If you could build a machine that was able to generate every relevant scientific fact from first principles, do you think it would be done at some point, or that it would never stop?
-
-
-
We do know that there would be scientific proofs it would not output. Gödel proved that
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @iamreddave @eschudy
Gödel has proven the opposite: all scientific truths have to be constructed, a notion of unreachable truth cannot be consistently maintained. We had to change the semantics of mathematics into something that works, instead of claiming that reality is inconsistent with mathematics
2 replies 1 retweet 5 likes -
Replying to @Plinz @iamreddave
I don't mean to suggest that reality does not accord with mathematics, rather quite the opposite. Physics as a mathematical system can surely hold under Gödel. But the only way to 'verify' maths are through logic. But given an extra 'constraint' of reality, can we generate->
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
physical theories that are not physically verifiable? Also, are there examples of physical theorems that are unverifiable mathematically, but are physically? Or that are not verifiable either through maths or observation? Does Popper say anything about this?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @eschudy @iamreddave
Not sure what you mean. Even if you could prove that there is only a single possible fractal that explains the observations, it might still be multiple locations within the fractal that are compatible with them, so we cannot find out where we are, except by more observation.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Plinz @iamreddave
Bear with me; it may take a few tweets for me to further elucidate upon my own question. So please hang in there. 1) It was thought in the 19th century that there were no upper bounds to speed in the universe. But experiments proved this false. Reality served to falsify. ->
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
And people act so surprised that something that is as complicated and arbitrary to implement from scratch as Newtonian mechanics should not be base reality, instead of something much more simple and basic that would give rise to a slightly less compressible emergent pattern?
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.