[...] for example “particles” … “particles” are invented that do whatever it is we don’t understand. So in my opinion particles are always the solutions to problems that we can’t solve any other way. That is, they are inventions that help to explain certain problems. Those are particles.

[...] Let me explain it a bit better. Let’s say there is a hole in my theory, one I can’t gloss over. So what I do is, I just say: Look, here are some new particles, that are either green, yellow or … I don’t know what … They replace the hole in my theory. So I maintain that each particle we read about in today’s physics is the answer to a question that we can’t answer.

But that’s terrible! How can we let a world-wide networked system of machines grow, more or less into infinity, if it is based on theories that apparently have holes or are only “good stories”, I mean on such shaky foundations? Isn’t that dangerous?

Well, in this world-wide functioning system of machines all theories are correct. And of course that’s what people want. And why are they correct? Because they can all be deduced from other theories and “stories”.

But what will it lead to? How does it go on?

It goes on deducing indefinitely.

But there have to be limits somewhere?

No, not at all, that’s the good thing about it. You can go on forever.

In logic.

Yes, precisely.

But in reality?

Where is reality? Can you show it to me?

conversation w/ Heinz von Foerster
Damon Zucconi