Physics major doesn't believe in empiricism

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around a philosophical crisis regarding the validity of empiricism in science, particularly physics. The original poster expresses doubts about the ability of physics to truly explain how nature works, arguing that many concepts, such as nonlocalized particles and virtual particles, are merely mathematical tools rather than real entities. Participants emphasize that while physics may not provide absolute truths, it offers valuable models that lead to practical advancements and a better understanding of the natural world. They contend that the scientific method, despite its limitations, is essential for making progress in understanding nature. Ultimately, the conversation highlights the tension between seeking fundamental truths and relying on empirical data to form scientific theories.
  • #51
physiscs is celebate where math is a whore. But remember that just because a hot piece of math can provide the excitent of a challenge, and the pleasure of solution and release, that doesn't make it meaningfull. It goes and passes and is gone while physics the companion that doesn't put out will be forever with you around you and part of you because it has no solution only description.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #52
If I had to 'guess/assume' about ice's dilemma could be that 'what' he went into 'physics' to find out (the mysteries of the unverse) are still mostly in that category --'unknowns'. Maybe he doesn't want to take on the 'challenge', to be one of the few...---(stopped, -




---I was stealing a line from the marine recruiters)
 

Similar threads

Back
Top