Achievements in science have blurred the line in people's minds between so-called “natural laws” (regularities) and their quantitative models—theories. Even renowned scientists have fallen for this illusion, even though scientific theories have a limited lifespan—they die and are replaced by new ones when new facts contradict the models.…
Achievements in science have blurred the line in people's minds between so-called “natural laws” (regularities) and their quantitative models—theories. Even renowned scientists have fallen for this illusion, even though scientific theories have a limited lifespan—they die and are replaced by new ones when new facts contradict the models. The next step was to grant theoretical models the status of absolute truth. Therefore, theories are created that, in principle, cannot be tested—it is impossible to confirm or reject them empirically. The origin and constitution of our universe are explained by two theories: the Standard Model and General Relativity Theory. These models define matter and all known fundamental forces and rely on 26 fundamental constants (model parameters). These theories suggest that our universe exists solely because the fundamental constants are exactly what they are – the case of extremely low probability. If the value of any of them changed by even a fraction of a percent, the universe would disappear as soon as it came into existence. This paradox only highlights how the boundary between reality and its theoretical models becomes blurred. Fundamental constants are model parameters, not necessarily an expression of reality. The mathematical framework is also not necessarily an expression of reality, although it helps us describe our observations. Reality is what it is, and we may never rationally understand its inner laws. Reality exists; thus, it is stable, even without the help of any models. Reality is unified and dissecting it with the reductionist method of scientific analysis leads to a dead end.
agreed, thanks for the comment. The besetting sin of contemporary scientific research seems t be to treat the outputs from models and simulations, as evidence for those same models and simulations
For example, how can light speed be a universal constant in replacing the etheric, when it is supposedly measured in a man-made device called an "interferometer"? Even the parameters for its measurement (interference fringes) is utterly arbitrary. The only thing that is universal is the arrogance of scientists and their science.
Achievements in science have blurred the line in people's minds between so-called “natural laws” (regularities) and their quantitative models—theories. Even renowned scientists have fallen for this illusion, even though scientific theories have a limited lifespan—they die and are replaced by new ones when new facts contradict the models. The next step was to grant theoretical models the status of absolute truth. Therefore, theories are created that, in principle, cannot be tested—it is impossible to confirm or reject them empirically. The origin and constitution of our universe are explained by two theories: the Standard Model and General Relativity Theory. These models define matter and all known fundamental forces and rely on 26 fundamental constants (model parameters). These theories suggest that our universe exists solely because the fundamental constants are exactly what they are – the case of extremely low probability. If the value of any of them changed by even a fraction of a percent, the universe would disappear as soon as it came into existence. This paradox only highlights how the boundary between reality and its theoretical models becomes blurred. Fundamental constants are model parameters, not necessarily an expression of reality. The mathematical framework is also not necessarily an expression of reality, although it helps us describe our observations. Reality is what it is, and we may never rationally understand its inner laws. Reality exists; thus, it is stable, even without the help of any models. Reality is unified and dissecting it with the reductionist method of scientific analysis leads to a dead end.
agreed, thanks for the comment. The besetting sin of contemporary scientific research seems t be to treat the outputs from models and simulations, as evidence for those same models and simulations
For example, how can light speed be a universal constant in replacing the etheric, when it is supposedly measured in a man-made device called an "interferometer"? Even the parameters for its measurement (interference fringes) is utterly arbitrary. The only thing that is universal is the arrogance of scientists and their science.