|
Harv,
First, I think you make it quite clear that you didn't understand my post. Your comment concerning facts being awareness based completely misses the point. Your comment, "We already have primitive wiring which does the interpretation automatically", is an explanation: i.e., a fact which only exists within a theoretical context.
What you seem to be missing is that I am performing a holistic attack on that very problem. That is, if you want an explanation (which is what you call a theoretical context), that explanation must be consistent with the facts which will exist within that theoretical context. The problem very clearly is that we have no idea of what the facts are until we develop that context. That being the case, we must first conceive of a method of developing a completely general context without constraining the issue of "facts" in any way.
>>>Even logical and mathematical centered learning is not immune to this prewiring.>QED is mainly combination of special relativity and quantum mechanics. How can you obtain QED if you don't accept SR?In addition, the standard model (SM) has 19 or so constants which do not emerge from your definitions of 'Stanford Reality', does it?>> If one defines downhill using a carpenters level, then that merely tells the experimenter what the theory means when it says downhill.Is an observation ever not theory-laden from your view? >I don't understand the relationship between 'time' and 'the object of observation'. Usually time is defined as a fourth coordinate of a 4-D geometry introduced to account for change in a 3-D spatial geometry. Why do you leave this mathematical approach for one that is more psychologist based? >Okay, there's many avenues we could go here, but let me ask the first question that occurs to me. An electron is an elementary particle absolutely necessary to account for electromagnetism.>Isn't the electron real in that case?>> If you define m (mass?) without reference to the Higgs boson, then where is the standard model (SM) in all of this (one of more accurate theories, btw)? Surely you don't want the SM to be revised as a result of your model, right? [If so, then more theories of physics are being dumped by you than what you accept of physics]. >The problem that I see is that you are treading into areas of deep uncertainty as to the interplay between mathematical relationships and the laws of physics.>>When you play with mathematics enough you are liable to get physics. This is part of the mystery of the universe (at present), and I am not so sure if anyone understands why that is the case.>No classical experiment is any more definitive than is "water flows downhill" if one defines downhill to be the direction water flows.This is what I consider the weakest part of your argument.>You have to strengthen why experiments give the results that our best theories expect. Just saying that they are rigged by linguistics seems to me to be an empty argument. > I might be more tempted to think that maybe we are only finding what we choose to see> (for example, [that the speed of] light is a constant having no theoretical reason that I know of for being what it is).
I think I show a very good reason for it being exactly what it is. If you could follow what I present I think you would agree with me.
I think Planks constant is a phenomena much more to the point. Gamow wrote a series of "Mr. Tompkins" stories. See: Mr. Tompkins in Wonderland (1939) or perhaps Mr. Tompkins Learns the Facts of Life (1953). I suspect my reference is to the first but it could possibly be the second as my experience was after 53. As these are the only references I could find, I suspect "Mr. Tompkins goes to Quantum Land" is a part of one or the other. Most of his presentations are quite well thought out but the one about Quantum Land is just plain wrong. Mr. Tompkins goes on safari to a land where Planks constant is very large and Gamow describes his experiences.
I was studying Quantum at the time and it led me to try and figure out what the universe would really look like if Plank's constant were large. At the time I was never able to solve the problem: i.e., find a solution which was completely compatible with every connection to Planks constant I was aware of! Every time I got to a point where it seemed I could establish some size and time parameters (measuring sticks and clocks) it turned out that what I had, depended on the value of the constant. The effort kept me going in circles for quite a while. At the time I just decided the whole issue was just to complex for me to hold in my head at once but it did start me wondering about exactly how we define these things.
If you examine the mathematics of "Stafford Reality" you will see that the actual numeric value of Planks constant is of no consequence at all. Just as the speed of light is no more than the ratio between what clocks measure and what meter sticks measure (they are each no more than coordinates in the geometry used to display the "objects" - facts?, whatever?), Planks constant is essentially no more than the ratio between "time" (related to the Fourier transform of energy) and "what clocks measure". Yeh, I know, "time" is "what clocks measure" by definition - I have heard that more than once! Back to my contention, Physicists have over defined their concepts. If you define something more than once, you create illusions of relations. That is why it is very important to define things once and only once.
With regard to the above issue, lots of "brilliant" unknown rejects of the scientific academy have designed devices which violate conservation of energy. Some of those have even presented scientific proofs that their devices must work and have obtained a great deal of money to fund their efforts. I have had a surplus of experience examining a number of such bogus proofs. I was hired as a consultant on several "inventions" taken very seriously by investors. By the way, none of the people who hired me ever invested in such things though many others have.
If you examine those proofs you will find that the commonest way used to achieve their results is to change definitions of terms as they go through their derivation. It is not difficult at all to get energy from nowhere if you start doing algebra with the standard thermodynamics equations and combine equations where v is average velocity with equations were v is actual velocity (a very common error). Most of the people who do that kind of thing actually believe their algebra is correct. I don't think I ever met one who did it intentionally as most of them are willing to spend their last dime to promote their ideas. (And I never converted one either!)
What I am getting at is the fact that defining something more than once is a very dangerous thing to do if you are interested in exact logic. As I have said elsewhere, I think most scientists would agree with me on that; the problem is, they believe someone else (not them) has already disposed of the issue.
Reminds me of a joke: A business man and an economist are walking down the street. The business man says, "Hey look there's a twenty dollar bill in the gutter!" The economist says, "No, that couldn't be! If it were there, someone would have picked it up!"
Have fun -- Dick |
