Remember: all models are wrong, but some are useful. just because light is best approximated as a particle in one kind of experiments and as a wave in the other kind, doesn’t mean it _is_ a particle or a wave. try describing something — anything — in detail, then in greater detail still, again and again, and you’ll see how dull and inflexible is the language — the thing with which you interact with reality.

thus, once you go missing, no one will be looking for you — there is no one to look for. Nowhere, too. At least not in our cities and not on our maps.

That's just not true. Some models are perfectly accurate. For instance, the universe is a perfect model for the universe.

Correct models exist, they are just all useless.

@TrayKnots define universe

@kiki I do u one better. Any identity function is a perfect model. Identity function is well defined and universe is just one of its elements.

@TrayKnots define well

@kiki "universe - the big thingy what has everything in it"

@tosensei define big

@kiki "big - property that the universe has"

@kiki my heart (L)

> all models are wrong

Define what it means for a model to be wrong.

@tosensei define has

@kiki define "define"

@tosensei def define(): pass

There are different levels of reality and models usually operate on one particular level alone. It doesn‘t mean they are wrong or inaccurate.

For example, if you speak about models of living things, you operate on a high level of biology. Models of quantum physics wouldn’t be useful here but that doesn’t mean they are wrong.

Newton's laws of gravitation don’t explain the reality of curved spacetime. It doesn’t mean it’s wrong. The model is just incomplete in this context.

It’s not a problem of language.

Also, using language to explain how dull and inflexible language is, is quite ironic.

I like plus sized models

I like my light to be solid.

@Grumm there is this thought experiment of a photon box. A box with massless walls, containing (massless) photons, in theory behaves like an object having mass.
Not quite solid, but massive.
It‘s an analog to atoms though, which are solid.

light is a tiny non-physical unicorn which goes places woosh-woosh

Right. Light is neither a particle nor a wave. It's, to our current understanding, a periodic excitement of two fields, which then has other interactions.

An identity function, while not being a model, is obviously applicable to anything, by its very definition.

I see a lot of anti science movement lately, and I'm starting to wonder if this is still a dev community, where I thought rational thinking was needed to, you know, dev things...

@CoreFusionX light is a vibe :D

@iiii might as well be.

Not gonna come here and pretend to explain quantum field theory.

People way smarter than me are at it and haven't figured it out yet xd

@CoreFusionX Still, they managed to trap light in a solid form and non solid at the same time. I've seen an article about that somewhere. Quantum stuff is strange.

@CoreFusionX i'm just joking