 Quote by SimonA
Kane
I have a different view. GR and QM are partial theories, just as newtons gravity was shown to be. I share in the concerns of Einstein, Shroedinger, Bohm and Bell that Bohr was a brilliant physicist but a poor interpreter of nature. Essentially he fooled three generations into accepting that having an ontalogical and epistemological basis to rational enquiry was no longer required.
If we can unify the forces, that will be an amazing achievement. But it will not be an answer to anything important. It will not solve the question of determinism being contrary to consciousness. It will not solve the political issue where power corrupts but democracy leads to short term plans based on how well they can be sold to stupid people.
Physics needs to rise above the false gods of the age. How about we ignore supposedly liberal ideologies such as feminism and islam, which contradict each other, and instead focus on the reality of our existance?
Can anyone here prove that heizenberg's uncertainty is fundamental?
|
I agree with you that epistemological and ontological concerns are extremely important in understanding nature. While I was reading Chirstoph's Strand Model in Motion Mountain, the idea that the strands had no properties reminded me of the conception of negative transcendence in the Kant-Friesian school of philosophy, where every property of objects is removed from the world so that all that remains is a curious void of pure existence. That the theory of negative transcendence and the idea of strands in the Strand Model should be so similar, and that negative transcendence serves as a basis for the Friesian theory of science, are observations that I think can not be just mere coincidences.
Similar Threads for: The "Strand Model" of fundamental interactions
Physorg.com Science News Partner
