Posted: Nov 22, 2010 6:30 pm
by IanS
Cito di Pense wrote:
IanS wrote:
sanja wrote:
As I've said, Niels Bohr was scientist.
And he said this:

If Bohr ever said that (and I don't know if he did), then what do you think he meant by it?

What do you think it might mean to say that nothing is “real”?

The problem is not with the word 'real', on whose meaning no one can agree, but on the words 'made up' (composed), also a term on which no one can agree. This is a discussion about the semantics of imprecise terms at this point.

We either talk about models for the structure of matter or we wibble. A structure is a model. If a model isn't good enough, we can go find a less-pricey whore.

Or we can be left wibbling about the words used by famous scientists outside the context of anything like a model. It is only disingenuous to suggest that scientists are incapable of using metphors and clearly indicating use in context.

Without saying whether I agree with you or not ;) - the point of that post was that I specifically want to know what Sanja thinks those two statements might mean, and why he is endorsing that meaning. ... I am asking him directly to explain what he posted.