|
|
 | | From: | Lou Pecora | | Subject: | Re: What is the Nature of Physics? | | Date: | Sat, 22 Jan 2005 11:34:02 +0000 (UTC) |
|
|
 | In article ,
"I.Vecchi" wrote:
> > I think you have to also add the constraint that the models must be
> > consistent, i.e. non-contradictory.
>
> Interesting remark, but I then I would ask "Consistent for whom?". I mean,
> in whose discourse?
>
> Fudges and suspensions of disbelief are acceptable as long as a theory
> delivers on predictions. Leibniz immediately pointed out Newton's
> assumption of an absolute reference frame as inconsistent. That insight was
> vindicated two centuries later, but I would hardly dismiss Newton's theory
> as unscientific.
>
> One could also describe the foundations of current QM (not to mention QFT)
> as a mess, although the theory does a decent predictive job.
>
> Inconsistency matters when it is exploded by blatant predictive failure.
> Otherwise most people will nod through the nonsense.
Yes, but consistency should be a goal. It should force us to
continually examine all theories. I am not advocating a black or white
approach in which we demand immediate and complete consistency. But
consistency should be in the mix of criticisms and guide development of
the theory. You can't throw it out, either.
-- Lou Pecora (my views are my own)
|
|
|
