jump to navigation

But is it real? February 21, 2015

Posted by anagasto in philosophy.
trackback

You are confusing the resolution of instruments with What Is Really Out There. Shame, shame. We have no instruments that can measure lengths below Planck Length nor do we have clocks that can subdivide time to finer intervals than Plack Time. But this is a statement about our instruments, not physical reality.

We simply disregard quantities that we cannot measure for being too
small. The omission generally does not upset the mathematics which
generally discards small quantities in the seoncd order (squares or higher powers). When we can measure them, no doubt we will have to modify the theories.

In a sense What Is Really Out There is not what theories deal with.
Theories deal with what can be observed.

http://tinyurl.com/yc5ogmx

………………………………………………………………………………………………

This is a very special point of view, for it says that what is real is not necessarily perceptible. You cannot see it, can’t photograph it; it won’t ever affect you personally, is never in the news.

Nobody has ever seen it, and I don’t know whether it even has a name; but is it obligatory to believe in it?

Comments»

No comments yet — be the first.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s