I agree that @skdh has made an important, and lucid point that needs to be addressed.
That said, your chauvinistic rant seems to indicate you don’t actually understand her argument.
-
See that’s where you’re back at the assumption that “fundamental” only has one meaning and that it’s impossible for anything to be “deep” unless it’s a new excitation.
The ingredients are more fundamental than the cake.. the cake tastes good, but it’s not a fundamental quanta of cake..
-
-
If you want to get philosophical the building-block view could be the unquestioned premise that is preventing the Kuhnians from getting excited. If we know all the ingredients already then quantum gravity likely involves a problem with our assumptions about what is fundamental
-
I’m saying that part of the reason that people scream at the suggestion that a bigger collider is not a good idea right now is that they have made up their minds in advance about what fundamental physics means and what forms “new physics” could take
- 5 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.