Problem with the Big Bang theory is, inability for explaining the perfect position, and workings of the matter, space and time in the Solar system — Corvus

The James Webb telescope findings might be saying you are correct. BB needs correcting but the details themselves don't matter much to philosophy

. If the BB had created the solar system as it is now, then it must be the most unbelievable magic ever created in the universe nothing short of the miracle act of some omnipotent being. But is it — Corvus

Reality itself could be the miracle, God itself could be the miracle.

Problem with the Big Bang theory is, inability for explaining the perfect position, and workings of the matter, space and time in the Solar system. — Corvus

That’s not a problem with it. The workings are pretty much standard for something with no design or intelligence.

It would have been more like total chaos with debris of the rocks, minerals and burnt out matters scattered and floating around in the space even at this time. You see some of the old gignatic stars exploding when they are dying. It is nothing short of the massive nuclear explosion destroying and burning everything around them. — Corvus

Tell me you don’t understand the theory without telling me you don’t understand it.

So space and time are not separate? And motions come from them? I've speculated on this forum that motion creates time as it moves through space so there is no need for a before the Big Bang being it's creater (motion) moves singularly at the moment of the universe's and time's first motion forward. It seems like something coming from nothing but it's not. The primordial singularity is it's own casuality — Gregory

Your speculations mean nothing at all. Space and time aren’t separate, they exist in tandem. Motion doesn’t come from them; it just happens if things exist.

There is no primordial singularity, the universe has always existed.

One of these is false:

1. Particles cannot influence one another faster than the speed of light (locality)
2. Particles have well defined properties before being measured (realism)

As examples, the Copenhagen and Many Worlds interpretations reject realism, and the de Broglie–Bohm theory rejects locality. — Michael

I only skimmed the first page of replies, and this seems to be the only answer that succinctly answers the question.

I studied physics at university, but only ever really felt fully comfortable with classical physics. I got the top score in the class on the last quantum mechanics test I took, but it just felt so weird and I never really felt like I mastered it (I never worked past a bachelor's degree).

My understanding of some of the weirdness in quantum mechanics is that quantum particles do not appear to have defined momentum or position prior to being measured. This is not a limitation of our measurements, but a property of the particles themselves.

So, when I hear, "anti-realism", I think of some kind of interpretation like the particle has no real defined traits until observed by a consciousness(or possibly, until interacting with any macroscopic object). At the macroscopic scale, things only appear to be determined because the average behavior of a huge number of random objects is fairly well determined.

I don't really have a dog in the fight, because as I said, I don't feel like an expert. The only thing I can think of is that maybe position and momentum aren't really the fundamental building blocks of existence, but maybe the wave function itself (which describes a probability distribution of position or momentum) is the true existence of the particle. As I understand it, the wave function ought to be well defined at all times.

I have had a similar thought about relativity. It seems so bizarre to me that lengths and mass change due to velocity, and that velocities cannot be added by simple arithmetic (if you throw a ball with V1 on a train at V2, the final velocity is NOT V1 + V2 according to relativity). I would think that if a thing were truly "real", then it would be observed to be the same for all observers. It made me wonder if things like mass, and position are not truly the fundamental building blocks of existence, but are only derived phenomena from something even more fundamental. I couldn't begin to tell you what that is though.

I'm pretty sure physics doesn't really have anything to say about realism, anti-realism, or idealism, but that hasn't stopped folks from trying. — Darkneos

You're right, it's not about the *philosophical* concept of realism, it's a physics concept.

In short, what quantum mechanical experiments, especially Bell's Test, give extremely strong evidence for, is that a classical physics type view of reality is incorrect. That's what "local realism" means.

In classical physics, for any given proerty you could measure, every object in existence has distinct values for that property - all the time, whether you're measuring it or not. Momentum, location, rotational velocity - everything has a distinct value for all measureable properties.

That's local realism, and *that* is what's not true, at least for the things we are generally inclined to think of as 'objects' at the fundamental level ie protons neutrons electrons.

Bell's Theorem demonstrates that you have to give up on at least one of locality or realism. In either words, either you have to choose to believe that causality can be non-local, faster than light, and contradict special relativity, OR you have to believe that measurable properties don't have singular distinct values when not being measured. Or both.

There is a third option, but... we don't talk about the third option.

As examples, the Copenhagen and Many Worlds interpretations reject realism — Michael

I think the Copenhagen interpretation also rejects locality, no?

