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.
-
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.
Our brains are much more general than you assume. E.g., we easily understand scenes that are vastly different from anything we evolved with. (And QFT still assumes all of that.)
-
-
Scenes with vastly different contents, but with a common underlying physics. Shrink a human to 1mm and have him interact with water or wind, and he totally fails in doing anything, including moving.
-
So what? QFT is also based on our intuitive visual understanding of things like the double-slit experiment. You’re overestimating the power of formal math and underestimating the power of the brain’s algorithms, which operating directly on quantum data would blow away QFT.
- 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.