The hollow universe of modern physics

I'm confused what the author is arguing against to a degree that leads me believe it a strawman. Physics is about building models that predict real-world phenomenon, and that is all it is.

&gt;But physics did so precisely by deliberately confining its attention to those aspects of nature susceptible of an exact mathematical treatment.<p>What aspects aren&#x27;t?

Lots of hand waving that &quot;physics doesn&#x27;t tell the full story of what&#x27;s going on&quot; without acute, specific, and accurate examples. The examples he gives are of ancient times (when &quot;color&quot;, &quot;sound&quot; couldn&#x27;t be explained.) Those examples are very clearly and perfectly described by modern physics.<p>What is the actual argument? I think this author simply felt like writing something, and when they didn&#x27;t have anything to say, they went ahead and wrote the article anyway.

TLDR: &quot;Modern physics doesn&#x27;t know all answers, I know that there are some unexplainable things therefore I wrote an article&quot;.

Ed Feser is a known lunatic. You only need to look up his comments on same sex marriage for evidence. That doesn’t <i>necessarily</i> mean he’s a lunatic about physics but I’d be hesitant before investing a lot of time in him.<p>There are lots of good philosophers of physics who are not (to my knowledge) lunatics: David Albert, David Malament, Marc Lange are three. Sean Carroll is a physicist with philosophical interests. There are better sources than this one.