Posted: Oct 09, 2011 5:42 pm
by twistor59
Teuton wrote:
twistor59 wrote:That sounds like philosophy speak. Even the Susskind quote. Statements like "a point is too simple", "It sounds unreasonable".. point to speculation, not science.

As you probably know, natural science was formerly called natural philosophy.

twistor59 wrote:
We started with "concrete physical objects are (at least) 3D objects". The problem is with the word "are". I don't know how philosophers interpret it, but "are" for me in this context could be replaced by "is modelled by".

I'm sure it is mathematically very practical to model particles and strings as 0D or 1D objects, but the question is whether or not these are only mathematically idealized models, i.e. whether or not particles and strings are really 0-dimensional or 1-dimensional (if they exist).

Emphasis mine. You need to say exactly what you mean by "are". How would you determine if the statement was true or false ?