It’s a basic ML fact that there’s an infinity of laws compatible with the same observations. Which ones we believe is more a function of psychology than physics.
-
Yes, but only at certain narrow ranges of time, space, energy, and only visible phenomena. Human intuition totally fails at fluid behavior on small scales and is blind to most electromagnetism (other than visible light). Human intuitive physics only sees a small part of reality.
But if you applied the brain’s physics inference engine to the full range of observations, it would blow Einstein away.
-
-
But only for the type of physical phenomena which were relevant for the evolution of brains. For other phenomena (at non-human scales, or for electromagnetism, molecular, atomic, quantum, ...) math is our only window to reality. Still created by human brains, though.
-
Our current math is about as sophisticated as retina + V1 + V2 (which is why that’s all we can - barely - understand). Your full visual cortex etc. would leave QFT in the dust if it was evolutionarily useful.
- Näytä vastaukset
Uusi keskustelu -
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.