> On 16 Jun 2019, at 22:15, Philip Thrift <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > 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 >> <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/ > <https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/physicists-are-philosophers-too/> >
OK. But Vic talk in a rather physicalist context. Platonism if often used for realism, in some context. Plato’s Platonism is the realism on the ideas, mainly. The old Plato seemed have to be more incline to the more Pythagorean idea that the number and geometrical principles could be the ideas or the generative base of the ideas. He did not have the notion of universal number, of course. > And his "zigzag" was retrocausal. > > But the Physics Fundamentalists didn't like it. Nor me, to be honest. But I have a problem with “causality” too. It is a modality. With mechanism, it is of the type []A -> []p, or [](A->B), with the box being defined by []p & <>p (& p). With p sigma_1. The first person consciousness selection operating in the sheaves of computation defined by “where they survives” might lead to local retrocausal perspective, but it is like Moiré effect on the possible pasts. It is. Subjective effect, which does not mean it is not important has this is how the gods lost themselves in the terrestrial planes, I think. For your last sentence, I would say that some dogmatic physicalist “believer” can take time to understand that there is a mathematical reality apparently quite creative per se and full of surprises. If the fundamentalist don’t like it, it is good for you! Bruno > > @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] > <mailto:[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 > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/698dc0e8-b52c-4f8b-a713-3e96ea7332ac%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. -- 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/9D37D034-994F-4692-B5BF-D731A514DF22%40ulb.ac.be.
