Submitted by Envoy34 t3_11a8osf in singularity
turnip_burrito t1_j9t90d1 wrote
Reply to comment by Terminator857 in What do you expect the most out of AGI? by Envoy34
>. An end to absurdities like climate change disaster and standard model particle physics (there are only standing EM waves).
You're joking I hope lol
The standard model is ugly, but least it works. You can't explain much of anything using standing EM waves.
Terminator857 t1_j9u4spx wrote
I can explain everything with standing EM waves. Ugly = wrong, just look at history of bad / wrong theories. Standard Model breaks and they just change the theory to accommodate. The hallmark of something very wrong. Hasn't produced anything useful, another hallmark of something very wrong.
turnip_burrito t1_j9v56hc wrote
>I can explain everything with standing EM waves
Bullshit.
Explain the existence of electrically neutral particles like neutrinos and why they're able to interact at all with other particles.
> Ugly = wrong, just look at history of bad / wrong theories.
No, ugly = ugly and wrong = wrong. Physics has no reason to be elegant to humans. The Standard model is incomplete (dark matter/energy, quantum gravity, and antimatter imbalance not explained) and inelegant, but has made predictions which up until now have worked for the rest of particle physics. In the sense of incompleteness, it could be considered "wrong". However, it is effective at predicting everything we are able to test here on Earth, so in that sense it is "right".
In fact, scientists at the LHC have been trying very hard, to no avail, to find deviations to the standard model.
> Hasn't produced anything useful, another hallmark of something very wrong.
Bad predictions and inconsistency with reality are the hallmark of something wrong. Subatomic physics isn't really that useful (we have no real use for gluons, neutrinos, etc), but we still do test theories of it.
AwesomeDragon97 t1_j9wzs64 wrote
>Ugly = wrong
This isn’t necessarily always the case, just look at the most efficient way to fit 17 squares in a larger square.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments