> many phenomena that can’t be inferred from the goings-on at the microscopic level, it is nonetheless a real, emergent feature of the macroscopic world. He offered the physics of gases as a parallel example. At the micro level, one talks of atoms, molecules and forces; at the macro level, one speaks of pressure, volume and temperature. These are two kinds of explanations, depending on the “level” being studied
Putting aside the issue of consciousness for a moment, this is actually a great insight
I wonder if something like this should be applied in physics/astronomy to solve the whole dark matter issue
At a “micro level”, we can talk about planets, stars and gravity, but maybe at a “macro level”, those concepts stop being useful to describe the behavior of the universe, and different models might be needed
No, it's not a great insight - unless you have not studied physics before.
It's the standard context for thermodynamics (macro) and statistical mechanics (micro) explanations. Sometimes called coarse-graining and fine-graining.
For dark matter there are 3 potential levels:
- micro would be be new dark subatomic particles (WIMPs), or sterile right-handed neutrinos in the Standard Model (see Turok);
- meso is macroscopic clumps of those particles (dark stars) /OR/ no micro, but dark conventional matter objects, like naked black holes, neutron stars or brown dwarves (MACHOs), or perhaps just lots of dust;
- macro would be the truly cosmological state of the whole universe (a stat mech theory over the micro/meso). Think dark matter fluids, and phase changes to dark superfluids, that might have MONDian effects on gravity at the galactic level - and beyond!
So according to you, nothing that anyone has discovered before is a great insight?
Now, regarding the dark matter issue, maybe there are more levels that models can be separated in. It seems overly simplistic to separate the whole immensity of the universe in only 3 levels
Not gonna lie, GPT accusations, especially unsubstantiated GPT accusations, should be automatically flagged. There are better ways to disagree with a user, better ways to report GPT written spam comments, and better ways to shut down a conversation that you don't want to have.
Says the troll that has nothing to add to the conversation except crapping on other people’s ideas without actually saying anything insightful at all. Well done
Solipsism may not be incorrect, but is a very well-known dead end. Perhaps mention it once in a thread about consciousness, just to show the uninitiated that it exists. But don't bang on about it. It goes nowhere. It should go nowhere. If this whole discussion is a figment of your imagination (consciousness), then why participate?
That's not a novel insight, it's a standard way of interrogating systems at various levels and has been in common intellectual discourse for some time now.
Novel to them, and that's okay; I don't assume anyone knows everything. Your content is helpful in clarifying that this insight has been novel to many others already.
So? What’s your point? That it can’t be used for anything else because some people, including you, already knew about it, hence it can’t be applied in novel ways?
Putting aside the issue of consciousness for a moment, this is actually a great insight
I wonder if something like this should be applied in physics/astronomy to solve the whole dark matter issue
At a “micro level”, we can talk about planets, stars and gravity, but maybe at a “macro level”, those concepts stop being useful to describe the behavior of the universe, and different models might be needed