-edit, i guess i've always misinterpreted what the copenhagen interpretation is.

↪jgill
Plato suggested momentary collapse — magritte

Would you elaborate, please?

Tell me you don’t understand the theory without telling me you don’t understand it. — Darkneos

What do you not understand on my understanding of the BB?

Problem with the Big Bang theory is, inability for explaining the perfect position, and workings of the matter, space and time in the Solar system. — Corvus


That’s not a problem with it. The workings are pretty much standard for something with no design or intelligence. — Darkneos

Without solid explanation backed by evidence and reasoning, the BB is not much different from the creation of the world story in the Genesis of the Old Testament in terms of its coherence and cogency.

If you accept the BB blindly, you have committed yourself to being an esoteric shaman under the apparel of science.

So, when I hear, "anti-realism", I think of some kind of interpretation like the particle has no real defined traits until observed by a consciousness(or possibly, until interacting with any macroscopic object). At the macroscopic scale, things only appear to be determined because the average behavior of a huge number of random objects is fairly well determined. — Brendan Golledge

The anti-realism is based on a misunderstanding of quantum physics, it still hinges on the notion that consciousness is involved when it's not.

The particles exist but their properties are uncertain, or that they can influence each other from a distance.

But bear in mind the physicists don't use the word realism, that's the public. So this doesn't affect our day to day like people think it does, and at the moment it's still uncertain what it actually means.

So the links in my first post I learned can just be ignored as the people in them don't know what it means, not even the guys who discovered this do.

Without solid explanation backed by evidence and reasoning, the BB is not much different from the creation of the world story in the Genesis of the Old Testament in terms of its coherence and cogency. — Corvus

More ignorance on the Big Bang and what it means. To compare it to Genesis is the height of stupid.

What do you not understand on my understanding of the BB? — Corvus

It's so ignorant that I cannot fathom it.

Is it? It's sometimes claimed that classical mechanics "works perfectly" for medium sized objects, and that problems only show up at very large or very small scales.

Except it doesn't. Right from the beginning gravity was an occult force acting at a distance, which in turn had to make "natural laws" active casual agents in the world "shoving the planets into their places like schoolboys" as Hegel puts it. The deficiencies of such a model of causation are well highlighted by Hume. Then electromagnetism added another occult force that didn't fit into the "everything is little billiard balls model." — Count Timothy von Icarus

Wasn't that just philosophical ambivalence or ignorance however? A lack of creativity on the possible analogue modeling that can be done on such subject matters because a 'billard ball model' of the universe was some strange dogma of the Classical ages?

Especially since admitting to action at a distance to gravity was not so much a grand philosophical conclusion but an implicit admittance that they creatively gave up or something similar to Newton's, "Hypotheses non fingo."

Nor could/has the mechanistic model, where the billiard ball is the paradigmatic example of all physical interactions, been able to explain life or consciousness, nor was it able to offer up theories of self-organization, except via a deficient view of organisms as simply intricate "clockwork." Nor, in it's classical forms, can it incorporate information and the successes of information theory. We have suggested a long hangover of "Cartesian anxiety," because the classical model required early modern thinkers to excise consciousness, ideas, and freedom from the "physical realm." — Count Timothy von Icarus

. . . or they just needed new analogies and metaphors which could still retain the age old or common folk intuitions we all possess.

There are tons of other rigid body analogies one could make regarding how we think creatively about the black box that is nature which doesn't have to pay lip service to Newton. Such as analogies to fluids, solids, changes of state of materials, computational analogies, balls & springs, etc.

Further, this mental or philosophical anguish over doing away with 'freedom' or consciousness with such useful fantasy is utterly misplaced. As if re-defining the word living to not include viruses suddenly vanishes them out of existence or implies they pose no medical risk that pragmatically minded medical professionals have to contend with.

It's all semantics. If you desired to create an ontological category that included mental thoughts among physical objects the same as the chair I'm sitting in while I'm writing this you've then technically changed nothing. They may both be physical objects by definition but they still have to remain in intuitively obvious or distinct sub-categories now. Call one ghostly physical objects and the other tangible physical objects or something.

