Is nature logical? & Definition Of Non-Existence
franz heymann
Mike <no....@please.com> wrote in message
news:bB_K7.51809$lV4.7...@e420r-atl1.usenetserver.com...
>
> "neoprog" <sweet...@hotmail.com> wrote
> >
> > If you were to use of logic alone, you'd have to generate your own
> > premisses which of course would lead nowhere since you'd have
nothing
> > to fuel logic with except premisses you elaborate on your own. The
> > result is easily imaginable :)
> > (nothing of interrest).
>
> It might be possible to derive physics from logic.
That is precisely where the ancient greeks went wrong. Science has
moved irreversibly in a different direction since then. Contemplating
your navel will not tell you anything about the laws of physics.
[Snip]
Franz Heymann
Mike
"franz heymann" <franz....@care4free.net> wrote
> > It might be possible to derive physics from logic.
>
> That is precisely where the ancient greeks went wrong. Science has
> moved irreversibly in a different direction since then. Contemplating
> your navel will not tell you anything about the laws of physics.
>
If we did not have the tools of logic, we could discern nothing about the
nature of reality. We use the tools of logic to discern the nature of events
and the relationship between facts. It would be inconsistent to then think
that reality could produce something illogical. That would negate the tools
themselves and leave you no method of discerning anything. We have already
accepted by its use that nature is ultimately logical as we have defined
logic. For otherwise we would not use it.
Buy the way, didn't the ancient Greeks deduce the existence of atoms long
before we could observe them? If there is an error in logic it is incurred
when they start applying contingencies to the principles. The error is
incurred when we start assuming the existence of things as the basis for the
existence of other things without even trying to discern the necessity of
the premise to begin with. But if something can be deduced from nothing more
than logic itself, no contingencies, then how can you argue with it? That
would be equivalent to arguing against the rules of argumentation itself.
And that would disqualify you from the debate altogether.
Dirk Bruere
"franz heymann" <franz....@care4free.net> wrote in message
news:3bfcd37e$0$237$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com...
> >
> > It might be possible to derive physics from logic.
> That is precisely where the ancient greeks went wrong. Science has
> moved irreversibly in a different direction since then. Contemplating
> your navel will not tell you anything about the laws of physics.
Not so.
'I think therefore I am' must contain minimalist elements of computer
theory, and at least supply constraints on hardware possibilities.
Whether it is in fact possible to derive much physics from the above is
currently unknown, unless you have a working definition of the requirements
for consciousness.
Dirk
tadchem
<snip repoat>
> It might be possible to derive physics from logic.
Not.
Goedel's Undecidability Theorem.
In brief, "all consistent axiomatic formulations of logic include
undecidable propositions."
Physics requires (through the Principle of Empiricism) all propositions to
be decidable through experimentation.
It follows that physics is not a "consistent axiomatic formulation of
logic."
Q.E.D.
Tom Davidson
Brighton, CO
franz heymann
You are missing the point that any logical sequence of deductions in
physics has to start with a set of postulates. The postulates, and
not the deductions from them, are what are being proposed as the laws
of nature.
Franz Heymann
>
>
franz heymann
Dirk Bruere <art...@kbnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:h99L7.1668$7W5.3...@news11-gui.server.ntli.net...
You have not succeeded in proving any law of physics.
Franz Heymann
Dirk Bruere
> > > > It might be possible to derive physics from logic.
> >
> > > That is precisely where the ancient greeks went wrong. Science
> has
> > > moved irreversibly in a different direction since then.
> Contemplating
> > > your navel will not tell you anything about the laws of physics.
> >
> > Not so.
> > 'I think therefore I am' must contain minimalist elements of
> computer
> > theory, and at least supply constraints on hardware possibilities.
> >
> > Whether it is in fact possible to derive much physics from the above
> is
> > currently unknown, unless you have a working definition of the
> requirements
> > for consciousness.
>
> You have not succeeded in proving any law of physics.
You don't consider that information processing capacity tells one anything
about any laws of physics? It tells me that (for example) at least one
dimension exists, given that the above statement is a sequence.
Dirk
Dirk Bruere
"tadchem" <tadche...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:rmdL7.2913$oF.3...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > It might be possible to derive physics from logic.
>
> Not.
>
> Goedel's Undecidability Theorem.
>
> In brief, "all consistent axiomatic formulations of logic include
> undecidable propositions."
>
> Physics requires (through the Principle of Empiricism) all propositions to
> be decidable through experimentation.
>
> It follows that physics is not a "consistent axiomatic formulation of
> logic."
It remains to be seen whether or not physics 'turtles all the way down' ala
Godel, or whether ultimately a TOE can be experimentally tested.
Dirk
Dirk Bruere
>
>
> You are missing the point that any logical sequence of deductions in
> physics has to start with a set of postulates. The postulates, and
> not the deductions from them, are what are being proposed as the laws
> of nature.
And a TOE would have how many postulates?
Dirk
Gregory C Wynacht
Gero Crucifix carved in Germany. High gothic architectural stained glass
alignments, the mathematics of Sriyantra, Holy Grail. " But" the "CELTIC
CROSS" stand in testifies. Look up, Franklin mint.con go to dazzling Gems,
look for(the power emerald isle CE CROSS RING). I mead no more proof then
this. There on the cross of rings illustrating is a three dimensional atomic
wake path, inscribed two dimensionally. My work is completely 'constructed'
with this form. For the twenty four-orbit codes I gave to many freely. Is
the sequence platform to genome sequencing. The twenty-four orbits consist
of circles, if you are using the polymersase chain to conduct the alignment.
Start with the secant set of GC the third column, then go to the twelfth
column there you will find a CG draw a circle throw those two columns. On
the circle draw a little arrow head of direction stating to the circle that
it can only rotated in one direction. Now go to column five AT and draw
circle with column ten TA and put little arrow on it but reverse the
direction. Ta will have one direction and GA has the other this will be the
rule for all pairs of the twenty-four circles. You can pick the arrow
direction coming from A going to G if you want. Go to first column GC draw
circle to six column CG. Continue (7+9GC to CG). On graft paper number
four-eight columns accost, On column 30 write G on top of C column 31 A on
top of T. continue 32(GC) 33(AT) 34(AT) 35(CG) 36(GC) 37(AT) 38(CG) 39(TA)
40(TA) 41(CG) 42(AT) 43(CG) 44(TA) 45(GC). Now apply the work you have on to
graft paper. Put first circle I called column three and twelve on to the
graft paper aliened to column 32 and 41. So lets just draw the circles on
the graft paper now where you can see were the Polymerase chain lies on to
the graft. Start by putting circles into the columns. (2-7) (4-6) (5-12)
(8-17) (16-25) (10-15) (11-13) (14-19) (18-23) (20-22) (21-28) (24-33)
(26-31) (30-35) (32-41) (34-39) (36-38) (37-44) (42-47) (43-45). (((Utile)))
what about1 or 3, 9, 40, and 48. When ever you find the clue to the dilemma
it changes the complete illustration. The answer to this dilemma is, it is
not a liner chain. It is like a necklace. The chain interlinks its self at
this point it will appear that way at least to draw it no two dimensional
paper. How this is done, take two peaces of paper, cut them into two equal
squares. Put one on top of the other, turn one till you have eight points
pivoted from the centers of the papers. Lay this on top of a graft paper
trace out side edges. On the graft paper you will have six teen lines. On
each line mark three points, space them out. You end up with four-eight
points, number then 1 to 48. Start out with one of the outward points from
center going inward 1-2-3 on one line. nest line 4-5-6, six being the out
word. Continue until 48 are the last before one, like a car rotor cap.
Latter you will find that it takes two grafts, vertical and horizontal
overlaid with a six, six, six. Count to find proper spacing for the
forty-eight points. But for now just eyeball the spacing best as you can.
Now on the 48 points apply the circles, this is where you get the flower of
saying you got something there from ancient times. On a pyramid for gush
shakes what the hell dose that mean. Now you may find new clues in your
dilemma of alignments in the schematic, each time opening new diagrams. When
one finds the clue, like the outward circles and inward circles instead of
given you twenty-four cycles there are forty-eight cycles instead. I gave
you that clue when I talk about spacing earlier. Now from the get go I saw
tree schematic possibilities. Apply these factures and it takes you on this
joinery. Apply different. Factures you get a different set of equations.
Example, the omega code is a book that can be decoded on its own path of
schematic, totally different set of diagrams. I even gave clue to its with
work I fax to the Nation Instituted of Health, Bill Clinton And Brian
freeman that work for the New York Times. But when I had a phone from Bill
Clinton's top aid speaking for bill Clinton. When she asked for my mom for
me to send all I had to Bill Clinton I just gave my last copy away to
friends, to put in there safe, for someday this might get in court. It toke
me four hours to construct copies for him. One reason it took so long was I
added a bonus besides sequencing platform I added two pages of the cue to
the book platform. But when I add the bones I had destroyed all copies of
the work on the book pages I had created by hand no computer one of the
pages I stumbled on was so clear one could see it was describing
interdiction of construction of its self. Put this long story short is to
say what I gave them was a badly illustrated mess, even the spelling.
My proof is no the Holy Grail to that sequencing key the twenty-four round
ball necklace is rapt around. Now when orbit key that was composted from the
(polymersase Chain Reaction) by Kary B, Mullis I created after reading
SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN and kary stated it time for the grate minds of math take
over, I did. Twenty- four hours latter the code was complete only with gods
help. I could see some how in my third eye I that the code meads to be
overlaid on to some type star form. As I was working no that part of the
puzzle. Some people showed up to my house to interrupted me and as I was
talking to them there was change on their floorboards of their car. Knowing
they had little money I picked it up and showed it to them. As we were
looking at the coins, a strange coin was in the pile. It was the "CHERIFIEN
FRANC" coin. I applied the orbit code to the Illustration and it created the
FLOWER OF LIFE. By the way the words on the coin say you are god. Anyways
there for the genome sequencing has been born from the past. What I have in
my hands is the "NUCLEUS AND CELL DIVISION" worked out on AutoCAD. With the
"CULTIC CROSS" emulating its self in the composure saying to every one, what
I have is correct. On the Celtic cross on the ring you may have looked up on
the web site inlayed is the math of my theory. If you want a copy of my
atomic theory or this work of the flower of life ask the White House, time
magazine or scientific American, national instituted of health or the
universities. If they still have the ones I sent them last year I sent to
them even thought I an a grammar fool dose this mean I am stupid I just read
a different languish thank god. Gregory C Wynacht in Eureka Mt, po box 1322.
