|
|
|
|
|
|
by aranchelk
486 days ago
|
|
|
> We don’t have philosophically satisfying insights into the universe at subatomic scales. We have quantum mechanics: a set of equations that are good at predicting the behavior of elementary particles, but that don’t line up with our intuition about the macroscopic world. Our analogies and intuitions are based off of our macroscopic experienced reality, this seems to be an entirely emergent phenomenon based on those strange behaviors described by quantum mechanics. If those insights ever do come, I don’t believe they’ll correspond to anything prewired into our brains or experienced in our lives, and will never be remotely satisfying. |
|
|
I don't know why you'd assume that.
Euler's identity certainly doesn't correspond to anything prewired, and yet it's very satisfying.
The philosophical insights will be satisfying if they are simple and elegant. Our theory of biological evolution through natural selection isn't remotely prewired either, but that doesn't stop it from being one of the most philosophically satisfying theories we've come up with.