Re:If gravity isn't a force, then why does it "need" a boson?
by arter on Thursday March 21, 2024 @05:34AM
(#39776462)
Could you elaborate or share some articles on why QFT is a counterexample to western reductionism ? In laymans terms that is.
Re:If gravity isn't a force, then why does it "need" a boson?
by nyrikki on Thursday March 21, 2024 @08:22AM
(#39777612)
The oversimplified version is Laplac's deamon can't split quantum superposition.
Superposition being inseparable is a large part on why the many words concept is popular with some people. It is about regaining a form of determinism.
Both GR and QFT are insanely accurate models, but they are just models.
The N-body problem is undecidable, and Gödel, Turing, Church and other s proved that is the best we can do.
https://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/13175/1/parker2003.pdf
Western reductionism or Laplacian determinism is a good framework for practical, computable models. QFT actually is actually one of the counterexamples to Western reductionism.
But models are reductive and scientific models are just models. Don't confuse the map for the territory.
All models are wrong, some are useful; is another way of saying the same thing.