Dear Howard, lists -
I am not sure. Much of the yet unresolved discussion of QM have to do with
deciding which ontological commitments come with the Schrödinger equation. As
far as I have understood, there is no scientific agreement about this (unlike
basic knowledge about iron and cakes etc.).
At 03:51 PM 11/6/2014, Frederik wrote:
Dear Howard, list
This is where our ways part.
HP: I'm not sure why. My 25 words was just trying
to sound like a nominalist. It is not my view, as
the other 700 words tried to explain.
Suppose I agree to be a realist about iron,
baking pies, round ob
Dear Howard, lists
This is where our ways part.
If iron really were "just a name classifying certain useful collections of
fundamental particles" I would have no criteria for saying I have an iron
knife. I have no access to the presumed fundamental particles in my knife, and
if I had, I would
