|
|
|
|
|
|
by mshumi
1895 days ago
|
|
|
One wonders if it is some fundamental assumption that limits further understanding of the Universe. Is it our intuitive relationship with numbers, time, and physical space that is limiting? We all grow up with societally imposed relationships between numbers, time, and physical space, but are these learned or do they actually reflect objective reality. The frameworks derived from these fundamental assumptions are excellent for making predictions and are testable within those frameworks. |
|
|
One could even go further...
Russell once compared the movement of the planets around the sun with people carrying torchs and walking around a mountain during the night. Because it is dark, we don't see that people are carrying those torchs and we are wondering why those lights move in such strange ways. Then then sun rises (Einstein presents his relativity theory) and we understand.
We hope such an explanation also exists for the entire universe and its physical laws. But could it be that the explanation is beyond the capabilities of the human brains? I am not talking about complexity or problem size. That could be solved with computers. Maybe there is an elegant, obvious and compact explanation why the universe behaves like it does, but it so much beyond what we consider as logical that if an alien had written it down in a book, we would not even realize what the book is about. Like trying to explain to a dog the concepts of "yesterday" and "tomorrow". Is there a reason to assume that our ape brains are able to understand everything?