What do you guys think does the most explanatory work in QFT? @InertialObservr @MattersDarkly
Correlation functions, S-matrix, scattering elements, cross sections, etc.? Lots of people have talked about realism wrt. fields and particles, but not much wrt. these objects
-
-
i think it's not so different to call these intermediate ontologies "real" than from calling these real: atom, gene, potential
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @RyanDavidReece @litgenstein and
I think this is in line with Ladyman&Ross "rainforest realism". There are a lot of objectively useful layers of description; structures that it will be natural to observe.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Yeh the use of “real patterns” is really cool. I think we could do better for high energy physics, but I’ve yet to have any creative genius inspired in me lmao
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
yep, Dennett's real patterns (when we think we have them) have a better grip on me than Humean regularities.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
I’d been trying to write a paper today on this topic but I gave up recently, now fortnite lmao
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
Not now but later lmao
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.