You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Philosophy of Science Part 2: Occam's Razor is Rusty
Physics needs sometime to be non-minimal. We always try the minimal way first, but sometimes this just does not work.
Physics needs sometime to be non-minimal. We always try the minimal way first, but sometimes this just does not work.
I would say most of times... And for that very reason, #physical models of reality are flawed... Imperfect... Inaccurate. God, I would not even be surprised if Outer #Space (as we "THINK" we know it) was not like that at all... What if, for instance, light was somehow reflected and distorted, and Space was much smaller than we think it is? What if beyond the Solar System there were only some stars around us, or even only the #Galaxy (the Milky Way) and nothing more? There is simply no way of knowing for sure, is there? A probe would have to go and check, and as far as I know, the one that's gone the farthest has just crossed the outer rim of Sol's system... has it reached another Sun/Star? I think not... That alone leaves a lot of room for speculation and possibilities.
Well, data is there. Whatever is your favorite model, it must accommodate data. Currently accepted paradigms reproduce all observations, which is why they are called standard. And their predictions are so far confirmed by any new observations (more or less; there are questions ;) ).
Therefore, if there is something beyond the current theories and that a new theory will have to be designed, this new theory will be well approximated by the current paradigms in their own range of validity (the differences usually appear when one starts to probe new energy regimes, pushing some frontiers further, etc...). For that reason, the current theories are very important and must be studied.