In order to minimize semantic entanglements, I propose that there is a sense
in which Physics both "explains" and "describes" reality. What does it mean
to "explain"?
I propose that to explain means to describe in terms of ideas already
explained. We avoid a "regressio ad infinitum" only by ending with
something which needs no explanation, either by definition (God) or because
we have grown used to it and have ceased to question it.
In all of this the criterion is not "truth", but usefulness for
describing/explaining reality in human terms (ie.; ultimately God and/or
other accepted notions/processes). This includes both empirical and
conceptual usefulness. Note that the usefulness criterion is not
fundamentally disturbed by the assertion that the axioms are "unexplained".
-Bob
Todhunter, Isaac (1820 - 1910):
[Asked whether he would like to see an experimental demonstration of conical
refraction]
"No. I have been teaching it all my life, and I do not want to have my ideas
upset."