Hi Luis,

Each of these statements reflects the pairing of a thing with an action. At best, philosophical counterparts; at worst, contextually accurate

I loved that!

Since any theory about reality consists, at best, of a huge chain of "philosophical counterparts", would you agree that a theory represents reality only to the extent that the language of such theory is isomorphic to reality itself?

That has an interesting philosophical implication: as far as theorizing is concerned, reality must be defined as a language. That is not to say that reality is a language, only that reality is isomorphic to the language of the theory which describes it.

Is that too far out? Being more versed on the subject, are you familiar with any philosophical approaches to the subject?

" The more clearly expressed view here – in my opinion – is the one proposing that "reality" (a thing) and "exist" (an action) are philosophical counterparts "

English: thing - action
Physics: objects - spacetime
Math: numbers - operations

If that appears like a language trick, that's because it is exactly what it is. However, that "trick" underlies any attempt to explain anything at all.

This is hot stuff as far as I can see. I just need to make sure I'm not deluding myself.

Thanks for your input,

Aurino

• Physics does not explain reality - yanniru - August 16, 2002 - 13:52 UTC