Shore wish I had a way to patent. My question is why didn't they tell you
all this? It's not that hard to explain this this genome sequencing stuff.
What are they hiding? Ps over lay a pitcher of a neutron star and what I
composed, and the cues to the right genome program begins. On a neutron star
you have two vacuums and a band. Turn it side ways you have a cross. Over
lay a pitcher of a neutron star pitcher on to 144,000 wake paths condense in
to a like kind, string ball conformation pattern of the nucleus data program
constructed on AutoCAD I have conformed. It will give you proper genome
sequencing platform. Align pitcher to same like construction in program
construction. On to were the Celtic cross aperies in the construction mass.
"Mike" <no....@please.com> wrote in message
news:hf8L7.54354$lV4.7...@e420r-atl1.usenetserver.com...
Mike
"franz heymann" <franz....@care4free.net> wrote
>
> You are missing the point that any logical sequence of deductions in
> physics has to start with a set of postulates. The postulates, and
> not the deductions from them, are what are being proposed as the laws
> of nature.
It would be presumptuous to just assume a set of postulates without reason
for them. But if you do have reason for the postulates, then you have
discovered new postulates. That is why we are continually revising our
theories, because our postulates keep changing. How can you deny that
logical consistency is not a postulate when you keep using it to determine
the nature of reality?
Mike
proves how the universe was created. We will have to settle for consistency
instead.
Godels theorem only applies to discrete, countable systems of arithmetic.
There's no evidence that his theorem applies to continuous systems.
tadchem
"Dirk Bruere" <art...@kbnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:78eL7.2786$7W5.5...@news11-gui.server.ntli.net...
<snip>
> It remains to be seen whether or not physics 'turtles all the way down'
ala
> Godel, or whether ultimately a TOE can be experimentally tested.
The implication of "turtles all the way down" is that physics cannot be
described by a finite set of axioms. There are no mathematical or logical
descriptions of systems in which there are infinite sets of axioms.
I would conjecture that such a system would exhibit a logical contradiction,
although it may not be possible to prove that any such system must contain a
logical contradiction.
The implication of empiricism is that any theory must in principle be
testable, that the test may in principle be carried out by any competent and
suitable equipped investigator, and that the results will be repeatable.
This property of testability is coextensive with the definition of "physical
theory;" any theory that is not in principle testable in this manner is not
a physical theory. One must, in principle, be able to test whether or not
there is a turtle who is standing on something other than another turtle.
Tom Davidson
Brighton, CO
tadchem
<snip>
> And a TOE would have how many postulates?
As many as needed, and no more - Occam's Razor applies.
Tom Davidson
Brighton, CO
Dirk Bruere
> >
> > It remains to be seen whether or not physics 'turtles all the way down'
> ala
> > Godel, or whether ultimately a TOE can be experimentally tested.
> >
> It would take all the energy in the universe to generate the experiment
that
> proves how the universe was created. We will have to settle for
consistency
> instead.
>
> Godels theorem only applies to discrete, countable systems of arithmetic.
> There's no evidence that his theorem applies to continuous systems.
The work being done with respect to a TOE is generally moving in the
direction of discrete everything.
Dirk
Dirk Bruere
> > It remains to be seen whether or not physics 'turtles all the way down'
> ala
> > Godel, or whether ultimately a TOE can be experimentally tested.
>
> The implication of "turtles all the way down" is that physics cannot be
> described by a finite set of axioms. There are no mathematical or logical
> descriptions of systems in which there are infinite sets of axioms.
>
> I would conjecture that such a system would exhibit a logical
contradiction,
> although it may not be possible to prove that any such system must contain
a
> logical contradiction.
>
> The implication of empiricism is that any theory must in principle be
> testable, that the test may in principle be carried out by any competent
and
> suitable equipped investigator, and that the results will be repeatable.
>
> This property of testability is coextensive with the definition of
"physical
> theory;" any theory that is not in principle testable in this manner is
not
> a physical theory. One must, in principle, be able to test whether or not
> there is a turtle who is standing on something other than another turtle.
Then as a worst case we might end up with no testable physics, but competing
sets of mathematical theologies.
Dirk
Mike
The "theories" are just mathematical expressions. And we hope measurements
will be as predicted by the theory.
Mike
>
> "Dirk Bruere" <art...@kbnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:tFeL7.2860$7W5.5...@news11-gui.server.ntli.net...
>
> <snip>
>
> > And a TOE would have how many postulates?
>
> As many as needed, and no more - Occam's Razor applies.
Since when was Occam's Razor deduced from logic?
Mike
The quantized values are the result of differential equations with respect
to continuous variables.
tadchem
longest single paragraph. Your paragraph exceeds any of his in length.
I also felt at that time that breaking one's manuscript up into small
paragraphs of only a few simple sentences produces a great improvement in
readability. I still feel the same.
In physics it is of critical importance to be able to communicate precisely
and unambiguously. You use many phrases and word groupings that "sound"
scientific, but have no exact technical meaning: "atomic wake path", "twenty
four-orbit codes", "using the polymersase chain to conduct the alignment",
and many more.
There is no web site called "Franklin mint.con" (the phrase "Freudian slip"
comes to mind). The site "Franklinmint.com" contains no reference to "CE
CROSS RING" that their search engine could find.
You are evidently describing a graphic that is not provided, yet would seem
essential to grasping your meaning. Hence, you obfuscate you own ideas.
"Self-defeating" would be an understatement.
Whatever possessed you to believe this **** would be of interest to
physicists?
Tom Davidson
Brighton, CO
"Gregory C Wynacht" <genom...@interbel.net> wrote in message
news:9tk3no$518q$1...@news3.infoave.net...
> Sphinx, sacred geometry flower of life, High Gothic life-sized, statue.
The
> Gero Crucifix carved in Germany. High gothic architectural stained glass
> alignments, the mathematics of Sriyantra, Holy Grail. " But" the "CELTIC
> CROSS" stand in testifies. Look up, Franklin mint.con go to dazzling Gems,
> look for(the power emerald isle CE CROSS RING). I mead no more proof then
> this. There on the cross of rings illustrating is a three dimensional
atomic
> wake path, inscribed two dimensionally. My work is completely
'constructed'
> with this form. For the twenty four-orbit codes I gave to many freely. Is
> the sequence platform to genome sequencing. The twenty-four orbits consist
> of circles, if you are using the polymersase chain to conduct the
alignment.
<flush>
<snip repost>
Mike
If all such mathematical theologies produce the same predictions, then they
are mathematically equivalent. If not, then one contradicts the other which
we should hope would be over a prediction that IS testable.
Dirk Bruere
>
> > And a TOE would have how many postulates?
>
> As many as needed, and no more - Occam's Razor applies.
And the crux of the problem is:
How do we know that is the minimum number?
Dirk
Dirk Bruere
>
> > > > It remains to be seen whether or not physics 'turtles all the way
> down'
> > > ala
> > > > Godel, or whether ultimately a TOE can be experimentally tested.
> > > >
> > > It would take all the energy in the universe to generate the
experiment
> > that
> > > proves how the universe was created. We will have to settle for
> > consistency
> > > instead.
> > >
> > > Godels theorem only applies to discrete, countable systems of
> arithmetic.
> > > There's no evidence that his theorem applies to continuous systems.
> >
> > The work being done with respect to a TOE is generally moving in the
> > direction of discrete everything.
>
> The quantized values are the result of differential equations with respect
> to continuous variables.
I don't really think that this approach will work in the end.
We may get a better theory, but not a TOE.
Without having any proof, I feel that Nature is discreet and finite.
Dirk
Neo 1061
into the Matrix and remarked thus:
>> > I would conjecture that such a system would exhibit a logical
>> contradiction,
>> > although it may not be possible to prove that any such system must
>contain
>> a
>> > logical contradiction.
How so? Consider a consistent system S, complex enough to have an
undecidable proposition P_S. Add P_S or its negation as an axiom to
get a consistent system S'. Obviously this has an undecidable as well.
Continue in this way to get more elaborate systems. Take the union to
have an infinite but consistent set of axioms.
Assuming that at every step we just found 1 undecidable pair of
statements (each the other's negation), we can in fact get card(R)
distinct such infinite consistent sets of axioms!
--
Pbatenghyngvbaf! Ol qrpelcgvat guvf zrffntr lbh unir ivbyngrq gur Qvtvgny
Zvyyraavhz Pbclevtug Npg.
Take my handle, turn the space into an underscore, and add "@hotmail.com"
to get my email.
tadchem
<snip>
> Then as a worst case we might end up with no testable physics, but
competing
> sets of mathematical theologies.
Physics exists. Testability exists. Without testability, what you are doing
is not physics.
The subject matter of mathematics is provable.
The subject matter of theology must be taken on faith.
Any questions?
Tom Davidson
Brighton, CO
tadchem
<snip>
> Since when was Occam's Razor deduced from logic?
Since when is physics perfectly logical? Empiricism, as a principle of
physics, is not logical, but it ensures consistency - with what we like to
call "physical reality."
Tom Davidson
Brighton, CO
Mike
"Dirk Bruere" <art...@kbnet.co.uk> wrote
> > > The work being done with respect to a TOE is generally moving in the
> > > direction of discrete everything.
> >
> > The quantized values are the result of differential equations with
respect
> > to continuous variables.
>
> I don't really think that this approach will work in the end.
> We may get a better theory, but not a TOE.
> Without having any proof, I feel that Nature is discreet and finite.
Well, of course, we can use the Dirac delta function to make discrete values
out of continuous distribution.
Mike
"Neo 1061" <inv...@erehwon.invalid> wrote in message
news:3bfdc057....@news.primus.ca...
