On 8/7/2026 at 10:38 AM, CharonY said:

I would like to emphasize a point exchemist made, science is fundamentally a process and methodology and as such it does not have an inherent end point. Even if the natural world could be somehow be fully understood (an extremely unlikely assumption) science methodologies can continued to be deployed to interact with the world based on that knowledge.

This is how I look at it. Just because we have tools doesn't mean that one day everything will be fixed.

10 hours ago, studiot said:

We have yet to have any full solutions in Fluid Mechanics to the Navier Stokes equations.

Interestingly, OpenAI claims that their new model was able to do just that. But quite a few remain skeptical, especially there are no preprints on it.

11 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Interestingly, OpenAI claims that their new model was able to do just that. But quite a few remain skeptical, especially there are no preprints on it.

Well I would be interested to see their solution to a hydraulic jump,or even the backwater curve behind an obstruction in the flow.

Should be pretty easy for them as it involves an incompressible fluid.

Edited Tuesday at 10:24 PM1 day by studiot

18 hours ago, Ken Fabian said:

That is not the same as unknowable.

You’re right, it’s not the same. But then, there’s also the issue of predictability - as @sethoflagos pointed out, even in some systems the dynamics of which are fully deterministic, and even if those dynamics are computable, there may still be a limit to how far into the future you can meaningfully predict the state of that system. This is true even if all the initial conditions were known to infinite precision (which in reality isn’t possible of course).