[strogonoff]

The universe could be simpler than the current models suggest, but that would require taking a step back too far for the comfort of today’s STEM-oriented mind. For as long as natural sciences consider philosophy a load of hand-wavy abstract inapplicable hogwash they will be stuck iterating on existing physical models towards local maximum.

[CyberDildonics]

Can you give an example of your philosophy physics being applied to a real world problem?

[strogonoff]

What do you mean by “philosophy physics”?

Apart from that, I hope upon some reflection you realize that your sentence is an illustration of my point.

[tsimionescu]

Your claiming that there exists some simpler physical theory that could be derived from philosophy.

You should be able to back up your claim by showing some example (not fully worked out, just some idea) of a philosophy-inspired physical theory that is simpler than current theories but more or less as precise in its measurable predictions of what will happen next in sine physical system.

[CyberDildonics]

I reflected and I have no idea what you're talking about, since all you said was "physics is wrong" while giving no evidence.

[staunton]

I guess the intended meaning was that you chose your request ("apply what you say to a problem") based on certain philosophical criteria. I think that's actually a surprisingly valid point, given the original (downvoted) comment.

[CyberDildonics]

Applying what someone claims is science is not a "philosophical criteria", that's how evidence and proof works.

[staunton]

Which is a philosophical criterion. Just 1000 years ago people would have found such a call for "science" strange and deeply insulting to their authority, which they would have needed to dare speculate about things such as math or physics. Most theories were made from "first principles" while things that were established by evidence (tried it a few times, it always worked, let's keep doing it) were mostly not considered science.