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 <>
> "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 <> wrote:
> > Instrumentalism, anyone?
> >,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
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to