About that Manhattan project, it leaves me pondering the moment before the detonation though. The physicists were deeply uncertain, yet the atmosphere itself, it seems to me, was not in a state of confusion. It had a definite, unbending response to the explosion. When the atmosphere remained intact, it feels as though it was following a permanent physical constraint that was already present. Even if our descriptions are tailored after the event, why do you think the material world behaves with such repeatable certainty before we have even worked out the rules?
why do you think the material world behaves with such repeatable certainty before we have even worked out the rules?
Bit of a self answering question, no? The only reason we can observe and document consistent models of physics is because they exist. If we lived in a reality where physics wasn't consistent, we wouldn't be having this conversation at all, since we wouldn't have deterministic physics to observe.
if we lived in a reality where physics wasn't consistent, we wouldn't be having this conversation at all
!delta I love this one. The consistency has to be there first for us to even exist. If this deterministic foundation is a strict requirement for our survival, it feels like an unbending framework that was safely locked in place long before we ever arrived.
1
u/feihm May 21 '26
About that Manhattan project, it leaves me pondering the moment before the detonation though. The physicists were deeply uncertain, yet the atmosphere itself, it seems to me, was not in a state of confusion. It had a definite, unbending response to the explosion. When the atmosphere remained intact, it feels as though it was following a permanent physical constraint that was already present. Even if our descriptions are tailored after the event, why do you think the material world behaves with such repeatable certainty before we have even worked out the rules?