Physics is a useful fiction, just like every other science.
You are not allowed to disagree with this statement. And it is absolutely true, for all time.
[edit, time is false by the way, so my last statement was intended to confuse you on purpose]
How are physical theories created, if they are all based on fiction and imagination? Why do people listen to “physical theorists” as if they were intelligent or smart, when actually they’re just pretending to be smart? All scientists do is guess about things. They don’t actually know anything.
The only people who know things, are religious people, because all knowledge is a product of faith.
You said, “All scientists do is guess about things. They don’t actually know anything.”. You then said, “The only people who know things, are religious people, because all knowledge is a product of faith.”. From you argument, “All do is scientists do is guess about things.” I think that this can be properly translated into “All scientists do is have faith.” Having faith and guessing about things is the same. So you are saying, “Therefore, all scientists do is have faith.” From this you conclude that scientists don’t know anything. So, you are saying that because scientist only have faith they don’t know anything, but according to you faith is the only way to know anything is through faith since “all knowledge is a product of faith”.
You are right, as the only way to have absolute knowledge of anything is where the structural conditions of knowledge are such that absolutist statements are allowed. Thus, 1+1=2 is absolutely true, not because it makes reference to some universal truth outside of the system, but because the very definition of the terms and how they function within the mathematical system necessarily makes them true, it is a systematic truism. Only absolute knowledge is a product of faith, or more accurately, exists in a system where the contextualised rules by which knowledge is generated permit no external input.
Physicists even describe what they do as fiction. This isn’t news to them. They’re moving from flawed systems, analysing with human minds, trying to find absolute truth, where every step on they way is the best they can do, which necessarily falls short of the objective they want to reach. Fundamentally, they don’t run on the same definition of knowledge by which you are analysing them and if you think that equates to making it up you’re fundamentally missing the point.
Look at the computer upon which you just typed that message and ask yourself again why we ‘listen to scientists’. What you’ve just said is not revolutionary or unknown to the people engaged in these professions. But, by that very fact, they are so utterly meaningless to their pursuit that really, you’ve just stated absolutely nothing.
All you’ve really done here is demonstrate your own ignorance.
Who says you need to know anything to be smart?
Is it not smart to make things up to take over other humans?
They are equally ignorant as scientists if they don’t know that God only exists in their imagination. I’d say only artists are honest, as long as they pride themselves only on creating fiction. Art became a lie when people thought they had to express the truth. The joy is in breaking truth, surpassing it.
I agree. Physics is fiction. You suppose things that aren’t true, and get some sort of “worked out” result. For example, we supposedly can figure out how long it would take for a ball you drop from a height of 40 m to hit the ground. This usually puts you into a fantasy land in which you do drop a ball from a height of 40 m. But actually, you are just working on physics problems, not dropping a ball, and so you can make up whatever fictitious conclusion you want. Anything follows from a falsehood (since a conditional statement with a false hypothesis is always true) and so any answer will be correct. In physics, fantasy rules.
Do we really know what’s going to happen when you drop that ball? Do we really know the future? I think not.
Disclaimer: I am not a physicist, therefor I reserve the right to be incorrect about any or all of the following, which is merely poorly crafted conjecture and/or the grammatically incorrect, yet somewhat prosaic equivalent of re-fried beans.
Bottom line; ‘Physics’ is fictitious only in the sense that language is fictitious, as physics, like all sciences, are merely a means of communicating (as I believe has been previously stated in a delightful quote) approximate ‘descriptions’ of extant “laws” and everything else (to attempt brevity) “man” can “experience” via the collective sensory. Said approximations can, through the scientific method, refine themselves continuously to a point where the margin of error is ultimately negligible.
That being said, the equations are not representational of all aspects of any given phenomena they attempt to explain or notate. When, for instance, you attempt to determine the arc and flight time of a sphere being lobbed at a given velocity, the fact that the ball may be of a washed out chartreuse hue, due to being a tennis ball or similar, is not going to prove as significant as its mass, drag, etc. (unless of course some winged animal fancies that particular color in passing and subsequently attempts to devour it, which could change the outcome… But that is what margin of error and tests repeated ad nauseam are there for).
There is no such creation as knowledge, everything is an invention of the mind. Can you explain gravity through faith? No you cannot. You are correct when you say that scientists pretend to be ‘smart’ however there is no right answer to anything. Existence is what you make of it after all what you ‘believe’ is the only truth that you can have. Let me see a discussion that isn’t a contradiction of the reality of a human.
This seems patently false to me. Everything is an interpretation of the mind perhaps, but not an invention of the mind. At least, we have no good reason to think so. Awareness does not equal creation.
](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/uploads/default/original/2X/7/7c349bf1053f368a5729d053e1e91215f22ce66c.gif "Brick wall"){kind=small}
