- #106
Ken G
Gold Member
- 4,915
- 549
I think the problem here is that the possibilities are being too narrowly constrained. You seem to be making a choice between imagining that there is some mathematical object, call it "properties", that underlie some "true theory" that nature actually follows, versus the opposite choice that the only reality is what the meter reads, and all physics should do is predict observations. I don't think either of those models is what physics has ever been, nor what it ever should be. So let me propose a third option.bohm2 said:So if one takes that pure epistemic/instrumentalist stance it seems to me one is almost forced to treat QT as "a science of meter readings". That view seems unattractive to me.
What's wrong with saying that physics is the art of taking objective measurements and braiding them into a consistent mathematical picture that gives us significant understanding of, and power over, those objective measurements? Isn't that just exactly what physics has always been, so why should we want it to be something different going forward? I see nothing unattractive about it, the mathematical structures we create come just from where they demonstrably come from, our brains, and they work to do just exactly what they work to do-- convey a sense of understanding, beauty, symmetry, and reason to the universe around us. That's what they do, it doesn't make any difference if we imagine there is some "true theory" that we don't yet know underlying it all, I have no idea where that fantasy even comes from!
Some say that they would find it disappointing if there was no true theory like that, no mathematical structure of properties that really does describe everything that happens. I can't agree-- I would find it extremely disappointing to live in such an unimaginative universe as that! We certainly would never want to actually discover such a theory, in which our own minds have mastered everything that happens. We might as well be dead! No more life to the discovery process, no more surprises about anything that nature does, no mystery or wonder beyond the amazement that we actually figured it all out. Even if we did all that, we'd still have at least one mystery to ponder: the paradox of how our brains managed to figure out how we think. Can a thought know where it comes from? Isn't the origin of a thought another thought that needs an origin?
So on the contrary, I would never characterize physics as the attempt to figure out the mathematical structure that determines the true properties of everything. Instead, I would characterize it as the process of inventing properties to answer questions and resolve mysteries, fully aware that this process will only serve to replace more superficial mysteries with more profound ones. And that was in fact the purpose all along, since when has physics been about eliminating mystery? I don't find this view either disappointing, or supportive of the concept of the existence of a unique mathematical structure that determines the true properties of a system. I can hardly even imagine a theory that could give unambiguous meaning to every word in that sentence!