3 ms·
> fundamental nature of existence > as physics almost by definition allows for multiple, completely equivalent descriptions of reality > it's very hard to use
by RivieraKid 10y ago
> fundamental nature of existence
> as physics almost by definition allows for multiple, completely equivalent descriptions of reality
> it's very hard to use physics to show what something fundamentally is.
There's no such thing as fundamental nature of existence. We just have mental models (like quantum mechanics) to describe the patterns of our observations. The idea that there is some fundamental underlying matter makes no sense, we only have perceptions and mental models do describe them. Like you said, there might be multiple physical models, as long as they give the same predictions, they're all correct.
- RobertoG 10y ago"There's no such thing as fundamental nature of existence." Of course there is. Or are you suggesting that there is not a reality? There are models with more explanatory power that others. Those models map better to reality ergo they are more fundamental. Otherwise, what it means to say that a model is better than other, if not that is more close to what really there is out there?
- TuringTest 10y agoWhen people say "fundamental" they usually mean "the basic elements of which everything else is made of". The ancient Greeks thought those basic pieces existed and called them atoms, but it is not clear that reality has such indivisible basic elements.
- RobertoG 10y agoMaybe they do, but I don't think this is the case here.