Talk:2640: The Universe by Scientific Field - Revision history

172.71.134.216 at 04:44, 1 December 2024

2024-12-01T04:44:44Z

172.69.33.149: From explanation

2022-08-25T17:33:44Z

From explanation

172.70.85.177 at 11:45, 5 July 2022

2022-07-05T11:45:40Z

172.70.210.125: Reply

2022-07-05T03:14:25Z

172.70.207.8 at 02:20, 5 July 2022

2022-07-05T02:20:01Z

172.68.132.96: reply

2022-07-03T22:24:52Z

172.69.70.155 at 15:54, 3 July 2022

2022-07-03T15:54:21Z

172.70.211.52: Mentioning max tegmark's mathematical universe hypothesis

2022-07-03T06:54:05Z

Mentioning max tegmark's mathematical universe hypothesis

172.70.86.64: Funny joke lol

2022-07-03T01:38:08Z

Funny joke lol

172.69.34.6: reply

2022-07-03T01:16:27Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:44, 1 December 2024
Line 36:		Line 36:

	I deleted this sentence from the explanation: "If we measure the universe by mass-energy instead, for example, the study of physics becomes non-trivial." I was planning to put an {Actual citation needed} tag on it, but it seemed to break up the explanation in an odd way, inside a paragraph front of a group of bullet points making similar arguments, so I'm moving it here for discussion instead. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.33.149\|172.69.33.149]] 17:33, 25 August 2022 (UTC)		I deleted this sentence from the explanation: "If we measure the universe by mass-energy instead, for example, the study of physics becomes non-trivial." I was planning to put an {Actual citation needed} tag on it, but it seemed to break up the explanation in an odd way, inside a paragraph front of a group of bullet points making similar arguments, so I'm moving it here for discussion instead. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.33.149\|172.69.33.149]] 17:33, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
		+
		+	"although one could argue back that theology is nothing more than writing fiction". yeah, and one could also argue that the earth is flat and that 2+2=5.[[Special:Contributions/172.71.134.216\|172.71.134.216]] 04:44, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:33, 25 August 2022
Line 34:		Line 34:
	:::::It's inexplicable...		:::::It's inexplicable...
	::::: :) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.177\|172.70.85.177]] 11:45, 5 July 2022 (UTC)		::::: :) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.177\|172.70.85.177]] 11:45, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
		+
		+	I deleted this sentence from the explanation: "If we measure the universe by mass-energy instead, for example, the study of physics becomes non-trivial." I was planning to put an {Actual citation needed} tag on it, but it seemed to break up the explanation in an odd way, inside a paragraph front of a group of bullet points making similar arguments, so I'm moving it here for discussion instead. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.33.149\|172.69.33.149]] 17:33, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:45, 5 July 2022
Line 32:		Line 32:
	:::Oh, absolutely. But it's definitely been made fun of by webcomics before, e.g. by: [https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/theoretical-physics SMBC], so it's not outside the realm of possibility Randall may have meant that. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.207.8\|172.70.207.8]] 02:20, 5 July 2022 (UTC)		:::Oh, absolutely. But it's definitely been made fun of by webcomics before, e.g. by: [https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/theoretical-physics SMBC], so it's not outside the realm of possibility Randall may have meant that. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.207.8\|172.70.207.8]] 02:20, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
	::::SMBC is a great comic. I wonder why it doesn't have an explanation wiki. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.210.125\|172.70.210.125]] 03:14, 5 July 2022 (UTC)		::::SMBC is a great comic. I wonder why it doesn't have an explanation wiki. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.210.125\|172.70.210.125]] 03:14, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
		+	:::::It's inexplicable...
		+	::::: :) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.177\|172.70.85.177]] 11:45, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:14, 5 July 2022
Line 31:		Line 31:
	::Quite true. Almost all of those "theories" aren't {{w\|falsifiable}}, and therefore are technically metaphysics instead of genuine science. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.132.96\|172.68.132.96]] 22:24, 3 July 2022 (UTC)		::Quite true. Almost all of those "theories" aren't {{w\|falsifiable}}, and therefore are technically metaphysics instead of genuine science. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.132.96\|172.68.132.96]] 22:24, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
