/diy/ - Do It Yourself

>>1729870
>The concept of an electron has predictive capabilities
As do all ideas whose potential is not realized. So are you saying that an electron is imaginary and that the imagination of it makes it exist?
>As far as scientists can tell, mathematics is the language of the universe.
It's a language of quantification, made up by apes on a spinning rock. It doesn't pertain at all to the universe. You're assuming that there is "quantity" based on your observations of that which exhibits quality. Where does the quantity come from? How? What is the basis of it? An imagined standard of measure to follow based on another particular observed? Literally insanity.

>Only through mathematical expressions will we be able to describe the universe
Descriptions are not explanations. Any mentally ill person can describe something in terms that only they can understand, it doesn't mean we all can.

>All physicists hope to contribute to finding a set of fundamental equations that can be used in order to accurately predict how anything in the universe will behave, at all scales.
It is "the universe". What would be its "equal"? How could there possibly be an "equation" for it? It makes no sense, unifying what is already unified?

>at all scales.
the arbitrary ones we made up or the ones we assumed the universe runs off of? What is the standard of measure for "the universe"? How can there even be one?

>Sticking to qualitative explanations won't get you anywhere, learn the maths or stop complaining.

Where would you go? You're here forever. Universe doesn't run off a calculator or plugging numbers into some magical equation you numerologist. That is basically the basis of Quantum physics; numerology and atomism. The obsession of quantities and their relation to one another as if the number of things pertains to what they do and why they do it.

>>1729884
A 4chan caricature who nobody can tell is really the actual person, serious, or just a troll pretending to be them. I pity (you).