SUO: Re: Physical and Abstract
Jon,
I agree with the first part of your paragraph,
and totally disagree with your conclusion:
> What you are doing here is telling a story about certain
> imaginary beasts called "atoms", "photons", and "other
> subatomic particles"....
> This is the phenomenon that is due to be explained here.
Of course, all of science is imaginary. As Peirce
said, it is the product of abduction, which pulls
hypotheses out of thin air. But what keeps science
"grounded" is the requirement of continual testing
against observation and the ever-present danger of
being proven false by the very next experiment.
Peirce explained all of that very well, as you
very well know.
But if by "here", you mean the SUO group, then I
think that you are totally off base. There is not
a prayer of a hope of a chance that any acceptable
explanation will come out of these email notes.
Compared to anything that is likely to come out
of this group (or any other ontology group in the
world, for that matter), quarks are on a rock
solid foundation.
Bottom line: If you can't accept quarks,
forget about ever getting anything useful
out of any ontology group in the world.
John