If the universe is fractal what is the point of particle physics? They'll just keep on discovering an infinite number of fundamental particles!
>if
>>7925071
The point is to give engineers and practical physicists something to work with, humanity isn't going to explain the universe, but it's going to die comfortably.
>>7925085
And you pulled that one out of your ass.
>>7925071
Welcome to God making fun of the "wise".
>>7925087
>>Implying there is anything better than my ass.
>>7925088
>god
/x/ go away please
>>7925071
stupid arminposter
>>7925071
I'd imagine they would eventually recognize the self repetition, and if that self repetition can be predicted well that's pretty strong evidence for a fractal universe. Until we know it doesn't hurt to keep looking
>>7925071
What makes you think it is fractal? There's no evidence suggesting that.
A lump of bump
>>7927153
we only see a few steps down the chain though. it could be fractal on a level we can't observe. waves are obviously fractal, as are particle interactions. why not the particles themselves?
>>7925071
Will they? No, we can only discover particles to a certain small scale.
I would like ask what are the implications of the opposite, of quantum(smallest) space, particle and time being our reality
>>7929410
>I would like ask what are the implications of the opposite, of quantum(smallest) space, particle and time being our reality
nothing
particle physics is hoax
waste of tax payer moni
>>7925071
We may follow down the rabbit hole, the object we look for is not a why, but how.
It's like how Newton describe, we shouldn't be concerned with what what causes, but how it behaves.
We have quantified time, but that doesn't say that there can't be moments between moments.
Science is based upon empirical fact, not to say things can't be describe with different units (foot vs. meter).
We contrive systems of equations in hopes of wielding proportion in our daily lives, the equations don't state anything in themselves but what is observed from our correlation to what is of the mind, to what is of the world.
It's as what came first, the chicken or the egg?
Does length exist outside my perception of it? I would say yes, because another person would certainly experience it. It is that which is the essence of platonism, but the mystery is what is outside that knowledge. The assumption I take is that lines, number, and color, are things grounded in the sentience. However, they do not with certainty, prosper in that familiar form outside that platonism of thought.
The inanimate objects don't experience time, space, as with the universe. When we say their are beginnings, are we carelessly lying in assuming too much of the world around us?
There mis no reason to even argue yourself as being caused by the inference of things, when you are the thing that defines it by experience alone.
How many whole numbers must I use to describe every real between 0 and 1?
