I’ve written and deleted like ten paragraphs in this thread and your comment, while sometimes meandering (which I very much also am), gets after a major core of what I wanted to say.
There are comments here suggesting that nature contains contradictions. The idea that you can believe that your philosophy is rational and also that the natural world bends in any way to your perception is nonsensical. Dialectics can be applied to anything that humans perceive, but only to the part of it that resides in our perception. It cannot ever be applied to the underlying thing.
Why? World doesn’t bend to perceptions, it simply is, but processes, those we observe, and there positive feedback loops would be our friendo not containing contradictions for this silly game.
This side of black hole formation (and even there, for outside observer, the limits are in the possible metric deformation and resulting black hole is a resolution, hiding singularity from us forever (maybe, pending evaporation), big bang and universe evolution, and maybe some quantum effect im missing, we don’t have those, be it due to conservation of energy or whatever. Might just be they exist, then we’ll have to construct them, or they are outside of perceptions, making their existence trivial from science perspective (you can make a lot of predictions of things which cannot ever be observed, wouldn’t be science tho).
Laws and equations don’t describe the underlying thing, they describe a model which sufficiently matches observations and makes predictions, which, core leap in philosophy of science we assume, are better matched to reality. You can always say reality is completely unknowable, but then - why science works, what changes with better model? Some outside creature making fun of us?
I’ve written and deleted like ten paragraphs in this thread and your comment, while sometimes meandering (which I very much also am), gets after a major core of what I wanted to say.
There are comments here suggesting that nature contains contradictions. The idea that you can believe that your philosophy is rational and also that the natural world bends in any way to your perception is nonsensical. Dialectics can be applied to anything that humans perceive, but only to the part of it that resides in our perception. It cannot ever be applied to the underlying thing.
Why? World doesn’t bend to perceptions, it simply is, but processes, those we observe, and there positive feedback loops would be our friendo not containing contradictions for this silly game.
This side of black hole formation (and even there, for outside observer, the limits are in the possible metric deformation and resulting black hole is a resolution, hiding singularity from us forever (maybe, pending evaporation), big bang and universe evolution, and maybe some quantum effect im missing, we don’t have those, be it due to conservation of energy or whatever. Might just be they exist, then we’ll have to construct them, or they are outside of perceptions, making their existence trivial from science perspective (you can make a lot of predictions of things which cannot ever be observed, wouldn’t be science tho).
Laws and equations don’t describe the underlying thing, they describe a model which sufficiently matches observations and makes predictions, which, core leap in philosophy of science we assume, are better matched to reality. You can always say reality is completely unknowable, but then - why science works, what changes with better model? Some outside creature making fun of us?