|
Hi Dick,
>>>Again, I get the feeling that you just don't read what I post.>H: That's fine, except that in your mental model you are generating some of physics (what I will call the prima facie physics such as the classical laws of physics) but not the more fundamental physics (what I will call the particle guage theories of physics). The prima facie physics are those rules which are known to be derived from particle guage theories (e.g., Maxwell's equation from QED). The hope by many particle physicists is that gravity (and general relativity) will also be shown to be composed of some unknown particle guage theory. D: We have already decided that you are not qualified to discuss that issue and should therefore be omitted from the discussion! If you wish to discuss that issue, I think you will have to study some physics.>H: Okay, but why are certain laws derivable from your model (the 'prima facie' physics) while others, the more fundamental, are not (particle guage theories)? D: So far, in this discussion, the issue has not even been brought up. It bears no impact what-so-ever on the logic I have presented!>H: What is the relationship of your fundamental equation to the particle guage theories that are also known to be more fundamental than the prima facie physics which your equation shows as an approximation in certain circumstances? Why can't your fundamental equation shed light on particle guage physics when it is clearly more fundamental than the physics equations that your fundamental equationl does show as mere approximations? D: Again, in the logical sequence of issues I have asked you to omit from our discussion, that issue is of no significance what-so-ever. Furthermore, if you wish to discuss that issue, I think you will have to study some physics.>H: The problem is that the prima facie physics has two fathers. One is your fundamental equation and the other is particle guage physics. Will the real father please step forward! The problem is that the blood tests all show that particle guage theories are the real father of the prima facie physics, but the only evidence that you can show is that your fundamental equation looks very much like the prima facie physics. Yes, they look similar, but we already know who the real father is. D: I have, at this point in the logical presentation, made no reference what-so-ever to prima facie physics and your comment is not to the point!>>As written the sentence makes no sense at all. A definition is never tautological; however, once you accept the definition of velocity as "the distance traveled" divided by "the time it took to travel that far", the fact that "the velocity times time gives the distance traveled" is a tautological result!>H: For example, the frame of reference issues of relativity becomes an issue which can tamper with the definition. So, velocity is not necessarily tautological if our theory behind the definition is incorrect (e.g., assuming Euclidean space). D:
Who said velocity was tautological? Velocity is a defined term, the results which follow from that definition are called "tautological" results!>H: As I said, a definition can be proposed under the assumption that it is true by definition, but later find that the definition (which is made in the context of theory - or theory-laden term), can be inappropriate. So, it is not really tautological to propose a definition that is believed to be tautological since the theory itself can be wrong. D: A definition is never tautological (or at least isn't supposed to be as a "tautological" definition defines nothing); things deduced from a definition are tautological. I get the feeling you do not understand the concept of a tautology.>H: But, what had someone created a 'fundamental equation' to Coulomb's, Ampere's, Faraday's, and Oersted's results without any mention of Maxwell's equations? How fundamental could an equation be if it is missing the most fundamental equation of all? This is the situation I find you in without having derived particle guage physics. D: Once again, if you wish to discuss this issue, you will need to study physics. It has no bearing on my presentation at all!>H: Can one derive an equation to some important prima facie physics without it having anything to do with real fundamental physics? D: Again, you are presuming you know what I have done and, until you understand what I am saying, that is not part of the discussion.>H: Neither of these two requirements has been accomplished by your model. D: At this point in the discussion, absolutely nothing has been accomplished by my model! That issue is not of concern to the presentation at all.>>H: Dick, if we could construct the world as a series of chess moves would that make that attempt of any significance? D:
That depends on two very simple issues: first, could the universe (all events, all experiments and all results of every experiment), as seen by the scientists, be mapped 1::1 into the chess moves and second, if that could be done, what could be deduced from such a perspective?>If the first could be done, I think it would be very surprising and quite interesting to look at, and would certainly be a significant achievement; however, I certainly doubt any such thing could ever be done because it would imply that every state of the universe could be mapped into a particular state of a chess board and there are not enough states to cover anything beyond a chess board itself which must be a subset of all the possible states of the universe!>On the other hand, if what we think of as different states of the universe just turns out to be a sequence of chess boards on a finer time scale, then my complaint would be moot. I would say that such a result, if achieved, would be quite fascinating.>The second aspect of such a model relates to how useful it is; are there any deduced results which are outside what may have been deduced from the standard. Clearly we know that all the standard results are valid if a 1::1 mapping exists; the question then becomes, may anything else be deduced?>H: I think it would just be a lot of wasted effort by someone having a great deal of talent. D: I think that just indicates that you do not understand the nature of science or maybe that you have no imagination at all! |
