On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 03:29:20PM -0700, Russ Abbott wrote: > I guess you too Glenn. > > It seems to have become fashionable to act disparagingly toward the notion > of "real." What do you intend to substitute for it? > > -- Russ > >
I too, am in the camp that cannot fathom what "real" could possibly mean. For me, science is about studying phenomenological consistency - we cannot live in any old world, we cannot, for instance, live in a world incompatible with our presence in that world, ie the Anthropic Principle. But just because phenomenology is consistent, does not make it real. There is no ontological commitment here. In fact, I tend to believe that other phenomenologically consistent worlds that are inconsistent with our own also exist "out there" in the same sense as our own. The total sum of which adds up to nothing (in a resultant sense), which requires little, if any ontological commitment. I have no problem studying our own patch of phenomenology. It means something to us, even if the in global scheme of things (if there could be such a viewpoint), it is fundamentally absurd. And if Glen can make a plug, then I can too. The above is discussed in considerable more detail in my book "Theory of Nothing", which of course is already known to the list. Cheers -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Mathematics UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [email protected] Australia http://www.hpcoders.com.au ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
