively flat geometry of space-time. Of course I agree with you that science has limits, and that our present model of the universe is limited. But we're very close.
siddhaam (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Good point, but although the inverse square law/equation describes an aspect of the functioning of gravity - it does not say what gravity is. My point is that science is punctuated by paradigm shifts, when the theorectical and equational framework changes fundamentally. QM was such a shift; in time it will itself be replaced by another. We cannot presume our present model is final; or that another civ will follow exactly the same pattern of discovery as we have. models are maps, not reality.
siddhaam (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Good point, but although the inverse square law/equation describes an aspect of the functioning of gravity - it does not say what gravity is. My point is that science is punctuated by paradigm shifts, when the theorectical and equational framework changes fundamentally. QM was such a shift; in time it will itself be replaced by another. We cannot presume our present model is final; or that another civ will follow exactly the same pattern of discovery as we have. models are maps, not reality.
DrZenith (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
He 'gets it' perfectly; he's saying that any intelligent entity exploring the nature of reality would find the same rules such as the inverse square law for gravity. Also, that the scientific endeavor is the attempt to develop models which get ever closer to the way things are. Nothing short-sighted about that view.
diebauma (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
A little philosophical reflection will reveal to you that the laws of nature are the same everywhere. Science is reality, Quantum Mechanics are reality, and reality must be understood the same by *anyone* who wishes to understand it with accuracy. Any sort of entity which lives in this universe should get the same results and eventually discover the same laws we have for QM. Believing otherwise is not understanding what science is and means.
kDest (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
"You first claim my politics are not relevant to this topic, but then use your caracature of my politics as the foundation upon which to dismiss my observations on this topic."
They were musings and were admittedly irrelevant to the topic.
"What's insighful is that yours require you to declare mine as evidence of a diseased mind."
I don't have politics, actually. I find most politics to be vacuous.
TylerNull (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
You first claim my politics are not relevant to this topic, but then use your caracature of my politics as the foundation upon which to dismiss my observations on this topic.
THAT sort of "reasoning" is a good example of the point of my above post.
You obviously disagree with my politics. What's insighful is that yours require you to declare mine as evidence of a diseased mind. If it makes you feel any better, I find that hellish, too. Finally, disgust is not "paranoia and short sighted".
siddhaam (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Good point.
It has been goood to share views with you. Thank you and all the best. |