> On Thu, 22 Nov 2001 20:30:17 -0500, "Mike" <no....@please.com> jacked
> into the Matrix and remarked thus:
>
> >> > I would conjecture that such a system would exhibit a logical
> >> contradiction,
> >> > although it may not be possible to prove that any such system must
> >contain
> >> a
> >> > logical contradiction.
>
> How so? Consider a consistent system S, complex enough to have an
> undecidable proposition P_S. Add P_S or its negation as an axiom to
> get a consistent system S'. Obviously this has an undecidable as well.
> Continue in this way to get more elaborate systems. Take the union to
> have an infinite but consistent set of axioms.
>
> Assuming that at every step we just found 1 undecidable pair of
> statements (each the other's negation), we can in fact get card(R)
> distinct such infinite consistent sets of axioms!
How can you know if you have a consistent system if you don't know if you
have a complete system? The next axiom you add may be inconsistent with the
rest. So how can you justify the assumption that you have a consistent
system?
Mike
>
> "Mike" <no....@please.com> wrote in message
> news:SuhL7.54801$lV4.7...@e420r-atl1.usenetserver.com...
>
> <snip>
>
> > Since when was Occam's Razor deduced from logic?
>
> Since when is physics perfectly logical?
Since we have never observe or expect to ever observe a direct provable
contradition in the facts of reality.
> Empiricism, as a principle of
> physics, is not logical, but it ensures consistency - with what we like to
> call "physical reality."
Consistency is just another name for logic.
The Scarlet Manuka
> "franz heymann" <franz....@care4free.net> wrote
>
> > moved irreversibly in a different direction since then. Contemplating
> > your navel will not tell you anything about the laws of physics.
> Buy the way, didn't the ancient Greeks deduce the existence of atoms long
> before we could observe them?
No, and this is precisely Franz's point. The Greeks were split into
two camps; one camp believed that you could subdivide indefinitely,
and the other that there was a limit to subdivision. Neither camp
had any evidence for their views, it was just a matter of philosophy
and aesthetics. We remember Democritus because he turned out to be
right in the end, but he was just lucky.
The success of science would not have been possible if we had retained
the Greek attitude that physical truth can be correctly determined
through contemplation and debate.
--
The Scarlet Manuka
Mike
"The Scarlet Manuka" <sa...@maths.uwa.edu.au> wrote in message
news:9tkgnu$1rt$1...@fang.dsto.defence.gov.au...
It seems to me that the ancient Greeks failed because they were still
reasoning from contingency, applying logic to facts, without deriving facts
from logic. They did not have the tools to impose a math on logic to come up
with a necessary development of generalized facts. How can you argue with
logic? That would only disqualify one from the debate. For that would negate
the very principles of reason and discernment.
The Scarlet Manuka
> "Neo 1061" <inv...@erehwon.invalid> wrote in message
> news:3bfdc057....@news.primus.ca...
> >
> > undecidable proposition P_S. Add P_S or its negation as an axiom to
> > get a consistent system S'. Obviously this has an undecidable as well.
> > Continue in this way to get more elaborate systems. Take the union to
> > have an infinite but consistent set of axioms.
>
> have a complete system? The next axiom you add may be inconsistent with
the
> rest. So how can you justify the assumption that you have a consistent
> system?
I'm not sure why you say this. At each stage we add an axiom that is not
decidable from the previous ones; that is, both S u {P_S} and S u {P_S'}
are consistent systems. There is a well-defined method for producing
such a P_S from S, given that S is complex enough. So the construction
works.
In other words, if S u {P_S} was not a consistent system, P_S would not
be undecidable in S.
--
The Scarlet Manuka
The Scarlet Manuka
> "tadchem" <tadche...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:KxjL7.3660$eT3.3...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > "Mike" <no....@please.com> wrote in message
> > news:SuhL7.54801$lV4.7...@e420r-atl1.usenetserver.com...
> >
> > Since when is physics perfectly logical?
> Since we have never observe or expect to ever observe a direct provable
> contradition in the facts of reality.
> Consistency is just another name for logic.
But it is well-known, for instance, that the current major accepted
theories (GR and QM) contradict each other when we get to the
interesting bits; thus, while we expect reality to be consistent,
it doesn't follow that the (partial) descriptions and theories we
develop will also be consistent. Indeed, removing inconsistencies
usually heralds a major advance, as for instance QM did in removing
such inconsistencies as the expected but not observed energy loss
of an orbiting charged particle.
--
The Scarlet Manuka
The Scarlet Manuka
> "The Scarlet Manuka" <sa...@maths.uwa.edu.au> wrote in message
> news:9tkgnu$1rt$1...@fang.dsto.defence.gov.au...
> >
> > the Greek attitude that physical truth can be correctly determined
> > through contemplation and debate.
>
> It seems to me that the ancient Greeks failed because they were still
> reasoning from contingency, applying logic to facts, without deriving
facts
> from logic.
That's interesting; it seems to me that they failed because they did
precisely the reverse -- supposing that what seemed logical must be
factual. And conflating 'logical' and 'aesthetically appealing'.
> They did not have the tools to impose a math on logic to come up
> with a necessary development of generalized facts.
I'm not sure what you mean by that. What is a generalised fact?
> How can you argue with logic? That would only disqualify one from
> the debate. For that would negate the very principles of reason
> and discernment.
The problem is that there are usually very many logically consistent
possibilities, only one of which is correct. This one may not be one
that springs to mind naturally, so starting with a logical framework
and building on it may lead you to a completely different conclusion.
--
The Scarlet Manuka
Mike
"The Scarlet Manuka" <sa...@maths.uwa.edu.au> wrote
> > > The success of science would not have been possible if we had retained
> > > the Greek attitude that physical truth can be correctly determined
> > > through contemplation and debate.
> >
> > It seems to me that the ancient Greeks failed because they were still
> > reasoning from contingency, applying logic to facts, without deriving
> facts
> > from logic.
>
> That's interesting; it seems to me that they failed because they did
> precisely the reverse -- supposing that what seemed logical must be
> factual. And conflating 'logical' and 'aesthetically appealing'.
If I'm not mistaken, they reasoned from what particular facts may already exist
to other things that they did not know. The trouble being that they may not
have correctly described the things that already exist. In other words, their
premises were wrong from which they drew their conclusions.
>
> > They did not have the tools to impose a math on logic to come up
> > with a necessary development of generalized facts.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by that. What is a generalised fact?
A fact, when all is said and done, is discribed by a conjunction of properties
from all the possible properties that may exist. In other words, a fact is the
intersection of various sets into which we classify the various properties.
Thus an event (fact) is a region in set theory space over which we may impose
some arbitrary coordinate system to study the dynamics of it mathematically.
>
> > How can you argue with logic? That would only disqualify one from
> > the debate. For that would negate the very principles of reason
> > and discernment.
>
> The problem is that there are usually very many logically consistent
> possibilities, only one of which is correct. This one may not be one
> that springs to mind naturally, so starting with a logical framework
> and building on it may lead you to a completely different conclusion.
Yes, your conclusions can be false if your premises are incorrect. But if you
do not start with anything other than just pure principle, then your
conclusions cannot be wrong. And if no event can contradict the principles of
logic, as we assume, then it must be that all events can be derived from logic.
Mike
"The Scarlet Manuka" <sa...@maths.uwa.edu.au> wrote in message
news:9tkir3$29t$1...@fang.dsto.defence.gov.au...
> "Mike" <no....@please.com> wrote in message
> news:BIjL7.54833$lV4.7...@e420r-atl1.usenetserver.com...
> > "tadchem" <tadche...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:KxjL7.3660$eT3.3...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > > "Mike" <no....@please.com> wrote in message
> > > news:SuhL7.54801$lV4.7...@e420r-atl1.usenetserver.com...
> > >
> > > > Since when was Occam's Razor deduced from logic?
> > > Since when is physics perfectly logical?
> > Since we have never observe or expect to ever observe a direct provable
> > contradition in the facts of reality.
> [...]
> > Consistency is just another name for logic.
>
> But it is well-known, for instance, that the current major accepted
> theories (GR and QM) contradict each other when we get to the
> interesting bits; thus, while we expect reality to be consistent,
> it doesn't follow that the (partial) descriptions and theories we
> develop will also be consistent.
It may be that we have to assume that something approaches infinity or zero to
develop a workable equation for engineering purposes. It may not be exact, and
it may result in contradictions, but it may be the only way to derive a
workable equation.
However, finding equations to match the empirical data will never prove where
the equations came from to begin with. It will never answer why things are as
they are. And there will come a point where we cannot produce the energies high
enough to confirm the latest theory since it would take all the energy in the
universe to create the universe to confirm the theories of creation. But if we
always ask why and how things are logically consistent, then this is the same
as saying that things are derived from logic.
Mike
"The Scarlet Manuka" <sa...@maths.uwa.edu.au> wrote
> > > How so? Consider a consistent system S, complex enough to have an
> > > undecidable proposition P_S. Add P_S or its negation as an axiom to
> > > get a consistent system S'. Obviously this has an undecidable as well.
> > > Continue in this way to get more elaborate systems. Take the union to
> > > have an infinite but consistent set of axioms.
> >
> > How can you know if you have a consistent system if you don't know if you
> > have a complete system? The next axiom you add may be inconsistent with
> the
> > rest. So how can you justify the assumption that you have a consistent
> > system?
>
> I'm not sure why you say this. At each stage we add an axiom that is not
> decidable from the previous ones; that is, both S u {P_S} and S u {P_S'}
> are consistent systems. There is a well-defined method for producing
> such a P_S from S, given that S is complex enough. So the construction
> works.
Complexity is not the issue, it is discrete countability so that you can assign
numbers to the operators that operate on numbers so that it is possible to
construct an expression that states with numbers that "this statement is not
provable".
>
> In other words, if S u {P_S} was not a consistent system, P_S would not
> be undecidable in S.
Is this saying that every inconsistent system is complete? We can describe
everything else with inconsistencies? I don't know about that.