I think the "anti-metaphysical movement's" greatest success has been to keep us stuck, frozen with a defunct 19th century metaphysics as the default, such that it becomes "common sense," to most through our education system. But surely it is cannot be "common sense" in any overarching sense, since it differs dramatically from the more organic-focused physics that dominated for two millennia prior to the creation of the classical model. — Count Timothy von Icarus

The problem with actually making this more 'Mainstream' is that it has to incorporate itself into a successful economical or result based enterprise in manipulating nature for our ends. This I find difficult given the overly flowery or poetic language that 'pro-metaphysicalist' thinkers could be seen to fall prey to making those adherents of the current establishment lose their minds waiting for practical results of such thinking.

Not sure I agree. Someone might only think that because there is no consensus on quantum interpretation, but that doesn't necessarily mean a reasonable one cannot be found eventually and ways of visualizing it. — Apustimelogist

There are already ways of doing so. Documentaries and introductory textbooks make use of billiard balls moving in the void, vague fluid like depictions of collapsing wavefunctions, fluid animations to depict fields, or ball & spring models to talk about field excitations.

Don't wait for nature to approve your visualization as if nature ever will or that there will be consensus on said 'correct' visualization. You create whatever intuitive picture to talk about nature however you see fit for whatever reason. Nature is a black box and quibbling over the right visualization seems to forget that we have the all the freedom to come up with whatever we want for whatever purposes because its hidden from us.

Whether that be for aesthetic purposes, computational ones, symbolic understanding, practical applications, etc.

More ignorance on the Big Bang and what it means. To compare it to Genesis is the height of stupid. — Darkneos

Instead of trying to give out explanations or arguments, just keep saying it is stupid, is not philosophy.

My point was not a comparison between the BB and Genesis. It was a metaphor to describe your attitude of blindly accepting the BB as the absolute truth, which is not much different from believing Genesis creation of the world. You are not even understanding a simple English sentence.

My point was not a comparison between the BB and Genesis. It was a metaphor to describe your attitude of blindly accepting the BB as the absolute truth, which is not much different from believing Genesis creation of the world. You are not even understanding a simple English sentence. — Corvus

And this, again, is just ignorance of the subject matter. It doesn't really merit much more engagement than that.

And this, again, is just ignorance of the subject matter. It doesn't really merit much more engagement than that. — Darkneos

It is impossible to communicate with someone who doesn't understand the difference between the Big Bang theory, and a metaphor for accepting the theory blindly with no reasoning or evidence which is similar attitude of blindly accepting the creation of the world episode in Genesis of the Old Testament.

Plato suggested momentary collapse — magritte
Would you elaborate, please? — jgill

Plato lived in a mathematically rudimentary and physically primitive age, but his mode of thought was akin to today's physical theorists. He was quite aware of the dimensionality of space and the special importance of time in relating existence in mathematics and the Forms to the indeterminate physical and psychological worlds. He saw this as a mathematical problem which he suggested can be overcome by collapsing or expanding time. Even though he was quite explicit, this demonstrably sound solution still remains elusive to many.

There are already ways of doing so. — substantivalism

Well yes but I mean in terms of a consensus on some kind of interpretation which makes sense to people within a scientific context.

Well yes but I mean in terms of a consensus on some kind of interpretation which makes sense to people within a scientific context. — Apustimelogist

There doesn't have to be a consensus because it makes no sense to ask which is 'right' or 'wrong'. Nor does it make sense to ask which is 'closer' to how it really is.

If you want some populist preference to be made clear on a purely subjective affair then sure but otherwise its still entirely up to you as it would be for every person on that ivory tower jury.

There doesn't have to be a consensus because it makes no sense to ask which is 'right' or 'wrong'. Nor does it make sense to ask which is 'closer' to how it really is. — substantivalism

I don't understand what you mean. We are talking about science here. The whole point is to construct a picture if the world that makes sense and fits to what we observe. Quantum interpretation is as fair game as any other part of science or knowledge in general. Are you going to make this comment to other fields of science? I doubt it.

I don't understand what you mean. We are talking about science here. The whole point is to construct a picture if the world that makes sense and fits to what we observe. — Apustimelogist

Pictures of the world typically do not end up being testable or falsifiable. They are constructed after the fact to fit to the facts themselves as we intuitively see fit.

It's to yield a sense of what certain scientific philosophers have called 'understanding'. Not to be identified with knowledge or any truth-aptness.

If all you cared about was concordance with observations then science would devolve into bare observational statements and mathematical modeling. Nothing much else that wouldn't just be considered besides the observational facts would be highly speculative. I.E. philosophical or creative speculation.

Quantum interpretation is as fair game as any other part of science or knowledge in general. Are you going to make this comment to other fields of science? I doubt it. — Apustimelogist

Those other fields typically aren't complete black boxes.

