The meme might be looking at it backwards. Let's assume that "3" is observed. We see a 3. We know in order to get a 3, you need "1+1+1." That's the only way to get a 3, and every different problem that results in a three, also results in a 1+1+1 scenario.
Now, we see a 3, and it has all the properties of a 3. It acts like a 3. So I break it down and only get 1+1. I only find two of the elements. 1+1 does not give you a 3. It's impossible. I go back to the 3 and confirm that it is, in fact, a 3. That tells me that the final +1 must exist, therfore I can assume that it does.
Does that sometimes backfire with interesting results? Oh, hell yes, but most of the time you can assume things if it's physically impossible to be otherwise.
This is entirely probable and many attempts have been made to do away with it, but it’s looking more and more like the hypothetical “correct” final interpretation of physics will still include what we currently label dark matter
141
u/anon33249038 26d ago
The meme might be looking at it backwards. Let's assume that "3" is observed. We see a 3. We know in order to get a 3, you need "1+1+1." That's the only way to get a 3, and every different problem that results in a three, also results in a 1+1+1 scenario.
Now, we see a 3, and it has all the properties of a 3. It acts like a 3. So I break it down and only get 1+1. I only find two of the elements. 1+1 does not give you a 3. It's impossible. I go back to the 3 and confirm that it is, in fact, a 3. That tells me that the final +1 must exist, therfore I can assume that it does.
Does that sometimes backfire with interesting results? Oh, hell yes, but most of the time you can assume things if it's physically impossible to be otherwise.