On Sunday, June 16, 2019 at 11:10:13 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 15 Jun 2019, at 11:30, Bruce Kellett <[email protected] <javascript:>> > wrote: > > On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 6:37 PM Philip Thrift <[email protected] > <javascript:>> 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 <[email protected]> >>> 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 <[email protected]> >>>>> 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. > > > I agree. If Vic said that it is wrong in different sense. It is not the > platonism of plato, nor the platonism in mathematics (which I prefer to > call mathematical realism, and distinguish arithmetical realism from set > theoretical realism, etc.). > > Platonism in the sense of Plato is more general. It is the skepticism that > Nature is the God. The feeling that there is a simpler explanation avoiding > an ontological commitment in Nature. > > > > > It is actually what is currently known as scientific realism. > > > Unfortunately it is sometimes presented as a scientific fact, when of > course it is an hypothesis when real is defined by observable. So here, > many scientists seems not to be aware that the existence of a primary > physical universe is a metaphysical, or theological in the sense of the > neoplatonists, hypothesis. > > Physics does not truly aboard metaphysics, except that the difficulties of > the interpretation of the physical laws can suggest that may be we need to > refine the metaphysics, if possible in testable ways, which somehow is done > in experiment like Aspect, etc. > > > I do not go along with this totally, being somewhat more inclined to > instumentalism — > > > Instrumentalism is wise, but cannot be used as an authoritative argument > in serious metaphysics, of course. > It is just a way to say that you are not interested in the metaphysical > question. > Unless you are a metaphysical instrumentalist defending the idea that we > will never progressed in metaphysics, but that is of course a rather strong > metaphysical assumption, especially at a time where we might changed of > paradigm, and abandon weak materialism as a superstition, in case the > physical appearance fit the observation, as it seems right now. > > > > the purpose of science is to find models that work. > > > Yes. > But it has to work in relation with both sharable experiences and the > first person in sharable one, like consciousness, and in that case, the > digital Mechanist assumption enforces the derivation of the physical > appearance from a statistics (or credibility measure) on all computations > in arithmetic. That is hard to compute, but the "measure one”’s logic has > to be given by the modalities imposed by incompleteness, and that is enough > to get a quantum like statistics where it was expected. > > > > > 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. > > > I agree. With the Many Histories, retrocausality either does not make > sense, or becomes just an ad hoc one trivialising the notion. > > Bruno > > > > > Vic's "platonism" comes from
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/physicists-are-philosophers-too/ And his "zigzag" was retrocausal. But the Physics Fundamentalists didn't like it. @philipthrift -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/698dc0e8-b52c-4f8b-a713-3e96ea7332ac%40googlegroups.com.