The Scarlet Manuka
> > decidable from the previous ones; that is, both S u {P_S} and S u {P_S'}
> > are consistent systems. There is a well-defined method for producing
> > such a P_S from S, given that S is complex enough. So the construction
> > works.
> Complexity is not the issue, it is discrete countability so that you can
assign
> numbers to the operators that operate on numbers so that it is possible to
> construct an expression that states with numbers that "this statement is
not
> provable".
Yes; "complex enough" seemed like a reasonable way of avoiding the details
while getting the essence of the idea across.
> > In other words, if S u {P_S} was not a consistent system, P_S would not
> > be undecidable in S.
> Is this saying that every inconsistent system is complete? We can describe
> everything else with inconsistencies? I don't know about that.
But this is trivial. In an inconsistent system every statement is provable
by contradiction. If S is inconsistent then for any proposition P, S u {~P}
is inconsistent, so S |= P (i.e. P is provable in S).
However, I wasn't actually saying this, only that by definition of
inconsistency, if S u {P} is inconsistent then P is provably false
in S. So if we take P to be an undecidable statement in a consistent
system S it is not possible for S u {P} to be inconsistent.
--
The Scarlet Manuka
The Scarlet Manuka
> "The Scarlet Manuka" <sa...@maths.uwa.edu.au> wrote
[ancient Greeks]
> If I'm not mistaken, they reasoned from what particular facts may already
exist
> to other things that they did not know. The trouble being that they may
not
> have correctly described the things that already exist. In other words,
their
> premises were wrong from which they drew their conclusions.
This is no different from modern physics; we know that some aspects
of our descriptions of things are incorrect, and that we'll have
to change our theories as soon as we can find something that doesn't
have the same problems. (More or less.)
The main problem for the Greeks, as I see it, is that they believed
their intuition and aesthetic sense was a reliable guide to the areas
they did not understand. Circles are the most aesthetically appealing
shape, so the earth must be spherical (close enough for the time) and
orbits must be circular (not close enough for the time, hence all the
stuff about epicycles and so on). Hence also some of the problems
they ran into with infinitesimals, etc. Not that I blame them;
infinitesimals are tricky at best. But it's true in both mathematics
and physics that one's intuitive sense is usually highly misleading
until it has been trained properly (and often afterwards, too).
> A fact, when all is said and done, is discribed by a conjunction of
properties
> from all the possible properties that may exist. In other words, a fact is
the
> intersection of various sets into which we classify the various
properties.
I'd hate to have to interpret this with any degree of rigour.
I'd think that it would be impossible to prove that most properties
correspond to sets at all.
> Thus an event (fact) is a region in set theory space over which we may
impose
> some arbitrary coordinate system to study the dynamics of it
mathematically.
I doubt that this is ever going to be possible except for exceedingly
simple facts.
> > The problem is that there are usually very many logically consistent
> > possibilities, only one of which is correct. This one may not be one
> > that springs to mind naturally, so starting with a logical framework
> > and building on it may lead you to a completely different conclusion.
> Yes, your conclusions can be false if your premises are incorrect. But if
you
> do not start with anything other than just pure principle, then your
> conclusions cannot be wrong. And if no event can contradict the principles
of
> logic, as we assume, then it must be that all events can be derived from
logic.
No, that does not follow. As I said, logic leaves a great many
possibilities; it is the external world that rules out all but one.
From logic I can derive that either it is raining or it is not,
but I can't tell which unless I look out the window.
--
The Scarlet Manuka
The Scarlet Manuka
> "The Scarlet Manuka" <sa...@maths.uwa.edu.au> wrote in message
> news:9tkir3$29t$1...@fang.dsto.defence.gov.au...
> >
> > theories (GR and QM) contradict each other when we get to the
> > interesting bits; thus, while we expect reality to be consistent,
> > it doesn't follow that the (partial) descriptions and theories we
> > develop will also be consistent.
>
> It may be that we have to assume that something approaches infinity or
zero to
> develop a workable equation for engineering purposes. It may not be exact,
and
> it may result in contradictions, but it may be the only way to derive a
> workable equation.
Or, at least, such approximations may well be good enough for the
purpose, in the same manner that we still use Newtonian physics
for spacecraft orbits - the corrections are not significant
enough in the required domain for it to be worth calculating them.
> However, finding equations to match the empirical data will never prove
where
> the equations came from to begin with.
The equations come from human imagination. The question is where the
empirical data came from, and why it arrived the way it did; but I
think this is really what you mean.
> But if we
> always ask why and how things are logically consistent, then this is the
same
> as saying that things are derived from logic.
No, it is not; it is the same as saying that things are derived from
logic and observation. There is a huge difference.
The Greeks tried to replace observations they couldn't make with
intuitive or aesthetic ideals. It didn't really work very well.
Sometimes they were right, sometimes wrong, but the only truthful
answer would have been "not enough evidence to say". They thought
otherwise because they felt that the universe should have been
constructed on aesthetic as well as logical principles; but later
observations demonstrated that either this was not the case, or
the aesthetic principles in question didn't match the Greeks' own.
--
The Scarlet Manuka
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>
>It seems to me that the ancient Greeks failed because they were still
>reasoning from contingency, applying logic to facts, without deriving facts
>from logic.
Logic is not a fact deriving tool. It is only a machine you can use
to derive the truth value of statement based on the truth value of
other statements you fed into said machine. And it can say nothing
about the truth value of the initial statements.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
me...@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Owen Holden
tadchem wrote in message ...>news:bB_K7.51809$lV4.7...@e420r-atl1.usenetserver.com...
>
><snip repoat>
>
>> It might be possible to derive physics from logic.
>
>
>Goedel's Undecidability Theorem.
>
>In brief, "all consistent axiomatic formulations of logic include
>undecidable propositions."
Nonsense, axiomatic; propositional logic, syllogistic logic, first order
monadic predicate logic, higher order predicate logic with finite yet
undetermined domains, etc., are all consistent and without
undecidable propositions.
Owen
>
>Physics requires (through the Principle of Empiricism) all propositions to
>be decidable through experimentation.
>
>It follows that physics is not a "consistent axiomatic formulation of
>logic."
>
>Q.E.D.
>
>
>Tom Davidson
>Brighton, CO
>
>
franz heymann
>
> "franz heymann" <franz....@care4free.net> wrote in message
> news:3bfd6d52$0$8507$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com...
> >
> >
> > You are missing the point that any logical sequence of deductions
in
> > physics has to start with a set of postulates. The postulates,
and
> > not the deductions from them, are what are being proposed as the
laws
> > of nature.
>
> And a TOE would have how many postulates?
The only proposal for a TOE of which I am aware is a theory which
would consolidate the elecrtoweak, strong and gravitational forces
into one. It would need just enough postulates to make it a viable
theory. The number will quite certainly be more than zero.
Franz Heymann
franz heymann
>
> "franz heymann" <franz....@care4free.net> wrote
>
> >
> > You are missing the point that any logical sequence of deductions
in
> > physics has to start with a set of postulates. The postulates,
and
> > not the deductions from them, are what are being proposed as the
laws
> > of nature.
>
reason
> for them.
Nonsense. You seem to be inaware of the basics of the scientific
method.You are free to make any postulates you wish. You then make
deductions from them You then compare the deductions with
experimental observations. If there is a mismatch, you discard the
postulates and try again. If the observations agree with the
predictions, your postulates will live for another attempt to negate
them. That is the inevitable fate of any theory in physics. It can
never be proved, it can only continue to be subjected to more and more
tests. As time goes on, you gain more and more confidence in applying
the theory in domains in which it has survived experimental tests.
> But if you do have reason for the postulates, then you have
> discovered new postulates. That is why we are continually revising
our
> theories, because our postulates keep changing. How can you deny
that
> logical consistency is not a postulate when you keep using it to
determine
> the nature of reality?
I have never denied what you claim above. Logical consistency in a
theory is certainly one of the postulates which usually goes without
saying.
Franz Heymann
franz heymann
You are raising a particularly poor strawman. Nobody has ever
asserted that logic is not part of the armoury of the scientific
method. But it is only part of the armouty withal.
The reason for the many failures of the Greek philosophers to get to
grips with making scientific progress was that they had little notion
of the importance of an experimental approach towards learning about
the facts of nature.
Franz Heymann
franz heymann
>
> "The Scarlet Manuka" <sa...@maths.uwa.edu.au> wrote
>
> > > > The success of science would not have been possible if we had
retained
> > > > the Greek attitude that physical truth can be correctly
determined
> > > > through contemplation and debate.
> > >
> > > It seems to me that the ancient Greeks failed because they were
still
> > > reasoning from contingency, applying logic to facts, without
deriving
> > facts
> > > from logic.
> >
> > That's interesting; it seems to me that they failed because they
did
> > precisely the reverse -- supposing that what seemed logical must
be
> > factual. And conflating 'logical' and 'aesthetically appealing'.
>
> If I'm not mistaken, they reasoned from what particular facts may
already exist
> to other things that they did not know. The trouble being that they
may not
> have correctly described the things that already exist. In other
words, their
> premises were wrong from which they drew their conclusions.
So at last you admit that logic alone is powerless without premises,
hypotheses, postulates or whatever.
> >
> > > They did not have the tools to impose a math on logic to come up
> > > with a necessary development of generalized facts.
> >
> > I'm not sure what you mean by that. What is a generalised fact?
>
> A fact, when all is said and done, is discribed by a conjunction of
properties
> from all the possible properties that may exist. In other words, a
fact is the
> intersection of various sets into which we classify the various
properties.
> Thus an event (fact) is a region in set theory space over which we
may impose
> some arbitrary coordinate system to study the dynamics of it
mathematically.
To my untutored mind that sounds like gobbledegook On second
thoughts, it would sound like gobbledegook even to a tutored mind.
> >
> > > How can you argue with logic? That would only disqualify one
from
> > > the debate. For that would negate the very principles of reason
> > > and discernment.
> >
> > The problem is that there are usually very many logically
consistent
> > possibilities, only one of which is correct. This one may not be
one
> > that springs to mind naturally, so starting with a logical
framework
> > and building on it may lead you to a completely different
conclusion.
