On Thursday, November 14, 2019 at 6:06:22 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Thursday, November 14, 2019 at 4:56:33 PM UTC-7, Alan Grayson wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thursday, November 14, 2019 at 4:49:36 PM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thursday, November 14, 2019 at 4:25:16 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: >>>> >>>> The problem with physics is physicists ! Yeah, that's my conclusion >>>> after many years of studying, arguing and reading. Many, perhaps most, >>>> attribute ontological character to what is epistemological; namely the wf. >>>> This leads to all kinds of conceptual errors, and ridiculous models and >>>> conjectures -- such as MW, particles being in two positions at the same >>>> time, radiioactive sources that are simultanously decayed and undecayed, >>>> and so forth. The wf gives us information about the state of a system and >>>> nothing more. Sorry to disappoint. AG >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Physics is only models that come and go. One model (an expression in a >>> language) can be replaced by another if it's useful. Physicists who jump >>> from a model to an absolute statement about reality are out over their skis. >>> >>> *How Models Are Used to Represent Reality* >>> Ronald N. Giere >>> >>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/216300663_How_Models_Are_Used_to_Represent_Reality >>> >>> Most recent philosophical thought about the scientific representation of >>> the world has focused on dyadic relationships between language-like >>> entities and the world, particularly the semantic relationships of >>> reference and truth. Drawing inspiration from diverse sources, I argue that >>> we should focus on the pragmatic activity of representing, so that the >>> basic representational relationship has the form: Scientists use models to >>> represent aspects of the world for specific purposes. Leaving aside the >>> terms "law" and "theory," I distinguish principles, specific conditions, >>> models, hypotheses, and generalizations. I argue that scientists use >>> designated similarities between models and aspects of the world to form >>> both hypotheses and generalizations. >>> >>> @philipthrift. >>> >> >> I fundamentally disagree. The premise underlying models is that they >> progressively approach a "true" discription of the external world. Do you >> really think the Earth-centered model of the solar system is equally true >> as our present understanding? AG >> > > I notice you habitually avoid discussing the problem of ontological versus > epistemological in the context of superposition and wf's. But this is > where, IMO, the rubber hits the road for the fantasies which are so > prevalent today. AG >
There is no "epistemology" without human-level consciousness, and quantum stuff happens without humans. Where the epistemology stuff got into QM you have to ask that weird cult of physicists who got into that. @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/cf3af222-7bb0-428e-92e1-06638f264ebf%40googlegroups.com.
