Dear Donald,
Thank you very much for an interesting comment. I admit I have not thought of things this way. Your thinking is quite original. I talked about the accuracy of special relativity and quantum mechanics. Apparently, I paid for this mistake and have received low marks because this contest is flooded with cranks of all kinds that have no connection to math and physics whatsoever but are under a severe state of delusion.
Having said that, high accuracy does not mean a theory is "true", i.e., a true representation of physical reality and this is also part of the puzzle. Theories are underdetermined by empirical observations because there are unobservables. More importantly, when we talk about primitive ontology, such a particles for example, please note that experimentation will never "see" those particles but only their effects. For example, it is claimed that the Higgs was found but actually that was a statistical computation at 4.5 sigma I believe (1 in a million of being wrong or about).The primitive ontology cannot be observed. In Newtonian physics the primitive ontology is the particles that in turn form bodies that have mass and extension. The nomological variable in the case is momentum and it is an empirical quantity. The metaphysics is that forces cause the particles to change their state of motion. One could write Newton's law as follows:
Action of God = ma
and then say that the Action of God is what changes the state of motion. This is an equivalent theory. It works the same as Newtonian mechanics. Instead of forces we have the Action of God. The law of inertia is
If the Action of God is zero, a particle maintains its state of uniform linear motion. This works, you only have to calculate the Action of God.
"As an example, take the metaphysical concept that all action stems from the very small and that all larger objects are simply aggregates of actions of the very small."
You gave a good example. Nobody knows how the macro emerges from the micro. Actually, the micro may be emerging from the macro. This is what quantum mechanics may be saying in a way. I have no idea honestly. But you raised one of the most important questions in physics: how is the macro world of determinism emerging from the indeterministic world of quantum mechanics? Either what we see is an illusion or quantum mechanics is wrong or deterministic.
"If actions at our level do impact actions at the very small, then this measure is no longer an appropriate one for how 'good' our theory is."
Interesting thought. This is related to the quantum mechanics measurement problem. There is no solution that can combine locality with counterfactual definitiveness. Actually you are saying that our physical theories are corroborated because we impact the world in a way that corroborates them. Maybe we always find what we are looking for.
Thanks and regards,
E. Harokopos
