Right, so my question is could the types of theories in physics, for example, NOT tell us about ultimate reality for two reasonsbahman wrote: ↑Thu Dec 21, 2023 3:11 pmCorrect. That is what I mean.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Dec 21, 2023 3:01 pmYou raised the issue - now in my words - that measuring is approximate. There can always be error (somewhere out in the decimal places) but also we don't/can't chase the decimal places in a measurement all the way out. (unless, perhaps, the universe is quantized, where there is a minimum length, but that's another topics). So, measurements are fallible, hence, you argued, if I understood correctly, any theory based on measurement cannot be perfect.
I think it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to produce a theory that is perfect given perfect measurement.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Dec 21, 2023 3:01 pm But above I was getting a different, perhaps incorrect impression, that the very working with the physical could not produce perfect theory about ultimate reality. Not merely because of measurement being inexact, but.....
Sure, we are talking metaphysics here rather than physics.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Dec 21, 2023 3:01 pm And I'm not sure. But it seemed like it was the wrong category for getting at ultimate truths. Perhaps something in relation to induction vs. deduction or physics vs. metaphysics. Not that you said all this explicitly or any of it, but it was my impression
1) the inexactness of measures
and
2) because it is dealing with physics, empricism rather than, say, deduction metaphysics.
I actually think that physics also deals with metaphysics, but that's a separate issue.