Inspiration is cool, but it is a motivational tool, not an epistemic one. In the realm of science, it is unwise to use the term "mind of God" when we can just use the less presumptuous terms "nature" or "laws of physics".
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @smith_valence
The defining thing about science is precisely that it is not composed of stories. It's our antidote to stories. That's why it's valuable, and why I think it should stay that way.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @smith_valence
No Valence, physics does not tell stories in any meaningful sense of the term. *You* are choosing to read stories into physics. If you wrote a physics paper on order fighting a valiant battle against chaos, you'd be laughed at.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
There's nothing wrong with using inspiring fiction demagogically in general life. But we're talking about hard science here. And fiction just doesn't belong in science, no matter how inspiring it is.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.