: If information can travel faster than light, we can no
: longer predict the outcome of an event simply by
: looking at a slice of its past light cone, so a
: human-created determinist theory is impossible.
: There's no end to the influences which could affect a
: given event.
Please, elaborate on this description; I'm quite interested.
: Non-first-order logics which deal more naturally with
: quantum phenomena do so by incorporating uncertainty
: into their structure. You can't say that a theory is
: determinist just because it employs a logic in which
: "maybe" is a definite answer. :-)
: Well, of course not everything is random. Conservation
: of momentum, energy, spin, etc. appear to be universal
: laws (though somewhat weakened by assorted uncertainty
: principles), and this constitutes determinism in
: itself. But many phenomena are effectively random. One
: may argue over whether they're "really"
: random or simply non-locally determinist...but either
: way, yes, the conservation of momentum and the
: impossibility of constructing a determinist theory of
: the universe are on approximately equal footing.
: All science is based on luck. There are an infinite
: number of theories which explain any given set of
: observations but differ on certain predictions not yet
: verifiable. To select between them, we pick the
: simplest and, yes, the prettiest, and hope that we're
: lucky enough to have picked the right one. Though so
: far, we've usually been wrong in that hope
Pardon me, Sili, but science is not entirely theorem. That's just the first part of the scientific meathod. The theory is tested, over and over again, through any number of infinite ways, until a pattern and a conclusion can be observed. The hypothesis is then reformed, and the process repeats. We don't just guess. Talk about unscientific! Science is based on proof through the evidence of the world. We take information and compile it all into one datum, then make a, truly, educated and informed reasoning, not a guess, based on that information. Our being wrong at times has nothing, nothing, to do with guessing, but with factors we could not have foreseen. That's why we often learn the strangest and most profound things accidentally instead of deliberately, how more interesting ideas can be derived from a quest so completely different, for instance how that Brazilian Nuclear Physicist set out to disprove all the crazy myths of the world, including Atlantis. Guess what; he found it! Lol, how unsual is that?
That's the discovery of science, but most of the time, we get an answer, sometimes as desired, through the scientific meathod, not pure theorem.
: As for why--science has nothing to say on that count, and
: never did. "Why do objects fall? Because of
: gravity, which is governed by the following
: equations..." That's merely restating the facts
: in a cleaner fashion. Making your description of the
: universe simpler and prettier. If you want to call
: that an explanation of why the universe acts the way
: it does, feel free...QM certainly doesn't pose a
: problem there.
Lol, you can't possibly think it's nothing more than that! You missed a lot in the middle.
Objects fall to Earth because of gravity. Gravity is an affectation of the fabric of spacetime which causes it to curve and bend. An object of mass creates this gravitational field, the curving of spacetime. When two of these bubble-like depressions surrounding corresponding objects of mass become coterminous, a path of particularly depressed and curved space forms between them. This region of space allows both objects to fall towards this central area of gravitational depression, as two balls on a rubber sheet. Gravity, in all its aspects, is determined by the following equations…
Equations only indeed.
As far as aesthetics, Relativity is by far the most beautiful. Does this make it anthrocentric or divine? Divine, naturally, as it's proven, and certainly a first step to something more.
Also, you'll note, the simplest explanation is often the correct one, as Ockham so keenly pointed out. Therefore, picking the simplest and/or prettiest theory is a reasonable way of furthering scientific knowledge.
THIS is why we choose, yes, the simplest and prettiest theory; it'll likely be correct! Look at Relativity again: four simple equations can determine the base of the whole thing, and its natural curvature and elegance is entirely gorgeous to behold.
This is divine beauty and simplicity, a common aspect of nature.
That's where it stops, and it's also where you stop, just at the theory, as your argument is solebased on theorem equalling all science.
