nevertheless, you guys are brilliant and I'm glad to join the genuine
thinking. genuine thinking is the most radical activity on earth.

On Jun 30, 11:15 pm, Constantine Pseudonymous <bsor...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> "but I prefer to think of physics as a collection of models, models
> that map the territory, but are never the territory itself. "
>
> who's to say that there even is a territory or what it is?
>
> It seems to me that we are all presupposing some vague notion of
> "reality" to begin with, a notion as ambiguous, hypothetical, elusive,
> and complex as "god".
>
> we presuppose and pre-define a "reality" that we are trying to catch
> an adequate glimpse of.
>
> we project a pre-conceived notion of a goal and then go for it.
>
> As Nietzsche pointed out, perhaps there is no such thing as truth and
> reality, and even if there was, perhaps they are not only in some
> sense presupposed and implicitly pre-defined, but that they may even
> be highly overvalued.
>
> If reality is conceived of like a Kantian "thing-in-itself" that is
> essentially Other then you and inaccessible, but you are trying to
> infer a conception of it..... what kind of conceptually conditioned
> "reality" is that?
>
> I'm only thinking of reality here as in some "fundamental" and
> "systematic" sense.
>
> Before we think of science or physics as the royal road to reality, we
> have to recognize that we are the ones presupposing and preconceiving
> and predefining notions of reality to begin with.
>
> On Jun 11, 7:51 am, Rex Allen <rexallen31...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Instrumentalism, anyone?
>
> >http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/id.12395,y.2011,no.3,content....
>
> > The range of phenomena physics has explained is more than impressive;
> > it underlies the whole of modern civilization. Nevertheless, as a
> > physicist travels along his (in this case) career, the hairline cracks
> > in the edifice become more apparent, as does the dirt swept under the
> > rug, the fudges and the wholesale swindles, with the disconcerting
> > result that the totality occasionally appears more like Bruegel’s
> > Tower of Babel as dreamt by a modern slumlord, a ramshackle structure
> > of compartmentalized models soldered together into a skewed heap of
> > explanations as the whole jury-rigged monstrosity tumbles skyward.
>
> > [...]
>
> > Such examples abound throughout physics. Rather than pretending that
> > they don’t exist, physics educators would do well to acknowledge when
> > they invoke the Wizard working the levers from behind the curtain.
> > Even towards the end of the twentieth century, physics was regarded as
> > received Truth, a revelation of the face of God. Some physicists may
> > still believe that, but I prefer to think of physics as a collection
> > of models, models that map the territory, but are never the territory
> > itself. That may smack of defeatism to many, but ultimate answers are
> > not to be grasped by mortals. Physicists have indeed gone further than
> > other scientists in describing the natural world; they should not
> > confuse description with understanding.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to