>
> Yes, your conclusions can be false if your premises are incorrect.
But if you
> do not start with anything other than just pure principle,
Please define the term "pure principle". It sounds like nonsense to
me.
> then your
> conclusions cannot be wrong. And if no event can contradict the
principles of
> logic, as we assume, then it must be that all events can be derived
from logic.
Franz Heymann
franz heymann
> > > > > It might be possible to derive physics from logic.
> > >
> > > > That is precisely where the ancient greeks went wrong.
Science
> > has
> > > > moved irreversibly in a different direction since then.
> > Contemplating
> > > > your navel will not tell you anything about the laws of
physics.
> > >
> > > 'I think therefore I am' must contain minimalist elements of
> > computer
> > > theory, and at least supply constraints on hardware
possibilities.
> > >
> > > Whether it is in fact possible to derive much physics from the
above
> > is
> > > currently unknown, unless you have a working definition of the
> > requirements
> > > for consciousness.
> >
> > You have not succeeded in proving any law of physics.
>
> You don't consider that information processing capacity tells one
anything
> about any laws of physics? It tells me that (for example) at least
one
> dimension exists, given that the above statement is a sequence.
The existence of a sequence of computational steps tells me nothing
about the nature of space. To infer anything at all about space needs
an experimental observation of the properties of space.
>
Franz Heymann
franz heymann
> > > > It might be possible to derive physics from logic.
> > >
> > >
> > > Goedel's Undecidability Theorem.
> > >
> > > In brief, "all consistent axiomatic formulations of logic
include
> > > undecidable propositions."
> > >
propositions
> to
> > > be decidable through experimentation.
> > >
> > > It follows that physics is not a "consistent axiomatic
formulation of
> > > logic."
> >
down'
> ala
> > Godel, or whether ultimately a TOE can be experimentally tested.
> >
> It would take all the energy in the universe to generate the
experiment that
> proves how the universe was created. We will have to settle for
consistency
> instead.
>
> Godels theorem only applies to discrete, countable systems of
arithmetic.
> There's no evidence that his theorem applies to continuous systems.
I am not certain of that, but I lean towards the idea that you are
wrong. Last time I saw a proof of Godel's theorems, I did not notice
any reference to discreteness or countability. Perhaps both of us
need to reread the proof.
Franz Heymann
franz heymann
> >
> > > > > It remains to be seen whether or not physics 'turtles all
the way
> > down'
> > > > ala
> > > > > Godel, or whether ultimately a TOE can be experimentally
tested.
> > > > >
> > > > It would take all the energy in the universe to generate the
> experiment
> > > that
> > > > proves how the universe was created. We will have to settle
for
> > > consistency
> > > > instead.
> > > >
> > > > Godels theorem only applies to discrete, countable systems of
> > arithmetic.
> > > > There's no evidence that his theorem applies to continuous
systems.
> > >
the
> > > direction of discrete everything.
> >
> > The quantized values are the result of differential equations with
respect
> > to continuous variables.
>
> I don't really think that this approach will work in the end.
> We may get a better theory, but not a TOE.
> Without having any proof, I feel that Nature is discreet and finite.
>
More often discrete than discreet :-)
Franz Heymann
franz heymann
> > > It remains to be seen whether or not physics 'turtles all the
way down'
> > ala
> > > Godel, or whether ultimately a TOE can be experimentally tested.
> >
cannot be
> > described by a finite set of axioms. There are no mathematical or
logical
> > descriptions of systems in which there are infinite sets of
axioms.
> >
> > I would conjecture that such a system would exhibit a logical
> contradiction,
> > although it may not be possible to prove that any such system must
contain
> a
> > logical contradiction.
> >
be
> > testable, that the test may in principle be carried out by any
competent
> and
> > suitable equipped investigator, and that the results will be
repeatable.
> >
> > This property of testability is coextensive with the definition of
> "physical
> > theory;" any theory that is not in principle testable in this
manner is
> not
> > a physical theory. One must, in principle, be able to test whether
or not
> > there is a turtle who is standing on something other than another
turtle.
>
> Then as a worst case we might end up with no testable physics, but
competing
> sets of mathematical theologies.
And hence such musings would remain outside the boundaries of science.
Franz Heymann
franz heymann
>
> "tadchem" <tadche...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:djhL7.3185$oF.3...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> >
> >
> > <snip>
measurements
> will be as predicted by the theory.
On the contrary, the theories are the premises which form the starting
points from which mathematical deductions are made.
Franz Heymann
neoprog
> You are missing the point that any logical sequence of deductions in
> physics has to start with a set of postulates. The postulates, and
> not the deductions from them, are what are being proposed as the laws
> of nature.
>
>
And this is exactly where science is going wrong. Such an approach is
doomed from the start. I don't know if you noticed but not much
progress has been made in fundamental physics for a very long time
now. Is it because there is nothing else to find? Of course not, the
models are far from perfect.
The method used to investigate is faulty. You can not base a new
theory on postulates. You base a theory on facts you observe. You put
all the facts you can observe from reality and you put them together.
You can not go the other way. Its like trying to solve a puzzle by
guessing what the end result looks like. The end result is already
there!!! look at it...and put the pieces together...
neoprog
Mike
"franz heymann" <franz....@care4free.net> wrote
> Nonsense. You seem to be inaware of the basics of the scientific
> method.You are free to make any postulates you wish. You then make
> deductions from them You then compare the deductions with
> experimental observations.
That's all I'd ask of any theory derived from pure logic.
Mike
"The Scarlet Manuka" <sa...@maths.uwa.edu.au> wrote
> The main problem for the Greeks, as I see it, is that they believed
> their intuition and aesthetic sense was a reliable guide to the areas
> they did not understand.
Don't confuse logic with intuition. Logic is a strict disciple just as much
as mathematics.
> > A fact, when all is said and done, is discribed by a conjunction of
> properties
> > from all the possible properties that may exist. In other words, a fact
is
> the
> > intersection of various sets into which we classify the various
> properties.
>
> I'd hate to have to interpret this with any degree of rigour.
> I'd think that it would be impossible to prove that most properties
> correspond to sets at all.
properties, catagories, sets... they are all the same thing.
> > > The problem is that there are usually very many logically consistent
> > > possibilities, only one of which is correct. This one may not be one
> > > that springs to mind naturally, so starting with a logical framework
> > > and building on it may lead you to a completely different conclusion.
> > Yes, your conclusions can be false if your premises are incorrect. But
if
> you
> > do not start with anything other than just pure principle, then your
> > conclusions cannot be wrong. And if no event can contradict the
principles
> of
> > logic, as we assume, then it must be that all events can be derived from
> logic.
>
> No, that does not follow. As I said, logic leaves a great many
> possibilities; it is the external world that rules out all but one.
> From logic I can derive that either it is raining or it is not,
> but I can't tell which unless I look out the window.
Your logic made no conclusion about whether it was raining that could be
tested.
Mike
"franz heymann" <franz....@care4free.net> wrote
> > > > They did not have the tools to impose a math on logic to come up
> > > > with a necessary development of generalized facts.
> > >
> > > I'm not sure what you mean by that. What is a generalised fact?
> >
> > A fact, when all is said and done, is discribed by a conjunction of
> properties
> > from all the possible properties that may exist. In other words, a
> fact is the
> > intersection of various sets into which we classify the various
> properties.
> > Thus an event (fact) is a region in set theory space over which we
> may impose
> > some arbitrary coordinate system to study the dynamics of it
> mathematically.
>
> To my untutored mind that sounds like gobbledegook On second
> thoughts, it would sound like gobbledegook even to a tutored mind.
Are you saying that things and events cannot be describe as having a
particular set of various properites? Are you saying that properites are not
synonymous with catagories or sets? If we are trying to derive what
properties are available to discribe events to begin with, then we must
start with the assumption that we do not know what those particular
properties are. And we must study the dynamics of how properites in general
(regions in set space) change. The above discribes a procedure to do so.
> > > Yes, your conclusions can be false if your premises are incorrect.
> But if you
> > do not start with anything other than just pure principle,
>
> Please define the term "pure principle". It sounds like nonsense to
> me.
general principles valid for any particulars whatsoever, which particulars
we cannot presume to know to begin with when we are trying to discern how
those particular properties (gravitation, electromagnetics, space-time,
mass-energy) came into being to start with.
Mike
"franz heymann" <franz....@care4free.net> wrote
> You are raising a particularly poor strawman. Nobody has ever
> asserted that logic is not part of the armoury of the scientific
> method. But it is only part of the armouty withal.
> The reason for the many failures of the Greek philosophers to get to
> grips with making scientific progress was that they had little notion
> of the importance of an experimental approach towards learning about
> the facts of nature.
By all means, do test the validity of any consequences derived from any
theory.
Mike
<me...@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
news:%VmL7.47$P4....@news.uchicago.edu...
> In article <MXjL7.54837$lV4.7...@e420r-atl1.usenetserver.com>, "Mike"
<no....@please.com> writes:
> >
> >It seems to me that the ancient Greeks failed because they were still
> >reasoning from contingency, applying logic to facts, without deriving
facts
> >from logic.
>
> Logic is not a fact deriving tool. It is only a machine you can use
> to derive the truth value of statement based on the truth value of
> other statements you fed into said machine. And it can say nothing
> about the truth value of the initial statements.
But when we are trying to derive the very first facts (how the universe came
into being, etc.), then it is not possible to start with know facts yet. We
can only rely on general principles that apply to any supposed facts
whatsoever.
Dirk Bruere
Who knows?
I may have spelled it correctly!
Anyway, that's really what this thread is about.
Dirk
Dirk Bruere
Possibly.
However, what are the minimum requirements for a Turing Machine (as an
analogy to consciousness)?
Dirk
Dirk Bruere
>
> >
> > Then as a worst case we might end up with no testable physics, but
> competing
> > sets of mathematical theologies.
>
> And hence such musings would remain outside the boundaries of science.
>
Finally, the physics dept in the university got moved and lumped in with
Theology and Humanities on the grounds that (after pumping an accelerator
with an induced supernova) it was no longer testable science.
