I can hear this post in their voices. Maybe I’ve seen the movie too many times…nah

  • lowleveldata
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    If things are usually “seemingly random” to us it would imply the multiverse would also be “seemingly random” to us. I don’t see the need to prove the chaotic to be truly, whatever that means.

    • Carnelian@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Well, if you don’t care about proving anything, and you simply believe your assumptions are facts, then why are you discussing it with me? Please continue to think whatever you wish, just as I will continue to remain unconvinced by your gut instinct on this topic

      • lowleveldata
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Likewise I’m not convinced that I’m the one who needs to provide proofs in this discussion. You already said that “we” model genetic variation as being “random”. And the model is working great. Therefore it is only reasonable to assume things work according to the model unless proved otherwise. A model doesn’t need to be 100% correct to make correct predictions. We still use Newton’s physics model to predict things (flawlessly) even tho it’s not a “truly” correct model.

        • Carnelian@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Um, sorry to say friend, but Newton’s laws are actually just approximations. This is the entire basis of the emergence of quantum theory.

          This perfectly illustrates the error in your thought process. You live life assuming that whatever pops into your head is the truth. Well, look where that’s led you, you actually believe physics has not improved since the 17th century.

          I’ll give you a hint: scientists do not simply write “this seems reasonable to me, therefore I feel no need to prove it” underneath their theorems. You made a claim, and you need to provide evidence if you expect to be taken seriously

          • lowleveldata
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Have you read my comment? I’m aware that Newton’s model is not correct. My point was that it still predict flawlessly in most cases.

              • lowleveldata
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                It means it doesn’t predict correctly in quantum physics but still predicts correctly in 90% of other cases such as motions and thermodynamics in daily scales. Why do you think schools still teach those if it’s not useful?

                • Carnelian@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  It’s taught because it’s a convenient way to teach children the scientific method, and has some practical benefit in low stakes problem solving. Those who progress beyond the basics realize there is more to physics than predicting the final destination of a billiards ball in a perfectly frictionless vacuum.

                  Although if you want to believe everything you learned in high school is the Truth with a capital T then you do you. Explains a lot actually