Controversial General Political Discussion
- Thread starter AL sama
- Start date
- Tags #freepalestine are you having fun al? are you having van al? dei has never hurt anyone you jackass dei must go gaolang > your fav hi rej hi rejj hi rejjj is not paying tax sexist is van having fun al? life goal sister harem real madrid reloaded is innocent tax is the best thing ever happened to us trans rights = human rights trans women are not interested in any of you watch for haters weebs discussing politics lmao worst thread ever
People expect science to explain the fundamental nature of reality.
But here’s the problem.
There is a scale in physics called the Planck length - smallest meaningful unit of length and it's here where all our current theories break down.
General relativity and quantum mechanics doesn't work together. We are trying to unify it for decades but with no progress.
Now obviously we need to measure it to study it.
But to measure something that small, we would need a massive amount of energy.
So much energy that with our current technology, we would need a particle accelerator the size of the entire solar system.
And let's assume we somehow built it…
Then our science predicts that if we concentrate that much energy into such a tiny region, it wouldn’t reveal planck's length but it would collapse into a black hole.
In short, the moment we try to observe the deepest layer of reality… we can destroy access to it.
But here’s the problem.
There is a scale in physics called the Planck length - smallest meaningful unit of length and it's here where all our current theories break down.
General relativity and quantum mechanics doesn't work together. We are trying to unify it for decades but with no progress.
Now obviously we need to measure it to study it.
But to measure something that small, we would need a massive amount of energy.
So much energy that with our current technology, we would need a particle accelerator the size of the entire solar system.
And let's assume we somehow built it…
Then our science predicts that if we concentrate that much energy into such a tiny region, it wouldn’t reveal planck's length but it would collapse into a black hole.
In short, the moment we try to observe the deepest layer of reality… we can destroy access to it.
But my point is that science can say nothing about these stuff, because of its methodology, you will never reach an answer about that through science. Thats the whole point. Science can't even say what is the physical 😭😭😭😭
The two definitions of what is the physical was philosophy who gave: extension and information 😭😭😭😭
Science will never help about this question
And if you will only base your opinion in science then you are scientificist (someone who think that knowledge outside empirical science is not valid)
And scientificism is self defeating (no physicalist support that currently, you can take the most famous one like churchland, dennett, millikan. Thank you sellars)
The two definitions of what is the physical was philosophy who gave: extension and information 😭😭😭😭
Science will never help about this question
And if you will only base your opinion in science then you are scientificist (someone who think that knowledge outside empirical science is not valid)
And scientificism is self defeating (no physicalist support that currently, you can take the most famous one like churchland, dennett, millikan. Thank you sellars)
This is very easy to refute:
1)The sentence "something isn't verifiable then it can't be claimed with certainty" can't be verifiable empirically
2) mathematic results can't be proved by verification, but for mathematical proof that use logic instruments of proof.
3)these logic instruments (like axioms, principles, conectives) can't be verifiable either
4) there is a priori knowledge and they are much more secure than any evidence
The last person who defended verificationalism was Carnap 100 yo (refuted by his own studant, the greatest empiricist of the 20th century: Quine)
1)The sentence "something isn't verifiable then it can't be claimed with certainty" can't be verifiable empirically
2) mathematic results can't be proved by verification, but for mathematical proof that use logic instruments of proof.
3)these logic instruments (like axioms, principles, conectives) can't be verifiable either
4) there is a priori knowledge and they are much more secure than any evidence
The last person who defended verificationalism was Carnap 100 yo (refuted by his own studant, the greatest empiricist of the 20th century: Quine)
