On Nov 23, 4:29 pm, Colin Hales <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "According to this article, the best we can do is to VIRTUALLY CONFIRM
> something. But since reality is VIRTUAL, according to this VIRTUAL
> CONFIRMATION, is not VIRTUAL CONFIRMATION equivalent, in reality, to
> 'Confirmation' (insofar as consistency with a model does that) of
> virtual particles as a model of appearances cannot be confused with a
> 'virtual' or 'AS-IF' confirmation. Scientists don't act 'as if' they do
> science. They actually do it, even if it's only the 'appearances' half
> of the pair of possible science models). So the above sentence conflates
> terms, which is why I thought you weren't serious.

Yeah, that was me (really) with my virtual tongue in my virtual cheek
trying to be really funny (in reality), whether successful or not.

> Reality can be made of interacting 'somethings', where that 'something'
> has not even been uttered yet in any physics ever, and the results in
> the paper would still be as they are because all the scientists are
> doing is organising appearances.

I'm just trying to wax philosophical here, but do you think that our
goal should actually be to utter that 'something'?  Do you think we
could?  Would we be able to understand it if we uttered it?  Or is
this simply the realm of faith?  As in Bruno's definition of reality,
it's the un-totally-explainable reason why we keep doing science?

> Getting back in boat, assuming merrily mode. It's as if I am rowing,
> downstream. :-)
> cheers,
> colin hales

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to