I can give a picture of a virus, end of story. I can't of an electron without a tremendous amount of speculative holistic open-ended philosophical interpretation to even analyze the output of said detector.

Pictures of the world typically do not end up being testable or falsifiable. They are constructed after the fact to fit to the facts themselves as we intuitively see fit.

It's to yield a sense of what certain scientific philosophers have called 'understanding'. Not to be identified with knowledge or any truth-aptness.

If all you cared about was concordance with observations then science would devolve into bare observational statements and mathematical modeling. Nothing much else that wouldn't just be considered besides the observational facts would be highly speculative. I.E. philosophical or creative speculation — substantivalism

Its very simple. Science is about solving problems, regardless of whether you want to talk about it in terms of "truth", "understanding", "mathematical predictions". All these things feature. It is multi-faceted.

I don't believe quantum interpretation is necessarily an unsolvable problem, or at least one where people can't find consensus as they do in other scientific areas.

Those other fields typically aren't complete black boxes. — substantivalism

But some probably were at one point.

I can give a picture of a virus, end of story. I can't of an electron without a tremendous amount of speculative holistic open-ended philosophical interpretation to even analyze the output of said detector. — substantivalism

Quantum interpretation is the way it is because there are many problems. A good way of gauging a good interpretation is how it plugs those gaps. I don't think an interpretation needs to necessarily be validated in terms of empirical predictions that others don't make. It just needs to plug conceptual gaps others don't plug satisfactorily. I think those gaps are pluggable in principle.

It is impossible to communicate with someone who doesn't understand the difference between the Big Bang theory, and a metaphor for accepting the theory blindly with no reasoning or evidence which is similar attitude of blindly accepting the creation of the world episode in Genesis of the Old Testament. — Corvus

No it’s just that you don’t get it and are starting pointless arguments.

I can give a picture of a virus, end of story. I can't of an electron without a tremendous amount of speculative holistic open-ended philosophical interpretation to even analyze the output of said detector. — substantivalism

Well no, philosophy isn’t required and just kicks up the data since philosophers don’t understand what’s going on.

Stuff like this just reinforces my stance that science has advanced beyond philosophy in terms of explanations and knowledge.

There doesn't have to be a consensus because it makes no sense to ask which is 'right' or 'wrong'. Nor does it make sense to ask which is 'closer' to how it really is.

If you want some populist preference to be made clear on a purely subjective affair then sure but otherwise its still entirely up to you as it would be for every person on that ivory tower jury. — substantivalism

Science is consensus, that’s how it works. It makes perfect sense which is right or wrong because one explains the data and the other doesn’t.

The problem with QM is that while the math and data are iron clad trying to explain it is tough. New discoveries might prove some interpretations and invalidate others, but until then it’s largely unknown.

But it’s not a purely subjective affair, that’s just stupid. It’s not up to you because you know nothing about the subject. Like…this has to be the dumbest take I’ve heard on the subject so far.

Not to mention that none of this is relevant to my original post. Though it’s proving my point that philosophical speculation on this stuff is just noise.

Well no, philosophy isn’t required and just kicks up the data since philosophers don’t understand what’s going on. — Darkneos

Define understanding here as I'm curious if you have in mind what scientific philosophers have in mind when they say that we 'understand' something.

Stuff like this just reinforces my stance that science has advanced beyond philosophy in terms of explanations and knowledge. — Darkneos

In what sense?

Either science only deals in manipulating nature and observational results with NO speculation on the going on of the world beyond our senses therefore being rather explicitly tautological. That or it still indulges in speculative 'nonsense' separate from any observable foundations even conceivably and therefore it indulges in what I'd consider metaphysics.

Science is consensus, that’s how it works. It makes perfect sense which is right or wrong because one explains the data and the other doesn’t. — Darkneos

How does a mathematical model 'explain' the data? Given physics specifically is really only concerned with mathematically modeling nature and manipulating it to pre-desired or predicted outcomes.

A mathematical model fits to the data and possesses what others call empirical adequacy as regard counterfactual predictions but that's it. All these 'interpretations' talking about particle/wave duality, electrons, gluons, quantum fields, or spacetime are philosophical speculation at best or poetic nonsense at worst.

Ergo, if you wanted non-philosophical science it would be a rather bland one devoid of all speculation and only ever referencing a particular symbol on the black board or a reading on a detector. All other language would have to be interpreted as mental slight of hand to mean the same thing.

