I mean, not readable/useful is objectively false if we can observe its interaction with galaxies and discern its properties as a result. It's both readable in a sense and useful in explaining the natural world.
That's a representation of the information, just not at the resolution that you find satisfying. Just like a JPEG isn't a direct copy of every pixel and you get a full sense of the picture despite the blending of pixels underneath compared to an uncompressed image, the same is true of dark matter.
JPEGs do a much better job of painting a picture, sure, but dark matters effects on the natural world is still a picture.
RacerX00 t1_iwqqzka wrote
Reply to comment by RightHandedAndEvil in Dark matter may be information itself by newsphilosophy
I mean, not readable/useful is objectively false if we can observe its interaction with galaxies and discern its properties as a result. It's both readable in a sense and useful in explaining the natural world.
That's a representation of the information, just not at the resolution that you find satisfying. Just like a JPEG isn't a direct copy of every pixel and you get a full sense of the picture despite the blending of pixels underneath compared to an uncompressed image, the same is true of dark matter.
JPEGs do a much better job of painting a picture, sure, but dark matters effects on the natural world is still a picture.