On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 6:37 PM Philip Thrift <cloudver...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, June 15, 2019 at 3:09:41 AM UTC-5, Bruce wrote: >> >> On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 6:02 PM Philip Thrift <cloud...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On Saturday, June 15, 2019 at 2:43:29 AM UTC-5, Bruce wrote: >>>> >>>> On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 5:29 PM Philip Thrift <cloud...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> One thing I might try to convince people of: >>>>> >>>>> *Physics is fiction.* >>>>> >>>>> Vic Stenger would have said "Physics is models". >>>>> >>>>> There are always alternative models, and new ones likely coming in the >>>>> future. >>>>> >>>>> To find *reality in a model* (to make truth claims in the vocabulary >>>>> of a model) is a form of religious fundamentalism. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I've got nothing against models, or against thinking of physics as >>>> models. But it does seem to me important that the models actually work. Or >>>> else you are in la la land. >>>> >>>> Bruce >>>> >>> >>> We know the Standard Model doesn't "work". >>> >> >> That will be news to the physics community. The thing about the Standard >> Model is that it does work everywhere that it has been tested within its >> domain. That does not mean that it is necessarily the last word, but it is >> just stupid to say that it doesn't work. >> >> >>> Physics beyond the Standard Model (BSM) refers to the theoretical >>> developments needed to explain the *deficiencies of the **Standard >>> Model <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model> ...* >>> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics_beyond_the_Standard_Model >>> >>> Physicists seem to conflate "work" and "truth". >>> >> >> That's your misunderstand ing of what physics and models are about. >> >> Bruce >> > > > Physicists find some model that works somewhere. And then they make make > truth statements in the vocabulary ("quantum states", for example) of a > model which claims the actual reality (existence) of entities those terms > refer to in the vocabulary. > > That's what Vic called platonism. > Vic was wrong if he called that platonism. It is actually what is currently known as scientific realism. I do not go along with this totally, being somewhat more inclined to instumentalism -- the purpose of science is to find models that work. Anyway, all of this is just your attempt to divert attention from the fact that your retrocausal ideas do not work in real experimental situations. Bruce -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLTar32zw3zQY%2B8bfx%3DfqS%2BPsrC58hado_QYCBqAhM%2BgSg%40mail.gmail.com.
