I’m a fan of the sciences and believe they are currently our best available ways to describe reality in a pragmatic way that is functional for humanity to use in order to explain and manipulate our realities. However, I also hold the paradox in my head at the same time that I don’t believe any of the theories are actually describing reality’s entities and processes. I don’t think humans will necessarily know the differences; for our intents and purposes, the processes we name and the entities we name are “real enough” for our pedagogy and our use, applicable to our engineering methods. I fully advocate full-steam-ahead at behaving “as-if” realism was factual. If people are dying of an epidemic, naval-gazing about whether or not two virii can actually “be” identical is a waste of time. Yet, in a quiet safe environment, where discussions of “what’s really true and what do we talk about ‘as if it’s true’, I might bring that kind of thought up. 

I’m a fan of the sciences and believe they are currently our best available ways to describe reality in a pragmatic way that is functional for humanity to use in order to explain and manipulate our realities. However, I also hold the paradox in my head at the same time that I don’t believe any of the theories are actually describing reality’s entities and processes.
I don’t think humans will necessarily know the differences; for our intents and purposes, the processes we name and the entities we name are “real enough” for our pedagogy and our use, applicable to our engineering methods. I fully advocate full-steam-ahead at behaving “as-if” realism was factual. If people are dying of an epidemic, naval-gazing about whether or not two virii can actually “be” identical is a waste of time. Yet, in a quiet safe environment, where discussions of “what’s really true and what do we talk about ‘as if it’s true’, I might bring that kind of thought up. 

[responsivevoice_button voice="US English Male"]