	:::Oh, absolutely. But it's definitely been made fun of by webcomics before, e.g. by: [https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/theoretical-physics SMBC], so it's not outside the realm of possibility Randall may have meant that. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.207.8\|172.70.207.8]] 02:20, 5 July 2022 (UTC)		:::Oh, absolutely. But it's definitely been made fun of by webcomics before, e.g. by: [https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/theoretical-physics SMBC], so it's not outside the realm of possibility Randall may have meant that. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.207.8\|172.70.207.8]] 02:20, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
		+	::::SMBC is a great comic. I wonder why it doesn't have an explanation wiki. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.210.125\|172.70.210.125]] 03:14, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:20, 5 July 2022
Line 30:		Line 30:
	:Could be... although just like Holographic Theory, and to some degree Simulation Theory we'd be hard pressed to tell a difference. As long as the rules are consistent, and resist self modification, there's nothing to say the experience from the inside is any different between, physical, simulation, holographic, or mathematical realities. Hard to know which box you're in if you can't look outside it to confirm what the walls are made of [[Special:Contributions/172.69.70.155\|172.69.70.155]] 15:54, 3 July 2022 (UTC)		:Could be... although just like Holographic Theory, and to some degree Simulation Theory we'd be hard pressed to tell a difference. As long as the rules are consistent, and resist self modification, there's nothing to say the experience from the inside is any different between, physical, simulation, holographic, or mathematical realities. Hard to know which box you're in if you can't look outside it to confirm what the walls are made of [[Special:Contributions/172.69.70.155\|172.69.70.155]] 15:54, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
	::Quite true. Almost all of those "theories" aren't {{w\|falsifiable}}, and therefore are technically metaphysics instead of genuine science. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.132.96\|172.68.132.96]] 22:24, 3 July 2022 (UTC)		::Quite true. Almost all of those "theories" aren't {{w\|falsifiable}}, and therefore are technically metaphysics instead of genuine science. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.132.96\|172.68.132.96]] 22:24, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
		+	:::Oh, absolutely. But it's definitely been made fun of by webcomics before, e.g. by: [https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/theoretical-physics SMBC], so it's not outside the realm of possibility Randall may have meant that. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.207.8\|172.70.207.8]] 02:20, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:24, 3 July 2022
Line 29:		Line 29:
	As to the alt text, you also have Max Tegmark, a physicist at MIT, who believes the entire universe is literally made of mathematics: {{w\|Mathematical universe hypothesis}}. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.211.52\|172.70.211.52]] 06:54, 3 July 2022 (UTC)		As to the alt text, you also have Max Tegmark, a physicist at MIT, who believes the entire universe is literally made of mathematics: {{w\|Mathematical universe hypothesis}}. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.211.52\|172.70.211.52]] 06:54, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
	:Could be... although just like Holographic Theory, and to some degree Simulation Theory we'd be hard pressed to tell a difference. As long as the rules are consistent, and resist self modification, there's nothing to say the experience from the inside is any different between, physical, simulation, holographic, or mathematical realities. Hard to know which box you're in if you can't look outside it to confirm what the walls are made of [[Special:Contributions/172.69.70.155\|172.69.70.155]] 15:54, 3 July 2022 (UTC)		:Could be... although just like Holographic Theory, and to some degree Simulation Theory we'd be hard pressed to tell a difference. As long as the rules are consistent, and resist self modification, there's nothing to say the experience from the inside is any different between, physical, simulation, holographic, or mathematical realities. Hard to know which box you're in if you can't look outside it to confirm what the walls are made of [[Special:Contributions/172.69.70.155\|172.69.70.155]] 15:54, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
		+	::Quite true. Almost all of those "theories" aren't {{w\|falsifiable}}, and therefore are technically metaphysics instead of genuine science. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.132.96\|172.68.132.96]] 22:24, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

