[ 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

View post   
File: 16 KB, 522x400, tunturi-t30-folding-treadmill-new-for-2008.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1019637 No.1019637 [Reply] [Original]

Alright /sci/ I'm going to start a nice simple discussion. Anyone is invited in to give their two pence, but please, no being a prick and no butthurt. I want a nice clean thread here.

Do you think that man can ever truely figure out and understand all the physical laws of the universe? Will we ever get there? Do you think there are an infinite number of laws? Is there something about the nature of man (at least thus far) that limits our inability to discover all the laws? What are your thoughts.

>> No.1019661
File: 38 KB, 295x340, barot.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1019661

Yes it will take off. NOOOOT

>> No.1019673

no way to know, since we don't even know the real nature of the universe, it could be pretty much anything at this point.

>> No.1019678

>>1019661
Yes thank you Borat, now would you care to discuss the real topic of this thread?

>> No.1019698

>>1019673
I'm not asking what people know. I fully realize we can't know the answers at this point, I just want to you know what you think. As for myself, I completely believe the universe is defined with a finite set of rules and man has the power to understand all of those rules and thus understand anything about the universe that he wishes to.

>> No.1019701

They better not do it in the next decade. I'm going to want SOMETHING to research for a PhD.

>> No.1019723

you are all saying we do not know atm. could we not simply test this?

also im not a physfag but in my mind, when thet treadmill turns on the helicopter will fall onto ground
if it doesnt turn on, the rotots will spin and it will be a takeoff just as normal

prove me wrong please :D

>> No.1019740

>>1019701
Well knowing all the rules doesnt mean you understand everything. I just mean merely we know all the rules. Like knowing all the rules of chess. Even if you figure out all the rules, there are still plenty of things to do with it.

>> No.1019768

>>1019740
You are in error.
If you know all the rules that govern a specific system, you are capable of knowing all the states of the system.
i.e. You know all the letters of the alphabet, so you are capable of forming any combination possible.

>> No.1019778

>>1019768
Yeah I know that. I never said you couldn't know all the states. I was just saying you'd still have to figure out all of the states. It sounds like you are actually wrong.

>> No.1019797

>>1019778
>doesnt mean you understand everything
isn't the same as
>doesnt mean you know everything

if you understand all the rules there are to understand, you understand everything, but don't necessarily know everything.
who's in error now?

>> No.1019817

>>1019797
It is the same if I mean it to be the same. I'm the one who said it so its meaning is how i intend, not how you misinterpretted it.

>> No.1019843

I don't know if we can but we will always try. The only thing that is limiting us are those that insists that we should label the "unknown" with religion thereby preventing people from finding answers.

>> No.1019851

>>1019817
You are an idiot.
This sentence means the moon is red in the summer.
I said it and I meant it to mean that, therefore it's your fault, if you misinterpret it.

Seriously though, words have a defined meaning for a reason.

>> No.1019867

>>1019851
Nice of you to take what I said to the extreme. Lets go back to the chess example. Let's say you know every rule of chess. Do you understand exactly how to solve the problem of the knights tour for any given circumstance bound by the rules of chess?

>> No.1019892

>>1019867
yes, all I have to do is simulate the possible moves that would counter it with the ruleset in my possession.

>> No.1019898

>>1019892
>counter
solve

>> No.1019920

>>1019892
Yeah but until you did, you wouldn't understand it. Do you know the algorithm for solving it no matter where the peice starts out? Do you understand it? No, not until you've applied the rules, then you'll understand it. Thus proving my point.

>> No.1019973

>>1019920
>understand it
there's that word again.
you would be correct, if you would only change that one little part of your sentence to "know the solution"

Main Entry: un·der·stand
Pronunciation: \ˌən-dər-ˈstand\
Function: verb
transitive verb
1 a : to grasp the meaning of

If you really are too semantically impaired, keep on spouting illogical nonsense.

PS.
>Do you know the algorithm for solving it no matter where the peice starts out?
Algorithm is a rule.

>> No.1020004

>>1019973
Not a rule which defines the universe of chess. Learn the difference.