isn't it highly probable that everything we've learned about the universe is just what our primitive organ is able to perceive?
all documented "reality" is human perception and the mathematics we've invented was formed based on this organ's ability to process selective stimuli
say, even if we use mathematics to sufficiently define the "laws" of the universe, we will never be able to truly understand the mechanics of which it operates due to the limited capability of our biology
Other urls found in this thread:
us trying to explain the universe is like using a monochromatic camera for a documentary on the subtleties of color hues in a rainbow
>primitive organ
Compared to what?
>isn't it highly probable that everything we've learned about the universe is just what our primitive organ is able to perceive?
...Mechanically guaranteed. Literally, there is no other possible way to look at a given machine's total spectrum of states and operations.
>primitive organ
Relative to... what? A hypothetical ideal?
>isn't it highly probable that everything we've learned about the universe is just what our primitive organ is able to perceive?
You can test your sensory input and thoughts against things that probably aren't just your brain, like mechanical diagnostic tools, the perspectives of people other than yourself, and abstract mathematical checks. Unless someone or something is actively conspiring to keep you inside an elaborate illusion where every difference avenue of information you have is a lie, then simply checking yourself with other people, machines, and/or abstract systems should give you plenty of basis for knowledge beyond your base senses.
He is talking about blacks.
When it comes to mathematics, physics and other sciences I believe personally the majority of what we perceive as true is accurate, at least until its changed due to new information and theories. Where I am inclined to agree with you is in regards to how we experience things physically, for instance there could be an alien species that see's everything in ultraviolet which would lend a unique perspective to the Universe but wouldn't change the fundamental laws governing it. In time I think Humanity will augment itself with technology so that our ability to learn, study and explain the universe will increase but I don't think this would change our fundamental laws of the universe. The universe doesn't care about us, its laws and rules will remain static just our ability to decipher them will increase once we abandoned our primitive human biology and transcend.
And a steam engine will never get us out of the gravity well, so space travel is impossible?
I agree our brains seem to be quite limited in all the patterns they can harness. But this doesn't mean we're stuck. We evolved from something without brains, after all.
The Will finds a way.
I meant to convey how our main processor (the brain) was developed in it's majority for handling subjects fine tuned to ape's necessities (socializing, sex, etc..)
how can we honestly expect to ever (or at least in the next ~1000 years - which is minuscule in an evolutionary standpoint) to be able to understand the mechanics of the universe (or multiverses for that matter) in its entirety?
We developed math and used science to study what our mind cant percieve.
Imagine Xrays. What do they look like? Your imagination cant form a real image of an Xray.
>I meant to convey how our main processor (the brain) was developed in it's majority for handling subjects fine tuned to ape's necessities (socializing, sex, etc..)
Okay, but it is still better than literally anything else that we know of for understanding the universe.
>how can we honestly expect to ever (or at least in the next ~1000 years - which is minuscule in an evolutionary standpoint) to be able to understand the mechanics of the universe (or multiverses for that matter) in its entirety?
yeah...who said we were going to do that?
Best to hope for understanding it 'close enough'
we gonna merge with computers
>remain static
Who says they stay static? :^)
>You can test your sensory input and thoughts against things
You can't. They can only be tested against themselves.
Literally knew the second I posted that someone was going to bring that up. I'm going to assume they're static, at least until someone can prove the fundamental laws of the Universe change with time, which would be very frustrating for scientists.
Dirac thought G might not be a constant.
>be me a few years ago
>15 year old deeper-than-u guy, just like OP
>figure that there must be stuff that few, if any people can conceive of
>figure it's probably because our brains are wired on a deep level for simple things
>decide that I'd need to be able to manipulate my subconscious if I was to break such a barrier
>decide that rather than going with the unrealistic task of manipulating my subconscious directly, I should simplify things by allowing my subconscious to act of its own accord under my instruction
>decide to personify my subconscious to make the process as tangible as possible, imagining it as my fursona
>later find out that what I was doing was called tulpamancy
shieeeeeet
Well of course gravity isn't constant, if you are on the moon it is less than on the earth!
God you sci brainlets are so fucking stupid
It doesn't really make sense to say that G varies, it's a dimensionful constant. The true constants (if they are constant) are the dimensionless ones.
>Imagine Xrays. What do they look like?
They look like rays crossing eachother.
It's a green beam with a skeleton in it.
in 20 years when strong ai is created, we will know
No we've learned a lot more than we are able to 'perceive' already.
You'll note we have lots of equipment, infrared cameras for example, that translate things to formats we can perceive.
it's you the moron, we speak about G the "universal" gravitation constant, not the little g, the acceleration on earth's surface
Spooky
check the filename
yeah
>babby's first realization