The problem with QM is that while the math and data are iron clad trying to explain it is tough. New discoveries might prove some interpretations and invalidate others, but until then it’s largely unknown. — Darkneos

If its unknown then what is it that science has over philosophy?

They are both in the same boat being unable to avoid pointless speculation as every popular science journal, documentary, or youtuber showcases on a daily basis.

But it’s not a purely subjective affair, that’s just stupid. It’s not up to you because you know nothing about the subject. Like…this has to be the dumbest take I’ve heard on the subject so far. — Darkneos

How does a mathematical model which accords with observations get an interpretation?

YOU SPECULATE ON HOW NATURE WORKS! That is why a SINGLE MATHEMATICAL model can have MULTIPLE inconsistent philosophical interpretations which can all agree on the same observations.

In fact, your perspective doesn't seem to be able to handle the simple situation in which the accepted observational status of a certain phenomenon and how its mathematically modeled is well 'understood' but the interpretation of it is therefore still left up to disagreement so potentially THOUSANDS can be created. Note that no future observations are going to bolster one over another because we are attempting to ascertain the meaning of the SAME model about what this implies about how reality works.

Interpretations are entirely subjective and largely pragmatic. YES, science indulges in such nonsense all the time from textbook to textbook as taught to new upcoming physicists on a yearly basis.

Define understanding here as I'm curious if you have in mind what scientific philosophers have in mind when they say that we 'understand' something. — substantivalism

I don't really care because half of what they have to say isn't worth listening to.

Either science only deals in manipulating nature and observational results with NO speculation on the going on of the world beyond our senses therefore being rather explicitly tautological. That or it still indulges in speculative 'nonsense' separate from any observable foundations even conceivably and therefore it indulges in what I'd consider metaphysics. — substantivalism

Or none of that. The whole "world beyond our senses" is just noise from philosophy. What we see is the world and based on the data we have there is no reason to think otherwise. Our senses are fallible but that's what science is for, and it have often shown our intuitions to be mistaken.

How does a mathematical model 'explain' the data? Given physics specifically is really only concerned with mathematically modeling nature and manipulating it to pre-desired or predicted outcomes. — substantivalism

no that's not what physics is about.

Ergo, if you wanted non-philosophical science it would be a rather bland one devoid of all speculation and only ever referencing a particular symbol on the black board or a reading on a detector. All other language would have to be interpreted as mental slight of hand to mean the same thing. — substantivalism

We have non-philosophical science, it's done every day. This nitpicking isn't really yielding anything valuable, this is why I think in terms of science philosophy does nothing. With ethics and morality sure but not science.

Interpretations are entirely subjective and largely pragmatic. YES, science indulges in such nonsense all the time from textbook to textbook as taught to new upcoming physicists on a yearly basis. — substantivalism

Wrong again and kinda shows you don't understand what quantum interpretations are.

YOU SPECULATE ON HOW NATURE WORKS! That is why a SINGLE MATHEMATICAL model can have MULTIPLE inconsistent philosophical interpretations which can all agree on the same observations. — substantivalism

Interpretations aren't philosophical dumbass. We know how nature works based on the math and data, trying to put that into regular speak is the issue.

If its unknown then what is it that science has over philosophy? — substantivalism

Results and data...I would think that's obvious. Philosophy ultimately has nothing at the end of the day. I get that people suggest it has value here and how it teaches you how to think but all my experience with it just shows how pointless 80% of the discussions in it are.

The most worthless question I've heard is "Why is there something rather than nothing"? Who cares? There is something and that's all that matters.

I don't really care because half of what they have to say isn't worth listening to. — Darkneos

Arrogance is showing a good peak here rivaling mine. Perhaps I should be the adult in the conversation here.

Or none of that. The whole "world beyond our senses" is just noise from philosophy. What we see is the world and based on the data we have there is no reason to think otherwise. Our senses are fallible but that's what science is for, and it have often shown our intuitions to be mistaken. — Darkneos

What are you even disagreeing with me on?

I'm not some esoteric solipsist or a poetic nonsense speaking idealist. I'm a pragmatist and a person who sees philosophy as ultimately conventionalized language games. That doesn't mean we shouldn't partake in it or that you don't ALREADY partake in it even if you say 'you don't'.

no that's not what physics is about. — Darkneos

If its not about manipulating nature, constructing predictive mathematical models, or making new observations then what else?

