/sci/ - Science & Math

>>6139546
>And it is not "emergent". Statistical laws are not synonymous with "emergence".
Go ahead and explain how a phenomenon which is the product of large numbers of X's undergoing complex interactions, which cannot be observed at the level of each individual X, is not emergence.

>Is this a joke? I refuse to believe that you are too stupid to understand what you were replying to. When there are multiple possible mathematical models consistent with nature, there is no reason for nature to prefer the one you like best. Nature does not care about your mathematical models. When your mathematical models are flawed, then nature doesn't care either. It just doesn't follow them.
Nature does care about what mathematical models you use to describe it, !!!----in the sense that they have to actually give you the correct answer----!!!. You could use a principle of stationary X where X isn't the action, and come out with an incorrect answer for trajectories (i.e. !!!----be in disagreement with nature----!!!).

>Historically it has been derived before it has been observed
It wasn't derived, it was guessed... It took Feynman to derive it.

>Perhaps I should, so I can see how much I have to dumb down my posts in order to reach your level. Thanks for reminding me just how ignorant the average first year student is. I'm sorry, in my stage of the academic career I'm used to talking to educated people.
Picture related, there is a reason for this and you're demonstrating it perfectly.

>>5771213
>>5771215

>>5713842
>philosophy