Tl dr version: if you don't KNOW, what you BELIEVE ought not to come under attack solely on the grounds that you don't know. Everyone seems to feel the standard model isn't quite good enough for answering our questions, but the possible alternatives/extensions of it seem to have supporters based on methodology (one group feels "good explanation of observable penomena" is the best criterion for a new theory, another feels that some sort of "sensibility and coherence" is the best criterion.to my knowledge all current theories have deficits in both areas).
Not even wrong blog how to#
It seems to me the heart of this debate is more of a philosophical discussion about how to explain the actual with the theoretical than a discussion of "what really is".
I don't think there CAN BE a last word, at least not with these brains we have. Por que é importante o método na pesquisa científica Por que pesquisas precisam ser falseáveis e reprodutíveis Como isso se relaciona com o debate na pesqu. I'm OK with Einstein being proved wrong someday, but that doesn't mean the newer theory will be the last word. No proper understanding of relativity.no communication satellites.
Newtonian physics, for example, was good enough to hit the moon, but not good enough to keep communication satellites working properly (there has to be a relativistic correction). That doesn't mean we should stop trying.we will no doubt get some useful information along the way. Because it IS an approximation, it may have qualitative features superimposed upon it that reflect the nature of our capacity for thought, which could be (and perhaps unprovably so) extraneous. We would be extremely lucky to even guess what those initial conditions might be.Īs such I suspect we will only EVER have an approximation of "the true nature of reality". I feel that creation is a dynamic and chaotic process with sensitive dependence on initial conditions. This is the third installment on this blog on cigarette advertisements that are as wrong as wrong can be, so wrong-as Ive said in earlier posts-that they. My feeling is, the universe IS fine-tuned, and we will probably NEVER know WHY. I believe certain questions may well prove to be "intractible", the "fine-tuning" problem is probably one of them. Unless parallel universes interact with each other (and we have some way of knowing about these interactions), what we will never know, and certainly never experience remains largely a theoretical thought-experiement. Here is my reasoning: even IF a multiverse model of space/time(s?) existence was correct, we are more properly concerned with understanding how the "particular" universe WE happen to inhabit works. I'm not exactly sure why this is such an important issue.