On Apr 28, 3:10 am, Evgenii Rudnyi <use...@rudnyi.ru> wrote:
> If we say that everything based on models, the question is then what
> physical laws are.
'Models' are nothing whatsoever except strategies we employ to make
sense of something we are unfamiliar with by tying them metaphorically
to a sense experience that is more familiar to us.
> For example, if quantum mechanics is just a model,
> then its interpretation, for example MWI, in my view, does not make too
> much sense.
The MWI is like Dark matter and Dark energy, plugs to preserve the
theory rather than confront the challenge that reality (or realism)
> 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').
Sense is a very common term which I am using in exactly the same
'sense' that everyone else uses. How can anyone say that I invented
the term 'sense'? I chose it deliberately to make sure that everyone
knows that I am not inventing anything, only interpreting what is
> > 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.
Speak for yourself. I have done better than a model, I have an
understanding. With that, I can churn out many models.
> > And when we have a good working model of consciousness, we'll
> > have bypassed the 'hard problem'.
Not if matter-space and mind-time have a form/content relation rather
than a cause-effect relation. There can never be a solution to the
hard problem any more than there can be a way of making a heads side
of a coin out of it's own tails side.
> > The sciences do not try to explain, they hardly even try to interpret,
Which is why science will have to expand if it is to address
interpretation and explanation (consciousness) itself.
> > 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 firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at