Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Elysia" data-source="post: 6137239" data-attributes="member: 6746643">What an amusing view!  I guess that you must find science to be primitive then since it tends to rely heavily on statistical models to prove or disprove many of its theories.   Just because one individual atom of carbon is different (and yes a few indeed are different)  doesn’t mean that there is no objective theory of carbon atoms.  You may notice through subjective experimentation, that burning one lump of coal yields remarkably similar results to burning another.  Could there be an underlying objective principle at work?Absolutely, if you were able to model any of these systems 98% accurately, you would need a computer to process all the data, and like you point out, the error in the system makes that kind of accuracy rather a moot point.  (That’s assuming of course that it were possible to model that accurately in the first place; physicists can’t even model the 3 body system of particles let alone a real n-body system.)  Anyway, too much precision is really not much, should I say it… fun. Ehem.  Give me a spherical cow any day. (Sorry, physics joke!)  Might be a bit strong, but yes, the implication would be that an underlying factor might exist such that an objective feature could be pulled out…Indeed, that would make for a fascinating study. I would think, and moreover I would go so far as to say that the inability to recognize when something could be improved is primitive. The middle position is often the correct (and therefore better?)  one.  Hmmm… many people seem to fall prey to this fallacy – some therefore all.  Hehehehe….</blockquote>

Verification