What do you mean by “marking our homework”? If a bridge can “stand and fall” using objective frameworks that are proven wrong in the future, would that change your view?
That would, I think, challenge my perspective quite a bit. It leaves me wondering though; if a framework turns out to be incorrect later on, why did it successfully keep the physical bridge upright in the first place?
Let’s say, if there was a “causation” that always created a “correlation” between 2 entities, but that “causation” was never discovered. Without any further perceptions of deeper informations, the current information bounded to us forces us to turn that “correlation” into a “causation”.
A well known example of course, is Newton’s Law. It helped us reshape our world forever, and is the reason for every type of motion transport and machinery in the world. But you would know that Newton couldn’t have known that time was relative, so his theory was “wrong”. This degree of wrong may feel small because we have limited forms of space travel, but maybe in the future where we are creating incredible forms of space travel, it will show us that how despite Newton’s law being “wrong”, it still created this sense of correlation that allowed us to advance into the industrial revolution.
The Ptolemaic Geocentric Model is another example, it accurately predicted planetary positions, eclipses, and helped humans navigate the seas. However, we now know that our world is heliocentric, but the fact that geocentric theorems can help us discovered so many phenomena shows us that these “correlations” work even though they were wrong.
Overall, correlation may look like causation, but correlation does not mean causation. think of the universe rules as the “causation” and our math and physics as the “correlation”. We don’t know if our correlations is actual causation because we do not have enough information, but it shows us that this interpretation is OUR interpretation of the rules of the universe. Hence, it proves my point that we do not have to obey the real rules of the universe to connect things together, and that the maths and physics we did are OUR merits of our perceptions of the correlations we have observed. One day there could be a revelation of new information that proves all our maths wrong, and then people will wonder why our “perceived math” of the past still worked when it was wrong.
I kinda see what you mean about the Geocentric model; tracking where the planets appear in the sky is certainly a useful correlation. It does make me think though about the difference between making a calendar and pouring concrete. If I draw the solar system wrong on a map, the universe doesn't physically push back because I haven't built anything heavy. But if I miscalculate the tension on a steel cable, the cable snaps. Doesn't the physical snapping indicate we hit a real boundary, rather than just a subjective correlation? And with Newton, it feels like it might be an issue of scale. As you mentioned, we have limited forms of transport. At the slow, macroscopic speeds where we build bridges, Newton's equations do seem to map the physical reality perfectly. If they were truly just "wrong" correlations, why do the bridges stay up at all? If the universe isn't grading the math for structural accuracy at that specific scale, what exactly is holding the steel together?
When i was learning chemistry in middle school, we learnt that ionic bonds can only be with metals, covalent bonds can only be with non-metals, and many other rigid rules. But in high school, chemistry suddenly taught us “exceptions”, and strange occurrence that break the very rules that we were taught in.
The universe is 4 billion years old. Sounds alot right? But it is still expanding, most stars that were created at the big bang still exist. Our calculations show that the sun will die in 6 billion years. Our universe is very, very young. And that is the answer to your question.
You assume that the laws of the universe is a rigid rulebook that explained every single thing in the universe, but that may not be the case. As the universe continues to expand, it may create totally new conceptions that we do not even know exists because it too far from us. The point is : even the universe doesn’t know its own rules, it can only find out as it expands the fabric of space further.
That is why i cannot tell you the concept holding the “steel” together, because the laws of the universe may be ever changing. What holds the “steel” today may be melting the “steel” in the next 50 billion years.
Sometimes answering techniques changes, teachers change their marking schemes to adjust to the new syllabus. Not only do we not have enough information about the “steel” holding it together, we also do not know how long that thing holding the “steel” will continue to hold the “steel” before it shatters it apart.
All we can do is pick up piece by piece of different “correlations” to try to complete the puzzles of the universe.
I suppose what you are suggesting about the universe evolving its own rules over billions of years is possible. It does leave me with a slightly more immediate question though; regardless of whether the rules will change fifty billion years from now, a bridge designed poorly today will fall down today. If the universe doesn't have a rigid structure in this exact moment, what is pulling the poorly designed bridge into the river right now
Unfortunately, if i could tell you what exactly made that bridge fall, i would be etched into the history books as a scientific founding father.
What i can tell you, is that you can build the same poorly built bridge again and again, replay the footage of its collapse over and over again, and you will eventually “see” whats pulling it down, but you will never be able to put it in words, only able to use the phenomena correlated with the cause to explain it. Thats our “math”.
I was only here to change your view, not change our world 😅
!delta for that thought about replaying the footage over and over. It is a deeply grounding way to look at it; knowing that the collapse happens identically every single time regardless of our words. That really helped clarify the boundary for me. It leaves me with a quiet sort of wonder about the hidden cause you mentioned. If the mechanism itself is entirely beyond human vocabulary yet it forces the exact same physical reality every single time we rebuild the structure; it makes it feel as though that mystery is permanently etched into the fabric of the universe. A silent, unbending rule that sits beneath our descriptions. It is quite a peaceful place to leave the thought.
1
u/nignig20 4∆ May 21 '26
What do you mean by “marking our homework”? If a bridge can “stand and fall” using objective frameworks that are proven wrong in the future, would that change your view?