Are you talking about how physics is also meant to explain how things actually work beyond the math, observations, or practical engineering applications?

If its meant to explain why something occurs then your going to need a proper language and collection of metaphors to do so otherwise nobody will think you even understand what your even talking about. They may even consider it nonsense if you literally have no intuitive picture you can draw of how something works without resorting to esoteric cop outs such as 'nature is too strange' or 'nature doesn't need to make sense to us'.

We have non-philosophical science, it's done every day. — Darkneos

Yes, because you don't need to consider any questions or speculation about how the world actually works or what language one should use to talk about it if all you have is a 'shut up and calculate' mentality.

Interpretations aren't philosophical dumbass. We know how nature works based on the math and data, trying to put that into regular speak is the issue. — Darkneos

Oh we know how nature works we just can't put into the right words. . . so a language choice is required. . . its as if we need to have a discussion about what terms we use. . . you know. . . indulge in a language game of sorts.

Results and data...I would think that's obvious. Philosophy ultimately has nothing at the end of the day. I get that people suggest it has value here and how it teaches you how to think but all my experience with it just shows how pointless 80% of the discussions in it are.

The most worthless question I've heard is "Why is there something rather than nothing"? Who cares? There is something and that's all that matters. — Darkneos

Neither does science then if the problem is that IT DOESN'T have any coherent picture or as you put it, '. . . regular speak is the issue.'

If I ask you what these well supported or empirically adequate mathematical models of any phenomenon even mean or what they are getting at and you can't tell me because its 'difficult to put into words' then you have explained nothing to me. You have only given me a rather successful DESCRIPTION and not what I'd intuitively call an explanation.

IF YOU WANT to give me a proper language to actually yield an explanation, not a mere description, this requires making use of numerous conventional linguistic choices that are not going to always be as objectively clear as you desire.

Arrogance is showing a good peak here rivaling mine. Perhaps I should be the adult in the conversation here — substantivalism

It’s just facts. Most of the nonsense I heard around this is just misunderstanding the science.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't partake in it or that you don't ALREADY partake in it even if you say 'you don't — substantivalism

That’s actually a good reason to not partake in it and why I don’t.

If its meant to explain why something occurs then your going to need a proper language and collection of metaphors to do so otherwise nobody will think you even understand what your even talking about. — substantivalism

No it doesn’t. Like I said we have data and it adds up. This is really only an issue with QM where things are harder to figure because it’s still pretty new.

Oh we know how nature works we just can't put into the right words. . . so a language choice is required. . . its as if we need to have a discussion about what terms we use. . . you know. . . indulge in a language game of sorts. — substantivalism

Wrong again. It’s not really the terms it’s just trying to translate the math to people speak. The problem is that much of QM is still unknown, even this locality stuff. This is already far removed from the OP.

Neither does science then if the problem is that IT DOESN'T have any coherent picture or as you put it, '. . . regular speak is the issue.' — substantivalism

It does, but in the case of QM you need a degree to understand it. Even then they don’t fully know everything because there’s much to cover.

Like…this entire reply was just noise and trying to give philosophy more due and use than it really has when it comes to this.

What is meant by the universe being non locally real? — Darkneos

Suppose spacetime is fundamentally entangled ...

No it doesn’t. Like I said we have data and it adds up. — Darkneos

To what, it adds up to what? That the mathematical model is predictively successful?

Wrong again. It’s not really the terms it’s just trying to translate the math to people speak. — Darkneos

So you are trying to find the right terms to interpret a mathematical model. Language games again.

It does, but in the case of QM you need a degree to understand it. — Darkneos

These mental tools do not need a degree for someone to fully analyze it or get it on first viewing.

When a scientist has constructed explanations of phenomena they make use of something other than purely descriptive or mathematical terms. They use an assortment of analogies to other phenomenon.

Usually going along the same lines as saying 'let us treat light as if it were a wave', 'imagine that the electron is small ball and the nucleus is a dense collection', or 'pretend that atoms in lattices are balls connected by springs'.

These are analogue modeling which is extremely prevalent and a fundamental fiction creating tool which physicists use all the time.

Analogy creation isn't always so clean nor is it unique among mathematical models. As multiple formal analogies into physical analogies can be created.

I'd say that is all that the majority of what a scientific interpretation of a theory is composed of.

How else would you explain to someone what a mathematical model even means when there are no familiar, direct, and meaningful concepts?