Post scarcity

[Crni Vuk]

naw, I just meant in general, I like still watching such documentaries.

 

[Hassknecht]

I think you are giving too much benefit to the scientific community. The "well understood" part applies to the stuff that's between micro and macro (obviously excluding newton), but not to the later ones. For example they can see a trace of a fundamental particle and even somewhat predict what it does, but have no idea how it came about. Same with black holes and such where you have minds like Hawkins and Susskind debating black hole paradox and many other scientists who are in constant quarrel (some of which is understandably political) about various issues.

We have a pretty solid understanding of the basics (and by extension, everything derived from that). Quantum mechanics describes the microscopic world in a very reliable way, relativistics describes the macroscopic world. The current problem is finding a link between these two. A quantized form of gravity, mostly, as there is a relativistic form of quantum mechanics (quantum electrodynamics).

Black holes are one limit of our current understanding of physics. They're per definitionem inaccessible, as is everything below Planck's length. Our physics works very well in its given boundaries.
The problem is that many people think we are trying to find a reason and all. That's not our job in physics. We describe and predict. Linking cause and effect. Of course the beginning of the universe is a very important topic (well, not for me; I'm doing solid state physics and not cosmology) because we still don't know why there's more matter than antimatter and assorted other mysteries, but we probably can't ever answer why the universe exists. Why? is simply not a very good question because it's basically infinite. Like a child, it can (and will) always ask 'why' after every answer.
The universe is (or rather will be) quite well understood in how it works. What is not understood is the ultimate 'Why?'.

 

[Crni Vuk]

LIKE I said, scientists are always the party poopers.

 

[AskWazzup]

We have a pretty solid understanding of the basics (and by extension, everything derived from that). Quantum mechanics describes the microscopic world in a very reliable way, relativistics describes the macroscopic world. The current problem is finding a link between these two. A quantized form of gravity, mostly, as there is a relativistic form of quantum mechanics (quantum electrodynamics).

Black holes are one limit of our current understanding of physics. They're per definitionem inaccessible, as is everything below Planck's length. Our physics works very well in its given boundaries.
The problem is that many people think we are trying to find a reason and all. That's not our job in physics. We describe and predict. Linking cause and effect. Of course the beginning of the universe is a very important topic (well, not for me; I'm doing solid state physics and not cosmology) because we still don't know why there's more matter than antimatter and assorted other mysteries, but we probably can't ever answer why the universe exists. Why? is simply not a very good question because it's basically infinite. Like a child, it can (and will) always ask 'why' after every answer.
The universe is (or rather will be) quite well understood in how it works. What is not understood is the ultimate 'Why?'.

Hm.. Well, then if we have limits to our understanding of the universe, how can we claim to have a good understanding if we don't know how much there is behind these limits? Not claiming that there is or should be, but just curious to hear from someone who understands this topic better than i.

And for the ultimate why, i wonder if it's even the right question to ask. What if "why" is only a human creation, this reminds me of philosophy, where you somtimes have to look back to see that the whole premise is not actually compatible with the question at hand, so you look for a different question.

 

[Crni Vuk]

if you are interested in the relation between "why" and "how" then I suggest to read more about the Scientific method. Its a fundamental of research and science in general. The principles, just like Hass said are pretty well understood. Anything else? Well the big bang and the black hole and all the stuff that is right now a frontier, the crux is, we might never have a chance to find out what is behind it. Its not a problem with the technology. Do a little test for your self. Imagine a cube. Now do it in the 4th or 5th dimension.

 

[Hassknecht]

We have a pretty solid understanding of the basics (and by extension, everything derived from that). Quantum mechanics describes the microscopic world in a very reliable way, relativistics describes the macroscopic world. The current problem is finding a link between these two. A quantized form of gravity, mostly, as there is a relativistic form of quantum mechanics (quantum electrodynamics).

Black holes are one limit of our current understanding of physics. They're per definitionem inaccessible, as is everything below Planck's length. Our physics works very well in its given boundaries.
The problem is that many people think we are trying to find a reason and all. That's not our job in physics. We describe and predict. Linking cause and effect. Of course the beginning of the universe is a very important topic (well, not for me; I'm doing solid state physics and not cosmology) because we still don't know why there's more matter than antimatter and assorted other mysteries, but we probably can't ever answer why the universe exists. Why? is simply not a very good question because it's basically infinite. Like a child, it can (and will) always ask 'why' after every answer.
The universe is (or rather will be) quite well understood in how it works. What is not understood is the ultimate 'Why?'.

Hm.. Well, then if we have limits to our understanding of the universe, how can we claim to have a good understanding if we don't know how much there is behind these limits? Not claiming that there is or should be, but just curious to hear from someone who understands this topic better than i.

And for the ultimate why, i wonder if it's even the right question to ask. What if "why" is only a human creation, this reminds me of philosophy, where you somtimes have to look back to see that the whole premise is not actually compatible with the question at hand, so you look for a different question.

We have a good understanding of what we can observe so far. Maybe there's whole lot more that we can't see, but we're pretty good at describing and predicting many phenomena that we can see.
What's beyond can't really interact with us in any meaningful way, so we can't really do any measurements there. As physics is always an interaction between theory and experiment there isn't really a a whole lot of meaningful physics to be done there.

As for the ultimate why, that's what I meant. It's a silly question that knows so satisfactory answer.

 

[Crni Vuk]

makes you wonder if we will ever have the mental capability to actually grasp it.

 

[zegh8578]

"The ultimate why" is, most likely, one of many ideas we have that stem from instincts we once needed to survive.

If we hear a sudden noise in the forest, it is imperative for us to know WHY. It could be a rabbit. It could be a bear. It could be a tiger.

Why, for that reason, is a reaction that is vital for humans, carry on strongly in human genes, and reflect strongly in the constant curiousity of small babies.

Without further self-insight, we carry this obsession with "why" on throughout our lives. No other animal wonders why things exist - beyond the little "why did that sound happen?" that they need to survive. Only humans wonder why leafs are green, why fire is yellow, why trees are tall and flowers are tiny, why why why.

And it just so happens that most our whys have a good reason we can grasp. The sky is blue because of how the human brain interprets the information passed through the optical nerve from the eye that registered a near consistent wall of one specific type of light wavelength reflected off the particles the sky is made up of, and directed through our pupils. And that's why the sky is blue.

But why exists life?
Why exists universe.
Why is matter?
Why is time?

These are themes that have nothing to do with a tree trying to survive, or branches snapping in the woods.
These questions may very well not have a ready answer, at all.
The universe may be existing because not existing simply is not an option.

Life - being molecular activity at a hightened rate - may exist simply because molecules of these types cannot exist together, in those conditions, without hightening their activity untill they resemble life. Remember what viruses are created of - then also remember enzymes, and how they function.

The "ultimate question" may end up giving a real downer of an answer, "because."

 

[Akratus]

None of that is chaotic.
Now to be fair, there isn't any chaos at all if you think about it. Well, except for the uncertainties of quantum mechanics. But even those are statistical and not chaotic.

So, uh, yeah. That was a really good response to the topic and not random bullshit at all.

Because I didn't have the feeling that I would be at all satisfied in continuing the conversation back and forth as we inevitably would.

Perhaps the word I should have used was destructive.