[sci.physics] QM is not a theory

laura@hoptoad.uucp (Laura Creighton) (07/20/87)

>In article <651@sri-arpa.ARPA> gould!proxftl!bill@seismo.CSS.GOV writes:
>
>First, philosophy: the essential parts of philosophy are metaphysics and
>epistemology; they answer the questions of "what kind of universe do I live
>in?" and "How do I know?", respectively. The answers to these questions
>determine the other answers that a philosophy gives to the questions usually
>associated with philosophy.  In particular, these answers allow one to
>distinguish between a potentially valid description of reality and a mere
>statement about facts of reality.  The former is a theory; the latter is a
>model.

I think that this gives philosophy too short an end of the stick.  My
current thought project is dividing human persuits into a quest for
answers of the three questions ``What is Beauty'' ``What is Truth''
and ``What is Goodness''.  ``What kind of universe do I live in and
how do I know'' is fundamental to the Truth question, but does not
(or at least not trivially) relate to the Goodness and Truth questions.

-- 
(C) Copyright 1987 Laura Creighton - you may redistribute only if your 
    recipients may.

	``One must pay dearly for immortality:  one has to die several
	times while alive.'' -- Nietzsche

Laura Creighton	
ihnp4!hoptoad!laura  utzoo!hoptoad!laura  sun!hoptoad!laura