RE: In the beginning...
April 10, 2013 at 11:47 am
(This post was last modified: April 10, 2013 at 11:48 am by Neo-Scholastic.)
[quote='archangle' pid='430010' dateline='1365607119'What is this "non-physical" part of the universe you speak of? I think it just means interactions that we just don't understand yet. [/quote]There are many unknowns waiting to be discovered within physics. I have no problem with that. My concerns revolve around those things not explicable within physics.
Non-physical means things not explicable within physics. My view of physics is this. Physics is an internally consistent scientific model of naturally occurring interactions between observable objects. Physics itself works because it depends the operation of objects not describable within its internally consistent scientific model. Suppose the so-called Theory of Everything was finally created. Does the TOE truly contain ‘everything?’ Personally, I do not think so. Physics presupposes the existence of things without which physics would not be possible. To me that means an inherent order to reality, one of mathematical certainties, sensible qualities and logical coherence.
That makes me a realist. I believe that universal attributes exist in and of themselves and are not just names attached to observed common features. In essence, common features are identifiable precisely because there are universal attributes capable of being recognized as common.
Non-physical means things not explicable within physics. My view of physics is this. Physics is an internally consistent scientific model of naturally occurring interactions between observable objects. Physics itself works because it depends the operation of objects not describable within its internally consistent scientific model. Suppose the so-called Theory of Everything was finally created. Does the TOE truly contain ‘everything?’ Personally, I do not think so. Physics presupposes the existence of things without which physics would not be possible. To me that means an inherent order to reality, one of mathematical certainties, sensible qualities and logical coherence.
That makes me a realist. I believe that universal attributes exist in and of themselves and are not just names attached to observed common features. In essence, common features are identifiable precisely because there are universal attributes capable of being recognized as common.