Dirk
Dirk Bruere
> > > You are missing the point that any logical sequence of deductions
> in
> > > physics has to start with a set of postulates. The postulates,
> and
> > > not the deductions from them, are what are being proposed as the
> laws
> > > of nature.
> >
> > And a TOE would have how many postulates?
>
> The only proposal for a TOE of which I am aware is a theory which
> would consolidate the elecrtoweak, strong and gravitational forces
> into one. It would need just enough postulates to make it a viable
> theory. The number will quite certainly be more than zero.
Not necessarily.
One possibility is that of the All Universes Hypothesis.
That is, everything exists - all possible mathematical constructs have a
physical reality.
The rest is a selection effect based around the Anthropic Principle that
would yield an ensemble of viable possibilities for this reality.
Dirk
Mike
"The Scarlet Manuka" <sa...@maths.uwa.edu.au> wrote
> However, I wasn't actually saying this, only that by definition of
> inconsistency, if S u {P} is inconsistent then P is provably false
> in S. So if we take P to be an undecidable statement in a consistent
> system S it is not possible for S u {P} to be inconsistent.
In other words, you impose the ASSUMPTION that S is consistent before even
knowing all the axioms?
Dirk Bruere
"neoprog" <sweet...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:77a60c38.01112...@posting.google.com...
> doomed from the start. I don't know if you noticed but not much
> progress has been made in fundamental physics for a very long time
> now. Is it because there is nothing else to find? Of course not, the
> models are far from perfect.
Well, I'm hopoing that m Brane theory will pan out experimentally.
Then we'll be off to a riproaring new start in physics.
Even if it comes to nothing, it seems like the situation almost exactly a
century back.
'Just a few loose ends'.
The biggest visible one being GTR+QM
And a lesser one that may or may not be relevenet, Consciousness + Computer
Theory.
Dirk
franz heymann
in
> > physics has to start with a set of postulates. The postulates,
and
> > not the deductions from them, are what are being proposed as the
laws
> > of nature.
> >
> > Franz Heymann
> >
>
> And this is exactly where science is going wrong.
Please fill in the instances in which physics has gone wrong and has
not subsequently been corrected by the further progress of the
subject.............................................................
> Such an approach is
> doomed from the start.
On the contrary, no other way of progressing in physics has ever been
successful.
> I don't know if you noticed but not much
> progress has been made in fundamental physics for a very long time
> now.
Not as long as the time between Copernicus or Galileo and Newton.
> Is it because there is nothing else to find?
Has it not struck you that the next step is simply very difficult to
take?
> Of course not, the
> models are far from perfect.
That is precisely why physics is still very much a live subject, as
distinct from religion.
>
> The method used to investigate is faulty.
More than one method is used to investigate physical phenomena are in
use. Please fill in a list of the ones which are faulty
...................................................................
> You can not base a new
> theory on postulates.
On the contrary, one cannot formulate a theory without having
postulates on which to base it. If you believe otherwise, please base
any new postulate-free theory of your choice in the space provided
here......................................................
> You base a theory on facts you observe.
> You put all the facts you can observe from reality and you put them
together.
> You can not go the other way. Its like trying to solve a puzzle by
> guessing what the end result looks like. The end result is already
> there!!! look at it...and put the pieces together...
Franz Heymann
Robert J. Kolker
Mike wrote:
>
> That's all I'd ask of any theory derived from pure logic.
What about theories who semantics make no references to
the physical world?
Bob Kolker
hanson
> I don't really think that this approach will work in the end.
> We may get a better theory, but not a TOE.
> Without having any proof, I feel that Nature is discreet and finite.
> Dirk
I say the following in conjunction with the concurrently runing thread on
TOE and agree with Dirk. --- Everything from logic, to Goedel & Turing, to
Greeks, philosophy to the entire panoply of math constructs etc. was
discussed in this thread, with no discernable novel, operational thought
being introduced to shed light on, much less answering the subject
question. Don't huff. A truly novel thought is EXTREMELY rare. Evolution
sees to that.
What appears to me is that in any and all posts the anthropic element is
still present, actually was jealously preserved to be present as the prime,
secondary and tertiary investigator. Everything was discussed from a pov by
addressing it directly or indirectly still with the entire human system
(ego, paradigm, culture etc.) as the observer.
In order to go beyond this obstacle, we must remove the direct connection
of the human observer from the to be observed object/subject and put a
layer of inquiry in between, like a looking glass and ask:
What can we, the human observer, learn from the observing element which
observes the object, we the human observer ultimately wants to obverse,
describe, understand (for the purpose of manipulation, of cousre).
However, anytime somebody introduces an off beat, let alone a novel
thought, the flies on the horse apple get shy and take off in a hurry,
because that new thing is scary, doesn’t have a right look and doesn't
smell familiar.
I remember few months back, when Nemesis suggested that we must begin to
"become" and think as particles in order to understand the next level of
inquiry into nature everybody buzzed of and cursed him from a distance.
When I asked even before that a similar question,
***** Why and how is a 3 pound lump of a specific architecture of
polycondensates of simple, non-sentient amino acids capable to contemplate,
comprehend and control and manipulate events in very remote xDyT domains?.
At which level of (molecular) complexity does this phenomenon of 'remote
contemplation' (not just sensing and respoinding, absorbing and emitting)
occur for the first time? etc, etc, etc, and of course, etc. *******
...everybody politely looked the other way and took off. The only comment I
ever got on it was from spaceman who said: "I don't know, do you?"
So, who does? Seems to me that tackling such a question would be at least a
departure point from the well trampled and congested trail of inquiry which
so many feel only leads us around in circles in a dark cul de sac.
hanson
Mike
"Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:3BFE7EDC...@mediaone.net...
It may take some clever insight to recognize the physical interpretation of
such a theory. We know we are close when we discover mathematical entities
that mimic the relationships between space-time and mass-energy. When we
find similar mathematical relationships, we should be able to derive
consequences that are testable in the physical world.
Dirk Bruere
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message
news:gQvL7.331$Kc2....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> However, anytime somebody introduces an off beat, let alone a novel
> thought, the flies on the horse apple get shy and take off in a hurry,
> because that new thing is scary, doesn't have a right look and doesn't
> smell familiar.
>
> I remember few months back, when Nemesis suggested that we must begin to
> "become" and think as particles in order to understand the next level of
> inquiry into nature everybody buzzed of and cursed him from a distance.
> When I asked even before that a similar question,
>
> ***** Why and how is a 3 pound lump of a specific architecture of
> polycondensates of simple, non-sentient amino acids capable to
contemplate,
> comprehend and control and manipulate events in very remote xDyT domains?.
> At which level of (molecular) complexity does this phenomenon of 'remote
> contemplation' (not just sensing and respoinding, absorbing and emitting)
> occur for the first time? etc, etc, etc, and of course, etc. *******
There are a few semi-plausible off-beat conjectures.
The most famous one is probably that of Penrose, who suggests consciousness
is directly tied in with the laws of physics at a deep level, and that it is
possible to access truths by direct apprehension.
Of course, taking it to an extreme might suggest that physics will
eventually merge with mysticism.
I have doubts as to whether a TOE can be successfully constructed without
taking into account consciousness. Still, as nobody knows how to do it
easily (or at all, probably) the conventional approach is continued.
Dirk
Henry
<tadche...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>There are no mathematical or logical
>descriptions of systems in which there are infinite sets of axioms.
The Axiom of Replacement in Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory is generally
seen as being an infinite family of axioms.
Nemesis
sweet...@hotmail.com (neoprog) wrote:
>>
>> You are missing the point that any logical sequence of deductions in
>> physics has to start with a set of postulates. The postulates, and
>> not the deductions from them, are what are being proposed as the laws
>> of nature.
>>
>> Franz Heymann
>>
>
>And this is exactly where science is going wrong. Such an approach is
>doomed from the start. I don't know if you noticed but not much
>progress has been made in fundamental physics for a very long time
>now. Is it because there is nothing else to find? Of course not, the
>models are far from perfect.
I agree. Major advances are taking place in all areas of science
except fundamental physics. People like Heymann will claim that,
compared to advances in the past, we are making giant strides. But
this is not true. In the centuries before and after Newton, only a
handful of physicists were trying to understand nature. Now, given the
amazing leap in human communication and widespread literacy, there are
tens of thousands of people involved in physics research. So why don't
we see a much more rapid pace of progress. Heck, here we are close to
a century after relativity and we still have no idea what causes
gravity, a million relativists claiming otherwise notwithstanding.
The problem, as I see it, is that the top-down, observer-centric
approach to understanding nature has reached a brick wall. So instead
of progress, we see chicken feather voodoo physics sprouting all
around: what with time travel, wormholes, black holes, infinite
parallel universes, quantum computing and the like?
What is needed is a bottom-up, particle-centric approach to physics.
We need to conduct sensible thought experiments and put ourselves in
the place of the particles themselves: be the particle! Only then will
the right questions and solutions come to the surface. Only then will
we have the proper perspective from which to ask relevant questions
such as, how does a particle move? how can a particle "know" about its
position or motion relative to other particles? etc...
>The method used to investigate is faulty. You can not base a new
>theory on postulates. You base a theory on facts you observe. You put
>all the facts you can observe from reality and you put them together.
>You can not go the other way. Its like trying to solve a puzzle by
>guessing what the end result looks like. The end result is already
>there!!! look at it...and put the pieces together...
IMO, we need a fundamental ontology of substance. In my own research,
I have come to the realization that the only ontology of substance
that does not lead to an infinite regress is one where everything
comes from nothing and is made of nothing, in such a way that the net
sum of all substances in the universe is zero or nothing. This is what
I call the Conservation of Nothing, the mother of all conservation
principles.
Nemesis
Nasty Little Truth About Spacetime Physics:
http://home1.gte.net/res02khr/crackpots/notorious.htm
franz heymann
Secondly, I am not prepared to accept a Turing machine as an analogy
for consciousness, since my knowledge of consciousness could be
written in large letters on the back of a postage stamp.
