8 ms·

I find quite a lot of it very satisfying. For example, the deep mathematical symmetries of gauge theory and how they relate to the observed forces of the univer

I find quite a lot of it very satisfying. For example, the deep mathematical symmetries of gauge theory and how they relate to the observed forces of the universe is truly amazing. The excellent Arvin Ash has a very accessible video about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paQLJKtiAEE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paQLJKtiAEE

squeefers 7mo ago
maybe thats the problem. satisfaction isnt understanding. string theory is exciting maths, but fits nothing in reality. maybe scientists should go back to explaining reality instead of whatever this current paradigm is
- drdeca 7mo ago
  Your conception of an “explanation of reality” is deeply flawed.
  - squeefers 7mo ago
    you can correctly predict reality whilst having absolutely know idea how it works (ie the path of a photon in the double slit experiment).
    - drdeca 7mo ago
      Sometimes nature tells us that the questions we are inclined to ask, are flawed questions. The “What path did the photon take?” question is one of those times. The answer to the question is Mu. Similar to the questions “How much phlogiston is there in iron?” or “Does sulphur have more earth than air, or more air than earth?”.
      - albatross79 7mo ago
        But the question is "what is the universe made of?", and the answer given is "mathematical abstractions that fit the data".
        squeefers 7mo ago
        exactly. i yearn for more.
        albatross79 7mo ago
        Just get a puzzle book
        squeefers 7mo ago
        not much revelatory potential in a book of puzzles sadly
        drdeca 7mo ago
        Asking what it “is made of” seems like a somewhat ambiguous question to me. Still, the answer would not be “mathematical abstractions that fit the data”, but “these mathematical abstractions”. (And, there is a lot of meaning behind these “abstractions”. For example, there is a close correspondence between the Higgs mechanism for mass and superconductivity.) Really, what possible answer could you ask for that wouldn’t be of this form? When you describe an idea sufficiently precisely, you do mathematics; that’s almost what mathematics is. It feels to me like complaints like yours tend to derive from an unwillingness to believe that things aren’t at their core made of solid objects or fluids or other stuff which behaves like macroscopic objects we have everyday experience with. Can you describe an explanation that wouldn’t be like that but which (if it were true) you would find satisfying? If you can’t describe how an explanation could (if it were true) satisfy you without being like that, then, if the universe isn’t like that, you have to be disappointed. And, in that case, again, I have to say, take it up with God. On the other hand, if you can describe how an explanation (if it were true) could possibly satisfy you without saying “at its core, the universe works based on [behavior that you have plenty of physical intuition for based on your everyday interactions with macroscopic stuff]”, I would very much like to hear it.
        albatross79 7mo ago
        I think probably in the past what one might have expected to find is akin to something like a magical material that couldn't be further probed. That would have been satisfying in a sense because it brings a wonder back into it while connecting you to the fundamental "thing". What we have now is not that, it's still very much a mechanistic explanation where the "magic" is hidden within abstractions that make no sense to anyone, i.e abstract fields with properties but no material realty, instantaneous wave function "collapse", wave-particle duality, virtual particles etc. The reality of these things is glossed over. But my point is that if that's what we've been driven to, why are we still engaged in this enterprise? We're just receding further into these abstractions. What are we going to find next year or next decade? A better mathematical model to fit the data? The mission has gone from finding out what the universe is made of to finding a better abstract model. Particles aren't real, they're excitations in a field, etc. It's an engineering enterprise now. So we're not going get a satisfying answer, were just going to get better lasers or whatever the next tech is.

squeefers 7mo ago

maybe thats the problem. satisfaction isnt understanding. string theory is exciting maths, but fits nothing in reality. maybe scientists should go back to explaining reality instead of whatever this current paradigm is

drdeca 7mo ago
Your conception of an “explanation of reality” is deeply flawed.
- squeefers 7mo ago
  you can correctly predict reality whilst having absolutely know idea how it works (ie the path of a photon in the double slit experiment).
  - drdeca 7mo ago
    Sometimes nature tells us that the questions we are inclined to ask, are flawed questions. The “What path did the photon take?” question is one of those times. The answer to the question is Mu. Similar to the questions “How much phlogiston is there in iron?” or “Does sulphur have more earth than air, or more air than earth?”.
    - albatross79 7mo ago
      But the question is "what is the universe made of?", and the answer given is "mathematical abstractions that fit the data".
      - squeefers 7mo ago
        exactly. i yearn for more.
        albatross79 7mo ago
        Just get a puzzle book
        squeefers 7mo ago
        not much revelatory potential in a book of puzzles sadly
      - drdeca 7mo ago
        Asking what it “is made of” seems like a somewhat ambiguous question to me. Still, the answer would not be “mathematical abstractions that fit the data”, but “these mathematical abstractions”. (And, there is a lot of meaning behind these “abstractions”. For example, there is a close correspondence between the Higgs mechanism for mass and superconductivity.) Really, what possible answer could you ask for that wouldn’t be of this form? When you describe an idea sufficiently precisely, you do mathematics; that’s almost what mathematics is. It feels to me like complaints like yours tend to derive from an unwillingness to believe that things aren’t at their core made of solid objects or fluids or other stuff which behaves like macroscopic objects we have everyday experience with. Can you describe an explanation that wouldn’t be like that but which (if it were true) you would find satisfying? If you can’t describe how an explanation could (if it were true) satisfy you without being like that, then, if the universe isn’t like that, you have to be disappointed. And, in that case, again, I have to say, take it up with God. On the other hand, if you can describe how an explanation (if it were true) could possibly satisfy you without saying “at its core, the universe works based on [behavior that you have plenty of physical intuition for based on your everyday interactions with macroscopic stuff]”, I would very much like to hear it.
        albatross79 7mo ago
        I think probably in the past what one might have expected to find is akin to something like a magical material that couldn't be further probed. That would have been satisfying in a sense because it brings a wonder back into it while connecting you to the fundamental "thing". What we have now is not that, it's still very much a mechanistic explanation where the "magic" is hidden within abstractions that make no sense to anyone, i.e abstract fields with properties but no material realty, instantaneous wave function "collapse", wave-particle duality, virtual particles etc. The reality of these things is glossed over. But my point is that if that's what we've been driven to, why are we still engaged in this enterprise? We're just receding further into these abstractions. What are we going to find next year or next decade? A better mathematical model to fit the data? The mission has gone from finding out what the universe is made of to finding a better abstract model. Particles aren't real, they're excitations in a field, etc. It's an engineering enterprise now. So we're not going get a satisfying answer, were just going to get better lasers or whatever the next tech is.