On 31 December 2013 15:37, Stephen Paul King <[email protected]>wrote:
> > Why is this necessary? Sure, physics has come a long way since Democritus > and his Atoms in a void. But we have reached a point where that way of > thinking fails. Look at Superstrings, no empirical evidence of anything > measurable there... Time for a new vision? > Well, perhaps. No one is saying you have to have something fundamental, but if you don't you need a good explanation of why not! > >> * (By the way, I'd feel happier replying if you'd miss out all the >> unnecessary quote marks. It looks like you're trying to hedge against being >> pinned down into actually taking a viewpoint when everything under >> discussion has to be "quoted" for no obvious reason...) >> > > No, I don't mind being pinned down. I just often have to use words in a > metaphorical and not literal way. > Right, but when you say "fundamental level", if you don't actually mean it literally then we're talking about different things. It isn't a metaphor, as far as I know it has a rigorous definition - the thing(s) that have to be assumed in a theory. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
