You had me worried as I think you seldom say anything is logically wrong unless you have very strong reason to believe it. You seem to understand my reasoning as to why any attempt to discover the F(x) = 0 algorithm, is doomed to failure which shows an understanding of the issue.
With regard to the passage, [ "The absolute best one can hope to do is to predict the probability of observing a given set of data as a function of time. Certainly the proposal is testable and is meaningful when seen against the observations examined prior to the test. Thus it is that the only meaningful solution to our problem of understanding the universe constitutes finding an algorithm which, for any given pattern of data, yields the probability of observing that data at time t"], I think there is a slight misunderstanding of exactly what I am saying.
>>>Hmm... I see a problem here. Your usage of probability doesn't seem right. Strictly speaking, the probability of seeing a particular pattern is given by the number of possible patterns, not by a finite sample. If I throw dice 100 times and don't get a single 6, the probability of getting a 6 in my next throw is still 1/6, unless you assume there's something influencing the outcome of the throw. >OK, I know you're not stupid. However, I was bothered by this: >But when you put the "complications" back you no longer have Schrodinger's equation. f1(x) + f2(x) is not "f1(x) plus something", it's an entirely different function especially as f2(x) is undefined.>Also, if my knowledge of physics is not betraying me, the solution to Schrodinger's equation must be a wave function. That means it must be cyclical. That means if you know one period, you know all of them. Hardly an undefined set of data. >By now, your solution only applies to a predictable universe where things happen in cycles. Why are you claiming that physics applies to any set of data and is, therefore, meaningless? >What prompted me to re-examine your paper was your failure to explain to me how the conservation of energy and inverse square laws are tautologies within the context of classical mechanics. I am left with the impression that you have not arrived at that conclusion yourself and decided to rely on the work of others instead. Isn't that inconsistent with your position? >Please, don't take any of this personally. As you know, I've learned to admire your intellectual abilities, you may take all this as invalid criticism from a guy who likes to talk about things he doesn't fully understand. I won't like you any less for that.