Thirdly, I think you meant that as a rhetorical question, since I am
pretty certain we both know the ins and outs of a Turing machine, and
the subject has been discussed ad nauseam in this ng.
Franz Heymann
franz heymann
More gobbledegook.
Franz Heymann
franz heymann
You are prevaricating. I am an experimentalist, born and bred. My
point was that *the Greeks* did not get to grips with the importance
of testing their philosophising by experimentation.
Franz Heymann
franz heymann
But what is the starting statement of your logical process? It
inevitably has to be some postulate or other.
>
>
franz heymann
In the time honoured way, it is now up to you to provide a test which
is capable of falsifying the theory if it is untrue, otherwise it is
not a theory.
Franz Heymann
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>>
>> You are missing the point that any logical sequence of deductions in
>> physics has to start with a set of postulates. The postulates, and
>> not the deductions from them, are what are being proposed as the laws
>> of nature.
>>
>>
>
>And this is exactly where science is going wrong. Such an approach is
>doomed from the start. I don't know if you noticed but not much
>progress has been made in fundamental physics for a very long time
>now.
On the contrary, a great deal of progress has been made. Lets see, it
took about 2000 years to get from Aristotle to Newton. Since then,
over just a tad more than 300 years, we got the Lagrangian-Hamiltonian
formulation, EM theory, relativity, QM and QED, then the Standard
model. Pretty much lightning fast. What do you expect, an ew theory
of everything every year. This is science, not modern art.
> Is it because there is nothing else to find? Of course not, the
>models are far from perfect.
>
Nobody claims they're perfect. Now, how would you say in what way
they're imperfect?
>The method used to investigate is faulty. You can not base a new
>theory on postulates. You base a theory on facts you observe.
Yes and no. You induce postulates besed on observed facts (where sid
you think the postulates come from?). Then you deduce the consequences
of these postulates and compare with additional facts. That's how you
build a theory.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
me...@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu
whatsoever. There are only "general principles that, *given some set
of postulates*, apply to any supposed facts whatsoever". That's all.
I repeat what I said above: logic doesn't enable you to decide the
truth value of your fundamental statements, it only enables you to
decide the truth value of statements derived from the fundamental
ones, assuming the fundamental ones are correct. In short, you
cannot use logic to get something from nothing.
Robert J. Kolker
Mike wrote:
>
> It seems to me that the ancient Greeks failed because they were still
> reasoning from contingency, applying logic to facts, without deriving facts
> from logic
It is impossible to deduce all facts from purely logical principles.
Some facts ARE contingent. The just happen to be true in the
world we live in, but might have been otherwise in another
possible world.
Any attempt to get a valid and complete theory of physical reality
by massaging logic is doomed to failure.
Bob Kolker
neoprog
GR and QM indeed. I'd even go as far as saying QM is mankinds most
horrible creation :)
neoprog
Robert J. Kolker
Mike wrote:
>
> If I'm not mistaken, they reasoned from what particular facts may already exist
> to other things that they did not know. The trouble being that they may not
> have correctly described the things that already exist. In other words, their
> premises were wrong from which they drew their conclusions.
Some of the problems with Greek science and cosmology were
the a priori assumptions of a metaphysical nature. Aristotle presumed
that natural motion in the etherial realm would be circular. This
assumption of circular motions hobbled astronomy from the
time of Aristotle to the time of Kepler, who finally tumbled onto
the correct orbit of a planet in a two body system.
Bob Kolker
neoprog
As for Conciousness and computer theory, i don't quite see what they
have to do with observing objective reality.
Conciousness is not understood yet. We "feel" its effects but its
cause is not known. And i have difficulties seeing where Computer
theory fits in at all.
neoprog
Robert J. Kolker
Mike wrote:
I say, old chap given all that, derive the relative masses of protons
and electrons a priori. Do you think you can do that. How about
the gravitational constant? Do you think you can pull that out of
a logician's hat?
>
> It might be possible to derive physics from logic. How? We need a method of
> discerning what is logical that is common to the various methods such as
> propositional logic, predicate logic, set theory, probabilities, and the
> mathematics that physicist use, such as tensor analysis, etc. It turns out
> that such a common method exists. We can use Venn diagrams to describe and
> derive the principles of predicate logic and propositional logic and set
> theory. An element of a set implies the probabilities of its inclusion in
> one set and not another. And in the study of probabilities, a region in this
> sample space defines an event in general. We need a mathematical tool in
> which to describe this sample space or Venn diagram space. For if we impose
> some sort of coordinate system over this sample space, then we can study the
> mathematical dynamics of how these generalized events, defined as regions in
> sample space, change from one event to another. But these principles must
> not depend on the arbitrary choice of coordinate system we may impose on the
> space. So the principles must be described with tensor equations which are
> invariant under a change of coordinates. It turn out the divergence theorem,
> which relates the volume of a region to the surface that enclose this
> region, can be describe using tensors and is invariant with a change of
> coordinates. Also, the Laplacian can be described with tensors and is
> invariant with a change of coordinates. The Laplacian is used in the wave
> equations involved with quantum mechanics. And when we recognize that the
> probability must be zero on the surface of these region, since the region
> inside is where the probability of the event is not zero, then this gives a
> boundary condition of a differential equation produced by the Laplacian. And
> these boundary conditions for differential equations produce quantized
> values and a set of equations that may the basis for the quantization of
> quantum mechanics.
>
> It may be possible to discern very fundamental properties of nature this
> way, such as the number of dimensions of reality and the relationship
> between space-time and mass-energy. For instance, how can a region in space
> change? It can change in size, shape, and position. And every change in an
> event is a combination of these. Does this give rise to the three dimension
> that we observe in space? Do they give rise to the force of nature? Or both?
> Good luck.
Dirk Bruere
>
> > >
> > > The only proposal for a TOE of which I am aware is a theory which
> > > would consolidate the elecrtoweak, strong and gravitational forces
> > > into one. It would need just enough postulates to make it a
> viable
> > > theory. The number will quite certainly be more than zero.
> >
> > Not necessarily.
> > One possibility is that of the All Universes Hypothesis.
> > That is, everything exists - all possible mathematical constructs
> have a
> > physical reality.
> > The rest is a selection effect based around the Anthropic Principle
> that
> > would yield an ensemble of viable possibilities for this reality.
>
> In the time honoured way, it is now up to you to provide a test which
> is capable of falsifying the theory if it is untrue, otherwise it is
> not a theory.
That may well be the fate of a TOE.
After all, theories are merely data compression algorithms.
Hence Occams Razor.
Dirk
Dirk Bruere
a
> > century back.
> > 'Just a few loose ends'.
> > The biggest visible one being GTR+QM
> > And a lesser one that may or may not be relevenet, Consciousness +
Computer
> > Theory.
>
> have to do with observing objective reality.
>
> Conciousness is not understood yet. We "feel" its effects but its
> cause is not known. And i have difficulties seeing where Computer
> theory fits in at all.
Because irrespective of what consciousness turns out to be, it is
intimiately connected with brains, which are information processing devices.
If, for example, Penrose is correct it is tied together very deeply with a
TOE.
Dirk
Richard Perry
Not bad;-) Descartes beat you to this punch though long ago. Every event
is the sum of its parts, which is the interactions of the particles.
>
> >The method used to investigate is faulty. You can not base a new
> >theory on postulates. You base a theory on facts you observe. You put
> >all the facts you can observe from reality and you put them together.
> >You can not go the other way. Its like trying to solve a puzzle by
> >guessing what the end result looks like. The end result is already
> >there!!! look at it...and put the pieces together...
>
> IMO, we need a fundamental ontology of substance. In my own research,
> I have come to the realization that the only ontology of substance
> that does not lead to an infinite regress is one where everything
> comes from nothing and is made of nothing, in such a way that the net
> sum of all substances in the universe is zero or nothing. This is what
> I call the Conservation of Nothing, the mother of all conservation
> principles.
Still on target. Space and matter are one in the same. Each charged
quanta is a spatial extension, a region of curved space
(hyperbolic/eliptical) through which other particles move. Net neutral
matter projects a flat space on average WRT charges moving through it,
which is verified by direct observation. Conversely charged matter
projects a curved space WRT charges moving through it, and (barring
induction) it projects a flat space WRT a neutral particle moving
through it, both also verified by direct observation. This should have
been an obvious conclusion centuries ago. My equation 1-27 is simply a
description of the resultant interaction in terms of force, from a flat
FOR.
--
Richard Perry
A Galilean Invariant Electromagnetic Synthesis
Http://www.cswnet.com/~rper
Richard Perry
Mike wrote:
>
> "neoprog" <sweet...@hotmail.com> wrote
> >
> > If you were to use of logic alone, you'd have to generate your own
> > premisses which of course would lead nowhere since you'd have nothing
> > to fuel logic with except premisses you elaborate on your own. The
> > result is easily imaginable :)
> > (nothing of interrest).
A relevant post, but not many takers here based upon direct experience.
Logic has been abandoned in favor of the dramatic.
They may speak the speak, but they just don't seem to know, or perhaps
value, the rules. Of course they hold their math to be correct, which is
itself only a reflection of the ignorance that math is a very small
subset of logic in general. Moreover the rules of math are themselves
derived directly from the premise of the validity of the syllogistic
form, but this much seems to escape them. I predict that it's only a
matter of time before the mathematical laws are themselves abandoned in
favor of personal preference;-)
Richard Perry
Ideally, but what premises is the conclusion of the "quark" for instance
drawn from.
Couldn't we as easily propose that each quark is itself a composite of
particles with charge 1/6, or 1/12, or 1/24 ad infinitum? What basis,
what "real" basis is there for this theory? None. This is how modern
physics is proceeding, ad hoc presumptions, anything that cannot be
disproved, to what end? Personal advancement. Where is the methodology
in this?
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>
>me...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>>
>> Yes and no. You induce postulates besed on observed facts (where sid
>> you think the postulates come from?). Then you deduce the consequences
>> of these postulates and compare with additional facts. That's how you
>> build a theory.
>
>drawn from.
The "quark" is a premise, not conclusion. By definition, a premise is
not "drawn from something".
