Anything else is phlogiston. “It can’t be seen and can’t be known, but I think it’s what catches stuff on fire!” “Can you prove it in any way?” “No.” And we didn’t accept phlogiston for that reason because we applied the scientific method until we had an answer.
-
-
Then they must remain unproved until otherwise, as opposed to making shit up playing a what-if game and passing it off as legitimate theory. Guesswork is not a theory.
Merci. Twitter en tiendra compte pour améliorer votre fil. SupprimerSupprimer
-
-
-
The math is there, and seems to make sense, but unless we figure out a way to step outside the universe, we simply cannot use the tools within the universe to prove it in a traditional way. I don't think that invalidates the ideas at all.
-
Now I'll grant you that certain models very much are a "let's throw stuff at the chalkboard and maybe some of it sticks," but there are very concrete models of what we currently know within the quantum realm that don't invalidate some of the stranger aspects.
- Voir les réponses
Nouvelle conversation -
-
-
The critical issue is, IMO, that human perception is reaching such an apex of knowledge we are despairing at the reality that nothing more may be perceivable by our own limitations — and, in that despair, we’re making up pleasant fantasies passed off as genuine theory.
Merci. Twitter en tiendra compte pour améliorer votre fil. SupprimerSupprimer
-
Le chargement semble prendre du temps.
Twitter est peut-être en surcapacité ou rencontre momentanément un incident. Réessayez ou rendez-vous sur la page Twitter Status pour plus d'informations.