As I read your post, I am convinced that you simply do not understand at all what I am doing. The central issue is thinking about the rules something must obey before learning what it is. The whole field of algebra is concerned with the logic of discovering what something is from the constraints it must satisfy. In algebra, x is the unknown! We don't need to know what x is to discuss the possible relationships which the existence of x may display. As a matter of fact, in the great majority of cases, algebra is only of interest because it is possible that a description of the relationships may end up constraining x to but a single possibility.
>>>To be specific, I disagreed with this statement: "let us say simply that the 'fact' is, 'an event has occurred' and 'observing the fact' means no more than that we are aware that an event has occurred (in this case it may be 'excitement of a single nerve cell in the optic nerve' but we have no way of knowing that)." Yet, when it comes to graph dimensions (as mathematically valid as any other aspect of mathematics) you reject it as psychologist. Why?>>What is missing in your account is the position on the temporal axis of when an event occurs in relation to other events.> For example, in your scenario if the past is what I observe, what is the closest event that has happened to me in the past?>How can you separate the equations of electromagneticism from the explanation?> The equations are part of the explanation. If you obtain the fundamental equations of physics, yet you do not obtain the particles themselves which carry the charge (e.g., the photon), then do the physics equations make any sense?> Without the particles as part of your model the equations are meaningless. This is why I feel that you have not really demonstrated your thesis that most of the laws of physics are a tautology. You need particles Dick if you want to explain physics. Just having the wave equations is only half the answer. >>Bosons are not real but fermions are? Does that make any sense at all to you? How can you have 1/2 of physics as real and the other 1/2 as not real? Without bosons you cannot have Einstein-Bose statistics (a great deal of physics goes AWOL) and you lose all the forces that require bosons to carry the charges of the forces (Z, W, gamma, gluon, graviton). Not to mention, the Higgs boson is not real which means there is no mass (if SM is correct) and therefore the universe is massless! The universe of your model cannot exist! >If numbers are what is true and real about your model, then I want to know if electrons follow as a deduction or are they simply creations of our imagination.>Hence, your model is true if mathematics is true.>In other words, you are not saying that an objective probability exists, you are merely establishing this probability as based on your knowledge. A coin toss would be included in this. In the case of an objective probability there is a definite answer to which way the coin will flip if you were omniscient and smart enough to know all the parameters controlling the coin toss. In your case, however, you are not omniscient and you are not that smart (although you are smart - don't get me wrong), so probability represents your knowledge of the system in question. Which means, that the future is defined in terms of your knowledge and not of any objective uncertainty that exists in the world, correct? This is the philosophy of science. I think you should be talking to philosophers - not scientists.