>Couldn't we as easily propose that each quark is itself a composite of
>particles with charge 1/6, or 1/12, or 1/24 ad infinitum?
We could propose anything we wish, the proof of the pudding is in the
eating. Your premises are affirmed (though not proven) if the
predictions generated using said premises agree with empirical
evidence. And, they're disproven, if the predictions disagree with
experimental evidence. This is all.
> What basis, what "real" basis is there for this theory?
Read above. That's the only basis you can ever get. A question along
the lines of "how do you prove that the axioms are true" makes no
sense.
>None. This is how modern physics is proceeding, ad hoc presumptions,
That's how physics proceeded since Newton's time and it works
beautifully. The previous approach of gazing at your navel and
deciding how the world "should" work, failed.
>anything that cannot be disproved, to what end? Personal advancement.
You appear to be projecting:-)
>Where is the methodology in this?
There is no methodology to induction, only to deduction. Still, the
process can be described, though not formalized. Consider the
following.
How do you build a mathematical theory? You generate an axiom base,
i.e. a set of statements which within your theory are *true by
definition*. There are no specific rules telling you what axioms to
use (though there are considerations of "usefullness"). They have to
be independent (i.e. you can't prove one from the others, since if you
can, it is not an axiom) and free of contradictions (which *does not*
mean "not contradicting your concepts of what's appropriate" only "not
contradicting one another"). No demands beyond this. Then, you
proceed to deduce as many logical conclusion stemming from the axioms
as you can. These are the results of the theory. Now, yes (I'm
trying to avoid being sidetracked here) I know that the mathematicians
posting here will tell you that historically a theory may be in
development for quite a while before it is axiomatized. That's true,
but the historical timeline is not relevant here. What matters is
that in a mathematical theory the axioms are not in doubt, though some
of the results may be.
The situation in physics is different. Here you have access to
various results (i.e. empirical observations) but you don't know the
underlying axioms and *you'll never know, for sure*. There are no
stone tablets to be found, with the axioms carved on them. What you
can do is make a guess at what the axioms are. Of course, we mean
"educated guess" here, not any silly guess, but it still is a guess.
That's the induction part. Then, after you've made your guess, you
proceed to deduce the consequences of said guess and compare these
deduced consequences with observed results. If there is an agreement,
you got a confirmation of your guess. Again, not a proof, just a
confirmation. If there is a disagreement, it is "back to the drawing
board". Note that the "guess" istself does not need to be justified
a priori, only a posteriori, by the results. It is nobody's business
whetehr you attribute your guess to deep thought, a vision you've seen
in a dream or to divine inspiration. The only thing that matters is
"does it work or doesn't it".
If you think that this is a kludgy way of doing things and that you
can do better, same rules apply. Meaning, you can prove that you're
doing better by generating a theory which accounts for *all* observed
data *and*, preferably, predicts some new results not predicted by
existing theories (please, do not even try to use this opportunity to
plug your web page, I won't even comment on it). Till you manage to
achieve the above, your opinions count for pretty much nothing.
Note to other posters: yes, I know that I posted same stuff in the
past, more than once. But it iappears that it needs to be reiterated,
once in a while.
Richard Perry
You have reiterated nothing that was not already well known. But
induction is equivalent to a stab in the dark. What with the possibility
of infinite such stabs at the same phenomenon what do the odds of
correctness work out to be?
Deduction "can" be used to ferret out the workings of nature. The truth
is that nobody seems interested in this approach. "A priori" premises
abound. It is fortunate that the same illogical inductive approach was
not taken by mathematicians through the ages. A look back at the
history of "natural philosophy" reveals, at least to those who are not
still drowning in superstition, that very sound arguments regarding
space and the nature of space were rejected in favor of the preservation
of religious bents. Aren't we past that ignorance?
I have derived several "necessary" conditions myself, based upon pure
logic alone. No. 1: that matter and space are equivalent. This was also
a general conclusion drawn by Einstein, and by the Greeks well before
that.
The arguments are sound, and yet are rejected. Why is this? Ignorance
seems to spring to mind:-)
Richard Perry
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>
>
>me...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>>
>
>You have reiterated nothing that was not already well known.
Glad to hear this.
> But induction is equivalent to a stab in the dark.
Indeed.
> What with the possibility of infinite such stabs at the same phenomenon
>what do the odds of correctness work out to be?
"Correctness" is measured by agreement of the results with
observations. By this measure, we're not doing too poorly. Of course
this is not "absolute correctness", only "hasn't been disprooved yet".
And that's all you're ever going to get. It is not only that the odds
of "absolute correctness" can't even be estimated, but that even if by
any chance you'll happen to get an "absolutely correct" theory, you
won't be able to verify that this is indeed the case.
>
>Deduction "can" be used to ferret out the workings of nature.
Nothing can be deduced from nothing. You've to "prime the pump of
deduction", i.e. to have some basic assumptions which you use as the
starting point of your deduction. So, where do your starting
assumptions come from and on what's the basis of your certainty that
they're correct.
>I have derived several "necessary" conditions myself, based upon pure
>logic alone. No. 1: that matter and space are equivalent. This was also
>a general conclusion drawn by Einstein, and by the Greeks well before
>that.
There is nothing derived here, especially not from "pure logic". You
confuse logic for "it makes sense to me that it is so" which is just
another form of "My guess is that it is so".
>The arguments are sound, and yet are rejected. Why is this? Ignorance
>seems to spring to mind:-)
>
The ploy of "they're just too stupid to grasp how brilliant my ideas
are" is too stale to offer even entertainment value. You'll have to
do better than this to be worth reading.
Mike
See my original post of 11/21/01
Mike
"franz heymann" <franz....@care4free.net> wrote
> > > Please define the term "pure principle". It sounds like nonsense
> to
> > > me.
> >
> > general principles valid for any particulars whatsoever, which
> particulars
> > we cannot presume to know to begin with when we are trying to
> discern how
> > those particular properties (gravitation, electromagnetics,
> space-time,
> > mass-energy) came into being to start with.
>
> More gobbledegook.
Thanks for paying attention.
Mike
"Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:3BFEC198...@mediaone.net...
The method I would propose would only derive how events in general would
proceed to other events. It would not predict any particular fact. We are
prevented from that by the simple fact that we are dealing with
probabilities. I would start with general principles and end with general
laws of physics.The only difference would be that we would know WHY physics
is as it is, and we might be able to deduce the fate of the universe more
accurately.
Mike
>
>
> Mike wrote:
>
> I say, old chap given all that, derive the relative masses of protons
> and electrons a priori. Do you think you can do that. How about
> the gravitational constant? Do you think you can pull that out of
> a logician's hat?
>
are you not interested in logical thinking?
Mike
<me...@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
news:xNyL7.54$P4....@news.uchicago.edu...
So what you are saying in effect is that it is theoretically impossible to
understand the very first facts because we have no other facts to use as the
premise in our logic? And what you are saying is that there is no basis
whatsoever for the existence of the very first facts so that the first
particle of creation is totally illogical?
Robert J. Kolker
Mike wrote:
I am challenging your position by implying a counter example. Outline
how you would derive the gravitational constant from purely logical
principles, without going through all that messy stuff the Cavendish
did.
Bob Kolker
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>
><me...@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
>> >
...
>> >
>> There are no general principles apllying to any supposed facts
>> whatsoever. There are only "general principles that, *given some set
>> of postulates*, apply to any supposed facts whatsoever". That's all.
>> I repeat what I said above: logic doesn't enable you to decide the
>> truth value of your fundamental statements, it only enables you to
>> decide the truth value of statements derived from the fundamental
>> ones, assuming the fundamental ones are correct. In short, you
>> cannot use logic to get something from nothing.
>
>understand the very first facts because we have no other facts to use as the
>premise in our logic?
We've been over this make times here. First, try to define
"understanding". If you define it as "based on logical derivation
from premises known to be true" then yes, by definition, it is
impossible to understand the basic premises. If you loosen up a bit
and define "understanding" along the lines of "makes sense to me" then
you'll find that familiarity brings understanding but said
understanding is not very meaningful, as there is hardly anything that
didn't make sense to somebody, somewhere.
> And what you are saying is that there is no basis
>whatsoever for the existence of the very first facts so that the first
>particle of creation is totally illogical?
Not illogical, just "having nothing to do with logic". I explained
already what logic can or cannot do. No point in repeating it.
Mike
That's too specific. We would first have to derive, or recognize in the
equations, the structure of space-time and then mass-energy before we could get
to specific forms of energy. But again, shouldn't what is logical be pursued
for its own sake. We are using it as a tool, aren't we?
As a first guess, I suspect that there are principles independent of the size
of the event region in sample space that can be recognized as forces and that
distance is an interpretation of the difference in size in sample space between
two events. The same forces are at work with respect to each event, only the
less likely event, smaller region, seems more distant because it has less
influence on the outcome than does the more probable event, larger region. And
I suspect force and energy are descriptions of events more likely than others.
The more likely an event, the more potential it has to occur. Time would then
be any change at all with respect to anything at all, in other words, the
derivative of some function.
Chan-Ho Suh
> I have derived several "necessary" conditions myself, based upon pure
> logic alone. No. 1: that matter and space are equivalent. This was also
> a general conclusion drawn by Einstein, and by the Greeks well before
> that.
I would be interested to hear what purely logical argument you used to
deduce that matter and space are equivalent. Of course, you should
provide either explicit definitions of 'matter', 'space', and
'equivalent', or axioms characterizing those concepts.
Gregory L. Hansen
Mike <no....@please.com> wrote:
>
>"tadchem" <tadche...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:OkhL7.3186$oF.3...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...>> news:tFeL7.2860$7W5.5...@news11-gui.server.ntli.net...
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> > And a TOE would have how many postulates?
>>
>
>Since when was Occam's Razor deduced from logic?
That's the wonderful thing about it, or the kicker, depending on your
point of view. It wouldn't be "the" theory of everything, only "a" theory
of everything. I think it just means we have to be careful about starting
to believe too much in our own theories.
--
"'No user-serviceable parts inside.' I'll be the judge of that!"