[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

Search:


View post   

>> No.12238160 [View]
File: 20 KB, 545x693, infiniteenergy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12238160

>> No.12080446 [View]
File: 20 KB, 545x693, infiniteenergy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12080446

>> No.11452011 [View]
File: 20 KB, 545x693, XnmMvlA.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11452011

What now?

>> No.9400524 [View]
File: 16 KB, 545x693, G81ZVTI.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9400524

/sci/ humor

>> No.8857637 [View]
File: 20 KB, 545x693, prepetum mobily.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8857637

What is the purpose of theory?

Can a theory be considered successful if it merely describes things and allows for their accurate predicting? Or must it penetrate into the 'why' of things and also explain away just why things are as they are?

Is it necessary for a theory to be reductionist? Should its goal be simplification of things? If so, how far should one go and how far is too far?

Consequently and lastly (and this is a matter of opinion, mostly), do/should theories converge towards some ultimate truth, a theory of everything, or instead diverge, with there being no one theory that would explain away everything and instead a theory for every subset of things? Would there even be a difference?

I'm sorry if the questions are dumb, I don't have any background in this. Asking because I want to build a theory for a game just for the sake of it.

>> No.7105829 [View]
File: 16 KB, 545x693, 4rf5w.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7105829

>>7105580
it works for the same reason this does

>> No.6586922 [View]
File: 16 KB, 545x693, 4rf5w.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6586922

>>6586476

kek

Navigation
View posts[+24][+48][+96]