I just saw this post by mr. Anonymous and I had to chuckle. Its as if he is answering this deep thought full of introspective awareness, he is like, "here, here are your answers, mega free porn is going to help you" lol cracks me up.
I stumbled across this while perusing the LJ physics forum. It's a question I've given a lot of thought to myself recently, so I hope you won't mind my adding $0.02. ^_^
"Is it because it's not so simple (black and white) and there is no such thing as "one truth", instead there are many sides of the "story" (shades of grey); or does it even make sense to talk about this "truth" when maybe the meaning of things is only created once we start observing and looking for answers?"
I've come to a conclusion very similar to this. It's a little hard to explain, but basically the problem is that comprehension is an inferential process; to understand something you have to break it down into simpler elements / relationships that can seemingly be understood entirely on their own terms... but how you break the problem down is somewhat arbitrary (it's chosen based on utility), and introduces limitations that may not be readily apparent, or that may be interpreted as actual limitations of reality itself. Special relativity is a good example of
( ... )
It's an interesting question and one that comes up a lot in philosophy of physics, i.e., the question of scientific realism. What is the nature of scientific theories? Do they have a one-to-one correspondence with physical reality or are they ever changing tools to correctly predict physical situations. It's a fascinating discussion. There's realists, anti-realists, and everything in between. Regarding what you said about thinking of physical theories as useful models, I have come to similar conclusions myself over the course of my studies. Although I think they are more than useful models, in the sense that they are our best current models (they have withstood the challenges of all current experiments to date) and in that sense they must capture an element of truth.
Comments 4
Reply
Reply
I stumbled across this while perusing the LJ physics forum. It's a question I've given a lot of thought to myself recently, so I hope you won't mind my adding $0.02. ^_^
"Is it because it's not so simple (black and white) and there is no such thing as "one truth", instead there are many sides of the "story" (shades of grey); or does it even make sense to talk about this "truth" when maybe the meaning of things is only created once we start observing and looking for answers?"
I've come to a conclusion very similar to this. It's a little hard to explain, but basically the problem is that comprehension is an inferential process; to understand something you have to break it down into simpler elements / relationships that can seemingly be understood entirely on their own terms... but how you break the problem down is somewhat arbitrary (it's chosen based on utility), and introduces limitations that may not be readily apparent, or that may be interpreted as actual limitations of reality itself. Special relativity is a good example of ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment