All that can be known?

What is it that can actually be known in science?

I suggest that all questions of science boil down to the following question:

"What is the proportion of possible histories in which A happened that B also happened?"

As an example:

"What is the proportion of possible histories in which I ROLLED THIS DIE such that IT ENDS UP WITH 6 ON TOP?"

Heuristically, we can say that the answer to this is (approximately) 1/6. 'Approximately', since there may be other factors that we are not aware of, the die could be waited for example. 

Note that implicitly we are considering only a very small subset of possible histories beginning at the big bang. Namely ones that lead to a life-bearing planet on which humans evolved and eventually produced the intelligent(ish) bipedal life-form referred to in the question as "I". Further we are only considering histories in which I roll a die for some reason, perhaps I am playing Snakes and Ladders. 

Essentially all that science can tell you is odds. Science is a bookmakers tool. It tells you what to expect and how surprised you should be if something unlikely happens. 

That's not to say it's not a useful tool. Living your life with the assumption that the most likely things are going to happen is a fairly safe way of living. You would be very unfortunate if a series of unlikely events ruined your life. Unlucky people do exist, of course, so it is not foolproof. Equally, very lucky people also exist. But living your life with the assumption that you will win the lottery is arguably not the best way to prepare in life.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Vortex Solution to Navier Stokes Equations

Image
This is a solution I found to the Navier Stokes equations . It uses the flow lines of the Hopf Fibration (which is basically just a way of covering the entire 3D space in circles). The flow lines can be seen in this image below: You can see my paper here. Solution to Navier-Stokes equation . Unfortunately I won't get a million pounds for winning the Clay Millennium prize because this is a compressible not incompressible solution. :( Oh, well. Nice try! I think it's pretty nice anyway. :) Also it uses the nice identity: which paramaterizes the Pythagorean quadruples!
Read more

Conjugate of Lie Algebra

Conjugate of Lie Algebra A little article noting the similarities between momentum conservation (continuous) and charge conservation (discrete). We all know that the conjugate coordinate to position is momentum . Thus a term such as  ∫O(-k)O(-q)O(k+q)dk 4 dq 4 = ∫O'(x)O'(x)O'(x)dx 4 But a lie group given by it's root vectors (charges) also has a similar form which looks a lot like momentum: O {-A} O {-B} O {A+B} + (A n )O {A} O {-A} O n So we should be able to find conjugate variables to the root vectors. So we can write the above as: O' C O' C O' C The O' C  being linear combinations of the Os. In the case of E 8 , the {A} are 8 dimensional unit vectors. One difficulty are the neutral particles, O n  , which seemingly have no equivalent in the momentum picture. Such a term would look like:  ∫O(k)O(-k)kμAμ(0)dk 4 =  ∫O(x)Bμ∂μO(x)dx 4   which is not Lorenz invariant.... [ unless O(x) were spinors and Bμ were Dirac matrices?? B
Read more