this post was submitted on 09 Apr 2025
-10 points (29.2% liked)

deepthoughts

107 readers
1 users here now

This is a community focused on thoughtful reflection and meaningful discussion. We're a place to explore unique ideas and profound concepts, creating a space for curiosity and open-mindedness. We encourage critical thinking and the sharing of knowledge. Everyone is welcome to participate. We value diverse perspectives and aim for respectful conversations in a positive environment.

This community is inspired by r/DeepThoughts.

Rules:

  1. Be kind and respectful

Healthy debates are welcome, but hate speech, bigotry, personal attacks and bad-faith arguments are not.

  1. Stay on topic

This is a place for deep thoughts, not quick questions or random ideas. Post titles should express a full idea that encourages meaningful discussion.

  1. Value different perspectives

We all think in different ways, and that makes discussions better. Discrimination of any kind - racism, sexism, homophobia or otherwise - is not allowed.

  1. Engage thoughtfully

Try to understand why others think the way they do, respond with empathy, and remember there is a real person behind every comment.

  1. Think clearly and critically

Good writing helps everyone think better. Avoid trolling and misinformation. Take the time to consider different viewpoints before responding.

founded 6 months ago
MODERATORS
 

Ever since I first heard about the Big Bang as a kid, I've never really bought it. The concept of the entire universe being literally a dimensionless point - I just don't think so. If that's what the math leads to, doubt the math or the observations the math is based on. Same with dark matter and dark energy - I mean come on, if a theoretical model of the universe says it has to be 20x more dense than we can measure, you rethink the model - don't decide 95% of everything must be "dark". Dark is for the 3rd movie in a superhero franchise when the 2nd one doesn't make enough money, it's not a way to define the universe.

/end rant

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Ideonek@lemm.ee 1 points 3 months ago

You seems to think the entire process is "our model is missing something, so we made up so shit it kind of works and call it a day".

In fact it's A) our model is missing something B) it would work, if X was true, so to check if it could be valid... (And this part is crucial) C) ...lets consider what else would be true if X was true. What else (from outside the model) can we measure? Would the result be different if X was true or flase? Let's make predictions and see, see how well we did.

It's not A) The car stopped. Car that wouldn't have gas would stop. Ergo we belive that car don't have gas.

It's B) car have stopped. Car that wouldn't have gas would have stop. If car don't have gas, we would expect it to be lighter than cars with gas and we would expect a driver to go out with cannister and move in the direction of gas-station... and we weight the car, and look for a driver moving on foot. Only, once our predictions are confirmed we update our model.

Is it 100% correct? No but it's a systemic and reasonable aproch of moving model closer to the truth.