@TickTockMan,
I hope to bring some clarity, ...... i will keep my fingers crossed on this.
kennethamy;98581 wrote:A theory may be about what is concrete. But that does not make the theroy itself a concrete object. You have to distinguish between what the theory is of, and the theory itself. Theories are, themselves, abstract objects.
A small correction in the otherwise agreeable statement.
You could have finished the sentence with the word, abstract. Full stop. No need to say 'abstract objects'. Linguists would say it is due to over-emphasis. And the young would tend to go off in a tangent, creating confusion in the conditioned mind. Otherwise, i agree with you.
Absolution;98536 wrote:In general the term abstract in science is "an idea or term considered apart from some material basis or object." from dictionary.com. And here is a good article on it as well
Abstract object - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia . So the debate is whether scientific theories are concrete (thus are ingrained in reality). Like the Coulombic force is an intrinsic natural property of charged particles or it is just a convenient categorization for the human mind, if it could be better represented by another set of theories. One of the interesting issues that happen is when new theories arrive, often the categorizations are redefined. For example the Kelvin temperature scale was considered absolute in thermodynamics, which means no going below zero. But when Boltzmann developed statistical mechanics the Kelvin temperature scale was redefined and now it can yield negative temperatures in what they call two-state systems.
Scientific theories are just as much similar as theories of God, in language and understandings. Inductive hypothesis is the basis of a theory.
We should not lose sight of the fact that theories ultimately are propositions.
Absolution;97070 wrote:This is actually a semi-debate in physics. Whether the physical theories are reality or an abstraction of reality. It seems physics gets to the point where people are confident to say it is concrete, but then we create new experiments that defy existing theories and start over again, thus leading back to the idea of abstraction.
Remember, theories are 'proposition'. Everything, here after, will fall in place. Theoretical proposition, thus, (being anthropic) is likley to be good, sound, logical, rational or can be illogical, unsound, bad and foolish.
Whoever;97773 wrote:
There would be a unconditioned phenomena from which the spacetime universe, including 'selfs' like you and me, is emergent. Not long ago in past but right here and now and in every moment. This would be Parmenides and Aristotle's unchanging substance, Bradley's 'Reality,' Hegel's spiritual unity, Kant's subject of rational psychology, Lao-tsu's Tao, Schroedinger's blank canvas etc. Everything else would be Maya, the Matrix, Samsara etc.
There would be no possibility of mistaking the real for the unreal, but every possibility of doing the reverse. Mysticism would be the pursuit of the former.
The unconditioned phenomenon, is deducted. It is an apparent Reality.
And as you imply, the conditioned phenomena are Maya's.
However, we should bear in mind, that:
The Apparent is in the Mind,
Only the senses (and aiding instruments) can reveal the Real.
but, what appears real is just the form of the real Real.
The mystic is like a magician who hoodwinks people, in the mystics case, he hoodwinks himself.
The Real, so far is imperceptible. We therefore have theories.
