> You are just saying "well ackshually". I dare you to build a cabinet using the Hamiltonian. I double-dog-dare you. We do that every day using things like fin

> You are just saying "well ackshually". I dare you to build a cabinet using the Hamiltonian. I double-dog-dare you. We do that every day using things like finite elements. It’s just a different Hamiltonian that accounts for the fact that we simplify bunches of atoms into a continuum. > Again, 99.999% of all functional mechanics don't involve epistemology. Discussing the nature of scientific theories is epistemology. The parent’s point is epistemological in nature. > ! You're so close to seeing the point... There are multiple levels of approximation (at least two), and the one we all experience is Newtonian. You are off base. There are many, many approximations that may or may not overlap. It’s not just onion layers. > You're pretty radically moving the goalposts here. GP was talking about Newtonian mechanics, not Hamiltonian. GP was talking about different theories applying at different scales. Sorry, it may not have been clear in context but Hamiltonian here is not just the generalisation of Newtonian mechanics we learn about in 2nd year Physics. these theories (quantum mechanics, Newtonian mechanics, and relativity) can be written using the Hamiltonian formalism.