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 email@example.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.