@@ Line 22: / Line 22: @@
 :Climate change? Only thing astronomy can tell us about climate change is where to move to when we inevitably destroy Earths climate. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 01:03, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 :: The greenhouse effect was originally described in terms of {{w|albedo}} when the absorption spectra of CO2 was first characterized, but I can't think of any other examples. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.34.6|172.69.34.6]] 01:16, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 There should be a large proportion for "Dark Knowledge" to imitate those astronomical summaries that try to emphasise how much of the universe is dark matter and/or energy [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.64|172.70.86.64]] 01:38, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 As to the alt text, you also have Max Tegmark, a physicist at MIT, who believes the entire universe is literally made of mathematics: {{w|Mathematical universe hypothesis}}. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.211.52|172.70.211.52]] 06:54, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:54, 3 July 2022
Line 24:		Line 24:

	There should be a large proportion for "Dark Knowledge" to imitate those astronomical summaries that try to emphasise how much of the universe is dark matter and/or energy [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.64\|172.70.86.64]] 01:38, 3 July 2022 (UTC)		There should be a large proportion for "Dark Knowledge" to imitate those astronomical summaries that try to emphasise how much of the universe is dark matter and/or energy [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.64\|172.70.86.64]] 01:38, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
		+
		+	As to the alt text, you also have Max Tegmark, a physicist at MIT, who believes the entire universe is literally made of mathematics: {{w\|Mathematical universe hypothesis}}. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.211.52\|172.70.211.52]] 06:54, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:38, 3 July 2022
Line 22:		Line 22:
	:Climate change? Only thing astronomy can tell us about climate change is where to move to when we inevitably destroy Earths climate. -- [[User:Hkmaly\|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly\|talk]]) 01:03, 3 July 2022 (UTC)		:Climate change? Only thing astronomy can tell us about climate change is where to move to when we inevitably destroy Earths climate. -- [[User:Hkmaly\|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly\|talk]]) 01:03, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
	:: The greenhouse effect was originally described in terms of {{w\|albedo}} when the absorption spectra of CO2 was first characterized, but I can't think of any other examples. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.34.6\|172.69.34.6]] 01:16, 3 July 2022 (UTC)		:: The greenhouse effect was originally described in terms of {{w\|albedo}} when the absorption spectra of CO2 was first characterized, but I can't think of any other examples. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.34.6\|172.69.34.6]] 01:16, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
		+
		+	There should be a large proportion for "Dark Knowledge" to imitate those astronomical summaries that try to emphasise how much of the universe is dark matter and/or energy [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.64\|172.70.86.64]] 01:38, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:16, 3 July 2022
Line 21:		Line 21:
	Maybe the idea of the comic is that the diagram was created by astronomers to justify their existence, which explains the bias. Many lay people wonder why we spend so much money studying "out there" when there are so many problems here that could use the money (never mind that the fraction of government budgets devoted to astronomy is miniscule, and some of the discoveries do have terrestrial uses, particularly regarding climate change). And as alluded in the title text, other researchers could probably make a similar diagram that emphasizes their discipline. [[User:Barmar\|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar\|talk]]) 17:01, 2 July 2022 (UTC)		Maybe the idea of the comic is that the diagram was created by astronomers to justify their existence, which explains the bias. Many lay people wonder why we spend so much money studying "out there" when there are so many problems here that could use the money (never mind that the fraction of government budgets devoted to astronomy is miniscule, and some of the discoveries do have terrestrial uses, particularly regarding climate change). And as alluded in the title text, other researchers could probably make a similar diagram that emphasizes their discipline. [[User:Barmar\|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar\|talk]]) 17:01, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
	:Climate change? Only thing astronomy can tell us about climate change is where to move to when we inevitably destroy Earths climate. -- [[User:Hkmaly\|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly\|talk]]) 01:03, 3 July 2022 (UTC)		:Climate change? Only thing astronomy can tell us about climate change is where to move to when we inevitably destroy Earths climate. -- [[User:Hkmaly\|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly\|talk]]) 01:03, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
		+	:: The greenhouse effect was originally described in terms of {{w\|albedo}} when the absorption spectra of CO2 was first characterized, but I can't think of any other examples. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.34.6\|172.69.34.6]] 01:16, 3 July 2022 (UTC)