> > Hi Charles, many thanks for this and the previous reply. I wonder
> > whether in that more fundamental underlying structure, causality,
> > dimensionality and physicality could in primordial forms, be bound up as
> > representing properties of the same soup?
> There was an article on this ... the article doesn't necessarily describe
> the *correct* approach to discovering the fundamental nature of reality, of
> course, but it gives an idea of how people are thinking about this sort of
> thing at the moment.
I guess i missed a chapter somewhere!
What is ...
"the *correct* approach to discovering the fundamental nature of reality" ?
assuming that this can be summed up in a USEGROUP post ... ;-)
Moreover, would it be possible to provide a simple definition for
- primordial forms
- properties (intrinsic, extrinsic, natural, etc)
- soup (not Heinz please !)
in the hopes of being able to follow the discussion and hopefully recognize a "correct"
from a "pseudo" or "erroneous" approach to knowing "fundamental reality". Is this project
even a possibility in fact ?
Being rather a member of the school of metaphysics than physics, i have some ideas of
what's being referred to. However, to my knowledge there is no single definition of any of
the notions listed above in physics or in philosophy !
furthermore, maintains the investments by universities in hiring philosophers is the fact
that there is no clear and certain sense of "fundamental reality" to be purchased on a
discount basis. Is this what we hope from CERN and its big brothers ?
Ok. but those instruments only confirm parts of theories, which are themselves NOT
science but instruments of scientific practice !
All in all, i'm surprised to see physicists talking like this given that the fundamental nature
of reality is a daily debate subject implicit in most philosophically oriented papers
appearing in the ARXIV.ORG !
I think that Charles remark at the end sums up the situation best - "at the moment" - all
this is an OPEN question and not an existing FACT.