| You seem to be agreeing with me in a disagreeable tone. Instrumentalism [1] is precisely what I am rooting for. That's exactly what I said in my OP: "All scientific models are scale variant e.g contextual." >You can't charactierize your loacl approximation as a general theory The exact same criticism can be laid upon your local approximation. You have chosen precisely the scale at which your 'general model' works.
And you have ignored all other scales at which your 'general model' doesn't work. You are chery-picking your scale - the domain of applicability of your model. >Just like the Newtonian model works well until you reach the scales where relativistic effects demand the shift to relativity. And what if you go the other way? At quantum scale neither Newton nor Einstein works. >Just don't expect to project it outside of its useful scale That's exactly what I said also: "Scientific models are pragmatic at best. Useful for a particular purpose within some domain of applicability." So I don't see how you could possibly be appealing to any notion of a 'general theory' without also coming up with a 'general and objective utility function'.
What may be a useful to a Quantum Physicist needs not be useful to a Cosmologist. The only hope for a 'general theory' is the Theory of Everything. We don't have one of those. Well, physicists don't - theists do. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumentalism |
What theist theory is supposed to provide a theory of everything[1]?
To my knowledge, theology don't bring any light on such a model.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything