>>>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...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.>H: "QED is mainly combination of special relativity and quantum mechanics. How can you obtain QED if you don't accept SR?" D: Why do you keep on insisting that I don't accept SR or GR? Please read Chapter 3!>H: "Your model doesn't have any analogous objects called leptons or quarks, does it?" D:
Please explain to me why it does not. What I show is that *any set of facts* can be seen as objects in a three dimensional space which must display the characteristics of "mass", "momentum", "energy" (essentially the concepts defining classical mechanics) and that they must obey special relativity and general relativity. My model consists of "objects in a three dimensional space". If you wish to name some of those objects leptons, quarks or anything else and give them specific additional qualities, you are free to do so!>>On the other hand, if you go to Chapter 4 of my paper, I show that any set of facts (which are represented as objects in a three dimensional space) can be viewed in a way which requires those objects to obey all the rules of electrodynamics. Again showing that another whole field of Physics is essentially circular reasoning.>>I am interpreting probability as a number between 0 and 1 which gives me *my best estimate* of the number of times I will obtain a specific result of an experiment divided by the number of times I attempt the experiment. The only constraint I impose is that, whatever I come up with, it must be consistent with the "past" (see my definition of time).H: we have your hypothesis that the laws of physics are true by the mathematics we accept as 'true'. D: That isn't my hypothesis Harv; in fact I don't think it is even what I am saying. I have proved that a large part of physics cannot be otherwise: it is a consequence of definitions!H: 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. D: I do and I have explained it! You and the rest of the community would apparently prefer to keep it a mystery.>H: 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. D: That is not any part of my argument at all! It is a conclusion!>H: 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. D: That is simply because you do not understand what I am saying.>H: I might be more tempted to think that maybe we are only finding what we choose to see. D: Never have I said that we find only what we choose to see! What I say is that we see things and notice that they are related so we define (apply names to what we see) those things and inform others of the relations we have noticed. We explain the definitions, describe what we saw and, if when they check it out they get the same results, we call the conclusions "justified". Most everybody then agrees they are facts which we then pass down to our children.