and actually quite a bit of theoretical physics is done the same way. Take Smollen's black hole universe creation theory for example. The evidence for it is about on the same level as the evidence for my model. The point is that I am doing metaphysics, or even theology, just using the jargon of science. The only limitation is the I am not allowed to create a model that is inconsistent with known science.

So it's not like the young earth theories of creationists, which are inconsistent with the established science that the earth and the universe are billions of years old. My model comes from established physics, postulated particles that fill out the established physics, and properties of those particles that can be calculated from physical theory, like the Grand Unified Theory, that has at least some partial verification. It does not even use string physics which to date has no verification.

Please forgive my pechant for metaphysics. But also please remember that almost all interpretation of established physical theory and experiment is basically metaphysical. For example, the classical theories of Newton and Maxwell suggested that the universe is predetermined. The claim that everything is predetermined was a metaphysical claim- unprovable. And now we think that we know that based on quantum mechanics, that worldview is incorrect- but that is also unprovable. All interpretation is metaphysical.

As I told doctordick way below, the truth is in the mathematics. I should add the raw experimental data as well. The rest is interpretation and liable to error. What is true about all these interpretations, especially exemplified by the various interpretations of quantum mechanics, is that they are all possibilities.

So the way you should judge a metaphysical model is whether or not it is a possibility based on established physics. I claim that my model passes this test.

Life is not much fun without metaphysics

Have fun

Richard

• I agree, but... - harvey1 - October 18, 2001 - 16:29 UTC
  • But Harv... - smartguy - October 18, 2001 - 17:23 UTC
    • Well... - harvey1 - October 18, 2001 - 18:14 UTC
      • Hot & cold dark matter - yanniru - October 18, 2001 - 20:16 UTC
        • The magical part - harvey1 - October 18, 2001 - 20:31 UTC
          • Quantum computer magic - yanniru - October 19, 2001 - 14:54 UTC
            • Bose-Einstein condensate - harvey1 - October 19, 2001 - 15:08 UTC
              • What? Bose condensate is known for long time. - alexander - October 19, 2001 - 18:28 UTC
                • I'm talking about the discovery that got them the nobel prize - harvey1 - October 19, 2001 - 18:36 UTC
                • Agreed. It has to be more complex - yanniru - October 20, 2001 - 20:33 UTC
        • Richard, to store information,these particles have to be ordered - alexander - October 18, 2001 - 20:34 UTC
          • BEC storage is forever - yanniru - October 19, 2001 - 14:44 UTC
            • You're insinuating that intergalactic matter... - smartguy - October 19, 2001 - 18:11 UTC
              • Dark matter is very poor candidate in consciouseness. - alexander - October 19, 2001 - 19:00 UTC
                • Great idea Alex, just one minor detail to overcome... - smartguy - October 19, 2001 - 19:17 UTC
                  • Mark,this was the same joke others post (about consciouseness). - alexander - October 19, 2001 - 19:39 UTC
                    • I was just happy to see you use the word "God" - smartguy - October 19, 2001 - 20:04 UTC
                  • The universe expands - harvey1 - October 19, 2001 - 20:30 UTC
                    • Harv, an eternalist would say... - smartguy - October 20, 2001 - 01:04 UTC
                  • Philosophy talk and science talk - harvey1 - October 20, 2001 - 13:43 UTC
                • Got you on this one, Alexander - yanniru - October 20, 2001 - 20:16 UTC
              • Mark, you are right and it's called god(NT) - yanniru - October 20, 2001 - 20:17 UTC