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 it wasn't. And, nevertheless, we developed QFT, QED, QCD, ..., which are certainly not based on intuition. Other parts of our (collective) brain opened up windows to reality way beyond our perception and intuition.
My point is that our brains running on microscopic data would leave QFT in the dust.
-
-
Not *our* brains, which evolution hardwired to work at certain space-time scales and with certain innate physicas (e.g. locality, "objectiness", some space-time equivariance,...). For that to work, we would have to re-evolve different brains and (very) different senses.
-
Moreover, what brains and physics do is qualitatively different. Brains are prediction machines, unworried about explanations/models. Physics aims at building "good explanations" (as Deutsch puts it). An "intuitive understanding" and a "formal explanation" are different things.
- 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.