I’m a bit surprised by the question, so I’d rather ask: what would it mean to you for physics not to be true in that hypothetical future?
It would depend on my relationship with the body of knowledge I suppose. Are we married or just good friends?
This reminds me very much of Riddley Walker, have you read it?
Is physics true now? Is truth something with exactly defined borders?
No, haven’t. Thanks. Also consider “A Canticle for Leibowitz”.
My point is that, over time, knowledge gets corrupted. Especially esoteric knowledge. And it might not even take much time.
So you gotta wonder what myths we’ve got now that started as sincere attempts at a model.
And even in the short term. When a guy who made the observation and crafted the model tells you the model, your understanding and his are probably not the same.
So there’s that corruption to consider.
“Physics” is more or less syntactic sugar for “how the universe works”. It’s not a belief system. It’s just the way work - and, in fact, it’s allowing you to experience cognition and sapience, as well as enabling you to ask this latest in a sequence of odd and strangely aimed questions. But I digress: Our understanding more or less of the universe and its operation doesn’t change its fundamental nature.
We gained our knowledge of physics through experimentation and logical extrapolation.
Any knowledge gained from experimental evidence can be regained.
Ergo, knowledge that is lost - or as you put it, “corrupted” - will be re-learned and/or corrected in time, so long as the species whose knowledge we’re discussing doesn’t straight up go extinct.
Whichever revelation you’ve had that you are dying to “teach” everyone, it’s easier if you just state it directly.
I guarantee you it’s not as reality-shattering as you think it is. Whatever it is, we have seen or thought it and multiple variations of it before.
Let it out, maybe you get some interesting insights to learn from instead of this. It’s just silly.
It’s a conversation, not a fight.
Sorry, this is anuse, argument is next door.
Can you know something if it’s false? Is that the question?
I’m pointing out a degradation of knowledge and exploring the point at which it is considered false.
For example : a man examines a phenomenon, performs a complex experiment relating to it. Comes up with a nice model. Communicates the model to you. You understand the model but your understanding of the actual phenomenon, maybe less so. So when you discuss the phenomenon with your friends, refer to the model, there’s a bit of bs there.
And another example : A blind man is told that the sky is blue. But his understanding of that is not like the understanding of one who actually observed the blue of the sky, obviously.
Call it what, an unavoidable corruption?
I think if you took this to a different community and posted it more straightforward you would receive better responses. Maybe a science or a philosophy community. No stupid questions is more for questions like “will drinking small amounts of bleach whiten my teeth?”
Are you going out of your way to test the “no stupid questions” premise? You aren’t even asking a question you’re trying to make some kind of point in a roundabout way.
10 days ago, -34 points, “What horrible errors are people like you guilty of?”
10 days ago, -15 points, “When asked a question, what is your first reaction, to answer the question or to defend yourself?”
14 hours ago, -18 points, “In movies a strong woman is manly. (big muscles, aggressive, punches people, etc.) Is that really the way it is?”In all those posts there’s the common thread of you being vague and constantly alluding to some specific message you want to spread but won’t just directly state.
Well it’s a relative thing of course.
Not a response, please stop trolling.
Maybe you just don’t understand.
