My 0.2 Euros: I don't think that SJ, or RR, or anyone else on this list is trying to discredit any *thing* or anybody. The thrust of this list, it just seems to me, is that the world is larger than any particular or single model. That's a point that I think Judith Rosen has been trying to make for as long as I have been following her writing. Sometimes, the words don't come out in ways which make that clear. I don't have a problem with SJ's "...QM is just another model." Possibly a damn good model, but not necessarily the purveyor of all the truth there is to find out there. Whatever impression you get from what you read here is, I believe, a construction in your own mind. You bring to this forum those biases you already have. Others, myself included, do precisely the same thing. There will always be the "santa clause effect" -- possibly not approprate as a metaphor to all possible cultures, but you have to have seen what happens to a young kid when it finally dawns that there is no fat old man in red jammies living in the north pole. We all have our belief systems, and those systems need, I think, to be flexible, lest we become religious and lose site of all possible truths to behold. Each truth, along the way, serves its purpose, and humankind grows. Let's not turn this forum into a pissing contest like " your jesus is bigger than mine." That this forum focuses on a particular model, one which was created by Robert Rosen, should not imply that the Rosenean model is anything other than "just another model", making its contribution to the growth in our understanding of the complexites in which we are immersed. I think it to be an important model, one I hope to understand and apply some day real soon now.SJ: All these statements are based on just one of
our
models, namely, Quantum Mechanics. You're implicity
according it a higher ontological status in saying
that that's the way things "really" are at the
microscopic level. There is no reason for doing so
as QM is just another model.
JZ: Please tell me that I do not have an impression that you are to discredit three decades' work of Max Planck, Albert Einstein, Niels Bohr, Louis De Broglie, Erwin Schrodinger, Wolfgang Pauli, Werner Heisenberg, and Paul Dirac by replacing their model with another model.... maybe a Newtonian relational hybrid model?
Cheers, Jack