Science does it again: Big Bang going out the window?

[deceiver]

Jesus, ok, I'll explain.

Science wasn't "wrong". It was just not accurate enough. Physics and especially other natural sciences try to create model of reality. Biology does see the world from different level, chemistry does and so does physics. You cannot, ie. analyze nature in terms of pure physics because it's too low level.

There are tons of practical proofs that science indeed works. Without relativity theory, for instance, your beloved GPS wouldn't work. There are just so many things in real life that you take for granted that use physics that as you said turned out to be "wrong".

No, it wasn't wrong, it was just not accurate enough.

Personally I believe that it's impossible to create ideal 1-1 model of reality. For me pursuit to create "theory of everything" looks like solving stop problem. See, stop problem in computer science is very famous problem of implementing program that takes any computer program (binary or code) and says if this program stops or not. Proof that it's impossible is very straight forward. When you actually try to implement that then you will cascade into series of special cases that if you solve it you will always find another and so on, and so on...

Maybe I'm wrong. One thing we know for sure, we won't get to know it in my lifetime.

But in the meanwhile you dumb motherfuckers use that "damned" physics every fucking day so get rid of all PCs, get rid of your tablets, get rid of your iphones, get rid of your GPS, get rid of your microwaves... or STFU.

[avxo]

Jesus, ok, I'll explain.

Science wasn't "wrong". It was just not accurate enough. Physics and especially other natural sciences try to create model of reality. Biology does see the world from different level, chemistry does and so does physics. You cannot, ie. analyze nature in terms of pure physics because it's too low level.

There are tons of practical proofs that science indeed works. Without relativity theory, for instance, your beloved GPS wouldn't work. There are just so many things in real life that you take for granted that use physics that as you said turned out to be "wrong".

No, it wasn't wrong, it was just not accurate enough.

Personally I believe that it's impossible to create ideal 1-1 model of reality. For me pursuit to create "theory of everything" looks like solving stop problem. See, stop problem in computer science is very famous problem of implementing program that takes any computer program (binary or code) and says if this program stops or not. Proof that it's impossible is very straight forward. When you actually try to implement that then you will cascade into series of special cases that if you solve it you will always find another and so on, and so on...

Maybe I'm wrong. One thing we know for sure, we won't get to know it in my lifetime.

But in the meanwhile you dumb motherfuckers use that "damned" physics every fucking day so get rid of all PCs, get rid of your tablets, get rid of your iphones, get rid of your GPS, get rid of your microwaves... or STFU.

Interesting reference to the Halting problem - although I'm not sure that I agree with its applicability here, but that discussion might be a bit too theoretical for getbig.

Is your education in computer science and /or mathematics?

Sidenote: by the way, not all conceivable computing machines are subject to the Church-Turing thesis, so the Halting problem isn't necessarily undecidable.

[deceiver]

Interesting reference to the Halting problem - although I'm not sure that I agree with its applicability here, but that discussion might be a bit too theoretical for getbig.

Is your education in computer science and /or mathematics?

Sidenote: by the way, not all conceivable computing machines are subject to the Church-Turing thesis, so the Halting problem isn't necessarily undecidable.

Yes, I was assuming we're talking about turing complete machine, not oracle machine for instance. It wasn't a reference or any attempt to apply anything, it's totally different realm and has nothing to do with each other. It's just an analogy, showing that sometimes you just cannot solve the problem and attempts to solve it makes you fall into endless special cases.

When people think "astrophysics"/"physics" they assume it's group of douchebags trying to play gods. It's quite on the opposite. Ton of that theory is used later on by mankind. It's like in math when attempts to proof one theorem, even though in vain, produce very interesting results themselves. What I'm saying is that maybe we won't ever know origins of the universe but we can make our world better along the way using knowledge we gained.

[cephissus]

Personally I believe that it's impossible to create ideal 1-1 model of reality.

I agree.  An idea I've heard several times (such as in borges' story) that appeals to me: if a true, perfectly accurate 1-1 model were possible, it wouldn't really be a model at all, but a copy.  being a copy of the whole universe, it couldn't be contained by the universe; not to mention, a model like this would obviously be useless anyway.

[deceiver]

To be honest our beliefs are worth just as much as uberman's belief in god... Zero

[cephissus]

does it make you feel a little disgusting inside, discussing like this

[calfzilla]

Lol leave it to getbig. I bet we will figure out the origins of the universe by the time this thread hits 10 pages.