Yes they are just philosophical thoughts, but I do feel scientists need to stand back every so often and think such thoughts. See my other post in response to DMoE for a development of this.
I don't think they are silly questions, though in the end my view has always been that what we call "real" is what SEEMS to be real to us - what other useful definition of "real" is it possible to have? But the more indirect the evidence, the less confidence we should have that our perception of that "reality" is accurate or complete.
Any inference on my part about anything being silly, was in reference to the Universe being a hologram...
I find that idea as crazy...but that's just me.....
By reading Post #94, there still appears to be Posters that have yet to realize how reifying abstractions can be a bad habit - or even the difference between physical reality and abstract theoretical models, constructs or ideas.
Oh, I agree wholeheartedly! Reification is more than a bad habit.....It's more delusional. Some people see reality in Leprachauns, fairies, goblins, etc.....I'm sure we both agree that this is more delusional than a bad habit.
But you seem to be implying something else with regards to scientific concepts that may not be physical....
Let me ask you a few questions....
Do you regard space/time as real?
If you do not regard space/time as real, can you explain the findings of GP-B for me please?
How about space?...and time?
Don't these two non physical abstractions affect us in everyday life?
Isn't time is a measurement of change that takes place in what we call space?
Do not the series of changes that makes up your life happens over time and in space?
Do we not have to make allowances in GPS Sateliites to allow for time dilation?
Have you ever swung a bucket of water around in a circle, without any of the water coming out?
You do know that this is due to the equivalence principle, a key concept in Albert Einstein's theory of GR, which states that gravity working in one direction is equivalent to acceleration in the other.
Have you ever used an elevator??
If you have you will have noticed that when it is ascending feeling of increased gravity is felt.....and vice versa, when descending, a feeling of decreased gravity.
Did you know that this is again the equivalence principle in action and means that gravity affects measurements of space and time, warping space/time itself?
Final question, what scientific entity/model/abstraction, do you see as an example of reification by some here?
None of these abstract concepts appear to be physical, but yet [as per my first question] what was the effect GP-B was measuring?
Like I say, it's a philosophical argument [nothing too wrong with that] put in your link, and illustrates the basic undecidedness that philosophers have on the subject.
But if you dare ask a working scientist, at the coal face [and as exochemist has alluded to] they will tell you how real these entities are.
Just because something cannot be seen or felt, and may not have apparent physical form, does not mean it is not real, and believing the entities I have mentioned to be real, in no way invokes the bad habit of reification you speak of.
