▲ | mannykannot 17 hours ago | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
"Arbitrary" ("existing or coming about seemingly at random or by chance or as a capricious and unreasonable act of will", "based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something" [1]) is a very poor term. Not only is physics highly constrained by what can be observed in the universe, it is also capable of demonstrating (when it is actually the case) equivalences between apparently dissimilar modes of presentation. It is not perfect, but can you present anything that does better? | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
▲ | freehorse 14 hours ago | parent [-] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
> is physics highly constrained by what can be observed in the universe It is also very highly constrained by how _we_ observe the universe. Beings with different sensory/cognitive capacities could develop very different models. > equivalences between apparently dissimilar modes of presentation If there was some mathematical equivalence between their models and ours, which is already a leap to assume, there is still a question about whether the specific measure used would be translated to something equivalent to our object length measure in their model, which gets much stronger than just some equivalence assumption. And it’s even stronger to assume that this equivalence could just be inferred without any other information apart from the disk. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|