If we say that everything based on models, the question is then what physical laws are. For example, if quantum mechanics is just a model, then its interpretation, for example MWI, in my view, does not make too much sense.


On 28.04.2012 03:00 meekerdb said the following:


> Something like the latter. When you ask for an explanation of something,
> you need to have in mind some terms that would satisfy that request.
> They need to be something you understand better than the thing to be
> explained. They need to provide you with manipulative or at least
> predictive power. Otherwise they are just inventing names for things
> (like Craig's 'senses'). Once you have that, you feel you have an
> explanation. What you refer to as an 'intractable distinction' is no
> more intractable than the question asked of Newton as to how gravity
> pushed on the planets. When you study physics and engineering you learn
> pretty quickly that questions about 'How does it do that' bottom out. At
> some level, now QFT or GR, it just does. Everybody who isn't a physicist
> or engineer, thinks, "Oh those physicists and engineers have got it
> figured out." No, they don't. They've got good working models. So what I
> mean is that in the end that's the best you can do - have a good working
> model. And when we have a good working model of consciousness, we'll
> have bypassed the 'hard problem'.
> Brent
> The sciences do not try to explain, they hardly even try to interpret,
> they mainly make models. By a model is meant a mathematical construct
> which, with the addition of certain verbal interpretations, describes
> observed phenomena. The justification of such a mathematical construct
> is solely and precisely that it is expected to work.
> --—John von Neumann

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 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to