On 31 December 2013 15:37, Stephen Paul King <stephe...@provensecure.com>wrote:
> > Why is this necessary? Sure, physics has come a long way since Democritus > and his Atoms in a void. But we have reached a point where that way of > thinking fails. Look at Superstrings, no empirical evidence of anything > measurable there... Time for a new vision? > Well, perhaps. No one is saying you have to have something fundamental, but if you don't you need a good explanation of why not! > >> * (By the way, I'd feel happier replying if you'd miss out all the >> unnecessary quote marks. It looks like you're trying to hedge against being >> pinned down into actually taking a viewpoint when everything under >> discussion has to be "quoted" for no obvious reason...) >> > > No, I don't mind being pinned down. I just often have to use words in a > metaphorical and not literal way. > Right, but when you say "fundamental level", if you don't actually mean it literally then we're talking about different things. It isn't a metaphor, as far as I know it has a rigorous definition - the thing(s) that have to be assumed in a theory. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
