Comment on Feynman rules

• FishFace@piefed.social ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  This means, first of all, that there will always be a practical end to good answers to “why” questions.

  But if you think that there is truly no end, it also means that the workings of the universe are infinite in a very strange sense: if there’s an infinite succession of explanation, what does that mean? An explanation is a description of something that implies the characteristics of what you’re explaining, right? And it can’t just describe all the details of the thing being explained, it must be simpler on some level.

  I don’t really see how you get this infinite succession of simplifications. Maybe it makes sense if the universe is infinitely complex, so that for example, the behaviour of atoms is explained by the behaviour of protons, neutrons and electrons, which are explained by quarks and still smaller sub-electron particles, and this sequence of subdivision goes ever smaller. I don’t see any good reason to believe that though.

  source

  • tomiant@piefed.social ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    “The map is not the terrain” - Alfred Korzybski

    This is what I mean, I believe our limitations, biologically, chemically, or otherwise, are not sufficient to express reality as is to the full extent of the definition- in fact I think that all observation is negation or division, meaning, it is polar, our language is Hegelian in nature, it defines by dividing or subtracting. Classical philosophy of science- we can say what is not a lot easier than we can say what is, and thereby narrow down the scope of what [likely] is. But due to the very nature of nature, we can never be certain, because we function under imperative of space-time, and time progresses forward, into a deep unknown, nobody knows the future, right? It is my contention that even fundamental laws of nature deteriorate, evolve, mutate, or change over time. At the end of the Universe, at the point of total entropy, not even laws of nature would exist. How could they? What would it mean for them to exist? What would the word “exist” even mean?

    I am saying that a map can never 1:1 perfectly capture the nature of reality. So, every time we ask “why”, we take one step closer to approximating truth, and we can get infinitely close to it, but we can never reach or attain it, due to the limitations of how our own minds work.

    source

    • FishFace@piefed.social ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      It is my contention that even fundamental laws of nature deteriorate, evolve, mutate, or change over time. At the end of the Universe, at the point of total entropy, not even laws of nature would exist. How could they? What would it mean for them to exist? What would the word “exist” even mean?

      Why do you think the laws of nature - what we know of them - change? We don’t have any reason to believe it. The “point of total entropy” sounds like the heat death of the universe, which certainly we do and can discuss and make predictions about.

      I am saying that a map can never 1:1 perfectly capture the nature of reality. So, every time we ask “why”, we take one step closer to approximating truth, and we can get infinitely close to it, but we can never reach or attain it, due to the limitations of how our own minds work.

      This is somewhat different to what I’m talking about.

      source