Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTheMick2
It was all an attempt (just like all of physics) to explain experimental data.
Without the experimental data, you don't have anything to explain.
Yes, but thousands of items of experimental data are incident on human eyes every second.
Quote:
And this "idiotic human invention of something being wavelike" stands to this day in physics.
And it's still completely idiotic - a feeble mind's attempt to fit weird reality with the prejudices of sense-perception.
Kind of like how a dog applies pack thinking to its masters behavior, because that's all it can understand - it is incapable of modeling human thought and behavior in native terms because it lacks the intelligence. Humans don't model other humans behavior in terms of dog-pack thinking, so we don't posit a dog's ridiculous models of human behavior.
This is no different.
Quote:
No. They had to do experiments. The model had to be extended to explain various phenomenon that were discovered through (wait for it) experiments. It broke only under the weight of the addition of data that required that the model be tweaked until it broke.
Experiments weren't required. You can reject aether through needless absurd complexity and symmetry. You wouldn't even posit it if you can question your assumptions beyond moron-level.
Experiments were required only to change the minds of people who were so rigidly thinking about the world - the aether model was still argued for by "highly intelligent" people well after relativity and the MM experiment. That's how poor human thinking is.
Quote:
The current models seem rather magical and absolutely ridiculous UNLESS you have failed to disconfirm them using experiments.
I disagree. They seem neither magical nor ridiculous. Why would base reality conform to human macro-perception? Indeed, it seems very likely that it wouldn't. They only seem ridiculous because of a lack of intelligence and rigidity of thought.
The history of advances in physics is in fact one of overcoming this absurdly moronic, dog-level bias in our minds.
Quote:
Your eyes are absolute **** for the job. For instance, they will tell you that the moon is larger when it is at the horizon than when it is overhead. They cannot even give an accurate representation of what is happening around you. It would be required that your eyes give an accurate 1 to 1 representation of the universe, and believing that is the height of hubris and idiocy.
You're still thinking like a human intelligence, who can't simulate, can't hold more than a few concepts at a time. I believe you could derive all of classical physics and a good portion of quantum from merely watching a wave tumble with human eyes.
Quote:
The first thing that this super-intelligent logical being would recognize is that it better get started on building some accurate measuring devices since it has nothing of the type at the front of its head.
Firstly, eyes are very very accurate. Let me make this simpler for you since you seem to be getting hung up on irrelevant stuff.
The question is essentially:
How many universes could there be that look just like this one to human eyes, that have different underlying laws of physics?
My contention is zero, or if not zero, one where the underlyings are so substantially similar that nearly all of the derivation would be similar.
Quote:
Quote:
Timekeeping is not a problem. You measure the pace of your own mental actions - you assume you have close to constant processing power - vs what happens in the world.
A half-wit would recognize that assumption is unwarranted. Quite a bit more magical than assuming that a good blood-letting will help with a cold.
It's an assumption easily tested. Humans can create their own timekeeping models which work quite well, observe their own reliability in using those models...and we have fuzzy broken brains with limited internal awareness.
Last edited by ToothSayer; 10-18-2016 at 09:44 AM.