Quite an interesting and even a bit unusual article: https://theory-of-scale-dependent-truths.netlify.app
In a nutshell, the author, in all seriousness and with full mathematical rigor—complete with formulas and proofs—explains a simple yet brilliant idea: there is no single "correct" picture of the world. Everything depends on the scale at which we look at an object.
Put simply: Think about water.
* In a glass, it's a liquid that flows.
* At the molecular level, it's individual H₂O molecules, and "fluidity" doesn't exist there.
* At the atomic level, it's just a bunch of separate nuclei and electrons.
And all these descriptions are TRUE, but each only in its own scale. An absolute description of "what water really is" does not exist. Trying to glue all these truths together into one leads to a logical contradiction.
The author formally proves two principles:
1. The Principle of Incompleteness: At any given scale, we only see part of the truth and can never see "everything at once."
2. The Principle of Information Compromise: The more we know about one level (e.g., molecules), the less we know about another (e.g., macroscopic properties), and vice versa. It's like the uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics, but applied to knowledge.
So what's the point of all this?
* It explains why quantum mechanics and classical physics give different pictures—they simply operate at different scales.
* It resolves the age-old debate between reductionists ("everything is made of particles!") and holists ("the whole is greater than the sum of its parts!"). They are both right, just talking about different levels.
* For programmers: It explains why you can't create one super-model that equally well describes both the bits in memory and the business logic. You have to split things into levels of abstraction.
The article is quite extensive, with some intriguing proofs, but the core idea is simple and beautiful. I highly recommend taking a look if you're interested in the philosophy of science, the foundations of mathematics, or just enjoy thinking about the nature of things.
What do you think? Is this just stating the obvious in a complicated way, or is it a genuinely interesting perspective?
In a nutshell, the author, in all seriousness and with full mathematical rigor—complete with formulas and proofs—explains a simple yet brilliant idea: there is no single "correct" picture of the world. Everything depends on the scale at which we look at an object.
Put simply: Think about water.
* In a glass, it's a liquid that flows.
* At the molecular level, it's individual H₂O molecules, and "fluidity" doesn't exist there.
* At the atomic level, it's just a bunch of separate nuclei and electrons.
And all these descriptions are TRUE, but each only in its own scale. An absolute description of "what water really is" does not exist. Trying to glue all these truths together into one leads to a logical contradiction.
The author formally proves two principles:
1. The Principle of Incompleteness: At any given scale, we only see part of the truth and can never see "everything at once."
2. The Principle of Information Compromise: The more we know about one level (e.g., molecules), the less we know about another (e.g., macroscopic properties), and vice versa. It's like the uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics, but applied to knowledge.
So what's the point of all this?
* It explains why quantum mechanics and classical physics give different pictures—they simply operate at different scales.
* It resolves the age-old debate between reductionists ("everything is made of particles!") and holists ("the whole is greater than the sum of its parts!"). They are both right, just talking about different levels.
* For programmers: It explains why you can't create one super-model that equally well describes both the bits in memory and the business logic. You have to split things into levels of abstraction.
The article is quite extensive, with some intriguing proofs, but the core idea is simple and beautiful. I highly recommend taking a look if you're interested in the philosophy of science, the foundations of mathematics, or just enjoy thinking about the nature of things.
What do you think? Is this just stating the obvious in a complicated way, or is it a genuinely interesting perspective?
