>Scientists chase mathematical beauty in physics>They come up with thisWhat the hell?
Nobody said our universes physical laws are human friendly. They generate consciousness, or it's illusion, depending on your opinion. That's the only criterium for us being here, not some romantic notion of elegance and beauty. The true equations creating our existence can be ugly as sin and they're still beautiful because they created us. They're our parents, in a way. Don't judge them, just try to understand them.
Lots of Approximations
It looks like shit because it's an approximation based on incomplete information for the sole purpose of pragmatism.This is just the limit of what happens when you can only practice empiricism behind the Veil.
>>17043612>>17043584why are approximations allowed to "not be beautiful" but exact results aren't exactly?
>>17043694Retards think that the universe is designed by some being and is therefore neat and elegant under the hood.
>>17043550>implying you understand any of that>implying you can appreciate its beauty>implying you could ever be a physicist
>>17043733I understand the other forces and the spacetime parts. it's not that difficult chud
>>17043694>allowedBeggars can't be choosers. You got a better model by all means show it to us.
>>17043550looking at OP's pic...>other forcesHmm, sounds like the part of the equation where you cover your bets by inserting something that can be redefined later. Uh huh.
>>17043783>Uh huhhate this nu-channer discord troon meme
>fewer times of how many loops around you that set spelled!>samestuff amirite?
>>17043550I mean... in fairness, if it actually worked that's not bad for explaining ALL OF PHYSICS in one equation.
>>17043550It is not even real math. How do you define the space you are integrating over? How do you define the integration measures on this space? Oh that's right, you can't.
>>17043550Alright smart guy, let's see you take a crack at it
>>17043553>"It's beyond human comprehension!"The cry of every failed worldview. It happened to theism and it will happen to logical positivism.
>>17043550at least the font type looks good
>>17043550daily reminder that "action" is not a real thing, you can't measure it, and being "useful" for deriving equations doesn't make it real
>>17043824>ALL OF PHYSICSAll of known physics
>>17043550either the beauty is cherry picking or because what looks like a complex formula was actually an exponentially simpler result than what was the best previous theory.
>>17046165not a single metric in science is real. everything is a model for real problem solving. you thought energy J was real? kek
>>17046182then why don't we ditch scientific observation and advance science just by writing formulas in a paper?
>>17046175how do you propose we explain unknown physics if we don't know them?
>>17043553fpbp. There are no "true equations" of reality though, there will only ever be "our equations that best model the evidence we've gathered">>17046165Action is a statement about how energy is exchanged in a system. You can't directly measure energy either. We instead measure quantities that our concept of energy is derived from (temperature, velocity, etc), and in doing so notice that there are certain conservation laws that seem to always be obeyed, no matter what observation that we make. The principle of stationary action encodes those observed laws.Action and energy may not be measurable or "real", but they absolutely do constrain measurements that we can make.>>17043850Trashing people because they lack knowledge is itself unscientific. Either they lacked the material conditions to pursue education to the point of understand, or they are just being a troll. In either case, your feedback is irrelevant.
>>17047868I don't know if you're trolling or what, but energy can absolutely be measured
>>17047884NTA but you're a brainlet. Energy can be measured and he told you how.
>>17043553>That's the only criterium for us being here, not some romantic notion of elegance and beauty. The true equations creating our existence can be ugly as sin and they're still beautiful because they created us.Low-mid-IQ take. You will never be a scientist.
>>17044345Not really the case.
>>17043694>why are approximations allowed to "not be beautiful" but exact results aren'tBecause approximations are ad hoc fits to empirical results you don't know how to organize properly.
>>17047957aand?????? you forgot to finish your argument
>>17047960I don't care about spoonfeeding obvious imbeciles. Anyone actually intelligent is free to try to refute the argument.
>>17047962I'll spoonfeed you then retard. Why are ad hoc fits to empirical results you don't know how to organize properly allowed to not be beautiful?
>>17047965>mentally ill cretin keeps doubling downSee >>17047962>I don't care about spoonfeeding obvious imbeciles. Anyone actually intelligent is free to try to refute the argument.
>>17047969there's no argument retard. you just rephrased approximation to ad hoc fits to empirical results you don't know how to organize properlyA change in nomenclature is not an argument
>>17047975You're psychotically ill and seething, but the argument stands completely unchallenged.
>>17047976>I will not argue anymore!!!!>reply to your post>I will not argue anymore!!!!>reply to your post>I will not argue anymore!!!!>reply to your post>I will not argue anymore!!!!>reply to your post>I will not argue anymore!!!!>reply to your post>I will not argue anymore!!!!do you realize how unwell you sound right now?
>>17047965>Why are ad hoc fits to empirical results you don't know how to organize properly allowed to not be beautiful?because if that's what you're going for, then you've already accepted your model isn't faithful to reality. the clunkiness isn't evidence that you're wrong about anything, like it would be if you thought your model actually reflects the structure of reality. how are you brainlets getting filtered by this?
>>17047978Notice how your mentally ill seething forces you to reply to me again, even though I'm not reading any of your slop.
>>17047987clunkiness isn't evidence you're wrong even with an exact theory dumbass>>17047988>I will not argue anymore!!!!>reply to your post>I will not argue anymore!!!!>reply to your post>I will not argue anymore!!!!>reply to your post>I will not argue anymore!!!!>reply to your post>I will not argue anymore!!!!>reply to your post>I will not argue anymore!!!!do you realize how unwell you sound right now?
>>17048052>clunkiness isn't evidence you're wrong even with an exact theoryit is, but you're too dumb to know the difference between evidence and proof, hence your confusion
>>17048054>trying to reason with a mentally ill retard and indulding his next cope instead of accepting his concession
>>17043550That whole equation will be tossed in the bin in a few years. Total fabricated pseudoscience.
