this post was submitted on 26 Jan 2025
1082 points (96.2% liked)

Science Memes

13348 readers
2310 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] milicent_bystandr@lemm.ee 1 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

What about a third option that reality exists and it is just nondeterministic?

There's still a pattern in the results, so by one means or another we want to explain the results. Just calling it nondeterministic, if I understand right, would be just saying you can't predict it from prior observations.

So, whatever language you use to describe this puzzling situation, the puzzling situation thus far remains.

since we know the universe is local

A priori? Or because it best fits with Relativity? It sounds about as strong as saying, "we know time is universal." It's obvious, has to be true, but apparently not how the universe functions.

[–] pcalau12i@lemmy.world 0 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) (1 children)

There’s still a pattern in the results, so by one means or another we want to explain the results. Just calling it nondeterministic, if I understand right, would be just saying you can’t predict it from prior observations. So, whatever language you use to describe this puzzling situation, the puzzling situation thus far remains.

I mean nondeterministic in a more fundamental sense, that it is just genuinely random and there is no possibility of predicting the outcome because nothing in nature actually pre-determines the outcome.

A priori?

Through rigorous experimental observation, it's probably the most well-tested finding in all of science of all time.

Or because it best fits with Relativity? It sounds about as strong as saying, “we know time is universal.” It’s obvious, has to be true, but apparently not how the universe functions.

So we can never believe anything? We might as well deny the earth is round because people once thought time is absolute now we know it's relative, so we might as well not believe in anything at all! Completely and utterly absurd. You sound just like the creationists who try to undermine belief in scientific findings because "science is always changing," as if that's a bad thing or a reason to doubt it.

We should believe what the evidence shows us. We changed our mind about the nature of time because we discovered new evidence showing the previous intuition was wrong, not because some random dude on lemmy dot com decided their personal guesses are better than what the scientific evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates.

If you think it's wrong show evidence that it is wrong. Don't hit me with this sophistry BS and insult my intelligence. I do not appreciate it.

Maybe you are right that special relativity is wrong, but show me an experiment where Lorentz invariance is violated. Then I will take you seriously. Otherwise, I will not.

[–] milicent_bystandr@lemm.ee 1 points 14 hours ago

I think you're getting angry at the wrong things and taking me too far. I didn't at all mean we can't believe or trust physical reality. Neither do I doubt special relativity, or specifically the Lorentz invariance.

I wasn't meaning to insult your intelligence, but now I feel you've done that for me.